Jerry Zhu wrote:
[a lot of interesting stuff about autopoiesis etc]
Hi Jerry

I'm not sure whether Gervas will let this message pass :-) , but the problem statement you outline just makes me think you should read my book!  What I tried to do in the theory of Human Interaction Management (HIM) is synthesize a lot of different existing theories from disciplines including biology, psychology, social systems theory, learning theory and so on (including autopoiesis and its descendant business practices), into a structured and formally sound approach to describing business processes, managing them, and supporting them with software.

As you have seen from my previous postings to this group, I feel software systems architecture is subsidiary to, and even derivative of, process management questions.  For instance, Steve writes:
I have posed a challenge as to what people use to describe a system and 
have yet to see anything back from anyone.
To my way of thinking, the way you "describe a system" is important, yes, but you can't address it without first sorting out human collaboration.  There are various maintenance, transparency and utility issues with particular design notations - something I have written about extensively in my blog recently - but as my client with the 50 architects demonstrated, there are fundamental problems to do with human work management which can and will scupper you however good your notations are, and however well you use them.

Further, I know from experience that solving these management problems leads you quite naturally to choice of design notations and methodology (surprising perhaps, but true) - and once you get there, you find that the 75/50 rule no longer applies.  In fact, for this reason Steve's work on WS-CDL and my own on HIM may well be converging.
-- 

All the best
Keith

http://keith.harrison-broninski.info


SPONSORED LINKS
Computer software Computer aided design software Computer job
Soa Service-oriented architecture


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to