Chapter 9.2 is a concept dictionary.
Some words are 'red' because they are keywords in structured English.
If you look into SBVR 1.4 documentation you can see that when there is 'red' word it has non-serif font.

If you look at definition 'business policy' in BMM 1.3 you can see that first word 'that' is written using serif font, but second 'and that' is written using non-serif font.
Others concept has 'red' words written using only serif font.

What version is correct? Serif or non-serif?

The 9th dot has sentence:
'Broader Influencer categorizes Narrower Influencer Category'
I think there is lack of word 'Category' and the sentence should be 'Broader Influencer Category categorizes Narrower Influencer Category'.

Second definition on page 64 is:
'broader desired result category categorizes more specific desired result'
I think there is omission of word 'category' and I think the sentence should be:
'broader desired result category categorizes more specific desired result category'

6th dot is a sentence:
A problem for on-airport car rental companies is that all the competitors offer similar types of car, and are physically
lined up in a row. (This Environment is an External Influencer for EU-Rent.) There is very little room for maneuver on
product, service, or price. (This is a Weakness Assessment.)

I think that sentence in parenthesis: ('This Environment is an External Influencer for EU-Rent.') should be formated as italic.

On page 70 there s definition of 'tactic'.
The word 'tactic' has incorrect font type.
If you look closer you can see that the word is smaller and this is non-serif font.

In definition 'organization unit' in part 'Example' line #1 there is a mistake in phrase: '...butiness units,...'
There is 'butiness' - should be 'business' (t->s)

5th paragraf has sentence:
'The dividing line between ‘minor Strategy’ and ‘major Tactic’ is blurred.'

But one sentence before there is:
'...from major Strategies... to minor Tactics...'

I think there is word swap and the sentence should be:
'The dividing line between ‘major Strategy’ and ‘minor Tactic’ is blurred.'

On page there is definition of 'fixed asset'.
The 1st line of definition is:
'asset that is maintained over time and reused'
I think there is omission of word 'Definition:' and the whole phrase should be:
'Definition: asset that is maintained over time and reused'

On Figure 7.3 between CourseOfAction and DesiredResult there is association 'CourseofActionChannelsEffortsTowardsDesiredResult'.
If you look closer you can see that arrow after name is 'top-down'.
If you compare Figure 8.7 on page 29 the arrow is directed from CourseOfAction' to 'DesiredResult'.
I think that arrow on Figure 7.3 has incorrect direction.

Paragraf #5 in section 7.3.3 has 2nd sentence:
'Generally, Strategies are selected to move the enterprise towards its goals, and Tactics to ensure that it meets its Objectives.'
I think that word 'goals' should have 1st letter big: 'Goals'

Below definition 'desired result category categorizes desired result' there is unnecessary(I think) line of text 'broader desired result category'.

I was looking for critical success factors and KPI as proposed to be used by the balanced scorecard approach on page 12 in the meta model. I could not find, however on page 79 with its introduction "Implicit in many areas of the Business Motivation Model is the subject of metrics.". It would be niced to have this somehow vizualized in the meta model. It is unclear to me, what "many" means in this context. If I mentally map the BSC model to what is described in your document I would assume, that their strategy definition overlaps to your >90% and that CSF and KPI from the balanced scorecard only relate to you describe as "courses of action".

Also it would be nice to see interfaces to other (OMG) models in the document. E.g. TOGAF comes along with "capability" as one of their primary concepts. I find myself to have a hard time to find out, how what you defined as "course of action" relates to what TOGAF calls "capability" and how the maturity of capabilities can be assessed and improved by strongly supporting a courses of action.

I send issue #41581 "INBOX-437".
I would like to add, thet the problem described in issue #41576 should be expanded on section 9.6 and table on pages 73-75.
Thank you!

I think there is a problem with inconsistent use of 'narrower' and 'more specific' in categories' categorization.

On page 72 in table you have these sentences:
broader assessment category categorizes more specific assessment category ---- BroaderAssessmentCategoryCategorizesNarrowerAssessmentCategory
broader desired result category includes more specific desired result category ---- BroaderDesiredResultCategoryIncludesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory <-->[incorrect word 'includes' I send in another Bug/Issue]
broader influencer category categorizes more specific influencer category ---- BroaderInfluencerCategoryCategorizesNarrowerInfluencerCategory
broader organization category categorizes more specific organization category ---- BroaderOrganizationCategoryCategorizesNarrowerOrganizationCategory

On page 58 you have these sentences:
Broader Desired Result Category categorizes Narrower Desired Result Category
Broader Assessment Category categorizes Narrower Assessment Category
Broader Organization Category categorizes Narrower Organization Category
Broader Influencer [Category] categorizes Narrower Influencer Category <-->[lacking of word 'Category' I send in another Bug/Issue]

In section 9.2 'Concepts' you have these main concepts:
broader assessment category categorizes narrower assessment category
broader desired result category categorizes more specific desired result [category] <-->[lacking of word 'category' I send in another Bug/Issue]
broader influencer category categorizes narrower influencer category
broader organization category categorizes narrower organization category

And of course Figure 7.3 on page 18.

