Eclipse Community Forums: EPF » modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer

Help

Home

Home » Archived » EPF » modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #11443]

Mon, 29 May 2006 14:17

jan masaryk

Messages: 50
Registered: July 2009

Member

Hi all,

I am thinking if it's possible use EPF composer for modeling non-IT
company ...
Just for now I don't see any reason which can block this kind of use. I
should maybe specify that I mean methodical modelling, not modelling for
BPM runtime server/languages (as BPEL runtime).
What do you think about this?

Also when I think about alternative of use presented above, I have to ask
about possibility of extending key's modeling items as:
- Work Product .... can I extend predefined types with custom one?
(artifact, deliverable, outcome)
- Guidance ... can I extend predefined types with custom one? (checklist,
concept, ...)

Thanks for all responses in advance!

all the best,
jan

ps: epf composer is pretty good tool! keep running ... :-)

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #11594 is a reply to message #11443]

Mon, 29 May 2006 21:15

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hello Jan.
You might be interested in this presentation from the last OMG meeting in
St. Louis.

http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/06-04-12.pdf

At the end of this slide stack (pp. 34) you find a list of nine case studies
I collected from different user groups that use SPEM2.0 concepts that have
been implemented in EPF Composer to represent processes from all kinds of
different domains. Several of these have nothing to do with software
processes at all such as an ITIL-based process, an organizational governance
process, integrated circuit development, or even a process for running
investment clubs.

In respect to your request about extending EPF with new meta-model concepts:
we do not support this at the moment. You would need to modify the EPF
Composer source or write extra plug-ins for that. Please, let us know what
kind of meta-model concepts you would introduce and we can discuss if this
can be modeled with the concepts we currently realized or learn about new
needs of our user community.

--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"jan masaryk" <jan.masaryk@asseco.sk> wrote in message
news:770025ebad98b818f05b3bb1d0c004df$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi all,
>
> I am thinking if it's possible use EPF composer for modeling non-IT
> company ...
> Just for now I don't see any reason which can block this kind of use. I
> should maybe specify that I mean methodical modelling, not modelling for
> BPM runtime server/languages (as BPEL runtime). What do you think about
> this?
>
> Also when I think about alternative of use presented above, I have to ask
> about possibility of extending key's modeling items as:
> - Work Product .... can I extend predefined types with custom one?
> (artifact, deliverable, outcome)
> - Guidance ... can I extend predefined types with custom one? (checklist,
> concept, ...)
>
> Thanks for all responses in advance!
>
> all the best,
> jan
>
> ps: epf composer is pretty good tool! keep running ... :-)
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #13530 is a reply to message #11594]

Thu, 08 June 2006 08:43

jan masaryk

Messages: 50
Registered: July 2009

Member

Hi Peter,

thank you for your effort, it really helped.

Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
it on omg site ....

The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).

Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.

1. method library level
Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
(who can change state and in which conditions).
Also we should be able define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as
name, owner, and whatever we want.
2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are different.
It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
attributes and possible values inside EPF.

In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle

Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
What do you think?
Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.

All the best,
Ján Masaryk
Coordination & Quality
Asseco Slovakia, a.s.

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #13571 is a reply to message #11594]

Tue, 13 June 2006 07:51

jan masaryk

Messages: 50
Registered: July 2009

Member

Hi Peter,

thank you for your effort, it really helped.

Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
it on omg site ....

The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).

Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.

1. method library level
Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
(who can change state and in which conditions). Also we should be able
define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as name, owner, and whatever
we want.
2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are different.
It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
attributes and possible values inside EPF.

In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle

Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
What do you think?
Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.

