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”

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