Issues for Business Motivation Model Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Jira Issues

Issue 9114: BMM Comment Jira Issue BMMF2-1
Issue 9176: Athena BMM and BPMN comments Jira Issue BMMF2-2
Issue 10089: BMM: Assessment Jira Issue BMMF2-3
Issue 10090: BMM: UML Associations Jira Issue BMMF2-10
Issue 10091: BMM: Kaplan-Norton Perspectives Jira Issue BMMF2-11
Issue 10092: BMM: Relationship Ambiguities Jira Issue BMMF2-12
Issue 10093: BMM: Influencers Jira Issue BMMF2-13
Issue 10094: BMM: SBVR Structured English Jira Issue BMMF2-14
Issue 10095: Editing the original BMM Concepts Catalog into SBVR Structured English Jira Issue BMMF2-4
Issue 10114: Section: 7, ,8, 9 - pages 16, 40-42, and 51 Jira Issue BMMF2-5
Issue 10387: definition of 'influencer' needs to be changed Jira Issue BMMF2-15
Issue 10583: ection 9 page 64 Jira Issue BMMF2-6
Issue 10589: Section 8.5 Jira Issue BMMF2-7
Issue 10592: Section: 8.4 Jira Issue BMMF2-8
Issue 10593: Section: 8.4 (02) Jira Issue BMMF2-9
Issue 11280: Associations between Assessments Jira Issue BMMF2-16
Issue 11281: Remove SWOT from the normative model Jira Issue BMMF2-17
Issue 11282: Role Names Jira Issue BMMF2-18

Issue 9114: BMM Comment (bmm-ftf)

The Business Motivation Model appropriately defines a Means as a �device, capability, regime, technique, restriction, agency, instrument, or method that may be called upon, activated, or enforced to achieve Ends�. However, there is no provision in the model to define referenced elements of business model that are devices or instruments. Main categories of resources of a business are man, machine, material, money, and real property. Referenced elements of business model defined externally in the BMM are limited to Organization Unit, Business Process, and Business Rule. (RFC 1.4.2). The recommended solution is to add "Asset or Liability", or a suitable synonym, to the model as an externally defined thing. An Asset would include machine, animal, computer system, software program, raw material store, in-process inventory, finished goods, supply, real estate, and money and monetary instruments such as securities and budgets. Contracts may also be included as assets. Liabilities would include certain unfilled contracts, debt, lawsuits, and other obligations. Human resources would presumably appear to be handled in Organizational Unit models. Processes employ assets, which need to be defined and are the subject of policies and rules. Assets can be defined in models, including UML models and SBVR models. Many business policies and business rules of a company are related to the definition, acquisition, operation, and maintenance of its assets and liabilities.  

Notes  This resolution is almost is the same as the one sent out on 14 and 20 August, and included in the summary "BMM as if all resolutions were resolved as proposed".  There was some feedback, about Liability and whether the concepts were too accounting-oriented, to which I responded in email.    The change is that Asset has been made a generalization of Resource and Fixed Asset (formerly Asset), which reduced some of the "association spaghetti".    At first sight, this proposal looks like a significant expansion of the BMM.   It is not really - it adds 4 related placeholders that allow BMM users to refer to 'things' in the enterprise when making and recording their governance decisions. It could be removed from the BMM (or not included in the first place) without changing anything else in the BMM.  Placeholders in BMM have no substance. They are references to things defined elsewhere in the enterprise's systems.   BMM users can choose to include references to just those Assets and Liabilities that are relevant to their governance decisions. There is no requirement for these to be a complete set, or to be associated in a coherent way. That happens in the underlying systems the placeholders refer to. If BMM users need completeness and detail, they will need to go to the places referenced in the placeholders and "drill down"  [Of course, a vendor could implement the BMM as part of an integrated suite; the placeholders would be replaced by connections to the operational systems. But this is not a BMM requirement]   The associations between placeholders are redundant. They are defined in full detail in the systems referenced by the placeholders. But including them in the BMM allows BMM users to have a self-contained, "joined-up" governance model.  Some of the terms have an accounting flavor. In fact, they represent the real things in the business, not just the monetary values of those things. Please read the concept definitions before reacting to the words.  The associations (and the special recognition of "Offering") have been chosen pragmatically, on the basis that in practice they seem to be frequently required in governance. They should be regarded as a "starter set", to be refined over the next few years from experience with wider use of the BMM.   

