On 12/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/12/06, Mike Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most of what goes on in business today is actually quite "tightly > > coupled". > > > > In particular, buying and selling stuff (that is, the general > > commercial trading activity of most businesses) goes through a strict > > legal process of contract formation and transaction execution between > > two parties. This involves well-defined legal concepts such > > as "invitation to treat", "offer", "acceptance" and "consideration". > > That sounds very loosely coupled to me, because the vocabulary of the > transaction is standardized. > > Tightly coupled would be when one business needs to couple itself to > the specific, proprietary business processes of another.
As in anyone who deals with Wallmart in the US, Carrefour in France and Tesco in the UK. Any aerospace manufacturer who works with Boeing or Airbus, any car parts manufacturer who works with Toyota, any... well you get the idea. > > I suspect you mean "tightly/highly cohesive" rather than "tightly > coupled". The vast majority of business transactions are loosely > coupled. Exceptions include some kinds of partnerships, and > mergers/acquisitions, of course. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cohesion?view=uk http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/couple?view=uk How can something be a united whole and yet loosely coupled? I'd also say that people mean that loose coupling/cohesion is true for certain things (e.g. Wallmart can change their suppliers, but the suppliers can't easily change from Wallmart), given the amount of legal effort involved in these relationships (a survey last year put 30% of the cost of retail in the retailer/supplier interactions) then there is a much higher degree of inertia that makes things tightly coupled and change unlikely. > > Mark. >