All the best,
Ján Masaryk

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #13612 is a reply to message #13530]

Thu, 15 June 2006 22:51

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi Jan.
Sorry for the late reply. I was traveling. You can get our recent SPEM
proposal here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/06-06-02

Replies to your other points inline below.
--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"jan masaryk" <jan.masaryk@asseco.sk> wrote in message
news:d9b9b768ef43be6d708a48906ac31962$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi Peter,
>
> thank you for your effort, it really helped.
>
> Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
> flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
> possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
> it on omg site ....
>
>
> The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
> is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
> bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
> would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
> method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).
>
> Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
> whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.
>
> 1. method library level
> Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
> the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
> changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
> Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
> WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
> (who can change state and in which conditions). Also we should be able
> define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as name, owner, and whatever
> we want.

You can do something similar with the current version of EPF. Check out
Fig. 19 of Part II of our EPF Composer overview paper:
http://www.eclipse.org/epf/general/EPFComposerOverviewPart2. pdf. It shows
the same process in the work product usage and consolidated view. The WP
usage view allows you to define different states on work products within the
scope of different activities. For example, you see the Vision document in
a different state after the activity "Initiate the Project" (exit state)
than after "Define the System". In addition to define these activity
specific state you can also assign different responsible roles for the same
Vision document work product for each activity by modifying that information
in the properties windows. With these two abilities: (a) to model the
states of work products for activities and (b) the ability to change the
responsible role descriptor for a work product descriptor in an activity,
you should be able to do what you describe without the need of a separate
Work Item.

> 2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
> WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
> But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are
> different.
> It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
> attributes and possible values inside EPF.
>

You could model different special work items in EPF by created sub-classes
using the extends variability relationship. You would be able to inherit
the descriptions of our WIL artifact and add your own. Replacing attributes
is difficult, but we have a bugzilla filed that will add this capability
(called "extends-replace").

> In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
> 1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
> 2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle

Adding work items kinds as a new work product type is something we could
discuss. Although, we would like to add state machines to all work products
on the method content side (and not only process side) anyway. The idea is
that one can describe many different possible lifecycles a work product can
have (e.g. a high ceremony use case model with 15 states versus a low
ceremony use case model with four states) and use these to assemble
processes with them. If we would related tasks and capability patterns to
transitions the process editor could make suggestion on the tasks and
patterns to choose for creating a process. Once, we accomplished that with
EPF Composer, we would need to see what else work items would offer that you
cannot model already using artifacts.

> Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
> What do you think?
> Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
> don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
> kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.
>
> All the best,
> J

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #13633 is a reply to message #13571]

Thu, 15 June 2006 22:51

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

see other reply

--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"jan masaryk" <jan.masaryk@asseco.sk> wrote in message
news:49799a212facfca3e9cdb9023ac48ca3$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi Peter,
>
> thank you for your effort, it really helped.
>
> Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
> flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
> possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
> it on omg site ....
>
>
> The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
> is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
> bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
> would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
> method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).
>
> Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
> whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.
>
> 1. method library level
> Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
> the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
> changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
> Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
> WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
> (who can change state and in which conditions). Also we should be able
> define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as name, owner, and whatever
> we want.
> 2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
> WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
> But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are
> different.
> It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
> attributes and possible values inside EPF.
>
> In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
> 1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
> 2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle
>
> Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
> What do you think?
> Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
> don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
> kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.
>
> All the best,
> J

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #563466 is a reply to message #11443]

Mon, 29 May 2006 21:15

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #563828 is a reply to message #11594]

Thu, 08 June 2006 08:43

jan masaryk

Messages: 50
Registered: July 2009

Member

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #563869 is a reply to message #11594]

Tue, 13 June 2006 07:51

jan masaryk

Messages: 50
Registered: July 2009

Member

Hi Peter,

thank you for your effort, it really helped.

Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
it on omg site ....

The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).

Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.

1. method library level
Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
(who can change state and in which conditions). Also we should be able
define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as name, owner, and whatever
we want.
2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are different.
It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
attributes and possible values inside EPF.

In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle

Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
What do you think?
Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.