see document  bei/05-10-01 ( http://doc.omg.org/bei/05-10-01 ):    

Discussion:  While the Issue may be valid, it represents potentially significant modifications.  Thus, this Issue will be deferred and handled by a later version of BPMN.  Disposition: Deferred

"Assessment" in the BMM as published by the BRG as a ternary association: "a judgment that an influencer affects the employment of means or the achievement of ends", with two qualifications:  �	Participation of means and ends is optional   �	At least one means or one end has to participate in each assessment  In the UML class model developed for RFC (and used for BMM implementation by KnowGravity), these are shown as three binary associations, between assessment and: influencer, end, means.   Proposal  Suggested change to the UML class model:  Resolution:  TBD  Revised Text:  Not yet decided    Disposition:	Open    

The BMM as published by the BRG has association names that represent the verb phrases in fact types (except that in a few cases "is" or "has" has been omitted). These have been preserved in the proposed interim specification with the concepts catalog in SBVR Structured English.   In the UML class model developed for the RFC submission, the verb phrases were added to associations as "ends" (role names). There are two small problems:  �	In many cases they read well as verb-oriented role names but in some cases they do not.   �	They have been placed on the association connectors at the wrong ends - normally a role name is placed at the line end where the class that plays the role is connected.   For example, in the fragment below:  Vision is made operative by mission, and amplified by goal. The roles read intuitively with the "clockwise" convention, but reading a UML class model correctly should not depend on positioning.   Proposal  1) Move the association phrases to the appropriate ends of association lines for them to be role names, e.g.  2) In the UML class model, replace verb-oriented role names with noun-oriented names, if the reading of the model would be improved. For example, replace "goal amplifies vision" with "goal [has the role] amplifier of vision"      3) Where there are necessities in the Concepts Catalog that constrain cardinality, show them explicitly on the UML class model. For example, "mission makes at most one vision operative", "goal amplifies at most one vision".   4)  Create a mapping of the fact types in the Concepts Catalog to the associations in the UML class model.  Resolution:  To be discussed  Revised Text:  Not yet decided    Disposition:	Open  

  Summary:  I have been following progress of BRG and have incorporated several of their concepts in my work. I consider this a very important direction in Enterprise Architecture.  I would like to propose that you consider the addition of Kaplan-Norton perspectives in the motivational model. The rationale for this is:  WHY:  �	Encourage measurement of intangible assets: Enterprise Architecture is a discipline that grows intangible assets and in he minds of its customers, must explicitly model non-financial motivations together with financial ones.  �	Align with world standards in measurement of strategy/capability  �	By explicitly modeling Kaplan-Norton Perspectives this effort is more likely to gain support and recognition of international business measurement standards and best practices : Baldridge Criteria, for instance.  This type of model can best succeed in an environment that encourages excellence and leadership. Incorporating Kaplan-Norton perspectives will provide that common paradigm for communicating this.  �	Balanced Scorecard models using Kaplan-Norton perspectives lend themselves to formal modeling of this nature.  I recommend the core concept of 'VALUE' to model this.   The introduction of 'VALUE' in this manner will facilitate 'value streaming' analysis: Porter et al, Lean Thinking etc.  Resolution:  Recommendation from Dec 2005 BMI meeting was to leave this as an option for vendors to add to tools.  Revised Text:  None    Disposition:	Open  

Discussion  Clause 1.5 of the BMM Specification says "It is important to note that the Business Motivation Model is not in any sense a methodology. Indeed, it is entirely neutral with respect to methodology or particular approach."  This is reinforced in clauses 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 which emphasize that organizations can use the BMM in different ways, with different methodologies and tools.  Recommendation from Dec 2005 BMI meeting was to leave this as an option for vendors to add to tools.  Disposition:	Closed, no change  

