Issue 11821: BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM (bpdm-ftf) Source: TIBCO (Mr. Paul Vincent, pvincent(at)tibco.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 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 decision modeling was explicitly, or could explicitly, be “handled” within BPDM (and consequently, whether BPDM should model decisions more explicitly). {This was considered a possible issue for the BPDM(BPMN)2 RFP, but I am raising it with the FTF on the basis that it is up to the FTF to determine whether any “issue” is for a future version or not.} Comments: From my understanding of BPDM, a decision activity can simply be a BPDM activity, and modelled via Behavioral Step / Change Condition Step, which is probably too low level to be useful for talking about decisions in processes, but may be necessary for mapping decisions into processes. 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 is an instance of a Decision Model. And that invoking decision tables (and services) in BPM activities is pretty common. So hopefully the concept is not too alien to the BPM community. Disclaimer: of course issue may be revised as the terminology is refined. Personally, I think the answer is “yes” in that decision processes in BPDM (1/2) can accommodate decision services and processes (eg as custom external activities prior to a BPMN gateway), but BPDM (1/2) does not include business-level decision modeling, and that decisions and process are probably orthogonal, and that BPDM should simply reference any future decision model as a special activity as required. Related to this is some of the BPDM positioning I have seen which implies a (SBVR-type) business rule is also embedded in processes. It is far more likely that SBVR type business rules dictate and direct the development of processes, and impact their behaviour, rather than are directly included in processes. At best there is traceability from process definition to SBVR business rule and BMM constructs. Much more likely is the idea that processes embed decisions and “operational business rules” (rules with behaviour, IMHO) (which typically are represented as production rules in automated processes). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 19, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:27:47 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM Thread-Index: Acg8LQQ3qivcQzslQrSzMv471xlSPg== From: "Paul Vincent" To: Cc: , "James Taylor" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2007 18:27:51.0756 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD5908C0:01C8426C] 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 decision modeling was explicitly, or could explicitly, be .handled. within BPDM (and consequently, whether BPDM should model decisions more explicitly). {This was considered a possible issue for the BPDM(BPMN)2 RFP, but I am raising it with the FTF on the basis that it is up to the FTF to determine whether any .issue. is for a future version or not.} Comments: From my understanding of BPDM, a decision activity can simply be a BPDM activity, and modelled via Behavioral Step / Change Condition Step, which is probably too low level to be useful for talking about decisions in processes, but may be necessary for mapping decisions into processes. 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 is an instance of a Decision Model. And that invoking decision tables (and services) in BPM activities is pretty common. So hopefully the concept is not too alien to the BPM community. Disclaimer: of course issue may be revised as the terminology is refined. Personally, I think the answer is .yes. in that decision processes in BPDM (1/2) can accommodate decision services and processes (eg as custom external activities prior to a BPMN gateway), but BPDM (1/2) does not include business-level decision modeling, and that decisions and process are probably orthogonal, and that BPDM should simply reference any future decision model as a special activity as required. Related to this is some of the BPDM positioning I have seen which implies a (SBVR-type) business rule is also embedded in processes. It is far more likely that SBVR type business rules dictate and direct the development of processes, and impact their behaviour, rather than are directly included in processes. At best there is traceability from process definition to SBVR business rule and BMM constructs. Much more likely is the idea that processes embed decisions and .operational business rules. (rules with behaviour, IMHO) (which typically are represented as production rules in automated processes). PS: please note that I am not on the FTF email list, so please feel free to cc me on any discussions (if you want my input or for me to know your responses)! Thanks. Cheers Paul Vincent TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Paul Vincent'" , Cc: , "'James Taylor'" Subject: RE: BPDM RTF Issue: Explicit modeling of decisions vs BPDM Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:19:12 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: Acg8LQQ3qivcQzslQrSzMv471xlSPgGRfaOQ X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id lBJJImaX029119 Hi Paul, > 4. Related to this is some of the BPDM positioning I have > seen which implies a (SBVR-type) business rule is also > embedded in processes. It is far more likely that SBVR type > business rules dictate and direct the development of > processes, and impact their behaviour, rather than are > directly included in processes. At best there is > traceability from process definition to SBVR business rule > and BMM constructa. ua with behaviour, IMHO) (which typically are > represented as production rules in automated processes). Not sure if this is referring to my presentation in Burlingame, but that was intended to show how BPDM and operative rules (in the SBVR/Ross sense) can be unified to enable checking whether processes are obeying rules. These kind of rules are not embedded in process models. For example, you gave the example of a quality of service rule (returning customer calls within 24 hours), which might apply to many processes in the business and can be stated seperately from the process models. This was the kind of rule I was thinking of. Conrad business rules