tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6106782.post8721429096213087284..comments2024-03-27T10:47:33.255+00:00Comments on Architecture, Data and Intelligence: Beyond MultiviewRichard Veryardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6106782.post-7080050612637056352012-09-29T09:34:08.584+01:002012-09-29T09:34:08.584+01:00Richard,
Unfortunately I'm not aware and canno...Richard,<br />Unfortunately I'm not aware and cannot comment on Mesbah's model. But I think that trust can be represented in both rich pictures and in more simulation-capable models like stock-and-flow diagrams and agent-based models. As I’ve used these and they helped in understanding WIGO – to use your term – and what to do about it, including variable such as “trust”, I developed a trust in the capability of these approaches. The book “Lost in translation”, although a valuable resource, somehow failed to build the trust that VPEC-T can help in dealing with trust issues. I’ve either missed something or the book itself is not enough. In any case I’m willing to learn. Can you please give some examples of applying VPEC-T? Thank you!<br /><br />Ivo<br />Ivohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15872690235141324239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6106782.post-88989836114478076652012-09-29T08:32:05.810+01:002012-09-29T08:32:05.810+01:00Ivo, thanks for your comment. I wasn't talking...Ivo, thanks for your comment. I wasn't talking about trust in the model, although I agree that is important and interesting, but trust in the relationships and interactions between the actors in the model. The conflicts in concerns, motivations and obligations, as identified in Mesbah's rich picture model, almost always raise trust issues. In the Oil Industry case, there is a fairly elaborate superstructure of contracts and subcontracts, whose existence is necessitated by the fact that the parties don't fully trust one another - and shouldn't be expected to. So an analysis of the trust issues helps to explain, improve and perhaps re-specify what we might call the contract architecture. I alluded to VPEC-T as a method that could be used to explore these issues further, but as far as I know this method has not been applied to the Oil Industry case as yet.Richard Veryardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04499123397533975655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6106782.post-26183185562117254292012-09-28T23:08:42.740+01:002012-09-28T23:08:42.740+01:00Richard,
I agree about VSM. But I don't under...Richard,<br /><br />I agree about VSM. But I don't understand how is trust related to getting from " a "rich" model to more abstract and homogenized "structured" models". Could you please explain.<br /><br />"Trust" is used in a sense closed to "Belief", as well as to "Fidelity" (and both are roots in to the etymology of trust). Trusting a model could be seen from the perspective of relating experience, assumptions and beliefs as in the cycle of inference (<a href="http://www.strategicstructures.com/?p=445" rel="nofollow">here's my take</a> on that). The other perspective, "fidelity", is either related to the source, and so again beliefs, or to some intrinsic characteristic of the model. The latter has something to do with the perception of "rigour", which was addressed in this and the previous post. But that is also a matter of belief. For example it is believed that a formal language like BPMN is rigorous because, among others, it's metamodel is described in UML which also is believed to be rigorous and it's wide adoption reinforces that belief. In fact it is far from rigorous which can be easily proven using the set theory but that's not the point here. The trust in UML has been fueled by the trust in the OO paradigm. Not by the fact that something is provable. So we are back to Beliefs again.<br /><br />IvoIvohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15872690235141324239noreply@blogger.com