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 resolution for Issue 10090 proposed:
· a convention for association names in the MOF model
· dealing with role names as a separate issue
This is that issue.
Resolution:
Role names were proposed with resolution 10090 for associations whose instances are between instances of the same class, e.g. Enabling Course of Action enables Enabled Course of Action, Broader Business Policy is composed of More Specific Business Policy.
For the rest, suggestions are welcomed.

In resolution 10090, role names were proposed for associations whose instances are between instances of the same class, e.g. enabling course of action enables enabled course of action, broader business policy includes more specific business policy.
For other associations, construct role names based on the class name and the verb phrase
Revised Text:
Add a new section at the end of Clause 9
9.5 Mapping of SBVR Structured English fact types to UML role names
In the BMM Concepts Catalog, role names are defined for fact types in which both roles are played by the same noun concept, e.g. broader business policy includes more specific business policy. They are used in the corresponding association names is the BMM UML/MOF model, and represented in CamelCase, except that the first letter is in lower case, e.g. broader business policy maps to broaderBusinessPolicy.
For other fact types, UML role names have been constructed using the verb and the noun concept term, e.g. tactic implements strategy maps to the UML role names implementingTactic and implementedStrategy.
The following table provides the complete mapping.
Change notice: All role names have been changed so that they begin with lower case letters. This is not marked with a change bar, so that changes to individual entries are easily identifiable.

BMM fact type in SBVR Structured English 'From' Role 'To' Role
assessment affects achievement of end judgingAssessment affectedEnd
assessment affects employment of means judgingAssessment affectedMeans
assessment identifies potential impact identifyingAssessment identifiedPotentialImpact
assessment is judgment of influencer judgingAssessment judgedInfluencer
assessment provides impetus for directive motivatingAssessment motivatedDirective
broader business policy includes more specific business policy broaderBusinessPolicy moreSpecificBusinessPolicy
broader course of action includes more specific course of action broaderCourseOfAction moreSpecficCourseOfAction
broader desired result includes more specific desired result broaderDesiredResult moreSpecficDesiredResult
business policy governs business process governingBusinessPolicy governedBusinessProcess
business policy is basis for business rule baseBusinessPolicy derivedBusinessRule
business process realizes course of action realizingBusinessProcess realizedCourseOfAction
business rule guides business process guidingBusinessRule guidedBusinessProcess
course of action channels efforts towards desired result supportingCourseOfAction supportedDesiredResult
directive acts as regulation regulatingDirective directiveRegulation
directive governs course of action governingDirective governedCourseOfAction
directive is source of course of action baseDirective derivedCourseOfAction
directive supports achievement of desired result supportingDirective supportedDesiredResult
enabling course of action enables enabled course of action enablingCourseOfAction enabledCourseOfAction
goal amplifies vision amplifyingGoal amplifiedVision
mission makes operative vision deliveringMIssion operativeVision
objective quantifies goal quantifyingObjective quantifiedGoal
organization unit defines end definingOrganizationUnit definedEnd
organization unit establishes means establishingOrganizationUnit establishedMeans
organization unit is responsible for business process responsibleOrganizationUnit managedBusinessProcess
organization unit makes assessment assessingOrganizationUnit madeAssessment
organization unit recognizes influencer recognizingOrganizationUnit recognizedInfluencer
potential impact provides impetus for directive motivatingPotentialImpact motivatedDirective
strategy determines organization unit determiningStrategy determinedOrganizationUnit
strategy is a component of the plan for mission missionComponent plannedMission
tactic effects enforcement level of business rule effectingTactic enforcedBusinessRule
tactic implements strategy implementingTactic implementedStrategy

This suggestion came from Xactium, which has implemented BMM in its BMS product and has been providing feedback over the past couple of months.
The BMM as published says "SWOT is one approach that can be used in making assessments. The Model does not specify SWOT as the technique. These categories of Assessment are illustrative."
But these specializations of Assessment are built into the BMM. It would be better to define a generalized categorization structure and include SWOT as an example.
Resolution:
Remove the descriptions of SWOT from sections 7, 8 and 9 to an Annex, including the definitions of the concepts. Say that SWOT is the default for assessment categorization recommended by the BRG, which originally developed the BMM.
Replace the mentions of SWOT in sections 7 and 8 with a more general description of assessment categorization, referring to the SWOT Annex as the recommended default.
Add the AssessmentCategory and the association illustrated below to the MOF model, and replace the SWOT model fragment in section 8 with this diagram:
Note: I have used the CamelCase style for names proposed in the resolution of issue 10090.
Add Assessment Category and the corresponding fact type to section 9, with SWOT quoted as an example.

