Well, Keith, at least you implicitly own up to minor billboarding... Of course I let it pass - it is relevant to the discussion and I can only understand about half of what you write..
As you are using this Group to promote your book, I am duty bound to ask what historical or current nuggets of wisdom you are prepared to distribute free. Ronald is a shining examle to us all of generosity, not to mention courage in that he has distributed industry predictions he published over two years ago. Do any of the other analysts or seers on this Group feel like doing the same? I know I must be in the clear as I stopped making technological predictions years ago. Gervas --- In [email protected], Keith Harrison-Broninski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <http://www.human-interaction-management.info/>! 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 > <http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/it_directions/archives/2006/02/bpmn_will_kill.php> > 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 > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
