[David Lyalin] 4. You are not recommending to use UML in all situations for business modeling. (I disagree).
[wmj] IMO I wish "business modeling" was so simple and UML so powerful. Regards WMJ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lyalin, David S. Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:14 PM To: 'Kesterton, Anthony'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lyalin, David S. Subject: (RUP) RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? Anthony, Thank you for your lengthy reply. ( Does length contribute to clarity? :-) ). I would summarize it in a few lines: 1. You would not recommend to discuss issues with "Rational, UML, Rose, ReqPro and Business modeling" on this forum. (I disagree respectfully but strongly. I think that these forums are exactly for that). 2. UML and Rose/ReqPro is sufficient for business modeling - based on your experience. (I agree - this is matches my experience too). 3. You prefer Rational tools, but other tools may be better for my situation. (I think that TODAY Rose/ReqPro THE best tools for UML business modeling. Period. It is very funny to argue with a person from Rational about this :-) ;-) ) 4. You are not recommending to use UML in all situations for business modeling. (I disagree). Thank you again. David Lyalin -----Original Message----- From: Kesterton, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:06 PM To: Lyalin, David S.; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? Hi David As far as Rational's official position goes, you would need to look at the official statements by the company. I am replying as someone who happens to work for Rational but does *not* represent them officially as a spokesperson, and tries to occasionally help out on forums like this (as do many of my colleagues). If you find how Rational talk about business modeling as unclear - talk to people at Rational and get them to help you understand what we are doing in the business modeling space, and our experiences in this area. This is probably not the right place for a treatise on Rational, UML, Rose, ReqPro and Business modeling - give your local Rational people a call At the end of the day, if Rational can provide a useful solution to your specific business modeling needs - then it is someting you could consider. If you have done this and are still confused - drop me a note offline from this forum and I can point you to the people you should be talking to. UML (and Rose, or Rose with ReqPro) have proved useful to me and many others in representing business processes - but I am sure there are cases that I have not come across before that would show up deficiencies in both notation and tools. There are many bright people on this forum who will no doubt be able to come up with some examples. I am not trying to prove UML or Rose/Rose+ReqPro will cover every eventuality - but it does seems to work well for the stuff I have done. I am rather biased about which tools I like to do my business modeling work with (the Rational ones in case you wondered :-). Other tools and notations may be better for your situation - you have to talk to the other vendors about this, and probably use some forum other than Rational ones. Should we use UML? I think it really helps, esp. if you have some development work further down the line and that team uses UML for system modeling. Does Powerpoint or whatever else you want to use to convey the information you need to in an understandable way do a better job - it absolutely depends on who you are talking to and their background, level of knowledge, etc. The same rule applies to UML too but at least we have general agreement on what UML means - or as much as we will ever get for a notation. If you have made it this far down the page without throwing something at the screen :-) I hope this has helped clarify my position a little. regards anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: Lyalin, David S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 20 September 2002 14:26 > To: 'Kesterton, Anthony'; '[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? > > > Anthony, > > Your posting is an excellent illustration of the following problem: > Rational is very vague with Business Modeling issues, its strategy > with the subject (if any) unclear, its positioning of Rose and ReqPro > as business modeling tool is unconvincing. > > What do you mean saying that UML can be used to model business process > "in general"? Could you elaborate on "specific" situations where UML > can't be used for this purpose? > > Do you think that Rose and ReqPro "the best choice" of tools for > business modeling? Maybe Casewise or some of the "lots of > others tools" > are better? > > Should we use UML for business modeling, or should we draw > "pictures and > boxes" with PowerPoint? > > It would be very helpful if you can clarify your position on > these issues. > > Regards, > > David Lyalin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kesterton, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:56 PM > To: Lyalin, David S.; 'Baynes, Steve'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Process Modelling? > > > 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 > > ************************************************************** > > *********** > > > **************************************************************************** ***** * 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 *************************************************************************