1) Add the new concept assessment category and fact type assessment category categorizes assessment to the Concept Catalog.
2) Add the corresponding class and association AssessmentCategory and AssessmentCategoryCategorizesAssessment to the UML/MOF model
3) Add a disclaimer that the discussions of Assessment in Clauses 7 and 8 use SWOT for examples to illustrate the role of Assessment in the BMM. Other approaches can be used.
4) Remove the SWOT entries from Clause 9.
5) In an annex, define Assessment Categories for SWOT and say that they are a default set if the enterprise does not already have a preferred set.

This suggestion came from Xactium, which has implemented BMM in its BMS product and has been providing feedback over the past couple of months.
It would be useful to have a many-to-many association between Assessments. This would support explicit indication of which earlier assessments were considered important when making a given assessment. It would be useful in several contexts, including:
· Decision support for making new assessments - identifying the full set of concerns taken into account in earlier assessments
· Compliance audit - justifying decisions made in reacting to change
Resolution:
Add the association illustrated below to the MOF model and the model fragment in section 8:
Note: I have used the CamelCase style for names proposed in the resolution of issue 10090.
Include a description of this as a general association between assessments in section 8.
Add the corresponding fact type and roles to section 9.
Revised Text:
In [section no] on page [9999], xxxx …

Add an "assessment uses assessment" association UML/MOF model.
Include a description of this as a general association between assessments in section 8.
Add the corresponding fact type and roles to section 9.

I propose that the BMM Concepts Catalog as published by the BRG be replaced by an equivalent Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English.
The advantage would be that the BMM could be directly used by SBVR tools, as well as being readable by business people.
Proposal
Suggestion from Andrew Watson was:
· Produce the BMM Final Adopted Specification with the Concepts Catalog as published the BRG source document
· Produce a BMM interim specification with the Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English
· Ask for a vote from the BMM FTF to replace the BMM FAS with the interim specification, and handle issues against the interim specification
Resolution:
TBD
Revised Text:
See chapter 9 of the BMM First Interim Specification
Also see attached notes on conversion of the BMM Concepts Catalog as in the source document to SBVR Structured English (BMM_SBVR_SE.doc).

Disposition: Open

see dtc/2007-08-04 for details

There is still an issue with the definition of External Influencer which is "outside an enterprise's organizational boundaries" not only outside one department organizational boundary. In the provided example, the "Human Resources Policy Group" is still "inside the enterprise's organizational boundaries"

My understanding is that a directive can act as regulation, which means that regulation is not always a subtype of "external influencer".

I agree with your next issue: there is a need for a clarification between regulation and regulation authority (or regulator)

Create an association organization unit acts as influencing organization, to support organization units acting as the source of influencers.
One use of this association is: when a directive from one part of an enterprise has to be treated as a regulation in other parts of the enterprise, the source department can be referenced.
This builds on the resolution of Issue 10093, but can be voted on separately - i.e. 10093 might be accepted and this one rejected.
But the solution proposed here cannot be used if the proposal for 10093 is rejected