Relationship Ambiguities  1.) The relationship between 'Desired Results' and 'Goals' and 'Desired Results' and 'Objectives'.  Has the same problem that the relationship between 'Course of Action' and 'Strategy' and 'Course of Action' and 'Tactics'.    The confusing part is what exactly are you saying the first items ('Desired Results' or 'Course of Action') are?  It seems you described them as ISA relationships and as cascading parent child and that means that there is ambiguity in the terminology that business uses.  One way to clarify this is to define whether the relationship you're describing is either explicit or implicit.  �	Is the nature of the relationship like this <<...OLE_Obj...>> with the ability to infer a relationship between desired results and goal and objective  �	Or is the model saying it is more like <<...OLE_Obj...>> Where the mutually exclusive nature of the desired result to goal is inferred  �	Or is the model saying it is more accurately like this <<...OLE_Obj...>> Where the relationship between goal and objective is as explicitly (mutually exclusive or not) children of desired results and the relationship between goal and objective is implied.  2.) The relationship between 'Mission' and 'Course of Action' is also unclear.  �	Does a course of action require the existence of a mission?  �	Does a mission require the existence of a course of action?  �	Can there be many courses of action for a mission or just one?  �	Can there be many missions for a course of action or just one?  3.) There is a relationship described between 'Course of Action' and 'Procedure' but not an explicit relationship between 'Course of Action and 'Policy' was this intended?  4.) Regulation is described in the narrative as a detail of a business rule but in the appendix B as an influencer.  This is very confusing if influencers are modeled as one entity.    The way it is modeled in Appendix A with one assessment group leaves a lot of questions open and that diagrams inclusion of Organization Unit does not seem to agree with the text statement about business policy at lower organization levels becoming regulations.  5.) The relationship between influencers and means and ends leaves open too much room for interpretation and the nature of the data relationship should be tighter and more explicit.  Terms  Organization Unit was not described sufficiently in the introduction or core elements and its inclusion in the Appendix A is unsupported.  The Business Process also did not seem sufficiently developed to include in the appendix A model.  Other  Appendix B is missing "Policy"  Resolution:  Recommendation from Dec 2005 BMI meeting was to discuss during finalization.  Revised Text:  In [section no] on page [9999], xxxx �    Disposition:	Open  

The BMM includes a set of Influencers. It is a good default set, but the supporting descriptions say that the set is not exhaustive - businesses may add further influences when creating an enterprise BMM (and may choose not to use some of those categories provided).   Also, 'influencer' is quite a broad concept. From the examples, an instance of 'external influencer' might be:  �	A category of external entity or organization (e.g. competitor) that can act in such a way (e.g. competitor introduces new product) as to influence the enterprise being modeled  �	A mass noun (e.g. technology) that is a category of the kind of change that can influence the enterprise being modeled  �	An instance of a change (e.g. regulation) that can influence the enterprise being modeled  The BMM would be more flexible, particularly from a tool developer's perspective, if the current set of influencers were positioned as a recommended set, and the three concepts mention above were made distinct.   Proposal  1) Present the current set of influencers as a recommended or default set, and do not show them explicitly on the normative model diagram.   2) Separate the concepts of Entity/Organization (Influencer), change that requires judgment (Influence) and category. Suggested change to the UML class model:  This was discussed at the BMI Atlanta meeting in September 2005.  It was felt that, while the change suggested would be an improvement, the BMM should stand on its merits as published for the RFC process. Then, if the BMM were accepted, this issue could be considered by the FTF.    Similarly, category should be separated from instance for internal influences.   It was also noted that this kind of structure could support associations between influence(r)s.   Resolution:  Not yet decided  Revised Text:  Not yet decided    Disposition:	Open  

I propose that the BMM Concepts Catalog as published by the BRG be replaced by an equivalent Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English.   The advantage would be that the BMM could be directly used by SBVR tools, as well as being readable by business people.   Proposal  Suggestion from Andrew Watson was:  �	Produce the BMM Final Adopted Specification with the Concepts Catalog as published the BRG source document  �	Produce a BMM interim specification with the Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English  �	Ask for a vote from the BMM FTF to replace the BMM FAS with the interim specification, and handle issues against the interim specification  Resolution:  TBD  Revised Text:  See chapter 9 of the BMM First Interim Specification  Also see attached notes on conversion of the BMM Concepts Catalog as in the source document to SBVR Structured English (BMM_SBVR_SE.doc).     Disposition:	Open  

