Hello. To my knowledge EPF does not use the word Owner anywhere. If EPFC calls the relationship between role and task Owner someplace then this should be a bug in our String resources. The relationships are called Primary Performer and Additional Performer. The term Performer was already used like this in SPEM 1. The relationship between roles and work products is called Responsible. We also show the derived relationship Modifies which is a role that is performing a task that has the work product as an output. Both are different than Accountable in the way it is used in typical RACI applications. SPEM 2 allows defining your own relationship types for roles and tasks as well as roles and work products, which would include the ability to do RACI. EPF does not support this, at the moment.
Thanks and best regards, Peter Haumer. From: "Maciel, Eduardo (Brazil R&D)" <[email protected]> To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <[email protected]> Date: 06/25/2009 07:11 Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible Sent by: [email protected] Right, But is that the understanding of SPEM ??? Should I consider Owner = Responsible? I´d like to suggest an improvement to EPFC: Change the term Owner for a task to Responsible for a task in EPF Composer. Frequently I´m questioned, while presenting our processes, what Owner means and I have been answering that it means Responsible (executes the work). But then, another question arises: What is the meaning of “Responsible” for the artifacts? In my understanding, the “Responsible” concept in EPFC is equivalent to “Accountable” because several roles may change an artifact but only one must ensure its correctness and consistence. In other words, there are several responsible roles and one accountable role for an artifact. Why not use the terms widely used in project management? Thanks, Maciel From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The Viking on the French Riviera Sent: quinta-feira, 25 de junho de 2009 08:55 To: 'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List' Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible The distinctions are used a lot by consultants, especially within the RACI model: The RACI model is a straightforward tool that can be used for identifying roles and responsibilities to make the processes happen. RACI is an abbreviation of: R = Responsible - owns the problem / project A = To whom "R" is Accountable - who must sign off (Approve) on work before it is effective and who are ultimately accountable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable C = To be Consulted - has information and/or capability necessary to complete the work I = To be Informed - must be notified of results, but need not be consulted It can be useful to add the concept of Sponsor or Supportive: S = Can be Sponsor or Supportive - can provide resources or play a supporting role in implementation Regards, Bjorn From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maciel, Eduardo (Brazil R&D) Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:59 PM To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List Subject: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible Gentlemen, Please, I´m not sure I have the correct understanding for these two concepts. 1) What “owner” means and what “responsible” means. 2) Are they synonyms? 3) Is “responsible” the role that “executes” the work? 4) What is the relation with the idea of “accountable” (RACI concept)? I´d be glad if you can point me some references in order to better understand it. Thank you, Maciel _______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
