Issues for Business Motivation Model 1.1 Revision Task Force

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

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

Issue 10113: Section: 7, 8, 9
Issue 10586: Section: 8.5 pages 48 - 50
Issue 11510: Restore Primary Reading to "Formulated Based On" Fact Type
Issue 11695: class diagram issue
Issue 11812: Should BMM include business rules, decisions, both, or neither
Issue 12280: Issues on BMM Beta 3 dtc/07-08-03 table 8.2
Issue 12281: Issues on BMM Beta 3 dtc/07-08-03 table 8.9
Issue 12955: BMM section 7.3.6 - clarification needed
Issue 13059: Category of Category
Issue 13060: Internal and External Influencers
Issue 14187: Support demand side as well as supply side motivation elements
Issue 14188: Support Decisions
Issue 14189: Support modeling assessment criteria
Issue 14190: Support services for realizing business motivation
Issue 14191: Standard UML profile for BMM
Issue 14806: Triangular specialization
Issue 14807: Offerings as Assets
Issue 16005: Incomplete Application of Closed Issue 10113 - Actionable to Practicable
Issue 16397: MOF compliant BMM
Issue 17091: Statement misplaced
Issue 17242: BMM should specify/standardize a UML profile to support BMM models in UML tools

Issue 10113: Section: 7, 8, 9 (bmm-rtf)

In response to some SBVR FTF issues, changes have been made to SBVR that affect business rule (adopted from SBVR by BMM) and business policy (adopted from BMM by SBVR). A minor update of BMM is needed to keep it consistent with SBVR Summary of relevant SBVR changes: The resolution of SBVR Issue 9477 caused the verb concept (unary fact type) 'directive is actionable' to be replaced by two verb concepts with narrower definitions: • 'element of guidance is practicable': this is concerned with ensuring that business rules are sufficiently well-defined and precise that they can be put directly into practice. • 'element of governance is directly enforceable': this is concerned with ensuring that violations of operative business rules can be detected and corrected. This separation of concerns is relevant to BMM. If desired results for an enterprise are not being achieved, there could be two causes related to business rules: 1 The enterprise does not have the right business rules. 2 The enterprise and, particularly, the people in the enterprise are not applying the rules correctly. Before challenging whether the business rules are the right ones, it would be important to establish that the rules were being applied as they were intended to be. To establish this, the rules must be enforceable. A resolution of this issue has been drafted, and will be distributed to the BMM FTF when the relevant SBVR changes have been finalized

The relevant part of SBVR is illustrated in the following diagram from the SBVR specification:
The part of this SBVR fragment that is specifically relevant to BMM is illustrated below. 






Correspondence between SBVR and BMM:
Directive
Since directive in BMM and element of guidance in SBVR have the same definition, they are synonyms: 
Definition	means that guides, defines, or constrains some aspect of an enterprise.
Business Policy
In BMM 1.0, business policy is a specialization of directive
business policy
Concept Type:	directive that is not actionable
Note:	'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.
In SBVR 1.0, business policy is a specialization of element of governance, which is a specialization of element of guidance.
business policy
Definition	element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise
Note:	'Directly enforceable' means that a person who knows about the element of governance could observe relevant business activity (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with the element of governance.
element of governance
Definition	element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it
The definition of BMM business policy can be aligned with that of SBVR business policy:
Start with the SBVR definition of business policy: 
Definition	element of governance that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise
Replace the term 'element of governance' with its definition:
Definition	element of guidance that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it and that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise
Replace the term 'element of guidance' with its BMM synonym 'directive':
Definition	directive that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it and that is not directly enforceable whose purpose is to guide an enterprise
Delete the final phrase ("whose purpose …"), because it is covered by the embedded definition of element of governance:
Definition	directive that is concerned with directly controlling, influencing, or regulating the actions of an enterprise and the people in it and that is not directly enforceable 
Business Rule 
In BMM, Business Rule has two definitions, one of which is adopted from SBVR.
business rule
Definition	directive that is actionable
Definition	SBVR: rule that is under business jurisdiction 

SBVR includes the following:
structural business rule
Definition	structural rule that is a business rule
Necessity:	Each structural business rule is practicable.
operative business rule
Definition	business rule that is a claim of obligation
Definition	element of governance that is directly enforceable
(under element of governance is directly enforceable):
Necessity:	Each element of governance that is directly enforceable is practicable.
So, in SBVR, both types of business rule are practicable. The BMM definition of business rule can be updated to:
business rule
Definition	directive that is practicable
and the note on 'actionable' replaced by an equivalent note on 'practicable'.
BMM Fact Type
Also, BMM includes a fact type:
tactic effects enforcement level of business rule
Synonymous Form:	business rule has enforcement level effected by tactic
In SBVR, only operative business rules can be enforced, so only they have enforcement levels. A note explaining this is needed. 
 

