Login required to access the wiki. Please register to create your login credentials We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but please note that this step is necessary to protect your privacy and ensure a safer browsing experience. Thank you for your cooperation. Public access: GAMSO , GSBPM , GSIM |
Now that we have GAMSO v1.1 and CSPA v1.5, both supporting GSBPM v5 in their own ways maybe it is time to reconsider whether the 3rd phase should be called Build or perhaps Assemble
indicating a collective move away from silobased systems and towards capability developments.
2 Comments
Essi Kaukonen
27 Sep, 2017We support the suggestion of renaming the third phase “Assemble” instead of “Build”. We also suggest that (at minimum?) the 1 st – 3rd phases could be evaluated having the CSPA/SOA/architecture approach as well as the overall development in the organisation in mind, and renamed/reshaped if necessary.
Essi Kaukonen
Statistics Finland / Standards and Methods
user-8e470
09 Jan, 2018Meeting 9/1: "Assemble" may not be well understood. This could create confusion (there are many ways to understand the term). Are there other terms that would help? Implement?
Keep the word Build and improve the description. Describe better the possibilities.
We could rename the 3.2 and 3.3 to be build or reuse instead of build and enhance?
There is a link to Issue #53: GSBPM does not reflect an architectural phase. Alice to follow in conjunction with this issue.
This issue was discussed in the last revision Issue 11: Rename Build phase