I said that ACORD has a Framework development process that aims to ensure the Framework models track industry evolution. This is not to say that the ACORD Framework is a moving target, nor that organizations are obligated to shift to new versions of models as they become available.
We release the Framework models with careful version control, so that change is introduced in a stepwise fashion. And of course the change process involves staff working with our members. Even organizations that choose to stay with one set of model versions gain a benefit that is new in our industry's history, and which is rare in business: they get to validate an industry view. Since changes to the models are incremental rather than revolutionary, this means that organizations gain valuable insights through evaluation alone.
Many ACORD members will use the Framework evolution as a guideline for their own strategic development processes, and others will choose to schedule version shifts as default activities. I believe all members will benefit from this mature and comprehensive set of models, and the processes we have put in place to ensure their continuing relevance.
In this series of posts I've approached business models – and what we term the Information Model in particular – from the point of view of the management cycle. I've appealed to the idea that facts are central to management, and that facts are more than data. I've presented models as a means of organizing facts.
My questions to industry practitioners are as follows:
- Do facts have the status they need in business?
- Do facts have meaning for technologists or are we drowning in data?
- Are you ready to articulate the facts at the heart of their business?
- Are you aware that we must manage the ongoing evolution of models?
I welcome your thoughts.
Comments