The placeholder descriptions of "Organization Unit" and "Business Process" need to be updated to be consistent with the latest submissions for OSM and BPDM

BPDM (08-05-07.pdf) has been recast as the common infrastructure for business process definition. It now does not explicitly define 'process' or mention 'activity', which in BMM 1.0 was taken as the BPDM concept that most closely matched the BMM concept of business process (see BMM figure F.2). 
An enterprise that uses the OMG family of business process modeling specifications will probably model its business processes in BPMN. In its BMM, referenced business processes will be in BPMN models. So the BMM specification should be referring to BPMN rather than BPDM. 
As of 10 November 2008, there are two contending submissions for BPMN 2.0, with BPDM providing the metamodel for one of them. BMM needs a neutral reference to 'business process' until this situation is resolved. 
The definition proposed is from the BPMN Version 1.2 Beta 3 specification (08-02-07.pdf), which  is publicly available from the OMG web site. The definition is taken from the first two paragraphs of clause 8.6 (Process) rather than the glossary entries for 'business process' and 'process', which are diagram-oriented and quite sparse. 
OSM has been reopened for LOI, and new submissions will be invited. BMM needs a neutral reference to 'organization unit' until OSM submissions are further developed.

Source: BRG
Keri Anderson Healy, Ronald G. Ross
Summary:
The 07-08-06 version of BMM now reflects a 'forward' (primary) reading of a fact type that differs from business intent of this association, as expressed in both the BRG BMM and the prose for this assocation (see 8.2.6 Directive, first paragraph on p. 30 (PDF p. 40)).
It is also possible for the Courses of Action to be formulated based on Directives. For example, the Tactics 'Comply with manufacturer's maintenance schedules' and 'Equalize use of cars across rentals so that mileage is similar for cars of the same car group and age' are both formulated based on the Business Policy 'Depreciation of cars must be minimized'. The Directive thereby serves as the source of the Course of Action.
Given an understanding of how the BRG developed the prose reading of a model, it is clear which reading of this fact type is the intended primary reading.  Here is the mechanistic process that was generally applied:
·	Express the fact type in a prose sentence that states the forward-reading's first concept as the subject, the primary reading phrase as the verb, and the forward-reading's second concept as the object of the sentence.
·	Give example(s).
·	Optionally, state the secondary reading.  (Note:  when the secondary reading is simply the passive form, omit.)
From this, it is evident that the intended forward (primary) reading of this fact type is:
course of action is formulated based on directive
Indeed, this is the way the entry appeared in an early version of Clause 9 (e.g., dated Aug. 22, 2006).
Changing the reading of this fact type to have 'directive' be the subject loses an important part of the business message of what is going on in this part of the model.  There are two potential relationships between a course of action and a directive, each with a different 'subject', to yield a kind of back-and-forth synergy between the concepts.  Depicting the same subject for both fact types loses this part of the message.
Resolution:
Restore the original designation of which reading is "primary" so that both the Concepts Catalog entry and the UML derivitaves are correct and consistent with the prose and the business intent of this fact type.
Revised Text:
In 9.1, p. 59 (PDF p. 69), change the entry that currently reads:
directive is source of course of action
	Synonymous Form course of action is formulated based on directive 
to read:
course of action is formulated based on directive
	Synonymous Form directive is source of course of action 
In 9.4, p. 67 (PDF, p. 77), change the line that currently reads:
directive is source of course of action 	DirectiveIsSourceOfCourseOfAction 
to read:
course of action is formulated based on directive 	CourseOfActionIsFormulatedBasedOnDirective 
In 9.5, p. 68 (PDF, p. 78), change the line that currently reads:
directive is source of course of action 	baseDirective 	derivedCourseOfAction  
to read:
course of action is formulated based on directive  	derivedCourseOfAction	baseDirective 

