Re: [ihc] Re: [bcm] Correction: XML 2004 and Dec. TC Meeting

[David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>]

Rex,

Ok - I'm guilty as charged ; -)

You did indeed answer the question beautifully from the IT technologists 
view point.

What I am after is the executive direction.  Answer questions your CFO 
might ask - like
'Why am I paying for this and what use is it anyway?'.  'When do I stop 
signing the checks,
since then there's no benefit left to get?'.  All questions the IT tech 
guys probably don't want
to answer really ; -)

But at the end of the day - knowing that you are solving the real 
problems and delivering
on the business value is the point of all the IT in the first place.

Alright - so I am guilty of pushing all these buttons at once.

In BCM we're trying to help with providing templates so that the 
executive and business
folks can work in step with the UML-heads together....because those 
executive types
can be really slippery and evasive too - and there's often questions 
they don't want to
answer either / responsiblity they don't want to sign-off on.

It ain't easy though we are making stead progress..

Cheers, DW
=======================================
Rex Brooks wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I tend to think of the business needs in context, such as 
> banking/financial/insurance in one bucket, with diagnosis, 
> collaboration, treatment documentation and tracking in another and 
> physician credentials, organization capabilities, etc in a third, but 
> that's just me. UML does a good job of getting the classes ready to be 
> plugged into the apps, at least for me. I don't usually ask for more 
> at that point, but switch to a more business-centric toolsett. UML is 
> right handy to disgram and look at workflows and model processes. Some 
> tools can, of course, go much further, and depending on the client I 
> might or might not continue on with a tool that extends beyond UML per 
> se.
>
> However, at that point we should be able to formally define our 
> requirements for the purpose of writing standards specifications. From 
> there I generally only round-trip back to UML to make sure that we are 
> following the methodology we set out with in order to verify our 
> assumptions, or not and then make changes to that methodology and 
> requirements based on what we have learned about that use case and 
> those requirements.
>
> So, generally speaking, that gives us the basis for a reasonable 
> specification or to evaluate existing specifications/standards. It 
> then allows us to move forward into applying disciplines such as, 
> well, BCM and UBL to move on into applications and the architecture in 
> which those applications are aimed to work, such as web services in an 
> Enterprise Architecture built of Service-Oriented Architected 
> components. In fact, this is the point at which your BCM eService 
> concept ought to do a good job of carrying the work on to completion.
>
> You are really good at setting me up, you know? This is exactly what 
> you did at the combined IHC/BCM meeting, brief as it was. This is, of 
> course, a generalization and simplification. Would that it were that 
> simple, but someday maybe it will be.... y'think?
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 10:19 AM -0500 11/29/04, David RR Webber wrote:
>
>> Rex,
>>
>> Of course we here at OASIS BCM are keenly interested in what happens 
>> before the
>> development team starts writing use cases - and then - after - once 
>> the use
>> cases are done, what next?  How do you determine if the business needs
>> are being met?
>>
>> While UML is a useful IT design tool - business implementations 
>> require more
>> and natural tools that fit the domain and industry norms / skillsets and
>> outcomes / controls needed that business stakeholders can interact with.
>>
>> I'm just here to pose the tougher questions...
>>
>> Cheers, DW
>> ============================================
>> Rex Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Humlers, and others
>>>
>>> I need to correct a misstatement. The International Health Continuum 
>>> is going to vote on the proposal to use UML as the tool of choice 
>>> for developing use cases. This is not a decision that has been made. 
>>> My personal opinion and assessment that this is likely got ahead of 
>>> me, there. I apologize. I'm just itching to get on to the work.
>>>
>>> It seems so important to build some momentum here, that I forgot for 
>>> a moment that we need to dot all our 'i's and cross all our 't's.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I will keep a tighter rein on my nethusiam.
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>> Rex
>>
>
>