Hi
To drag this back to the original question (but the diversions are very interesting!): Yes, in general, you can use UML to model business processes (and the nice thing is that if the developers ever have to build or modify systems based on these business processes - they tend to understand the processes better). Rational as a company has use Rose (or XDE) and ReqPro to do this - with our customers and internally. So do other companies. And other people use other notations and tools (CaseWise is a nice example - there are lots of others). As far as conveying the right info to the non-UML literate stakeholders - this can work with some help and explanation - but at the end of the day, pictures and boxes drawn with your favourite presentation tool (like PowerPoint, etc) may be a lot quicker and less stressful - keep the UML stuff as the basis for the real work. regards anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: Lyalin, David S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 September 2002 22:57 > To: 'Baynes, Steve'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lyalin, David S. > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? > > > > Steve, > > On the "executive board" issue - this is a level where models > get very rare > exposure ... > Besides the full scale board room - I have a positive experience with > introducing large scale > activity diagrams to a high-level executives. They were able > to grasp it > easily. > Diagrams have to be on the right level for the audience to > properly support > a discussion. > > Any thoughts on the original subjects of this thread? > > Regards, > > David Lyalin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Baynes, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:12 PM > To: 'Srinidhi Boray'; Lyalin, David S.; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Cc: Brian McCarthy; 'Richard A. Menard'; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lyalin, > David S. > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? > > > all, isn't this fun... > > Just to clarify. I do not have any problem showing the exec board UML > diagrams. I just have not managed to send the board on a UML > course (one > day!) > > As I said earlier (and I paraphrase) Show the audience what > they want to > see... > > > Regards > Stephen Baynes > > -----Original Message----- > From: Srinidhi Boray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 19 September 2002 19:11 > To: Lyalin, David S.; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Cc: Brian McCarthy; 'Richard A. Menard'; 'Srinidhi Boray'; Baynes, > Steve; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lyalin, David S. > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? > > > ooh!! uninitiaed got intimidated...."keep eyes on the > ball" ??? it would be better if mind also stays > focussed...lest eyes will keep roving the fancy > diagrams. > > srinidhi > > > --- "Lyalin, David S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Heat is what makes some heads clouded ... > > It takes some cultural and professional level to > > discuss the substance of a > > heated topic in a professional manner ... > > > > I think it would be useful to "keep eyes on the > > ball" and focus this > > discussion on the original topics of this thread: > > 1. Is UML sufficient for business process modeling? > > (If not - why? Examples > > of models that can't be reproduced in UML?) > > 2. Is Rose and ReqPro sufficient to do UML-based > > business modeling? > > 3. How to address and overcome business-oriented > > people intimidation with > > diagrams? What should be done to improve their > > acceptance of the models? > > > > These are real questions that require (and worth) a > > professional discussion. > > > > David Lyalin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Srinidhi Boray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 11:40 AM > > To: Baynes, Steve; Lyalin, David S.; > > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Cc: Brian McCarthy; 'Richard A. Menard'; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry if I did come across bit rudely. Anyway, heat > > is > > what that helps evolution. > > > > Find attached article from Zachman on enterprise > > architecture/modeling. I guess It should be very > > interesting area for all business modelers. > > > > rgds > > srinidhi > > > > > > --- "Baynes, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all, I can see this thread becoming very > > > interesting and, possibly, quite > > > heated (heated occurs as I write)! So before that > > > happens here is my view > > > point... > > > > > > Process Modelling - what are we trying to achieve. > > > > > > The aim of modelling is quite simple (in my > > opinion) > > > - it allows us to > > > "share complex information". How many architects > > > selling a building idea do > > > not provide a mock-up model (none, I would suggest > > > because the mock-up model > > > is a very effective method of conveying complex > > > information (i.e. the > > > architectural diagrams, another form of model). > > If > > > the model can be > > > interactive so much the better but its value is > > > allowing us to share the > > > complex information (having spent many an hour > > > completing the information > > > necessary to generate interactive Casewise models > > I > > > can assure everyone > > > interactively modelling the simple is not worth > > the > > > effort). > > > > > > So the aim of a model is to share complex > > > information. This means diagrams > > > are a very good modelling tool (they are just not > > > interactive). UML is a > > > very good modelling language as everyone > > > "understands" what it means. > > > > > > One other thought - the model must be targeted at > > > the audience. Presenting > > > the UML model to the executive board is a very > > good > > > way to get fired. > > > > > > I hope this does not add to much fat to the fire > > > > > > Regards > > > Stephen Baynes > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Srinidhi Boray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: 19 September 2002 15:13 > > > To: Lyalin, David S.; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > Cc: 'Srinidhi Boray'; Brian McCarthy; 'Richard A. > > > Menard'; > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lyalin, David S. > > > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modeling? > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello David, > > > > > > Sorry, I have to deny you to employ into > > > professional > > > practice the common sense (wrt 'modeling') that > > you > > > intend to think that it is. Instead, I prefer to > > > offer > > > you following observation which may help you to > > > discern better the concepts of modeling. > > > > > > 1. Diagram is not a model. A model is a model is a > > > model. Diagram is a mere depiction of one instance > > > or > > > one perspective of a model. Several diagrams > > > combined > > > together attempts to capture the whole truth of a > > > model. Yet it fails. > > > > > > 2. Strong notations are required to be followed > > > while > > > modeling, to maintain and retain the model > > > integrity. > > > Else spurious elements creep in during modeling > > and > > > become demonic during the implementation stage. > > Slay > > > the demon when it is young. Any vanity provides > > room > > > for the demon to creep in. A good modeler in a > > > disciplined way keeps out all cosmetic attempts. > > > > > > 3. Model is not to appease client. Model is to > > > assist > > > as a cohesive thinking artifact based on which > > > productive collaborative actions can be planned. > > So, > > > models must be objective and clear in nature. > > > Beauticians to be kept out. > > > > > > 4. Last but not the least Happiness is not in > > > avoiding > > > problem or in sublimating (with fancy notations > > :)) > > > )them. It is in solving them. Bottom line > > ...client > > > wants solution and not fancy diagrams to hang on > > > their > > > walls.. > > > > > > cheers > > > srinidhi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good morning, > > > > > > > > I'd like to put these "process modeling" things > > in > > > a > > > > "common sense" > > > > perspective. > > > > Let me start from the quote: > > > > "Any diagram is intimidating to the uninitiated, > > > so > > > > it is extremely > > > > important that the diagram is as attractive as > > > > possible and that it conveys > > > > the sense of what is to be communicated. Of > > > course, > > > > this (primarily) > > > > requires skill on the part of the diagrammer." > > > > http://www.BRCommunity.com/a2002/b117.html (It > > is > > > > interesting, that the > > > > author of this quotation is strongly against > > UML). > > > > Common sense should prevail. Show to me any > > model > > > of > > > > the business process, > > > > and I will show to you how to built it with UML > > > > instruments (diagrams and > > > > use cases). Rose and ReqPro quite sufficient for > > > > business process modeling. > > > > The only thing they would not do for you is a > > > > process simulation (if you > > > > ever need it). The rest is just usual > > > > groups-interest-serving dogs struggle > > > > under the rug. And if you would like your > > business > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! > http://sbc.yahoo.com > ************************************************************** > ********** > * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. > * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support > * > * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Archive of messages: > * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp > * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * > * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email > * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * Subject: <BLANK> > * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum > ************************************************************** > *********** > ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