So as you can see there is inconsistent use of word 'narrower' and 'most specific'. There is a mix of combinations.
I know that this is 'almost the same' but I think the whole documentation should have one choosed version.

It should reference MOF/UML.
The reference to SBVR should be more specific - at least to the OMG spec page http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/, if not a document number - depending on whether it's dependent on a specific version of SBVR (I suspect it is).
References to commercial dictionaries are not appropriate since I presume any text is copied into this spec, and people do not need to access the dictionary to use/understand the BMM spec.

Section 5 has BPDM which is no longer relevant.
6.1 sentence 1 should not reference the BRG published version.
6.1 para 2 references the wrong Annexes of SBVR for Structured English. BTW since that's not normative I don't know if other specifications should be relying on it.
6.2 should remove the list of FTF voting members and reference to Artisan Studio (no longer used AFAIK).
Annex E is of questionable value. If retained it should include BMM 1.3.
Figure F.3 does not represent latest SBVR.
Annex F should remove mention of Organization Structure Model (F.4) which never became an OMG standard. Likewise footnote 2 in Annex D should be removed.
Annex 8 referecnes are outdated, and many not relevant (e.g. BPDM).

Annex F should be updated to describe alignment with SMM (for metrics) and VDML.

As per the title

In definition 'offering uses fixed asset' there is incorrect formating of word 'fixed'.
The word 'fixed' is blue and italic but I think it should be green and underscored.

There is definition of 'customer'.
The 3rd sentence is:
'Dictionary Basis an official or authoritative instruction [ODE 'directive']'
This sentence is unnecessary because it is example from 'directive'.

On Figure 7.3 if you look at class 'InfluencerCategory' you can see association from that class to itself.
The name is 'BroaderInfluencerCategorizesNarrowerInfluencerCategory'.
In table in section 9.5 on page 72 line #3 there is UML name 'BroaderInfluencerCategoryCategorizesNarrowerInfluencerCategory'.
So I think on Figure 7.3 is missing word '...Category...' in association name.

On Figure 7.3 if you look at class 'DesiredResultCategory' you can see association from that class to itself.
The name is 'BroaderDesiredCategoryCategorizesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory'.
In table in section 9.5 on page 72 line #2 there is UML name 'BroaderDesiredResultCategoryIncludesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory'.
First of all: I think on Figure 7.3 is missing word '...Result...' in association name.
Second of all: I send this with another Bug/Issue but there is another mistake in table on page 72: 'BroaderDesiredResultCategoryIncludesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory' has word '...Include...' instead of '...Categorizes...' but this Bug/Issue is about lacking of word 'Result'

In table in section 9.5 on page 72 line #2
there is SBVR name 'broader desired result category includes more specific desired result category'
there is UML name 'BroaderDesiredResultCategoryIncludesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory'.
I think there is mistake: both sentences has word '...includes...' instead of '...categorizes...', because if you compare this to the whole document every time when you talk about categories' categorization you use word 'categorizes' not 'includes'.

In table in section 9.5 there are 54 rows.
In table in section 9.6 there are only 52 rows.

There is lack of:
broader desired result category includes more specific desired result category — BroaderDesiredResultCategoryIncludesMoreSpecficDesiredResultCategory
desired result category categorizes desired result ---- DesiredResultCategoryCategorizesDesiredResult

Is this intentionally or is this omission?

On Figure 8.13 there is class 'Regulation' inherited directly from class 'Influencer'.
But on page 18 on Figure 7.3 between them there is class 'ExternalInfluencer'.

Is this intentionally or is this omission?

I think an additional association, something like "course of action induces desired result" is needed. If some strategy is chosen to achieve some high-level goals, the choice of this strategy leads to some new intermediate goals and objectives and choosing a different strategy would have led to different goals and objectives. The is currently not supported by the BMM.

Although this would be a useful extension of BMM, it would introduce a substantial new concept. This is beyond the authority of an RTF.
Resolution:
Out of scope for BMM revision 1.3.
To be revisited in a later version of BMM
Revised Text:
None
Disposition: Closed, out of scope

The XMI contains 4 upperbound values of 0 which prevents it from being imported.

They are:
<upperValue xmi:id="BMM-Goal-amplifiedVision-upperValue" xmi:uuid="725A27D7-D5EA-428B-9DFC-1A70BBB54FA6" xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural">
<value>1</value>

<upperValue xmi:id="BMM-InfluencingOrganization-influencingOrganizationUnit-upperValue" xmi:uuid="725A27D7-D5EA-457B-9909-1A7081483415" xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural">
<value>1</value>

<upperValue xmi:id="BMM-Mission-operativeVision-upperValue" xmi:uuid="725A27D7-D5EA-4277-9923-1A70F31DA50C" xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural">
<value>1</value>

<upperValue xmi:id="BMM-Regulation-regulatingDirective-upperValue" xmi:uuid="725A27D7-D5EA-401A-9ACA-1A70C8B319D5" xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural">
<value>1</value>

Correct the BMM XMI file so that the value of each of the following is 1:
• BMM-Goal-amplifiedVision-upperValue
• BMM-InfluencingOrganization-influencingOrganizationUnit-upperValue
• BMM-Mission-operativeVision-upperValue
• BMM-Regulation-regulatingDirective-upperValue

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?

