{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109/events","html_url":"https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109","id":136537942,"number":109,"title":"Revisiting the dreaded \"Task\"  ","user":{"login":"gcassel","id":12185989,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12185989?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel","html_url":"https://github.com/gcassel","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcassel/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":12,"created_at":"2016-02-25T22:59:27Z","updated_at":"2016-03-08T18:58:03Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I've been driving (myself batty) around the intersection of economic networks with social processes for discussion, deliberation and decision.  In doing so, I keep feeling that there's a significant role for 'tasks' within communities, projects and organizations.\r\n\r\n'Task' doesn't really fit into any existing VF vocabulary.  In theory, it could be related to the future Commitment vocabulary.  That could be an indirect relationship, whereby a group's evolving 'tasks' must be _translated_ into specific Commitments.  Tasks could also be indirectly related to the Process vocabulary, because my current definition of task can directly indicate _designed functions_ within designed systems.  _However_, I'm not trying to make conversation about the Process vocabulary, which has IMO progressed effectively.\r\n\r\nSo, all I'm really doing here is making a **request for comments** on my latest conception of 'Task' in [General Principles of Agreement-Based Organization](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w53bAMDErx7FWzJJVxFR0ggaWubc6wbs-etQdUgn1-8/edit?usp=sharing) , which is not directly related to VF.   \r\n\r\nAny thoughts on the passage below?  \r\n \r\n-------------------------------\r\n\r\n\"Tasks indicate _decisions for action_.  Tasks describe processes which a person or group _intends_ for identified agents, or _types_ of agent, to perform.\r\n\r\n- Importantly, an individual can (and often does) assign tasks to oneself.  However, we’re mainly concerned here with social understandings and agreements.\r\n- Many action-oriented projects and agreements could ultimately be defined as tasks. I.e., they are identified with a directly responsible person or group, and are expected to _end_ with the creation of one or more defined outputs.\r\n- Tasks may be performed by human agents _or_ non-human agents, such as machines.\r\n- Tasks may include the administration and regulation of predictably recurrent processes.  Such tasks are _systemic functions_.\r\n- Specific tasks within a system or group may be openly available to interested parties, or assigned via _roles_.\""},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/comments/193915019","html_url":"https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109#issuecomment-193915019","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/valueflows/issues/109","id":193915019,"user":{"login":"fosterlynn","id":3776081,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3776081?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn","html_url":"https://github.com/fosterlynn","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/fosterlynn/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-03-08T18:58:03Z","updated_at":"2016-03-08T18:58:03Z","body":"@TiberiusB I think I recognize some concrete examples of what you have run into. :)  Some thoughts:\r\n\r\nOne thing you identify as an issue is processes with multiple outputs.  I agree that this scenario makes the value flow calculations difficult (and currently in NRP we don't really support that, although I suppose we could figure out how to do it if the outputs were valued proportionally to each other in some way).  And I also very much agree with your thoughts about properly scoping processes.  \r\n\r\nOne frequent result of proper scoping is one output, or at least one main output, and the others are incidental, like \"waste\" resources, or a documented experience.  I think if in a process, some work went into A, some other work went into B, and other work went into C, then the process should often be scoped into 3 processes, sometimes with one feeding the next.  I don't know if this could have been done with your example, sometimes you really are creating multiple things in one actual process, working on them all at once. This type of thought process is, perhaps unfortunately, one that is not always cut and dried, and requires some level of training and experience with structured analytical thinking. \r\n\r\nI have seen this also in situations where the activities are more chaotic, like much R&D work.  For some of this, in Sensorica we ended up with a giant process that encompassed a lot of iterations, and output one R&D document that actually includes a lot of artifacts.  The R&D scenario deserves some future work to figure out the best way to model it in I-P-O graphs, and how to make make recipes for and plan this kind of work.  It is not obvious.  Sensorica in fact offers a rich set of examples for the VF work.\r\n\r\nAnother issue identified is the more \"intangible\" inputs and outputs of a process, which are hard to quantify and inventory.  One way NRP deals with this, from discussion in Sensorica, is that an idea isn't real unless it is written down, and then that is the resource.  And you can cite ideas or designs or less tangible resources, which gives you control over what you think it is worth to you.  Like you can say an idea gave you such inspiration that it is worth 80% of the output you created, and the other inputs will get 20% in a distribution.  And the value equations also give some flexibility in defining how to account for intangibles. \r\n\r\nI think Tibi and @gcassel and @bhaugen all reflect that trying to represent processes (or most anything else) in software or models is only our best approximation of reality.  Or not even the best approximation, really what is the most useful approximation.  And that the way we interact as humans is to decide the best approximation of how we want to account for our collaborative work and for what purposes. \r\n\r\nAll good discussion, thanks all!\r\n"}}