Dear Cory, (01)
The intended future state is the objective. How you get there is the plan.
Plan as a word may have many meanings, but in the context of business
planning it is really quite accepted what it means, and no one who does
project management confuses an objective with the plan to bring it about
(there might for example be more than one plan to bring about the same
objective - so plan and objective cannot be the same thing.) (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
> Sent: 03 August 2011 22:42
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications
are
> fuzzy)
>
> Mathew,
> We also do planning as part of or EA practice and also do a reasonable
about
> of project management. I recognize the way you are using the term as the
level
> of planning required to get CxO "sign off" for an enterprise plan as you
> suggest. However, this does not preclude the possibility of other plans
that
> may not be as complete. Plans for sign-off must also include other
> viewpoints, such as finances. But, not all plans need a CxO signoff for
> financial commitment.
>
> Certainly there is a concept for a plan as you suggest, perhaps I would
call
> it an "action plan". There is also a concept for the more general notion
of
> plan as John suggests that may or may not include specific actions or
other
> viewpoints. What seems essential to a plan is some intended future state.
>
> Aren't we all used to these squabbles over terms when we should be worried
> about the concepts? When more than one concept get attached to a term we
just
> need to qualify the terms and move on. Experts, such as project managers,
> will tend to attach their opinion on what makes up a "good" (in their
expert
> view) variant of a concept - and then try and assign that goodness as a
> requirement for everyone. So perhaps a good plan, to a project manager,
must
> include actions. But to an architect a floor plan is a pure future state.
>
> So I would agree with John that the most general concept of plan (or at
least
> the concept I attach to that term) includes intended possible worlds.
This
> seems well supported by the definitions John sites. Actions to achieve a
> possible world make a more complete action plan.
>
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:21 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications
are
> fuzzy)
>
> Dear John,
>
> > But any information about the future that "seems" to come from an
> > extensional analysis of some 4D region is always derivable from the
> > intensional specifications that determine or predict those possible
> > worlds (or those spatio-temporal regions).
>
> MW: Yes, and any information about the future that "seems" to arise from
> intensional specifications is actually a possible world or some part of
one.
> >
> > > MW: In a 4D analysis a plan is a set of actions (spatio-temporal
> > > extents) in a possible world. The goal to be achieved is a state of
> > > affairs in that possible world at a point in time. It does not
> > > matter that they are in the future, the plan is the actions you
> > > intend to take, not the desired outcome.
> >
> > I like your last sentence, which uses the word 'intend'.
> > It shows that the origin of the information is the *intention* (with a
> > T), which determines the *intension* (with an S), which determines the
> > *extensions* in those possible worlds.
>
> MW: I don't have a problem with intentions, they are what determine which
> possible worlds are interesting.
> >
> > But I disagree that "a plan is a set of actions". Whether you're
> > using a 4D analysis or 3+1D is irrelevant to the definition of 'plan'.
>
> MW: Well I spent 30 years working for Shell, an organization that lived
and
> thrived by creating plans and then executing them. My usage is just how I
> found the word being used there.
> >
> > As I suggest to anybody who works on knowledge representation or
> > ontology, consult a good dictionary for a neutral (i.e., non-dogmatic,
> > not theory laden) opinion about the way words are commonly used.
> >
> > For example, the Merriam-Webster 9th Collegiate Dictionary says that
> > the word 'plan' comes from the same Latin root as the word 'plane'.
> > That origin leads to MW definition #1:
> >
> > > 1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane.
> ...
> > > 2c. a detailed formulation of a program of action
>
> MW: It is this last that corresponds to the usage I am referring to. So
> therefore not to any of the others, which are distinct. The plan of a
building
> for instance is an entirely different sort of thing (and is as likely to
be of
> a building after it was built as before).
> ...
> > All these definitions say that a plan is a goal or a method.
>
> MW: Not so.
>
> > None of them identify a plan with the sequence of actions.
>
> MW: See 2c "a program of action" is just that.
> >
> > If you prefer a British view, following are the four senses of 'plan'
> > in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:
> >
> > > 1. a (carefully considered) arrangement for carrying out
> > > some future activity.
>
> MW: This is near enough the sense I mean.
> ...
> > Both dictionaries emphasize the goal (or a drawing of the goal) and
> > the intentions that led to the goal: a plan "always implies mental
> > formulation", and the arrangement is "carefully considered".
>
> MW: Of course.
> >
> > > MW: A sequence of action (types) is a method, but not a plan.
> > > A plan may be a particular execution of a method (but not
> > > necessarily).
> >
> > Please note that both dictionaries define a plan as either a goal or a
> > method for achieving the goal. I have never heard anybody use the
> > word 'plan' in the way you describe.
>
> MW: I suggest you both re-read what you have posted and talk to some
people
> who do project management for a living.
> ...
> > Another comment about word usage:
> >
> > > JFS: The specifications of the plan could be called axioms,
> > > constraints, or laws.
> > >
> > > MW: No. What is often the case is that the constraints (resource
> > > availability, time, materials) are inputs to formulating a feasible
> > > plan (I think of linear programming in the oil industry). However,
> > > the constraints are not the plan itself.
> >
> > My primary word was 'specifications'. They determine the methods the
> > dictionaries mention. There are two ways to specify a method:
> >
> > 1. Procedural: An ordered sequence of imperative commands,
> > as in a typical programming language.
> >
> > 2. Declarative: A set of propositions that state the starting
> > conditions (prerequisites) and ending conditions (desired
> > goal) for any procedure that implements the method.
> >
> > A procedural specification is useful for efficient execution by a
> > specific machine or by a human agent who is not expected to innovate
> > or to deviate from a fixed sequence.
> >
> > A declarative specification is more general, since it covers an
> > open-ended variety of procedures that begin with the starting
> > conditions and end with the desired goal. It allows greater
> > flexibility in changing the order of execution and adapting to
> > unforeseen circumstances. But it does require a more intelligent
> > machine or human.
> >
> > I used the words 'axioms', 'constraints', or 'laws' for the
> > propositions that state the preconditions and postconditions of a
> > declarative specification. I am happy to replace those words with any
> > other way of talking about the propositions.
> >
> > I'll admit that people rarely use the terminology of logicians or
> > computer scientists to talk about their planning sessions.
> > But you can analyze their informal discussions and classify their ways
> > of describing plans as procedural, declarative, or some informal
> > mixture of both.
>
> MW: I've spent enough of my working life doing planning that I know full
well
> that you have not produced a plan that anyone will accept as such when you
> have done no more than state the boundary conditions. Only when you have
> produced a solution that satisfies those boundary conditions do you have
> something a budget holder would sign of as a plan.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and
> Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|