this is true in everything in life.... if presented well - your idea will be accepted well - even if it is a bad idea. and conversely - if a good idea is presented badly it will not be given its due.
-----Original Message----- From: Lyalin, David S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:51 AM To: 'Baynes, Steve'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Richard A. Menard'; 'Baynes, Steve'; 'W.M. Jaworski'; 'Richardson, Mark'; 'Les Munday'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Brian McCarthy'; Lyalin, David S. Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? Steve, "Pretty pictures" ... I think that UML diagram can be pretty or ugly - depending on the modeler's skills ... The same concept can be expressed differently using the same notation. It is amazing what a difference the skillfully made diagram makes ... Modelers who did not pay attention to the aesthetics and ergonomics of their diagrams suffer in terms of poor acceptance from business-oriented folks. Regards, David -----Original Message----- From: Baynes, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:10 AM To: 'Lyalin, David S.'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? David, to reply to the original threads 1. Is UML sufficient for business process modelling? (If not - why? Examples of models that can't be reproduced in UML?) IMO business models can be expressed in UML and as further versions are released so this functionality will increase. There is a French led, EEC supported, initiative to push UML to the level where the business model can be used to drive generation of the finished code products without the need for developers. Unfortunately I do not have the web site address (I saw this at a "software architecture - what is it" conference a while ago. Anderson Consulting were also moving down the same path). The aim was to modify UML to improve its business modelling capabilities. 2. Is Rose and ReqPro sufficient to do UML-based business modelling? IMO yes so long as it meets the need for communicating the business model to the customer. 3. How to address and overcome business-oriented people intimidation with diagrams? What should be done to improve their acceptance of the models? IMO this is the difficult question. In my experience business-orientated people are not intimidated by diagrams where they understand the notation (pretty pictures are always nice). Do we care if they understand UML, I suggest not; the impact being that we need to understand pretty pictures. The initiatives to modify UML should enable us to use UML to provide the required pretty pictures soon... This weeks Computer Weekly contains a good article around this area "Speech Therapy". -----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 *************************************************************************
