BMMF2 — BMM: Relationship Ambiguities

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

Summary:
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.
'Goal' and 'Objective' are specializations of 'Desired Result'. A goal is longer term and not quantified, whereas an objective is time-targeted, measurable and attainable. BMM does support a "parent-child" relationship, where a sequence of goals defines the measurable steps along the way towards a goal. But this is not mandatory. An enterprise could define objectives without linking them to a long-term goal.
Similarly, 'Strategy' and 'Tactic' are specializations of 'Course of Action'. Tactics can support a strategy, but can also stand in their own right if the enterprise wants to define them that way.
See the UML class model in the adopted specification.
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.
The missing OLE objects were not re-sent when requested, but I think the explanation above is an adequate response.
2.) The relationship between 'Mission' and 'Course of Action' is also unclear.
· Does a course of action require the existence of a mission? No - some enterprises do not explicitly formulate their missions.
· Does a mission require the existence of a course of action? Eventually (one would expect). But an enterprise can define its mission some time before deciding on the courses of action to realize it.
· Can there be many courses of action for a mission or just one? There can be more than one strategy for a mission, and each strategy is a course of action.
· Can there be many missions for a course of action or just one? Different organization units can establish different means, including missions. A strategy (one kind of course of action) can support the missions of several organization units
· 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?
There are two relationships between 'Directive' and 'Course of Action' ('source of / formulated based on' and 'governs / governed by'), and 'Business Policy' is a specialization of 'Directive'.
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.
We did not find "regulation" as a detail of "business rule" in the normative text. But the issue is valid and will be addressed in resolving Issue 10387.
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.
This is part of the subject of Issue 10093, and will be addressed in resolving that Issue.
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.
Organization Unit, Business Process and Business Rule are described as placeholders for reference to in-progress OMG specifications - respectively Organization Structure Metamodel, Business Process Definition Metamodel and Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules. The Architecture Board recommended adoption of the BMM with this understanding.
Other
Appendix B is missing "Policy"
Appendix B (now chapter 9 of the adopted specification) includes "Business Policy". Policy as a more general concept is outside the scope of the BMM.
Resolution:
Point 4) Address in Issue 10387
Point 5) Address in Issue 10093
Other points: no action
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: Resolved
We did not find "regulation" as a detail of "business rule" in the normative text. But the issue is valid and will be addressed in resolving Issue 10387.
Add the following in "Discussion" under point 5)
This is the part of the subject of Issue 10093, and will be addressed in resolving that Issue.