Issue 11281: Remove SWOT from the normative model (bmm-ftf) Source: Inferware (Mr. John Hall, john.hall@modelsys.com johnhallms@hotmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 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. Resolution: 1) Add the new concept assessment category and fact type assessment category categorizes assessment to the Concept Catalog. 2) Add the corresponding class and association AssessmentCategory and AssessmentCategoryCategorizesAssessment to the UML/MOF model 3) Add a disclaimer that the discussions of Assessment in Clauses 7 and 8 use SWOT for examples to illustrate the role of Assessment in the BMM. Other approaches can be used. 4) Remove the SWOT entries from Clause 9. 5) In an annex, define Assessment Categories for SWOT and say that they are a default set if the enterprise does not already have a preferred set. Revised Text: In section 8.4.2.1 , replace the text between "Categories of Assessment" and Figure 8.15 with the following The BMM supports a general categorization structure for Assessment, as illustrated in Figure 8.15. Replace Figure 8.15 with the one below After Figure 8.15, add the following SWOT - Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat - is a frequently-used set of categories for Assessment. There are other approaches, but if an enterprise does not have another preferred set, SWOT is a sound default. The Assessment Category definitions for SWOT are provided in Annex G: Categorization Defaults. SWOT is used as the illustrative approach for discussion and examples in the rest of this specification. In Clause 9, delete the entire entries for strength, weakness, opportunity, strength In Clause 9, delete the following from the entry for assessment Note: Categories of assessment include: strength, weakness, opportunity, threat. In Clause 9, add the following under the entry for assessment assessment category General Concept: motivation element Definition category of assessment Dictionary Basis a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics [ODE, 'category' 1] Note: Annex G describes a set of categories of assessment, based on the widely-used SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) approach, which is suggested as a default assessment category categorizes assessment In Clause 9, under motivation element Add assessment category to the note beginning "Categories of motivation element include …" In Clause 9, add the following entry to the table mapping SBVR fact types to UML association names BMM fact type in SBVR Structured English UML Association Name assessment category categorizes assessment AssessmentCategoryCategorizesAssessment In Clause 9, add the following entry to the table mapping SBVR fact types to UML role names BMM fact type in SBVR Structured English 'From' Role 'To' Role assessment category categorizes assessment CategorizingAssessmentCategory CategorizedAssessment Rename the current Annex G as Annex H Create a new Annex G: "Defaults for Categorization" and include the following. Annex G Defaults for Categorization The Business Motivation Model does not prescribe fixed categories of Assessment or Influencer. This annex describes categories for both that are recommended by the Business Rules Group (developers of the original Business Motivation Model) as default sets for enterprises that do not already have preferred categories, G.1 SWOT Assessments An Assessment is a judgment about some Influencer that affects the organization's ability to employ its Means or achieve its Ends. A widely-used scheme for categorizing assessments is that the effect of the influencer indicates a Strength or Weakness of the enterprise, an Opportunity for, or a Threat to, the enterprise (SWOT). The relevant fragment of the BMM MOF Model is illustrated in Figure G.1 Figure G.1 - Assessment Category In a tool that supports the BMM, an enterprise that wanted to use SWOT would define four new instances of AssessmentCategory: "Strength", "Weakness", "Opportunity" and "Threat" The enterprise could also define other Assessment Categories. It is left to methodology and practice, and perhaps capabilities of BMM support tools, to manage multiple categorization of Assessments. To extend its business vocabulary (as expressed in the Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English) the enterprise could add the following entries. opportunity Definition assessment that an influencer can have a favorable impact on the employment of means or achievement of ends. Dictionary Basis a combination of circumstances, time, and place suitable or favorable for a particular activity or action [MWUD 'opportunity' (1a)] Dictionary Basis an advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances especially when affecting security, wealth, or freedom (as from constraint) : a time, place, or condition favoring advancement or progress [MWUD 'opportunity' (1b)] Dictionary Basis a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something [ODE 'opportunity'] strength Definition