One of the things that can drive you crazy about the nature of the continuous improvement beast is the definition (and re-definition) of terms, and this can create a jabberwocky.
Many experienced professionals know this well:
Definitions Abound, Meaning Eludes Us
“…definitions don’t define, names don’t identify, examples aren’t exemplary, and an organization’s processes are essentially unknowns (but, thank goodness, not unknowable).” – Fred Nickols, 2016
As we apply multiple practice frameworks, whether that be ITIL for IT, COBIT for Finance, or any other of the many practice frameworks tailored specifically for different parts of the enterprise and many use cases, the meaning of words can shift and change based on these perspectives.
/
Even for seasoned professionals, these debates about terms can be maddening, and it is worth coming to agreement on these definitions. But more importantly, it should not be about one definition ‘winning’ over another, it’s far more important to accept a definition for purposes of discussion and understanding.
This often involves unlearning what we’ve traditionally understood a definition to be. The USM method has spent considerable time defining its terms, and these can be found in a glossary/dictionary on the USM Wiki.
To understand requires us to know what a person means when they use a word, and that may (or may not) align to what we’ve traditionally understood that word to mean.
Reaching an understanding can be a painstaking process, but it’s a road worth traveling.