All the best,
Ján Masaryk

Report message to a moderator

Re: modelling non-IT company / extend of EPC composer [message #563913 is a reply to message #13530]

Thu, 15 June 2006 22:51

Peter Haumer

Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi Jan.
Sorry for the late reply. I was traveling. You can get our recent SPEM
proposal here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/06-06-02

Replies to your other points inline below.
--

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

____________________________________________________________ __

PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"jan masaryk" <jan.masaryk@asseco.sk> wrote in message
news:d9b9b768ef43be6d708a48906ac31962$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi Peter,
>
> thank you for your effort, it really helped.
>
> Concerning linked presentation -> it explain me many of my questions about
> flexibility of modelling using epf, especially part 'Overview of ..'. It's
> possible to see actual proposal of SPEM 2.0 specification? I couldn't find
> it on omg site ....
>
>
> The problem why I open the question of extending EPF with new meta-model
> is "WorkItem-based type of Work Product". I looked at related item in
> bugzilla (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=137120) but I
> would to discuss outside of OpenUP forum (because we would define our own
> method library which will use WIL /WorkItem List/ another way).
>
> Let's declare that now we are thinking use EPF for modelling processes of
> whole software company not only System/Software Life Cycle Model.
>
> 1. method library level
> Exist many Artifacts (with it's own life cycle) where is need to follow
> the state of their life (for example because one item is shared and
> changed by several roles and therefore role is responsible only for that
> Artifact in some states). Because of it we should define CONCRETE WIL
> WorkProduct with concrete states and possible transition between states
> (who can change state and in which conditions). Also we should be able
> define attributes of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct as name, owner, and whatever
> we want.

You can do something similar with the current version of EPF. Check out
Fig. 19 of Part II of our EPF Composer overview paper:
http://www.eclipse.org/epf/general/EPFComposerOverviewPart2. pdf It shows
the same process in the work product usage and consolidated view. The WP
usage view allows you to define different states on work products within the
scope of different activities. For example, you see the Vision document in
a different state after the activity "Initiate the Project" (exit state)
than after "Define the System". In addition to define these activity
specific state you can also assign different responsible roles for the same
Vision document work product for each activity by modifying that information
in the properties windows. With these two abilities: (a) to model the
states of work products for activities and (b) the ability to change the
responsible role descriptor for a work product descriptor in an activity,
you should be able to do what you describe without the need of a separate
Work Item.

> 2. reusability of concrete WIL WorkProduct
> WIL Workproduct is often implemented as evidence with workflow runtime.
> But workflow is often different by projects, even attributes are
> different.
> It would be nice for each use of CONCRETE WIL WorkProduct tailor
> attributes and possible values inside EPF.
>

You could model different special work items in EPF by created sub-classes
using the extends variability relationship. You would be able to inherit
the descriptions of our WIL artifact and add your own. Replacing attributes
is difficult, but we have a bugzilla filed that will add this capability
(called "extends-replace").

> In short that's reason why I open discussion. I see solution in:
> 1. extending of WP type with 'WorkItem List'
> 2. using this type of WP for each Artifact which has it's own life cycle

Adding work items kinds as a new work product type is something we could
discuss. Although, we would like to add state machines to all work products
on the method content side (and not only process side) anyway. The idea is
that one can describe many different possible lifecycles a work product can
have (e.g. a high ceremony use case model with 15 states versus a low
ceremony use case model with four states) and use these to assemble
processes with them. If we would related tasks and capability patterns to
transitions the process editor could make suggestion on the tasks and
patterns to choose for creating a process. Once, we accomplished that with
EPF Composer, we would need to see what else work items would offer that you
cannot model already using artifacts.

> Probably it's not a question of extending meta-model but tool.
> What do you think?
> Maybe it's only complication with small additional value but actually I
> don't see other way with so flexibility .... I know I can add WorkProduct
> kind, but this way I can't do what I describe above.
>
> All the best,
> J

Report message to a moderator