The proposed first interim specification for the Business Motivation Model (BMM) shows the BMM Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English.  The changes are:  1  	Text Style  Concepts are named in lower case, and text is styled with the SBVR colors for term, verb, keyword and name.  2  	Definition  "Concept is a �" replaced by SBVR term with Definition clause (styled paragraph with "Definition" as the bullet, lower case concept name. no final period).    Example:  Course of Action	is a Means that is an approach or plan for configuring some aspect of the enterprise involving things, processes, locations, people, timing, or motivation undertaken to achieve Ends.    is represented as   course of actionDefinition	means that is an approach or plan for configuring some aspect of the enterprise involving things, processes, locations, people, timing, or motivation undertaken to achieve ends  3	Association  List of associations replaced by list of fact types, with synonymous forms. Noun concepts are named in the singular and "may" replaced by "is" (all BMM associations are optional unless explicitly constrained)  Example  	A Course of Action ...�	is governed by Directives.�	may be formulated based on Directives.�	may enable other Courses of Action.    is represented as  course of action is governed by directiveSynonymous form	directive governs course of actioncourse of action is formulated based on directiveSynonymous form	directive is source of course of actioncourse of action1 enables course of action2Synonymous form	course of action2 is enabled by course of action1       4	Constraints  The fact types are qualified by Necessities  Example  	An Assessment ...�	must be made by at least one Organization Unit.    is represented as  assessment is made by organization unitNecessity	Each assessment is made by at least one organization unit.  Example  	A Desired Result ...�	may be composed of other Desired Results.	Additional constraint�	The related (composed of/part of) Desired Results must be of the same type. Specifically, Goals may be composed of (sub)Goals, and Objectives may be composed of (sub)Objectives.  Goals are not composed of Objectives, and vice versa.      is represented as  desired result1 is composed of desired result2Synonymous Form	desired result2 is part of desired result1Necessity	If desired result1 is a goal then desired result2 must be a goal (and vice versa).Necessity	If desired result1 is an objective then desired result2 must be an objective (and vice versa).  5	Dictionary Basis  Replaced by SBVR format. NODE references replaced by ODE references. ODE superseded NODE in 2003. There are no substantive changes to the definitions, although sometimes the wording has been improved a little.  Example:  Dictionary basis:�	a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof   [NODE 'assumption' (1)]  is represented as   Dictionary basis	a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof   [ODE 'assumption' (1)]  6	List of categories  Replaced by a note (this could be done more formally in SBVR).   Example:  	Categories of Desired Result include:�	Goal�	Objective  is represented as   Note	Categories of desired result include: goal; objective.  7	Characteristic  Represented as a unary fact type. This has been done only for is actionable, as a characteristic of directive. This is the one example where the SBVR presentation is markedly different in structure from the original.   "Actionable" is described once, under directive is actionable. In the BMM as published, the description of "actionable" is duplicated, under both business policy and business rule.  Example:  	Business Rule	is a rule that is under business jurisdiction.  A rule always introduces an obligation or necessity. A Business Rule is an individual Directive that is actionable - that is, does not require additional interpretation to undertake Strategies or Tactics.'Actionable' means that a person who understands a Directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that Directive.  In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not actionable in that sense.    is represented as   business ruleDefinition	directive that is actionableNecessity	Each business rule is under business jurisdiction.Necessity	Each business rule introduces an obligation or necessity.directive is actionableDefinition	the directive does not require additional interpretation to undertake strategies or tacticsNote	"Actionable" means that a person who understands a directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that directive. In contrast to business rules, business policies are not actionable in that sense.  8	Motivation Element  Introduced as a general concept for the highest level concepts on the BMM (assessment, business process, end, means, influencer, organization unit, potential impact) to associate them with motivation element name and motivation element description. These associations are then inherited by all other BMM concepts.   Example  motivation elementDefinition	top-level concept in The BMMDescription	Created as a modeling construct (a "superclass") to simplfy the association of each concept in The BMM with 'name' and 'description'.motivation element nameDefinition	a word or set of words by which a concept in an enterprise BMM is known or referred tomotivation element has motivation element nameSynonymous form	motivation element name is of motivation element  9	Other discussion  Presented as descriptions and notes.   Example:  	Business Policyis a non-actionable Directive whose purpose is to govern or guide the enterprise.Compared to a Business Rule, a Business Policy tends to be:�	less structured.�	less discrete.�	less atomic.�	less compliant with standard business vocabulary.�	less formally articulated.The formulation of a Business Policy is under an enterprise's control by a party authorized to manage, control, or regulate the enterprise, by selection from alternatives in response to a combination of Assessments.  is represented as   business policyDefinition	directive that is not actionableDescription	The purpose of a business policy is to govern or guide the enterprise. 	The formulation of a business policy is under an enterprise's control by a party authorized to manage, control, or regulate the enterprise, by selection from alternatives in response to a combination of assessments.Note	Compared to a business rule, a business policy tends to be: less structured; less discrete; less atomic; less compliant with standard business vocabulary; less formally articulated.  