There is a MOF-compliant metamodel in the specification.
Disposition: Closed, no change

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?

Resolution:
Add a clarifying note under the definition of offering.

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).

Change Figure 8.20 to insert “Fixed Asset” between “Offering” and “Asset” so that:
• “Offering” is shown as a specialization of “Fixed Asset”
• “Fixed Asset” is shown as a specialization of “Asset”
• “Offering” is not shown as a direct specialization of “Asset”

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.

Out of scope for an RTF

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.

Bring internal influencer and external influencer back into the normative model.

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:

Add the following associations to the BMM:
Broader Organization Category categorizes Narrower Organization Category
Broader Influencer Category categorizes Narrower Influencer Category
Broader Assessment Category categorizes Narrower Assessment Category

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

Create a holding position for business process and organization unit placeholders:
· Change the reference for business process to BPMN, instead of BPDM.
· Remove Figure F-2
· Update the comments about the current status of BPDM and OSM in Annex F
Create a new issue for business process and organization unit placeholders, to be resolved in a future RTF or RFP, after BPDM, BPMN and OSM are stabilized.

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 class Goal

No Data Available

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

Restore the original designation of which reading is "primary" so that both the Concepts Catalog entry and the UML derivatives are correct and consistent with the prose and the business intent of this fact type.

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 resolution is:
· To align BMM definitions of 'directive' and 'business rule' with corresponding definitions in SBVR, using "practicable" and "directly enforceable" instead of "actionable".
· Not to adopt additional structure from SBVR into BMM, but to add some explanatory notes.
The rationale is that 'business rule' in BMM is a placeholder (like 'business process' and 'organization unit'). In an enterprise's BMM an instance of 'business rule' would be a reference to a business rule that is defined in a model of the operational business.
In an integrated set of OMG business models, the operational model for business rules would be SBVR-based. Business rules would be connected to the fact types they are based on, the representations owned by speech communities, etc.
But businesses can use BMM without having to use SBVR. Operational models do not have to be SBVR-based. This "loose coupling" is one of BMM's strengths, and it can be adequately supported by a 'business rule' placeholder. It does not need additional concepts (see discussion below), such as 'element of governance', 'operative business rule' and 'structural business rule' to be adopted into BMM from SBVR.

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..."

No Data Available

The BMM v1.1 specification:
• Refers to older versions of the BPMN and SBVR specifications. BMM v1.2 should refer to the current versions of the specifications
• Refers to the initial submission for the Organization Structure Model (OSM) for the definition of ‘organization unit’. The BMI has voted to discontinue the OSM RFP.
The Value Delivery Modeling Language (VDML) specification, scheduled for final submission at the September 2013 OMG technical meeting, provides an acceptable definition of ‘organization unit’

Update references to BPMN and SBVR to refer to BPMN 2.0 and SBVR 1.1.
SBVR V1.2 has recently been accepted by the AB. If it is formally published in time for BMM 1.2 publication, the reference can be updated as an editorial correction.
For BMM’s definition of ‘organization unit’, replace the definition from the OSM initial submission (used in BMM v1.1) with a general definition specific to BMM.
Add a note that the ‘performer’ concept in BPMN defines organization unit’s role of being responsible for business processes

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

Disposition: Closed, out of scope

There is often discussion at OMG meetings about adding new concepts to the BMM. Frequent requests include: key performance indicators, quality criteria, service levels and cost/benefit.
Adding these new concepts is beyond the scope of an RTF, but much of what is wanted could be accommodated by supporting stakeholder-defined categorization of Desired Result in addition to the built-in categories Goal and Objective. The BMM already does this for other specializations of Motivation Element - Influencer, Influencing Organization and Assessment.
Stakeholders could then create categories of Desired Result, such as ‘quality’, ‘service level’ and ‘cost/benefit’, and categorize some of them as KPIs.

Add Desired Result Category and Desired Result Category categorizes Desired Result to the BMM.
Include ‘category of category’ as Broader Desired Result Category categorizes More Specific Desired Result Category.
This would follow the pattern that was used in BMM RTF 1.1 for categorization of three other specializations of Motivation Element: Influencer Category, Organization Category and Assessment Category.

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.

The relevant page numbers in the current document are 63 and 64

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".

Change all 10 instances of "actionable" to "practicable".

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.

Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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"

Issue 11812 merged with this one
Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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

Disposition: See issue 17242 for disposition

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.

Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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).

[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.

Disposition: See issue 14188 for disposition

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

No Data Available

Table 8.2 has a duplicate line:

EU-Rent To provide industry-leading customer service

Change Figure 8.20 to insert “Fixed Asset” between “Offering” and “Asset” so that:
• “Offering” is shown as a specialization of “Fixed Asset”
• “Fixed Asset” is shown as a specialization of “Asset”
• “Offering” is not shown as a direct specialization of “Asset”