The BMM includes a set of Influencers. It is a good default set, but the supporting descriptions say that the set is not exhaustive - businesses may add further influences when creating an enterprise BMM (and may choose not to use some of those categories provided).
Also, 'influencer' is quite a broad concept. From the examples, an instance of 'external influencer' might be:
· A category of external entity or organization (e.g. competitor) that can act in such a way (e.g. competitor introduces new product) as to influence the enterprise being modeled
· A mass noun (e.g. technology) that is a category of the kind of change that can influence the enterprise being modeled
· An instance of a change (e.g. regulation) that can influence the enterprise being modeled
The BMM would be more flexible, particularly from a tool developer's perspective, if the current set of influencers were positioned as a recommended set, and the three concepts mention above were made distinct.
Proposal
1) Present the current set of influencers as a recommended or default set, and do not show them explicitly on the normative model diagram.
2) Separate the concepts of Entity/Organization (Influencer), change that requires judgment (Influence) and category. Suggested change to the UML class model:
This was discussed at the BMI Atlanta meeting in September 2005. It was felt that, while the change suggested would be an improvement, the BMM should stand on its merits as published for the RFC process. Then, if the BMM were accepted, this issue could be considered by the FTF.
Similarly, category should be separated from instance for internal influences.
It was also noted that this kind of structure could support associations between influence(r)s.
Resolution:
Not yet decided
Revised Text:
Not yet decided

Disposition: Open

No Data Available

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.

Summary:
I have been following progress of BRG and have incorporated several of their concepts in my work. I consider this a very important direction in Enterprise Architecture.
I would like to propose that you consider the addition of Kaplan-Norton perspectives in the motivational model. The rationale for this is:
WHY:
· Encourage measurement of intangible assets: Enterprise Architecture is a discipline that grows intangible assets and in he minds of its customers, must explicitly model non-financial motivations together with financial ones.
· Align with world standards in measurement of strategy/capability
· By explicitly modeling Kaplan-Norton Perspectives this effort is more likely to gain support and recognition of international business measurement standards and best practices : Baldridge Criteria, for instance.
This type of model can best succeed in an environment that encourages excellence and leadership. Incorporating Kaplan-Norton perspectives will provide that common paradigm for communicating this.
· Balanced Scorecard models using Kaplan-Norton perspectives lend themselves to formal modeling of this nature.
I recommend the core concept of 'VALUE' to model this.
The introduction of 'VALUE' in this manner will facilitate 'value streaming' analysis: Porter et al, Lean Thinking etc.
Resolution:
Recommendation from Dec 2005 BMI meeting was to leave this as an option for vendors to add to tools.
Revised Text:
None

Disposition: Open

closed no change

The BMM as published by the BRG has association names that represent the verb phrases in fact types (except that in a few cases "is" or "has" has been omitted). These have been preserved in the proposed interim specification with the concepts catalog in SBVR Structured English.
In the UML class model developed for the RFC submission, the verb phrases were added to associations as "ends" (role names). There are two small problems:
· In many cases they read well as verb-oriented role names but in some cases they do not.
· They have been placed on the association connectors at the wrong ends - normally a role name is placed at the line end where the class that plays the role is connected.
For example, in the fragment below:
Vision is made operative by mission, and amplified by goal. The roles read intuitively with the "clockwise" convention, but reading a UML class model correctly should not depend on positioning.
Proposal
1) Move the association phrases to the appropriate ends of association lines for them to be role names, e.g.
2) In the UML class model, replace verb-oriented role names with noun-oriented names, if the reading of the model would be improved. For example, replace "goal amplifies vision" with "goal [has the role] amplifier of vision"

3) Where there are necessities in the Concepts Catalog that constrain cardinality, show them explicitly on the UML class model. For example, "mission makes at most one vision operative", "goal amplifies at most one vision".
4) Create a mapping of the fact types in the Concepts Catalog to the associations in the UML class model.
Resolution:
To be discussed
Revised Text:
Not yet decided

Disposition: Open

see dtc/2007-08-06 for details http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/2007-08-06

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”

The Business Motivation Model appropriately defines a Means as a “device, capability, regime, technique, restriction, agency, instrument, or method that may be called upon, activated, or enforced to achieve Ends”. However, there is no provision in the model to define referenced elements of business model that are devices or instruments. Main categories of resources of a business are man, machine, material, money, and real property. Referenced elements of business model defined externally in the BMM are limited to Organization Unit, Business Process, and Business Rule. (RFC 1.4.2). The recommended solution is to add "Asset or Liability", or a suitable synonym, to the model as an externally defined thing. An Asset would include machine, animal, computer system, software program, raw material store, in-process inventory, finished goods, supply, real estate, and money and monetary instruments such as securities and budgets. Contracts may also be included as assets. Liabilities would include certain unfilled contracts, debt, lawsuits, and other obligations. Human resources would presumably appear to be handled in Organizational Unit models. Processes employ assets, which need to be defined and are the subject of policies and rules. Assets can be defined in models, including UML models and SBVR models. Many business policies and business rules of a company are related to the definition, acquisition, operation, and maintenance of its assets and liabilities.

Add placeholders for two new concepts:
· Asset, with two specializations:
· Resource: short-term, consumed and replenished
· Fixed Asset: long-term, maintained, reused, with one specialization:
· Offering: specification of a product or service
· Liability: claim on Resources to meet commitments

Add associations between the placeholders:
· Fixed Asset provides Resource
· Offering uses Fixed Asset
· Offering requires Resource
· Liability claims Resource

Emphasize that:
· These new items are placeholders. The real Assets and Liabilities are described in other systems. The BMM placeholders are references to them
· An enterprise BMM includes only those Assets and Liabilities the users want to include for their governance decisions. These do not have to be a complete and coherently-connected set. The full specifications and 'joined-up' structure are in the systems the placeholders refer to.
· This is an operational view. Although some of the terms have an accounting flavor, BMM users will usually want to refer to the actual things in the business, not their monetary values (the accounting view).

Connect the new placeholders to:
· Core BMM concepts: Course of Action, Directive
· Other Placeholders: Business Process, Organization Unit

Consequential effect:
· "Resource" in Annex G becomes "Resource Quality", an Influencer that is the quality or availability of Resources.

The proposed first interim specification for the Business Motivation Model (BMM) shows the BMM Concepts Catalog in SBVR Structured English. The changes are:
1 Text Style
Concepts are named in lower case, and text is styled with the SBVR colors for term, verb, keyword and name.
2 Definition
"Concept is a …" replaced by SBVR term with Definition clause (styled paragraph with "Definition" as the bullet, lower case concept name. no final period).
Example:
Course of Action is a Means that is an approach or plan for configuring some aspect of the enterprise involving things, processes, locations, people, timing, or motivation undertaken to achieve Ends.

is represented as
course of actionDefinition means that is an approach or plan for configuring some aspect of the enterprise involving things, processes, locations, people, timing, or motivation undertaken to achieve ends
3 Association
List of associations replaced by list of fact types, with synonymous forms. Noun concepts are named in the singular and "may" replaced by "is" (all BMM associations are optional unless explicitly constrained)
Example
A Course of Action ...· is governed by Directives.· may be formulated based on Directives.· may enable other Courses of Action.

is represented as
course of action is governed by directiveSynonymous form directive governs course of actioncourse of action is formulated based on directiveSynonymous form directive is source of course of actioncourse of action1 enables course of action2Synonymous form course of action2 is enabled by course of action1

4 Constraints
The fact types are qualified by Necessities
Example
An Assessment ...· must be made by at least one Organization Unit.

is represented as
assessment is made by organization unitNecessity Each assessment is made by at least one organization unit.
Example
A Desired Result ...· may be composed of other Desired Results. Additional constraint· The related (composed of/part of) Desired Results must be of the same type. Specifically, Goals may be composed of (sub)Goals, and Objectives may be composed of (sub)Objectives. Goals are not composed of Objectives, and vice versa.

is represented as
desired result1 is composed of desired result2Synonymous Form desired result2 is part of desired result1Necessity If desired result1 is a goal then desired result2 must be a goal (and vice versa).Necessity If desired result1 is an objective then desired result2 must be an objective (and vice versa).
5 Dictionary Basis
Replaced by SBVR format. NODE references replaced by ODE references. ODE superseded NODE in 2003. There are no substantive changes to the definitions, although sometimes the wording has been improved a little.
Example:
Dictionary basis:· a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof [NODE 'assumption' (1)]
is represented as
Dictionary basis a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof [ODE 'assumption' (1)]
6 List of categories
Replaced by a note (this could be done more formally in SBVR).
Example:
Categories of Desired Result include:· Goal· Objective
is represented as
Note Categories of desired result include: goal; objective.
7 Characteristic
Represented as a unary fact type. This has been done only for is actionable, as a characteristic of directive. This is the one example where the SBVR presentation is markedly different in structure from the original.
"Actionable" is described once, under directive is actionable. In the BMM as published, the description of "actionable" is duplicated, under both business policy and business rule.
Example:
Business Rule is a rule that is under business jurisdiction. A rule always introduces an obligation or necessity. A Business Rule is an individual Directive that is actionable - that is, does not require additional interpretation to undertake Strategies or Tactics.'Actionable' means that a person who understands a Directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that Directive. In contrast to Business Rules, Business Policies are not actionable in that sense.

is represented as
business ruleDefinition directive that is actionableNecessity Each business rule is under business jurisdiction.Necessity Each business rule introduces an obligation or necessity.directive is actionableDefinition the directive does not require additional interpretation to undertake strategies or tacticsNote "Actionable" means that a person who understands a directive could observe a relevant situation (including his or her own behavior) and decide directly whether or not the business was complying with that directive. In contrast to business rules, business policies are not actionable in that sense.
8 Motivation Element
Introduced as a general concept for the highest level concepts on the BMM (assessment, business process, end, means, influencer, organization unit, potential impact) to associate them with motivation element name and motivation element description. These associations are then inherited by all other BMM concepts.
Example
motivation elementDefinition top-level concept in The BMMDescription Created as a modeling construct (a "superclass") to simplfy the association of each concept in The BMM with 'name' and 'description'.motivation element nameDefinition a word or set of words by which a concept in an enterprise BMM is known or referred tomotivation element has motivation element nameSynonymous form motivation element name is of motivation element
9 Other discussion
Presented as descriptions and notes.
Example:
Business Policyis a non-actionable Directive whose purpose is to govern or guide the enterprise.Compared to a Business Rule, a Business Policy tends to be:· less structured.· less discrete.· less atomic.· less compliant with standard business vocabulary.· less formally articulated.The formulation of a Business Policy is under an enterprise's control by a party authorized to manage, control, or regulate the enterprise, by selection from alternatives in response to a combination of Assessments.
is represented as
business policyDefinition directive that is not actionableDescription The purpose of a business policy is to govern or guide the enterprise. The formulation of a business policy is under an enterprise's control by a party authorized to manage, control, or regulate the enterprise, by selection from alternatives in response to a combination of assessments.Note Compared to a business rule, a business policy tends to be: less structured; less discrete; less atomic; less compliant with standard business vocabulary; less formally articulated.

withdrawn from submitter, issue closed

Only identifier and description attributes are defined for BMM classes. "Objective" seems to be a special case. It is defined as "... a specific time-targeted, measurable, attainable target". I suggest that additional attributes "date", "unit" and "quantity" be added to "Objective".

withdrawn by submitter

Assessment In BMM 1.2, as published by the BRG and adopted by the OMG, “Assessment” is defined as: “a judgement that an Influencer affects the employment of Means or the achievement of Ends” Each Assessment: - Is a judgment about at least one Influencer - Is about the effect on least one End or Means (but not necessarily both) The UML class model submitted with the RFC shows both an End and a Means being required for an Assessment. What is the best way to represent Assessment in a MOF-compliant class model for BMM so that the constraint is correctly modeled, and BMM-compliant tools will support “End or Means or both - but not neither”?

In the BMM as published, "Assessment" is an objectified ternary fact type with roles played by Influencer, Means and End, and the constraint that at least one Influencer and at least one End or Means must participate in a fact of this type - there might be no participating Ends or no participating Means, but no participation from either is not allowed. This cannot be handled in a MOF model.
The proposed resolution is:
In the overview UML diagram in Ch 7 and Figure 8.13 in Ch 8, represent Assessment as a class with binary associations with Influencer, End and Means (as well as Potential Impact)
Specify these associations as:
· Assessment is judgment of Influencer (one to many) [This would resolve Issue 10592]
· Assessment affects achievement of Ends (many to many) [This would resolve Issue 10593]
· Assessment affects employment of Means (many to many)
State the constraint "at least one End or Means but not necessarily both" in the concepts catalog in Ch 9.
Note: if you do not like the names suggested, please suggest alternatives. There are no names for them in the BMM as published.
The changes to the UML model are illustrated in the fragment:

This diagram illustrates the structure. Class names are shown in CamelCase, and association names include class names. Depending on what is agreed for resolution of Issue 10090 (UML Associations), the names might change, but the structure would be the one proposed.

"Assessment" in the BMM as published by the BRG as a ternary association: "a judgment that an influencer affects the employment of means or the achievement of ends", with two qualifications:
· Participation of means and ends is optional
· At least one means or one end has to participate in each assessment
In the UML class model developed for RFC (and used for BMM implementation by KnowGravity), these are shown as three binary associations, between assessment and: influencer, end, means.
Proposal
Suggested change to the UML class model:
Resolution:
TBD
Revised Text:
Not yet decided

Disposition: Open

issue withdrawn by submitter – closed

see document bei/05-10-01 ( http://doc.omg.org/bei/05-10-01 ):

Full specification of the concepts mentioned is beyond the scope of BMM. They are handled by placeholders for reference to other specifications:
1. Process: BMM has a placeholder for business process. The full metamodel for business process is being addressed in the OMG's Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM).
2. Organization: BMM has a placeholder for Organization Unit. The full metamodel for organization structure is being addressed in the OMG's Organization Structure Metamodel (OSM).
3. Product: the resolution of BMM issue 9114 includes a placeholder for Resource. Product would be a category of resource. There is, as yet, no OMG specification under development for a metamodel of resources.
4. Systems: as 3
5. Derived aspects like decisional structure derived from processes: this seems like a concept that would fit under Assessment in the BMM, but it is very broad.
Proposal: postpone consideration of this for inclusion in the BMM until the OMG has at least an RFP for a metamodel of business intelligence and decision support.

An organization unit makes an assessment (of an influencer). There are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. So an organization unit "makes" an opportunity. The name of the association--makes--is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or a strength, weakness, or threat. "Appraises" is a much more natural term. Then an organizational unit appraises a strength and other organizational unit appraises an assessment.

withdrawn by submitter

An assessment judges an influencer. But there are four categories of assessments: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The name of the association--judges--is awkward when the assessment is an opportunity, or one of the categories. I suspect this is the typical case; we will see a lot more opportunities and weaknesses than we see assessments that are not one of the more specific categories. Would you ever say that an opportunity judges an influencer? Instead a more natural term for the association is "is judgment of".

In the BMM as published, "Assessment" is an objectified ternary fact type with roles played by Influencer, Means and End. The connection between Assessment and Influencer is not named.
The proposed resolution is:
· [Resolution of 10114] In the overview UML diagram in Ch 7 and Figure 8.13 in Ch 8, represent Assessment as a class with binary associations with Influencer, End and Means (as well as Potential Impact).
· Name the association between Assessment and Influencer as "Assessment is judgment of Influencer" (one to many), in the naming conventions agreed for Associations in the UML model [Issue 10090]
· In the Concepts Catalog (Ch 9) add a fact type "Assessment is judgment of Influencer" with a constraint that each assessment must be a judgment of at least one influencer.

An assessment and an end can be related via the "on achievement of" association. I find the name of this association awkward, particularly in the typical case when the assessment is an opportunity, or one of the other three more specific categories. I suggest instead "affects", so an opportunity will affect an end. "affects achievement of" works as well.

In the BMM as published, "Assessment" is an objectified ternary fact type with roles played by Influencer, Means and End. The connection between Assessment and End is not named.
The proposed resolution is:
· [Resolution of 10114] In the overview UML diagram in Ch 7 and Figure 8.13 in Ch 8, represent Assessment as a class with binary associations with Influencer, End and Means (as well as Potential Impact).
· Name the association between Assessment and End as "Assessment affects achievement of End", in the naming conventions agreed for Associations in the UML model [Issue 10090]
· In the Concepts Catalog (Ch 9) add a fact type "Assessment affects achievement of End".