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”