Class diagrams in Business Motivation Model show association names where we expect role names as per UML specifications. This is misleading. Drawing Fig 8.2 on Star UML produced the following code: public class Vision { public Goal amplified_by; } public class Goal { public Vision amplifies; } 

The conventions for association names and association end names in BMM were resolved in the FTF (Issues 10090, 11282) and included in the metamodel.
Disposition:	Closed without change

At the BMI meeting on 10Dec07/Burlingame, there was a discussion on decision modeling and its relationship to existing modeling needs and standards. An action from the meeting was to raise the question of whether business decisions per se should be defined in BMM alongside, or instead of, business rules, or whether business motivation per se should be independent of business decisions (and/or business rules). 

 

{This was considered a possible issue for a BMM v2 RFP, but I am raising it with the RTF on the basis that it is up to the RTF to determine whether any “issue” is for a future version or not.}

 

[From my understanding of BMM v1.2, processes are defined outside of BMM, and probably decisions are related more to processes and are guided by business rules / driven by policies.]

 

Caveat: this is going to be difficult to answer without a formal definition of a decision model. And I am not going to define one at this stage of discussions! J 

However, it is probably safe to assume that a Decision Table (which I define as a table of conditional elements with some action as a conclusion, rather than the fact definition type of “Decision Table” that Donald was telling me is defined as a part of SBVR) is an instance of a Decision Model. And that you invoke decision tables (and services) in process activities in order to direct processes (and services). But decisions may be defined separately from process, of course, although their “execution” (manual or automated) context is probably always going to be in a process of some kind.

 

Disclaimer: this issue may be subject to revision as the terminology is refined. 

 

2 cents of Comment: I think the answer is “yes, decisions are related to motivation but are not part of motivation”. I will leave to others the discussion on whether (SBVR type) business rules are part of motivation or a simply related to motivation. 

 Table 8.2 has a duplicate line:

EU-Rent           To provide industry-leading customer service

 Table 8.9 has the first entry duplicated in the second (which has some additional text)

I am working on risk Assesment metamodel from "UML Profile for Modeling Quality of Service and Fault Tolerance Characteristics and Mechanisms v1.1" on the page 49 there is description of SWOT (chapter 11.1.2). It says that SWOT elements are directly connected to EnterpriseAsset metaclass. It looks that the we have the similar situation in BMM specification where OrganisationUnit makes assessment and on the other hand OrganizationUnit is responsible for asset. But there is not direct connection between Asset (EnterpriseAsset) and Assesment like in "UML Profile for Modeling Quality..."

Discussion:
In BMM, Assessment is related to Asset, not directly, but via a Course of Action that deploys the Asset. 
Disposition:	Closed, no change

Categorization (of Assessment, Influencer and Influencing Organization) would be much more flexible, with very limited impact on the metamodel,  if the BMM supported categories of categories.
Suggested by Ed Barkmeyer (NIST) and supported by John Hall (Inferware, Model Systems) and Andy Evans (Xactium)
 
Resolution:
Add the following associations
Association	Location	Page
Broader Organization Category categorizes Narrower Organization Category	figure 7.3figure 8.129.19.5	18446673
Also add text "Organization categories may themselves be categorized in broader categories; a narrower category may be included in more than one broader category"	8.4.3, following 3rd paragraph after figure 8.12	
Broader Influencer Category categorizes Narrower Influencer Category	figure 7.3figure 8.129.19.5	18446573
Also add text "Influencer Categories may themselves be categorized in broader categories; a narrower category may be included in more than one broader category"	8.4.2 following first sentence	39
Broader Assessment Category categorizes Narrower Assessment Category	figure 7.3figure 8.179.19.5	18476072
Also add text "Categories of assessment may themselves be categorized in broader categories; a narrower category may be included in more than one broader category"	8.4.6.2 following figure 8.17	47
Discussion:
No attempt has been made to optimize or generalize the 'category of category' pattern, since the semantics of the three occurrences are local, e.g. an Assessment Category can categorize other Assessment Categories, but not Influencer Categories or Organization Categories.  
Revised Text:

No attempt has been made to optimize or generalize the 'category of category' pattern, since the semantics of the three occurrences are local, e.g. an Assessment Category can categorize other Assessment Categories, but not Influencer Categories or Organization Categories.

