|
Rich,
I am not sure where the Management Ontology fits in? Or it is necessary to
have management ontology? PMI is doing enough of management related
things .. Ontology is about information management of organization,
domain and not about Management per say..
My view is that each employee needs a
unique ontology that fits the needs of that employee, A, and also interfaces
that employee with a few others (e.g. B) in the enterprise. The One True
Ontology (OTO) is made up of all the ontology interfaces needed by each
employee in the enterprise, customers, suppliers, and service providers. OTO
need not include the personal parts of the employee’s ontology. Nor must it
include every aspect of the OTO used by each customer, supplier, and service
provider.
However to address what you said, have you ever heard of micro
management? Collect word documents from everywhere and dump them on
someone who comes on board and scribble your name on the piece of paper
and expect feed back on detail line items?
I’m not suggesting any form of control,
but instead suggesting that the enterprise provide automated tools, each
linked to the OTO, for the various employees. Who controls the tools, how
much independence each employee gets, how much control each supervisor gets,
is in the end up to the individual employee and supervisor. I suggest that OTO’s
job is to empower every one of them with a formal means of communication with
the enterprise as a whole.
Well if you did not know that, you better get used to that, because
many people who put their name as management becomes executive architect and
manipulate the client to talk only to them? Controlling projects from
every aspect at a micro level and miss the dead lines? Management becomes
executive architects to hold the decision making power to micro manage
because architects make the technical decision, and they do not want to give
an architect the architecture role but call them programmers or analysts or
whatever?
I hope that doesn’t happen – it drives
many businesses out of business when control is more important than mission.
Is it necessary to hold project control at the micro level, while not meeting
high level dead lines ?? Bad management tactics.. But that
is how many people hold a job in consulting word,and rotate resources so they
are not empowered with knowledge about the organization or projects..
If you are in that situation, you should
look for alternative working opportunities. No employee who only plays the
game lasts more than a few years.
When so called planners and management fail to delegate but try to fit into
every role, teat other people like resources and not people with roles within
a project, they may fail to meet dead lines with management
issues..
Good Management / planners knows how to create presentations on project
expectations, high level roles and responsibilities and assign tasks to
people taking their interest , delegate at program, project, task level and
stick to their own supportive roles. When planners
have over all planning done well, the input and output and expectations of
teams and sub-teams, tasks fit into that over all expectations.
This is true at the program level, project level and task and activities
level..
You’re right, but the good manager also
has to have a rapport with employees who understand, if the manager is
effective, that sometimes obedience is useful for accomplishing short term
goals, but long term, you must speak your mind clearly and abide by the consequences,
no matter how scary. If the boss is worth staying with, she will respect
your independence. But you must push back on occasion to be effective.
-Rich
Regards,
Pavithra
--- On Fri, 1/28/11, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Learning - was Presentism (was Re: Ontology
ofRough Sets)
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011, 1:33 AM
Hi Pavithra,
You wrote
Just suppose there is a reality of such instance exists as the
one described below : First of all A and B has to have defined
roles.. If A is given everything and B is not given anything nor
a role... what are they working off off?
Microsoft gave a problem and asked multiple groups to solve the
problem. The roles were defined there to
compete. In an organization environment, one has to have
defined roles to act or contribute appropriately. If this makes
any more sense than what is being said below
In the examples I gave,
A and B are two programmers, or one programmer and one user, or one systems
engineer and one programmer, or two programmers, or one systems engineer and
one user. Yes, roles get defined in a management ontology. But
those roles are only defined by the project planners at the beginning of the
project. Afterward, each employee tries to do a proper job of some
combination of those roles.
Microsoft’s planned
project for Vista didn’t work out on schedule, you may remember, and Vista was released as a promise rather than a reality.
It took them a year to get it reasonably functional compared to XP.
The point is that the
outlines of a possible future project can be predicted with some modest
degree of accuracy only when the project is an exact repetition of another
one, in every forecast respect. If you can use Word or Excel for the
software, then you can predict that the software is known to be functional to
the present extent. If you require any kind of further refinement, as
in when two people cooperate on a document, or one is obligated to provide a
specific document outline to another, you have to put in time typing it.
HTH,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2
5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011
5:53 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Learning - was Presentism (was Re: Ontology ofRough Sets)
|
I thought Presentism was like theory of relativity
in philosophical sense.
But reading the below responses , seems like in American world everything
is about programmers ( the colony from the colonization era) and management
( the British) who watches in 4d mode to capture performance or
whatever... It ain't funny . Because unlike colonization and
blue colored world, programmers need high level of intelligence and
education to solve multi faceted problems which includes Business or subject
matter knowledge, different aspect of development which includes ,
analysis, design and development methodologies and estimation and
negotiation ability. For management all one needs
is ability to manipulate what they learn from programmers as theirs
and negotiate. In American corporate world, that negotiation
can include a golf game what ever .. ( blah blah blah.. ). It is all
about stealing game. If you are not ready for soft skills like golf
games or other games what ever, most probably you ain't going to make
it..
Just suppose there is a reality of such instance exists as the one
described below : First of all A and B has to have defined
roles.. If A is given everything and B is not given anything
nor a role... what are they working off off?
Microsoft gave a problem and asked multiple groups to solve the
problem. The roles were defined there to
compete. In an organization environment, one has to have
defined roles to act or contribute appropriately. If this makes
any more sense than what is being said below..
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Learning - was Presentism (was Re: Ontology of
Rough Sets)
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 7:04 PM
Agreed, with Chris
and John both.
I think that means we all have the same view now of the architecture of
some
ontology, though we certainly disagree among ourselves in SOME ways about
the refinements of that description.
Now would be a good time to nudge the refinement process into discovery of
our OTO.
I mentioned the learning curve - that happens because many programmers,
with
many views, create a mosaic of rough fitting tiles. Procedures
written by A
don't match B's view, so the iteration of that refinement gets worked out
by
the application of knowledge - in this case both A and B working together -
to make refinement of the Type structures until all the properties and
methods share a common consensus in operational sufficiency, that is
workable for known situations anticipated by A and B.
An ontology could model that application of knowledge, refining the Type
structure until both parties agree sufficiently. But that refinement
process explodes in work with program complexity growing only
linearly. It
still requires the inputs of A and B, both of which have some part to patch
into the emerging program mosaic. If only A and B had been able to do the
task without learning in the first place - had a copy to work from -, then
the process could have been automated. But they didn't, because
NOBODY has
ever built a system quite exactly like this System A and B built. If
they
had, it would be wasted duplication to rediscover the same consensus view
for the remainder of the project.
The fact that the refinement process has been computer assisted, but not
fully automated yet, is the reason that a 4D model is inappropriate to
accurately model the refinement process. It requires that the System
learn
how to help the subject matter expert learn about subsystem views that were
used in the past, how well they functioned, and what were their
deficiencies, ... and then reinterpret the past into the present
design of
the future System.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
John F. Sowa wrote
I agree with that.
I also see no problem about quantifying over fictional and
mythological places and beings. You just create a model
of them (use set theory, if you like), specify how they
interact, link them to your virtual reality software,
and quantify over them as you please.
All such things can be handled in the same way that
computer scientists quantify over data structures.
There is no difference in principle between letting
quantifiers range over the planned items in a bridge
that has not yet been built or the entities in some
hypothetical world or situation.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|