Assessment In BMM 1.2, as published by the BRG and adopted by the OMG, �Assessment� is defined as: �a judgement that an Influencer affects the employment of Means or the achievement of Ends� Each Assessment: - Is a judgment about at least one Influencer - Is about the effect on least one End or Means (but not necessarily both) The UML class model submitted with the RFC shows both an End and a Means being required for an Assessment. What is the best way to represent Assessment in a MOF-compliant class model for BMM so that the constraint is correctly modeled, and BMM-compliant tools will support �End or Means or both - but not neither�?   

There is still an issue with the definition of External Influencer which is "outside an enterprise's organizational boundaries" not only outside one department organizational boundary.  In the provided example, the "Human Resources Policy Group" is still "inside the enterprise's organizational boundaries"     My understanding is that a directive can act as regulation, which means that regulation is not always a subtype of "external influencer".     I agree with your next issue: there is a need for a clarification between regulation and regulation authority (or regulator)  

Only identifier and description attributes are defined for BMM classes. "Objective" seems to be a special case. It is defined as "... a specific time-targeted, measurable, attainable target". I suggest that additional attributes "date", "unit" and "quantity" be added to "Objective".   

An organization unit makes an assessment (of an influencer). There are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. So an organization unit "makes" an opportunity. The name of the association---makes---is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or a strength, weakness, or threat. "Appraises" is a much more natural term. Then an organizational unit appraises a strength and other organizational unit appraises an assessment.  

An assessment judges an influencer. But there are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The name of the association---judges---is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or one of the categories. I suspect this is the typical case; we will see a lot more opportunities and weaknesses than we see assessments that are not one of the more specific categories. Would you ever say that an opportunity judges an influencer? Instead a more natural term for the association is "is judgment of".  

An assessment and an end can be related via the "on achievement of" association. I find the name of this association awkward, particularly in the typical case when the assessment is an opportunity, or one of the other three more specific categories. I suggest instead "affects", so an opportunity will affect an end. "affects achievement of" works as well.  

This suggestion came from Xactium, which has implemented BMM in its BMS product and has been providing feedback over the past couple of months.    It would be useful to have a many-to-many association between Assessments. This would support explicit indication of which earlier assessments were considered important when making a given assessment. It would be useful in several contexts, including:  �	Decision support for making new assessments - identifying the full set of concerns taken into account in earlier assessments  �	Compliance audit - justifying decisions made in reacting to change  Resolution:  Add the association illustrated below to the MOF model and the model fragment in section 8:  Note: I have used the CamelCase style for names proposed in the resolution of issue 10090.   Include a description of this as a general association between assessments in section 8.  Add the corresponding fact type and roles to section 9.   Revised Text:  In [section no] on page [9999], xxxx �  

This suggestion came from Xactium, which has implemented BMM in its BMS product and has been providing feedback over the past couple of months.   The BMM as published says "SWOT is one approach that can be used in making assessments. The Model does not specify SWOT as the technique. These categories of Assessment are illustrative."  But these specializations of Assessment are built into the BMM. It would be better to define a generalized categorization structure and include SWOT as an example.   Resolution:  Remove the descriptions of SWOT from sections 7, 8 and 9 to an Annex, including the definitions of the concepts. Say that SWOT is the default for assessment categorization recommended by the BRG, which originally developed the BMM.   Replace the mentions of SWOT in sections 7 and 8 with a more general description of assessment categorization, referring to the SWOT Annex as the recommended default.   Add the AssessmentCategory and the association illustrated below to the MOF model, and replace the SWOT model fragment in section 8 with this diagram:  Note: I have used the CamelCase style for names proposed in the resolution of issue 10090.   Add Assessment Category and the corresponding fact type to section 9, with SWOT quoted as an example.   

The resolution for Issue 10090 proposed:  �	a convention for association names in the MOF model  �	dealing with role names as a separate issue  This is that issue.   Resolution:  Role names were proposed with resolution 10090 for associations whose instances are between instances of the same class, e.g. Enabling Course of Action enables Enabled Course of Action, Broader Business Policy is composed of More Specific Business Policy.  For the rest, suggestions are welcomed.