The reaction from VPEC-T practitioners & supporters was interesting in that they were quick to defend the simplicity and ubiquitous & 'Agile' nature of VPEC-T due to that simplicity. A view I share with them.
To quote my colleague, John Schlesinger, “Meaning is a sky hook for VPEC-T” ( and by implication not a missing dimension per se) and Peter Evans-Greenwood suggested: “Light-weight, user and business centric approaches (such as VPEC-T) provide us with a way to remain relevant and a more dynamic and light weight business world”.
The table below is my interpretation of Chris Bird's email that described VPEC-T as columns and an open list of 'Cross Cutting Concerns' that shape meaning across the five VPEC-T dimensions.
Full size image here.
From my point of view, this discussion helped me with a 'writer's block' problem I was having with where and how to take VPEC-T forward. It became very clear to me that I need to start to build an 'Open' repository of VPEC-T Use Patterns. These patterns will make VPEC-T more 'real' through description of how the dimensions are applied in particular situations and to tackle the sort of 'Cross-cutting Concern' that Chris mentions.
I hope to start work on the repository soon and plan to host it at vpec-t.org (I'll post on this blog when I get something worth looking at up).
Here's the concept map I used to order my thoughts following the stream of emails, tweets and posts.