Comments on: Transparency – How much is enough? http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/ Digging the world of Enterprise 2.0 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:02:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ben Tremblay http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-99 Ben Tremblay Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:45:14 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/#comment-99 Of course people who know the years I've put into tantra and vajrayana think me foolish at best and, more likely yet, deranged. And those people are quite likely to was lyrical about "holographic reality" and "fractilinear dynamically balanced non-linear systems" when it occurs to them. But the don't get it. So (hence the "of course") they don't get me. I wouldn't say you get <i>me</i>, but from what you've written here's it's manifestly evident that you <i>get <b>it</b></i>. Specifically: "If Severity were a question, it would be “How bad is this if it happens?” If Significance were a question, it would be “How likely is this to occur?”" I don't imagine google will show many results, but it might show some ... if you search for "MIL-SPEC FMECA" you'll find a huge expansion on what you sketched out so elementally. "Failure Modes; Effects Criticality Analysis". (An amazing coincidence: just this evening I was bringing to mind the graphing technique it uses ... in case I get a gig with <a href="http://www.odysseymoon.com/index-5.html" rel="nofollow">Odyssey X-Prize</a> ... it's that sorta ball-busting heavy-lifting that calls for such as FMECA.) A graph ... on one axis? Ayup, probability ("likelihood"). The other axis? Right again ... severity. Break the system down into parts ("lowest-replacable module" is the convention) and figure out how it goes wrong ... make a list ... how likely ... how nasty ... graph the points. *Hey Presto!* An immediate representation of <strike>how much shit you're in</strike> where you'd best concentrate your efforts. how glad I dropped by! :-) ben Of course people who know the years I’ve put into tantra and vajrayana think me foolish at best and, more likely yet, deranged. And those people are quite likely to was lyrical about “holographic reality” and “fractilinear dynamically balanced non-linear systems” when it occurs to them.
But the don’t get it.
So (hence the “of course”) they don’t get me.

I wouldn’t say you get me, but from what you’ve written here’s it’s manifestly evident that you get it.

Specifically:
“If Severity were a question, it would be “How bad is this if it happens?”
If Significance were a question, it would be “How likely is this to occur?””

I don’t imagine google will show many results, but it might show some … if you search for “MIL-SPEC FMECA” you’ll find a huge expansion on what you sketched out so elementally.
“Failure Modes; Effects Criticality Analysis”. (An amazing coincidence: just this evening I was bringing to mind the graphing technique it uses … in case I get a gig with Odyssey X-Prize … it’s that sorta ball-busting heavy-lifting that calls for such as FMECA.)

A graph … on one axis? Ayup, probability (“likelihood”). The other axis? Right again … severity.

Break the system down into parts (“lowest-replacable module” is the convention) and figure out how it goes wrong … make a list … how likely … how nasty … graph the points.
*Hey Presto!* An immediate representation of how much shit you’re in where you’d best concentrate your efforts.

how glad I dropped by!
:-)

ben

]]> By: Duncan longstafff http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Duncan longstafff Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:56:54 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/#comment-96 :) :)

]]> By: Gordon http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Gordon Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:47:49 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/#comment-95 lol! (alright then, it's shenanigans! Eveyone grab a broom...) No - I'm not saying that our product sets out to solve the problem, (although it might be able to help some) - what I'm saying is that there's a difference between security and secrecy. As you say, security is very important. Securing information from unwanted people outside your organization is definitely important. But, I think that in the majority of cases, securing it from people within your organization isn't - and in practice, it might do you more harm than good... lol! (alright then, it’s shenanigans! Eveyone grab a broom…)

No – I’m not saying that our product sets out to solve the problem, (although it might be able to help some) – what I’m saying is that there’s a difference between security and secrecy.

As you say, security is very important. Securing information from unwanted people outside your organization is definitely important. But, I think that in the majority of cases, securing it from people within your organization isn’t – and in practice, it might do you more harm than good…

]]> By: Duncan longstafff http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Duncan longstafff Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:45:28 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/02/15/transparency-how-much-is-enough/#comment-93 Most organizations mask this penchant for secrecy behind a veil of ’security’. “How can we ensure that this document is only seen by the two people who are working with it?” I’ve worked with products in the ECM space that allow for so many layers of security that it becomes completely impossible for anyone to find anything. Managing access permissions to information ends up requiring multiple full-time staff members. Layer upon layer of formal, secure channels leave the organization extremely well insured against risk, but unable to execute effectively. Gordon I agree. Security is Hard .. BUT very important.. So what your telling us is that your product will allow us to have a document seen by the only needed partys but seting that up will be easy.. As you said before I call shenanigan Most organizations mask this penchant for secrecy behind a veil of ’security’. “How can we ensure that this document is only seen by the two people who are working with it?” I’ve worked with products in the ECM space that allow for so many layers of security that it becomes completely impossible for anyone to find anything. Managing access permissions to information ends up requiring multiple full-time staff members. Layer upon layer of formal, secure channels leave the organization extremely well insured against risk, but unable to execute effectively.

Gordon I agree. Security is Hard .. BUT very important.. So what your telling us is that your product will allow us to have a document seen by the only needed partys but seting that up will be easy..

As you said before I call shenanigan

]]>