assessment that an influencer indicates an advantage or area of excellence within an enterprise that can impact its employment of means or achievement of ends Dictionary Basis a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing [ODE 'strength' (4)] threat Definition assessment that an influencer can have an unfavorable impact on the enterprise's employment of means or achievement of ends Dictionary Basis something that by its very nature or relation to another threatens the welfare of the latter [MWUD 'threat' (2)] Dictionary Basis the possibility of trouble, danger, or ruin [ODE 'threat' (2, bullet 1)] weakness Definition assessment that an influencer indicates an area of inadequacy within an enterprise that can impact its employment of means or achievement of ends Dictionary Basis disadvantage or fault [ODE 'weakness' (bullet 1)] Dictionary Basis lacking in power to perform properly a function or office [MWUD 'weak' (4a)] Dictionary Basis lacking skill or proficiency [MWUD 'weak' (4b)] Disposition: Resolved Actions taken: August 13, 2007: received issue January 15, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 11281 Remove SWOT from the normative model 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. Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:38:38 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Thread-Index: Acfd2K4irqv/huMoR1Gx4Zvf8tXfSQAnuv4w From: "Cummins, Fred A" To: , "John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com]" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2007 13:38:40.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[6CD2BAE0:01C7DE78] John, I would not like to see SWOT dropped from the model. I think it is widely recognized and gives tne model credibility. In addition, I think such a change goes beyond the scope of the FTF. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:22 PM To: issues@omg.org; bmm-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue This is issue # 11281 Remove SWOT from the normative model 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. From: "Andy Evans" To: "Cummins, Fred A" , , "John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com]" Subject: Re: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:09:06 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - zencphosting02.zen.co.uk X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xactium.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: 0 David, Out of interest, what do you see as taking its place? Cheers, Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bridgeland, David M. To: Cummins, Fred A ; bmm-ftf@omg.org ; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:53 PM Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Fred and John, SWOT is widely recognized, but it is not widely respected. There are many problems with SWOT. One problem is that it is often hard to tell whether an influencer is a strength or a weakness. Another problem is that the use of SWOT oversimplifies strategy, and denigrates the learning about strategy that often is very effective. As a practical matter, the use of SWOT is in decline. Tying BMM to SWOT hurts the credibility of BMM more than it helps, and barring a SWOT revival, will hurt BMM more in the future than today. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: bmm-ftf@omg.org; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue John, I would not like to see SWOT dropped from the model. I think it is widely recognized and gives tne model credibility. In addition, I think such a change goes beyond the scope of the FTF. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:22 PM To: issues@omg.org; bmm-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue This is issue # 11281 Remove SWOT from the normative model 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. Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:11:10 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Thread-Index: Acfd2K4irqv/huMoR1Gx4Zvf8tXfSQAnuv4wADvOAsA= From: "Bridgeland, David M." To: "Cummins, Fred A" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2007 18:12:14.0930 (UTC) FILETIME=[CEE83B20:01C7DF67] Fred and John, (Many apologies If you already received this. Some people did not, apparently due to the digital signature.) SWOT is widely recognized, but it is not widely respected. There are many problems with SWOT. One problem is that it is often hard to tell whether an influencer is a strength or a weakness. Another problem is that the use of SWOT oversimplifies strategy, and denigrates the learning about strategy that often is very effective. As a practical matter, the use of SWOT is in decline. Tying BMM to SWOT hurts the credibility of BMM more than it helps, and barring a SWOT revival, will hurt BMM more in the future than today. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: bmm-ftf@omg.org; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue John, I would not like to see SWOT dropped from the model. I think it is widely recognized and gives tne model credibility. In addition, I think such a change goes beyond the scope of the FTF. