Enabling Operational Excellence
Enabling Operational Excellence
Enabling Operational Excellence
Enabling Operational Excellence

TURNING OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE & COMPLIANCE INTO A COMPETITIVE EDGE

We systemize tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge

Blog Enabling Operational Excellence

I Wrestle with a LinkedIn Business Rule … Find Out Who Won

The subtitle of my Business Rules Concepts handbook (now in its 3rd edition) is ‘Getting to the Point of Knowledge’. I wasn’t trying to be cute, I meant it literally. Here’s an example. Try entering a URL in a LinkedIn invitation. I don’t know if it’s a new business rule or not, but I tried it for the very first time just the other day to point someone in the right direction on an EA question. Not allowed. I didn’t know that. I was informed and now I’m a wiser member of the social community. This is an example of what in our new book ‘Building Business Solutions: Business Analysis with Business Rules’ (Oct, 2011) we call real-time business operation systems (BOS). It takes a just-in-time (JIT) approach to the delivery of know-how. (A business rule always encodes know-how.) In my LinkedIn experience I was informed of the latest business rule in-line in a self-service, JIT manner. Violate business rules (the latest one or any of them) and if you’re authorized and capable, you’ll get back a ‘training’ message. Here’s what LinkedIn said back to me: We’re sorry, you cannot include website addresses in invitations. Please remove the website address and try again. Here’s a more direct statement of the business rule in RuleSpeak: A LinkedIn invitation must not include a URL. The RuleSpeak version conveys the same information as the LinkedIn message, just more succinctly. As I’ve been saying since at least 1994, the business rule statement is the error message. It’s the error message from a business, not system, point of view. That’s why it’s called a business rule. If you do want a friendlier version (as LinkedIn did) that’s fine. Think for a minute about your operational business processes. Many of your business rules either change frequently, unexpectedly or both. How can you keep all your operational staff up-to-speed? Constantly send them off to training classes?! Flood them with tweets or e-mails?! Not going to work. In a world of constant change, a system is not state-of-the-art unless it addresses continuous re-training. Business rules do. Ultimately there’s no alternative. I’ve been saying that for a long time too.

Continue Reading

Moving the Goalposts for Data Modeling … Deliberately. Hey Guys, We’re in a Knowledge Economy.

Is there any proven way to demonstrate data models are correct, complete, and stable with respect to the operational business and its needs? No. That’s distressing.  Is there an alternative that does? Yes, fact modeling, which is to say structured business vocabularies (concept systems). The core concepts (fact model) of an operational business area are very, very stable. I have outstanding proof (short case study).  See: http://www.brcommunity.com/b594.php. Definitely worth a quick read. I recently made these statements in a data modeling forum, and a practitioner came back with this: “Even if we assume that a technical methodology might exist to generate a complete and correct data model from a set of articulated business rules / facts, IMO this approach just moves the target from the data modeling area to the need to verify the articulation of business facts / rules for completeness and correctness.” Missed the point. Concept anaysis is brain work. You’ll never generate a ‘complete and correct data model’ … you must create it … ith business people and SMEs. The problem with data modeling as practiced today is that there is a large gap between the business view of things and the data model. It gives business-side people a ready excuse to drop out. And its an art rather than a science. You really have no justification building a system until you have a concept blueprint. Currrent data models evolved bottom up, from database design. (I know, I watched it happen. I was editor of the Data Base Newsletter, 1977-1999.) It’s time to approach the problem top-down. There are natural ways to build concept systems. The standard for the new approach is SBVR. (For more, see BRCommunity’s “SBVR Insider”), which in turn is based on ISO 1087 and 704.  We (all of us) need to start practicing like we’re living in a knowledge economy … which in fact we actually already are.

Continue Reading

Well If You Ask Me …

… And somebody did recently: What’s wrong with current business process management (BPM) practices?  1. When a discipline becomes mature, it stops seeing itself as a solution to every problem. BPM is not there. Limitations?
  • It does not provide the order-of-magnitude improvement in business agility that companies need urgently.
  • It is not the solution to compliance issues.
  • It does not effectively provide for massive customization or personalization.
BPM needs to recognize and accommodate peers: business strategy, business rules, business vocabulary, business decisions, and business events.  2. Words matter. Well-defined business vocabulary is not a luxury or an option. It’s fundamental to effective business orchestration. Ultimately, it’s all about business communication, whether person-to-person or automated. I don’t think BPM really gets this. 3. The business world today is already in a knowledge economy (read: know-how economy); the milestone has been passed. We need to start acting and practicing accordingly. You certainly can’t get there with only BPM.

Continue Reading