I think the distinction to make is based on abstraction and level of detail. I have discovered that even using the EP extentions, you are stretching RUP concepts too far when you try to address macro business architecture questions (the why & what of the business, think IDEF0) in addition to the activities of the business (the how & when, think activity diagrams or IDEF3).
Supporting wmj's point, it should be the highest priority that the essence of the business be clearly understood - model, before adornements that add context or technique be addressed - diagrams. Mark Richardson -----Original Message----- From: Richard A. Menard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:26 PM To: 'Lyalin, David S.'; 'Baynes, Steve'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: (RUP) RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? I've also used activity diagrams with mixed success to get directors to arbitrate decisions relevant to a product's functionality. The problem is that managers change their mind later and don't expect there to be any impact on delivery dates. Richard A. Menard Rambyte, Ltd. 508 872 9551 http://www.rambyte.com http://www.rup4stp.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lyalin, David S. Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 5:57 PM 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 ************************************************************************ * **************************************************************************** ***** * RUP Forum is a public venue for discussions about the * Rational Unified Process (RUP). * * For RUP support materials, process Plug-Ins, tutorials, whitepapers, * a biweekly column, Rational University training courses, and more, * please visit the Rational Developer Network (available to Rational * customers) at: http://www.rational.net. * * For technical support of RUP, RPW, Rose or any other Rational * product, please visit: http://www.rational.com/support * * For other discussion groups, such as Rose and UML, please * sign up at: http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/index.jsp * * To reply to a posting, please "Reply to all" or send * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email: * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rup_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 *************************************************************************
