[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible
|
Hello.
To my knowledge EPF does not use the
word Owner anywhere. If EPFC calls the relationship between role
and task Owner someplace then this should be a bug in our String resources.
The relationships are called Primary Performer and Additional Performer.
The term Performer was already used like this in SPEM 1. The
relationship between roles and work products is called Responsible. We
also show the derived relationship Modifies which is a role that is performing
a task that has the work product as an output. Both are different
than Accountable in the way it is used in typical RACI applications. SPEM
2 allows defining your own relationship types for roles and tasks as well
as roles and work products, which would include the ability to do RACI.
EPF does not support this, at the moment.
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
From:
| "Maciel, Eduardo (Brazil R&D)"
<maciel@xxxxxx>
|
To:
| Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers
List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Date:
| 06/25/2009 07:11
|
Subject:
| RE: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible
|
Sent by:
| epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Right,
But is that
the understanding of SPEM ???
Should I consider
Owner = Responsible?
I´d like to
suggest an improvement to EPFC:
Change the term
Owner for a task to Responsible for a task in EPF Composer.
Frequently I´m
questioned, while presenting our processes, what Owner means and
I have been answering that it means Responsible (executes the work).
But then, another
question arises: What is the meaning of “Responsible” for the artifacts?
In my understanding,
the “Responsible” concept in EPFC is equivalent to “Accountable” because
several roles may change an artifact but only one must ensure its correctness
and consistence. In other words, there are several responsible roles
and one accountable role for an artifact.
Why not use
the terms widely used in project management?
Thanks,
Maciel
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of The Viking on the French Riviera
Sent: quinta-feira, 25 de junho de 2009 08:55
To: 'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible
The distinctions
are used a lot by consultants, especially within the RACI model:
The RACI model is a straightforward tool that
can be used for identifying roles and responsibilities to make the processes
happen. RACI is an abbreviation of:
R
| =
| Responsible - owns the problem
/ project
|
A
| =
| To whom "R" is Accountable - who
must sign off (Approve) on work before it is effective and who are ultimately
accountable for the correct and thorough completion of the deliverable
|
C
| =
| To be Consulted - has information and/or
capability necessary to complete the work
|
I
| =
| To be Informed - must be notified of results,
but need not be consulted |
It can be useful to add the concept of Sponsor
or Supportive:
S
| =
| Can be Sponsor or Supportive -
can provide resources or play a supporting role in implementation |
Regards,
Bjorn
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Maciel, Eduardo (Brazil R&D)
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:59 PM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: [epf-dev] Owner vs. Responsible
Gentlemen,
Please, I´m
not sure I have the correct understanding for these two concepts.
1) What
“owner” means and what “responsible” means.
2) Are
they synonyms?
3) Is
“responsible” the role that “executes” the work?
4) What
is the relation with the idea of “accountable” (RACI concept)?
I´d be glad
if you can point me some references in order to better understand it.
Thank you,
Maciel _______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev