Len Schwartz wrote:
> The original question was who should model not whether or not to model.
> Ken's proposition was that modeling adds little value to a standards effort
> as model are too high level or not really actionable with the variations
> real implementation would reveal.
You also claimed earlier that I made a similar assertion:
>>> Further you imply (or state) that most model
>>> development work is too high level to be actionable between two specific
>>> trading partners without the compromises you have described.
I corrected you then (in an email of 27Feb) and I do so again now. This is
what was stated:
> No. My experience is that people who get involved in formal modelling
> do not know how to implement. I have never seen a formal model that is
> accurate enough or detailed enough for an implementation to be based
> on it. Most end up in dust or dust bins.
This statement does not say anything about "standards efforts" or
about models being "too high level" or "not really actionable". Nor does
it say anything about "trading partners" or "compromises".
So the answer I am proposing to the question "who should model" is:
NOBODY! - it's usually a waste of time and effort which mostly leads
nowhere.
I do support a statement made by William Kammerer:
"When I look at the RosettaNet PIPs, they use a lot of real estate to
show a UML diagram explaining the "Business Process Flow," which could
have been economically rendered in English in a sentence or two."
I have also found over many years that procedures and rules simply
stated in English are much more reliable, understandable and informative
than a pile "real estate" containing "models" of dubious value.
As for "standards" organisations, I have already demonstrated in my
email of 27Feb why those engaged in the EDI standards area have long
since been made superfluous by the onward march of technology and
those others attempting to produce standards in the application of
computers to business have a track record of non-performance.
Also in that and the previous email of the same date I demonstrated why
attempting to standardise business processes was futile (with or
without modelling). So as to the value of ANY SDO attempting the formal
modelling of business processes, my thought is: "haven't you got something
useful you could be doing with your time"?
As for your 'saucy' comment:
"The comment on secret pasta sauce recipes had to do with what really gives a
company more of a point of difference in the market and what doesn't create
a real point of difference."
Firstly, might I remind you of precisely what was said in the previous email:
'If one looks at the actual operation of an organisation, the
"business model" is highly dependent on the skills, background
and experience of the senior management. As a result, the way
the business processes actually operate is different (and needs
to be) in each organisation. The concept of "Common business
objects" doesn't appear to make much practical sense.
So adopting a "common business object" may NOT be the way to go.
The detailed way in which a business operates is one way of building
a competitive edge. Anyone trying to implement a "common business
object" gives up that opportunity to build a competitive edge.'
You will notice it was said that using better business processes is ONE WAY
of gaining a competitive edge.
Having superior product (pasta sauce?) or better customer service
(an illustration you used later) are also valid ways of building a
competitive edge.
But there's a difference. The illustrations you give are both
competitive edges to increase sales; better business processes
are competitive edges which reduce cost. At the bottom line
(profit/loss), one dollar saved is often worth many dollars in
additional sales.
Therefore I disagree with your statement (since you seem to think
that increasing sales is always of more advantage than reducing cost):
> I guess I see the process for receiving a
> payment using a Purchase Card (for example) as generating less competitive
> advantage then the secret recipe for a pasta sauce.
[I would still like you to try to explain why this proves "standards
are being used". ;-)]
-----------------
So who on earth would be silly enough to give up a competitive edge
gained through smarter business processes to adopt a "standard"
produced (with or without modelling) by the consensus of dubious
"experts" on some committee of an SDO, which may work, but is more
likely not to?
Conclusion: Formal modelling of business processes, particularly by
SDO committees, is usually quite futile. The end result will most
likely end up collecting dust or being confined to the dust (trash)
bin.
Who should do formal modelling for "standard" business processes? NOBODY.
QED. ( = "Thus it is proved")
--
Ken Steel
ICARIS Services: Brussels and Melbourne
Research results: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/icaris
Commercial report: http://desire.riv.be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
