I think one of the common mistakes that is made with detailed
(physical) process models is that they are treated as a requirement
for the information system, rather being designed in concert with
designing the IT system to deliver an overall design for the target
integrated (business) system.
To Chris's point it is the abstracted views that help to establish the
On Jan 13, 1:37 pm, "Christopher Bird" <seabir...@gmail.com
> It is again further support for the grand lie that you can actually and
> realistically do process decomposition. Process abstractions are handy
> partitioning mechanisms for thinking about the broad functions of the
> business. It is handy, for example to think in terms like "Order to Cash",
> but it isn't necessarily helpful to decompose this into tiny step details.
> Certainly not as a design principle.
> We do need processes - as outputs not as inputs. We need to describe to
> people how to use what was built - we don't need to make the process
> definition the primary input to the development.
> If we are trying to discover how current systems work, then we should not
> rely on what people think they do, we should attempt to determine what they
> actually do. Wit systems that isnt necessarily hard - we can easily (well
> relatively) insert some kind of sniffing/analysis technology (e.g.
> OpenConnect's Comprehend toolwww.oc.com
) that shows exactly what actions
> have been taken. Of course that doesn't take into account actions in the
> process that occur outside of the system being monitored.
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:07 AM, nigelpsgr...@googlemail.com
> My kitchen bloghttp://seabirdskitchen.blogspot.com