Ashley, > 1. A model is required to make progress.
Multiple models may be required > 2. Party X should be the owners and creators of the > model, as it addresses their world and concerns Owners but not neccessarily creators. Owners should understand the models if not create them. > 3. Party X does not have the resources and/or > competence to create the required model. Yes. Party X may not need to have ability or have interests to create them only to understand them once created. > In this situation, Part X will delegate (or > outsource) the creation of their model to Party Y. > It is then incumbent on Party Y to obtain agreement > on the model from Party X. To do this, Party Y must > render the model into a form that Party X will > understand. Yes, the real issue is what models to create, their relations, and knowledge required. When the issue is not understood, we are not certain who should or should not creat them and when to complete. One example is the phenomenon of the existence of diverse versions of enterprise architecture frameworks. EA is a disciplined management of producing "product definition" artifacts. Different versions of EA framework define different set of artifacts. The choice of them are based on experience and beliefs not on scientific theories/logic. As such they are proposed solutions subject to odds of compatibility. Jerry > Rgds > Ashley > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