Description:
'Internal' and 'external' categories of 'influencer' are:
·	A fundamental categorization for business motivation, 
·	Relevant to all organizations
They should be brought back into the normative model. 
Suggested by Ed Barkmeyer (NIST). 
Resolution:
Add specializations 'internal influencer' and 'external influencer' of 'influencer' to figure 7.3 (page 18).
Replace "An enterprise can define whatever Influencer Categories it requires" at the beginning of 8.4.2 (page 39) with the following:
"Influencers impact an enterprise's employment of means or achievement of ends. There are two built-in categories:
·	External: an influencer that is outside the enterprise's organizational boundaries 
·	Internal: an influencer from within the enterprise. 
Beyond these, an enterprise can define whatever Influencer Categories it requires"
Add "(built into BMM)" after "Internal/External" in the second bullet point below figure G2 (page 98)
Move the definitions of internal influencer and external influence from Annex G (page 101) to Clause 9 (page 65) and replace them on page 101 with:
"The categories internal influencer and external influencer are built-in to BMM. 
Categories of external influencer include: competitor; customer; environment; partner; goal
Categories of internal influencer include: assumption; corporate value; habit; infrastructure; issue, management prerogative, resource"
Discussion:
This is simply a change of BMM scope, bringing back into scope two concepts that were excluded in the FTF.   

BMM could consider the tntroduction of outside-in/demand side views of business motivation including DesiredResult ValueProposition and CourseOfAction Capability to compliment the inside-out/ supply-side view. 

BMM could consider supporting Decisions as a placeholder for realizing business rules. Further information is available from Larry Goldberg of KPI and in his book "the Decision Model: A Business Framework for SOA" 
  

BMM could consider supporting a MotivationElement for assessment criteria - name/value pairs that could be used to quantify an assessment and enable comparisons of different assessments. This could be used to create "heat maps" of goals and strategies that have the greatest potential effect on the system. 

BMM could consider adding a service placeholder for indicating a means of realizing business motivation (ends or means). This could align with the BMM integration defined in SoaML. 

BMM could consider defining a standard UML profile for BMM including icons for representing MotivationElement. This would provide a convenient surface language for BMM that would be integrated with UML

Figure 7.4 in section 7.5 and figures 8.21 as well as 8.22 in section 8.5.3 say that an "Offering" is a specialization of a "Fixed Asset". However, figure 8.20 in section 8.5.2 says that an "Offering" is a direct specialization of a "Asset", which is a generalization of "Fixed Asset". This is redundant (triangular specialization).

The definition of an "Offerimg" on page 66 says that is is a "Fixed Asset" that is a spefification of a product or service that can be supplied by the enterprise. On the other hand, on page  we see that a "Fixed Asset" is an asset that is maintained over time and reused with examples such as Production equipment, IT equipment, buildings, vehicles, patents, brands, licenses, designs, and people’s skills. So, is an "Offering" not rather an offering of an asset rather than a (relevant) asset in itself?

Description

The very first sentence of the resolution to closed issue 10113 says: "The resolution is: · To align BMM definitions of 'directive' and 'business rule' with corresponding definitions in SBVR, using "practicable" and "directly enforceable" instead of "actionable". ..."

I find two instances of "practicable", both in the current definition of business rule:

business rule 
Definition directive that is practicable 
Note ‘Practicable’ means that a person who understands a directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and recognize directly whether or not the business was complying with that directive. 

It looks like to me, the voted resolution of Issue 10113 was simply not propagated to the remainder of the text. I find 10 instances of the word "actionable". All seem to be in explanatory text, not definitions. Here is one example in section 8.2.9. This text is in exact contradiction with the definition above.

Business Policies provide broader governance or guidance that is not directly actionable. Business Rules provide specific, actionable governance or guidance to implement Business Policies. 'Actionable’ means that a person who understands a Business Rule could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with the rule. 

Proposed Resolution: Change all 10 instances of "actionable" to "practicable".

I would like to use BMM in a MDA transformation using QVT. Therefore it would be helpful to have a MOF compliant metamodell with BMM. Is a mapping from BMM to MOF already available? Or is it planned for future versions of BMM?

It seems that the statement “directive governs use of asset” on page 61 appears a bit too early. It should probably be moved to top of page 62.

BMM should specify/standardize a UML profile to support BMM models in UML tools