|
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.
I think American Consulting culture has to
change.. to support employee development, and have stability and continuity
within projects, rather than being a revolving door.. .
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-----
|