Issue 10387: definition of 'influencer' needs to be changed (bmm-ftf) Source: MEGA International (Mr. Antoine Lonjon, antoine.lonjon@mega.com alonjon@mega.com mblin@mega.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 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) Resolution: Create an association organization unit acts as influencing organization, to support organization units acting as the source of influencers. One use of this association is: when a directive from one part of an enterprise has to be treated as a regulation in other parts of the enterprise, the source department can be referenced. This builds on the resolution of Issue 10093, but can be voted on separately - i.e. 10093 might be accepted and this one rejected. But the solution proposed here cannot be used if the proposal for 10093 is rejected Revised Text: Actions taken: August 2, 2006: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: RE: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:09:16 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Thread-Index: Aca1jvoL10oLBVa7Rt2rZmqGA85FCwABCy9g From: "LONJON Antoine" To: Cc: "BMM FTF" John, 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) Antoine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hall [mailto:john.hall@modelsys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 7:22 PM To: LONJON Antoine Cc: BMM FTF Subject: Re: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Antoine, How about this perspective? The Sales department in a company gets a directive from, say, the Human Resources Policy Group about employee conditions. It doesn't have any authority to challenge or ignore the directive, so the directive is effectively a regulation. The Human Resources Policy Group is outside the boundary of the Sales Department. So if we are developing the BMM for the Sales Department, the Human Resources Policy Group is acting as a regulator -an External Influencer. I see a different issue here (it's on my list). The model show the directive acting as a regulator. But the directive acts as a regulation - it's the Human Resources Policy Group that acts as the regulator. Regards, John LONJON Antoine wrote: Clarification of issue E: In fact, some text was missing in the previous email. The issue is the following: It seems that a regulation can't be at the same time: a. An external influencer b. A potential role played by a directive (e.g., a Business Policy or Business Rule made by senior management may be obeyed as Regulation lower down in the organization). The reason is that an external influencer is defined as ""an Influencer outside an enterprise's organizational boundaries" This is in contradiction with the fact that directives (which include internal directives made by senior management) can play the role of "regulation" This means that there may be a "regulation" Role (in sbvr terms) that applied both to the fact-type "directive as regulation" and to a concept categorization of "external influencer" In such a case, the definition of "regulation" must be independent from the one of "external influencer". Antoine **********************************IMPORTANT*********************************** The content of this email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please return it to our postmaster immediately and delete it from your system. WARNING: Although MEGA has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, MEGA cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. ****************************************************************************** User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:20:24 -0700 Subject: Re: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation From: John and Keri To: John Hall CC: BMM FTF Thread-Topic: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Thread-Index: Aca32YHLwFe3uCPMEduiRQARJM+Cgg== On Tue, 01 Aug 2006, John Hall wrote: > I see a different issue here (it's on my list). The model show the directive > acting as a regulator. But the directive acts as a regulation - it's the Human > Resources Policy Group that acts as the regulator. John, I don't see where this (the 'regulator' rather than 'regulation') appears on "the model." I am looking at the document named BMM-almost-FAS.pdf. Is that the document you are referring to? If so, what page is this on? (And, if not, what should I be looking at?) IAC, yes, I agree -- the Human Resources Policy Group isn't the 'influencer'. It's the regulation, not the regulator, that is the 'influencer'. To address Antoine's concerns re: >> The reason is that an external influencer is defined as ""an Influencer >> outside an enterprise's organizational boundaries" it looks like the definition of 'influencer' needs to be changed to be ..."outside the organization unit's boundaries". thanks, KeriSubject: RE: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:28:19 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Thread-Index: Aca9fO40J+SWACeSRbWH0xW60TNFFwND6V8Q From: "LONJON Antoine" To: "Juergen Boldt" Hi Juergen, I am just back from vacation. I have to check with John, but I think he has added a corresponding issue about regulation. Antoine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 9:33 PM To: LONJON Antoine Subject: RE: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Hi Antoine, was there an issue number assigned to this one?...can't find anything in the database -Juergen At 04:09 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote: John, 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) Antoine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hall [ mailto:john.hall@modelsys.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 7:22 PM To: LONJON Antoine Cc: BMM FTF Subject: Re: [BMM] Draft Adopted Specification - Issue on regulation Antoine, How about this perspective? The Sales department in a company gets a directive from, say, the Human Resources Policy Group about employee conditions. It doesn't have any authority to challenge or ignore the directive, so the directive is effectively a regulation. The Human Resources Policy Group is outside the boundary of the Sales Department. So if we are developing the BMM for the Sales Department, the Human Resources Policy Group is acting as a regulator -an External Influencer. I see a different issue here (it's on my list). The model show the directive acting as a regulator. But the directive acts as a regulation - it's the Human Resources Policy Group that acts as the regulator. Regards, John LONJON Antoine wrote: Clarification of issue E: In fact, some text was missing in the previous email. The issue is the following: It seems that a regulation can't be at the same time: a. An external influencer b. A potential role played by a directive (e.g., a Business Policy or Business Rule made by senior management may be obeyed as Regulation lower down in the organization). The reason is that an external influencer is defined as ""an Influencer outside an enterprise's organizational boundaries" This is in contradiction with the fact that directives (which include internal directives made by senior management) can play the role of "regulation" This means that there may be a "regulation" Role (in sbvr terms) that applied both to the fact-type "directive as regulation" and to a concept categorization of "external influencer" In such a case, the definition of "regulation" must be independent from the one of "external influencer". Antoine **********************************IMPORTANT*********************************** The content of this email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please return it to our postmaster immediately and delete it from your system. WARNING: Although MEGA has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, MEGA cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. ****************************************************************************** Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org **********************************IMPORTANT*********************************** The content of this email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please return it to our postmaster immediately and delete it from your system. WARNING: Although MEGA has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, MEGA cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments. ******************************************************************************