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:22 PM To: issues@omg.org; bmm-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue This is issue # 11281 Remove SWOT from the normative model 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. Subject: RE: [BMM] Issue 11281 SWOT - response to Fred Cummins Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:13:23 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [BMM] Issue 11281 SWOT - response to Fred Cummins Thread-Index: Acfe7s2Iksaz6NplTi+vDvJYYywb5QARljMQ From: "Cummins, Fred A" To: "John Hall" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Aug 2007 12:13:24.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE0BD420:01C7DF35] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l7FCAaTW012829 John, I think we should look for an innovative way to address both interests. Levels of compliance may offer some possibility. Defining SWOT as SWOT as defalut categorizations might be another. I think there is a danger of getting too technically robust in the modeling specification so we leave behind the target customers. Fred -----Original Message----- From: John Hall [mailto:johnhallms@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:45 PM To: Cummins, Fred A Cc: bmm-ftf@omg.org Subject: [BMM] Issue 11281 SWOT - response to Fred Cummins Fred, Sorry for "breaking the chain" in the mail thread index, but I can't see how to reply directly if I don't get the message via email. I am still locked out of my normal email account. As I said in the issue submission, 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." That means that SWOT is not normative. It seems to me to be entirely within the scope of the FTF to move non-normative parts to annexes. Even if we retained SWOT in the normative model, we would need to add the general categorization capability proposed in the issue submission (or something equivalent). Otherwise BMM users and tool vendors would not be able to define alternatives to SWOT. Is this what you are proposing? Regards, John Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:14:37 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Thread-Index: AcffRmS7YlwBjBh6TleNWkxSD8obSwBAuyag From: "Bridgeland, David M." To: "Andy Evans" , "Cummins, Fred A" , , "John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com]" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2007 21:16:06.0013 (UTC) FILETIME=[A85BAAD0:01C7E04A] Andy, Good question. There are certainly many non-SWOT schools of practice in strategy. (For a good overview, see Henry Mintzberg's "Strategy Safari".) As a practical matter, the rest of the BMM is much more important than SWOT: goals, objectives, strategies, tactics, influencers (i.e. trends), and policies. Assessments (of influencers) are important too --- it is just becoming less popular to classify those assessments into SWOT categories. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Evans [mailto:andy.evans@xactium.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:09 AM To: Cummins, Fred A; bmm-ftf@omg.org; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Subject: Re: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue David, Out of interest, what do you see as taking its place? Cheers, Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: Bridgeland, David M. To: Cummins, Fred A ; bmm-ftf@omg.org ; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:53 PM Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue Fred and John, SWOT is widely recognized, but it is not widely respected. There are many problems with SWOT. One problem is that it is often hard to tell whether an influencer is a strength or a weakness. Another problem is that the use of SWOT oversimplifies strategy, and denigrates the learning about strategy that often is very effective. As a practical matter, the use of SWOT is in decline. Tying BMM to SWOT hurts the credibility of BMM more than it helps, and barring a SWOT revival, will hurt BMM more in the future than today. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:39 AM To: bmm-ftf@omg.org; John Hall [john.hall@modelsys.com] Subject: RE: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue John, I would not like to see SWOT dropped from the model. I think it is widely recognized and gives tne model credibility. In addition, I think such a change goes beyond the scope of the FTF. Fred -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:22 PM To: issues@omg.org; bmm-ftf@omg.org Subject: issue 11281 -- BMM FTF issue This is issue # 11281 Remove SWOT from the normative model 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. X-Originating-IP: [86.2.188.23] From: John Hall To: BMM FTF Subject: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:27:16 +0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2007 09:27:16.