OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bcm-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [bcm] [Fwd: [bcm-comment] Public Comment]]


Shawn,

Yes - good observations - the business stakeholders should be signing 
off on deliverables and
go forward plans, and alignment between layers, etc.  That can be half 
the battle at the
business level - getting the decisions and in a format that the 
stakeholders can recognise and buy-in to.

The ebXML work is only one tool - certainly from BCM perspective - we 
are trying to be
agnostic - although there is overlap and sharing.

The new BPSS V2 BTW is a quantum leap better than BPSS V1 - but the 
drafts are still in committee
on that - so you can only get glimpses by looking at things like the 
tutorial draft at:

 http://drrw.net/visualscripts/

What we are after is templates that drive the products - so they really 
provide the 'glue' between layers.

Thanks, DW
=====================================================================
Maynard, Shawn wrote:

>OK....if I read you right...BCM wants you to make your decisions at the
>right time (in the right layer) to avoid conflict.  Assuming this to be the
>case then my processes at the implementation layer would have some
>requirements verification process to confirm that all stakeholders
>understand and agree on that the implementation requirements are consistent
>with those that exist at the business and extension layers?  If not please
>explain...I am trying to understand how the development process would work
>in BCM.
>
>On a broader level, thinking about the "layers" concept.  Does one need to
>define "handoff" or "information exchange" processes between layers or does
>this get taken care of in the process of developing business processes (use
>cases)? 
>
>I am reading the ebXML Business Process Analysis workshets & guidelines v1.0
>document.  I assume that is what a process buider needs to use to develop
>any BCM process...right?  
> 
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:38 PM
>To: Maynard, Shawn
>Cc: BCM Comment; BCM OASIS; 'Scott McGrath'
>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [bcm] [Fwd: [bcm-comment] Public Comment]]
>
>
>Shawn,
>
>I think I can answer this one.  The idea behind BCM is to exploit the 
>layered approach, so
>that you postpone decisions to as late a point in the process as 
>possible.  So making a
>decision about using web services, or some IT specific approval process 
>would not
>feature in the layer deciding the business goals and the semantic detail 
>of the business
>processes, and so on.
>
>The traditional IT approach is to have the tail wag the dog - so the 
>engineers make
>decisions to use say - UML or SCRUM - and then force that on to the 
>business facing
>part of the process.  We are seeking to avoid such conflicts.
>
>The aim is to provide an environment that the business layer decisioning 
>can find comfortable
>and familiar, and to defer pure-play IT Q&A stuff to the implementation 
>layer detailing.
>
>By way of example - an IT engineer may ask "are we going to use digital 
>certificates with our partners?".
>Whereas at the business level this would be off the table - instead the 
>question would be - what level
>of business validation and security do we need for participants?
>
>Similarly in an XML world - engineers may ask - "do we have XML schemas 
>yet?" - whereas the
>BCM views that as the very last step to occur - when all the other 
>business determinations have
>occurred relating to what business reporting and use of information and 
>process flows is understood,
>domain vocabularies identified, and how those deliver on the overall 
>business goals.
>
>I guess that's why we call it a business-centric methodology!
>
>Thanks, DW ==========================================================
>Maynard, Shawn wrote:
>
>  
>
>>All,
>>
>>Thanks for your prompt reply.
>>
>>Mike said....
>>   
>>"In the concept layer of the BCM, you address what standards you wish 
>>to follow (internally) as part of you architecture type.  If they 
>>choose CMM process, they then apply the CMM method, as one facet of the 
>>policies, performance standards, portfolio, etc. they intend to follow 
>>in going through the 4 levels."
>>
>>    
>>
>>From this comment I have the following main clarification question.  Is 
>  
>
>>the idea behind BCM that in the course of developing your business 
>>process (i.e. the services or products you need to do business) you 
>>also define the underlying development infrastructure you need to 
>>develop those products/services??
>>
>>For example if I want to develop a new web services product suite will 
>>BCM help me create a process that uses Agile best practices (like XP or 
>>SCRUM) to create those services or products?  Furthermore, will BCM 
>>allow you to define your business processes in such as way that CMMI 
>>standards (like approvals or QA checkpoints) are integral to the steps 
>>that developers take in creating and maintaining those services or 
>>products. Is there an example of how one best practice for sofware 
>>development (lets say getting requirements approved before you start 
>>design or coding)would fit into a BCM designed business process?
>>
>>If Mike, Neil or others are forming (or have formed) a forum or 
>>committee on CMM/CMMI and its integration into BCM I would like to be 
>>part of that effort.
>>
>>Thanks for any input you can provide.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:31 PM
>>To: Shawn Maynard; BCM Comment; BCM OASIS
>>Subject: [Fwd: Re: [bcm] [Fwd: [bcm-comment] Public Comment]]
>>
>>
>>Shawn,
>>
>>OK - enclosed and attached are notes from the list responses.
>>
>>Let us know if there is more input and if this is enough to get started 
>>with BCM from your perspective.
>>
>>You may also find useful the full PPT on using BCM that is available
>>from:
>>
>>http://www.businesscentricmethodology.com
>>
>>As Mike notes - if there is more - we have bi-weekly calls and that 
>>might be a useful next step to call-in on.
>>
>>Thanks, DW
>>==============================================
>>
>>Hi David,
>>
>>This is my take on the question posted.
>>
>>In the concept layer of the BCM, you address what standards you wish to 
>>follow (internally) as part of you architecture type.  If they choose 
>>CMM process, they then apply the CMM method, as one facet of the 
>>policies, performance standards, portfolio, etc. they intend to follow 
>>in going through the 4 levels.
>>
>>Is that good enough for you or do you need additional stuff.  The 
>>PowerPoint slide addresses what type of topics are addressed for each 
>>of the cmm levels and what you consider from a BCM level.
>>
>>If yes to additional stuff, we have to address it over a telephone 
>>call.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>
>>==============================================
>>
>>Yes,  Mike and I started on a CMM for BCM.  Apologies that we didn't 
>>push it forward as we might have.
>>
>>A couple of thoughts.
>>
>>The agile software movement deals with the problem that it is 
>>impossible to anticipate requirements up front, and so emphasizes 
>>adaptability in the development process.  It follows that testing has 
>>to be tightly integrated into design and development, short cycles, 
>>small teams, etc.
>>
>>
>>BCM and related service oriented approaches take an additional step. 
>>Not only can requirements not be anticipated, but systems must be built
>>to adapt to variable and unanticipated requirements on the fly.   The
>>CMM for BCM addresses more than the software development process.  It 
>>addresses that ability of the operational (reusable) service components 
>>to adapt to multiple semantic environments (where business requirements
>>and capabilities vary in unpredictable ways).   
>>
>>The capability tracks  in the attached CMM matrix address the different
>>aspects of adaptability.   Mike and I believed this need some additional
>>thought before we circulated it more widely.
>>
>>Neil
>>
>>
>>
>>***********************************************************************
>>*****
>>This email may contain confidential material. 
>>If you were not an intended recipient, 
>>Please notify the sender and delete all copies. 
>>We may monitor email to and from our network. 
>>***************************************************************************
>>    
>>
>*
>  
>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>**************************************************************************** 
>This email may contain confidential material. 
>If you were not an intended recipient, 
>Please notify the sender and delete all copies. 
>We may monitor email to and from our network. 
>****************************************************************************
>  
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]