Trans Pacific Partnership - Use Case and Stakeholders

Just a review of Use Case as described by Wikipedia to start this entry:

In software and systems engineering, a use case is a list of steps, typically defining interactions between a role (known in Unified Modeling Language (UML) as an "actor") and a system, to achieve a goal. The actor can be a human or an external system.
In systems engineering, use cases are used at a higher level than within software engineering, often representing missions or stakeholder goals. The detailed requirements may then be captured in Systems Modeling Language (SysML) or as contractual statements.

Use case is generally what the name implies: Users of the system.  Those user actors that are more directly interfacing with the system, regardless of being either a server or client actor role in the broader definition applicable to real people who interface with the system as well as computer based systems with service interfaces to other systems.

The server-client model is very simply nothing more than the model of Subject-Object in our natural language model of:

 Noun Subject --Verb Action ---Noun Object of the Verb Action

What primary grade did we first learn that programming model.  Now we call it Server - Client and have to look it up in Wikipedia to find out what it is.  We did not call it language for dummies in first grade.  However, I am sure that there is a chapter in some book called "Programming for Dummies" that takes the entire chapter to explain in arcane terms the basic noun - verb relationship.

Object Orientation is just good language and skill in applying it.  Everything I write is the same basic structure:  Noun -- Verb -- Object.  That trinity of Logic -- Language -- Structure.  With some embellishments and connections to other thoughts expressed in the some model structure.

The object oriented model is nothing more than the natural language model we learned in first grade on steroids.

Users:  Those things, both people and systems that ultimately connect with real people at some end point interface no matter how many systems they interface to get to a real person.  In some cases, very many conceptually structured systems.   Users are generally viewed, as I see it, as first or second party users most directly interfacing with any system.

Stakeholders:  Wikipedia definition:  Stakeholder, an entity that can be affected by the results of that in which they are said to be stakeholders, i.e., that in which they have a stake.

That reminds me of a question a teacher asked me in a high school class:  What is a Delegate Convention.  I drew out my responds as much as I could to make it sound like I knew what it was.  First by summarizing the question.  I said: " What is a Convention? A Delegate Convention is a Convention of Delegates.  The class became hysterical with laughter.  Probably because I was such a serious guy and they expected something typically serious for me to say.  It sounded serious to start then it was so out of character that it was hilarious.  The teacher told me to go out in the hall for disrupting the class.  I think that I duped her too with my serious beginning formalized response and the class knew that too.

A Stakeholder is someone that holds a stake.  Object Oriented Systems are not that complicated to understand!

Stakeholders are more removed from direct or near interface with the system.  Removed far enough that normal system operation does not relate significantly to them them.  However,  may be vitally related to them if it fails to operate in implementation or operates to the extent that the structure of the design becomes readily apparent as adversely and seriously relating to people that did not see it coming.

"In never saw it coming"  "I never expected that"  These are statements are often used as excuses for something that should have been known, maybe even was known and built into a system by a system designer that had asymmetrical information and used it for their advantage or the the advantage of the entity that employed them where the entity had a fiduciary responsibility to a system user or stakeholder.  Beware of anyone that says the words: "I never saw that coming"  "It is something that we could not have planned for" especially when it is something that obviously would happen and should be planned for or even planned to happen much to their benefit with an offsetting disadvantage to you, the user or stakeholder.

Users know quickly when they have been had.  Stakeholders learn somewhat later.  Maybe that is the difference.  Or, the flip side of that:  Users are the first to take money to the bank. Stakeholder are the last, if there is any left.

We are all stakeholders in Trans Pacific Partnership.  The server side users is making up the plan to be imposed on client side users.  It is a "Taxation Without Representation" model. 

I will call it "Extraction Without Representation" model which is a common business model practiced with great return on investment by banksters.  The non-banking sector of free private enterprise is envious but learning.

I like that phrase!  "Extraction Without Representation"  I googled it and only got three pages in return.  Most hits were related to Denise Dresser if she was not the first to use the phrase she used it effectively in "Extraction Without Representation: Mexico's Dysfunctional Democracy" other hits used the phrase in connection with colonial extraction.  It used to be "Colonial" now "Colonial R' US".

Perhaps "Extraction Without Representation" should be the rallying cry of the TPP opponents.  I need to suggest that to someone.

I found this to be exceptionally interesting in that it put Use Case and Stakeholders in the frame of a "Social Enterprise" business entity.  TPP can hardly be viewed as a "Social Entrprise" that has to be concerned with "social media"  issues....but on the other hand it is and must be concerned.  Hiding in secrecy is protecting themselves from stakeholders..  Not a very good business model for a "Social Enterprise"!