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[F64145C0:01C7E630] Hello all, After some off-line discussion, it's been proposed that SWOT be left in BMM, but its implementation be defined as a separate compliance point. Any opinions? Regards, John DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=6W2R923vg3He7/JtKxlrb0I7QgMbL8eAoN69PP+ykESPTIve6Wqk78spVv6H0ghHovCFwk7AB+ku5HbPmNcLWMN3TlqFp62AMB+6MQLDDJlQhVllKjJxaNI/sm02i86MS0hP8y+7w2Kao8AxWRfE3Dd4QSQwQmZ9RRTlLbMtBzc=; X-YMail-OSG: lMSfSqEVM1k6Ln6ULjWhUmbS8dblL9Jzrq4ENk_yj51rHQm1.WlNTuehbv6eFC1VqQMrIdJxaRs10DNclNO51.mhsr6a0EsmWidi Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:39:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Kolber Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option To: John Hall , BMM FTF Our submitted document said that SWOT, thogh a good choice for assessment technique, was a non-normative part of the model. THis would be a significant change in our position. Could you please elucidate the arguments for such a change. I'm not saying that it's a problem, but it is a change and we need to understand the relevant arguments. Allan John Hall wrote: Hello all, After some off-line discussion, it's been proposed that SWOT be left in BMM, but its implementation be defined as a separate compliance point. Any opinions? Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. Subject: RE: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:36:25 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option Thread-Index: AcfpFPv1xOF5K3QNRcu1f5ukXpz05AAODFZg From: "Paul Vincent" To: "Allan Kolber" , "John Hall" , "BMM FTF" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2007 08:37:09.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F8123B0:01C7E94E] Hi Allan: the phrase .non-normative part of the model. is a little obscure: AFAIK .non-normative. means not part of the standard; typically used for illustrative purposes. So it its non-normative it can.t by definition be part of the .standard. model, surely? My 2 cents: My current BMM draft (06-07-01) explicitly states <> On pp42. The RFC (05-09-02) states <> On pp14. It seems to me making SWOT non-normative (but perhaps a recommendation) is not incompatible with that the RFC statement? Cheers Paul Vincent TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Allan Kolber [mailto:allanbkolber@yahoo.com] Sent: 28 August 2007 02:40 To: John Hall; BMM FTF Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option Our submitted document said that SWOT, thogh a good choice for assessment technique, was a non-normative part of the model. THis would be a significant change in our position. Could you please elucidate the arguments for such a change. I'm not saying that it's a problem, but it is a change and we need to understand the relevant arguments. Allan John Hall wrote: Hello all, After some off-line discussion, it's been proposed that SWOT be left in BMM, but its implementation be defined as a separate compliance point. Any opinions? Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=XOD3rbH+YwOBVFffRl0nScb2uBeZNevvt7QYf3Cw3g8KnjUHEdYhmb9O0G6lfx5GeK8K/PVp+KVjeQa5cZtcuagqpeShM7GCUO4HZ/ppyZQQNXHYJN+knEin9dAf4enm9vClaCFA0VfI2jZTbtmaCf+O4OzroS3xpD3UoUXRS58=; X-YMail-OSG: wDsaxOkVM1ni0pB4egQaflPC5_2.lxCvdR.JsJ_RpNZHcjUzIbNEuXfZzqyx4jjL13wMwx3wLxhFtZ4u35vjLX1ahSyRi8n4tlL0zHR5xZEMKnSWPUehGmnV9dzYxg-- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:51:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Allan Kolber Subject: RE: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option To: Paul Vincent , John Hall , BMM FTF That is exactly what I meant. Paul Vincent wrote: Hi Allan: the phrase .non-normative part of the model. is a little obscure: AFAIK .non-normative. means not part of the standard; typically used for illustrative purposes. So it its non-normative it can.t by definition be part of the .standard. model, surely? My 2 cents: My current BMM draft (06-07-01) explicitly states <> On pp42. The RFC (05-09-02) states <> On pp14. It seems to me making SWOT non-normative (but perhaps a recommendation) is not incompatible with that the RFC statement? Cheers Paul Vincent TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Allan Kolber [mailto:allanbkolber@yahoo.com] Sent: 28 August 2007 02:40 To: John Hall; BMM FTF Subject: Re: [BMM] Issue 11281 Remove SWOT - another option Our submitted document said that SWOT, thogh a good choice for assessment technique, was a non-normative part of the model. THis would be a significant change in our position. Could you please elucidate the arguments for such a change. I'm not saying that it's a problem, but it is a change and we need to understand the relevant arguments. Allan John Hall wrote: Hello all, After some off-line discussion, it's been proposed that SWOT be left in BMM, but its implementation be defined as a separate compliance point. Any opinions? Regards, John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. Add Assessment Category and the corresponding fact type to section 9, with SWOT quoted as an example.