Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Motivation Model


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Fails WP:RS, which is part of WP:V, and therefore it will also fail the traditional definition of notability on wikipedia, which is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Business Motivation Model

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of reworded copyright violation in apparent conflict of interest; reads like advertisement copy, mostly original research, and is not reliable sourced (the only source is by the original researcher). &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * * Reworded copyright violation from what source? reads like advertisement copy should invoke an article talk suggestion for changes, not an AfD request; original research -- how can this be as it is an OMG beta standard? reliable sourced -- again see external references ie this is an OMG standard proposal. Coren - can you please expand on your objections so they can be discussed? Thanks. Isvana (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, very strongly. The first impression is that we are dealing with a sort of language pathology.  This purports to be a "metamodel" that purportedly "enables stakeholders in an enterprise":  To define the components of governance – what the enterprise wants to be (its ends), what it has decided to do to get there (its means), and how it will govern the means it has adopted. To record decisions made in response to changes in internal and external influencers, to change ends and means, and to reference which parts of the operational business are affected. To take account of earlier decisions made in response to the same and other related influencers.  Translating this septic prose into English, this "metamodel" makes it possible to figure out what you're doing, remember what you did, and figure out what you're going to do next.  And you paid how much for that?  This is classic complete bollocks, belabouring the obvious in polysyllables.  As Truman Capote said, "that isn't writing - it's typing." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because some people don't understand its contents and importance, this article should NOT be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.218.140 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)  — 83.77.218.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hello, I object very strongly to any deletion. This is a summary of an internationally accepted standard from the Object Management Group (www.omg.org), a group consisting of over 800 companies. The words are taken from the standard, and have been through a process of peer review. Moreover, the standard is being successfully used by companies in combination with other standards mandated by the OMG, including UML, BPMN and SBVR. I suggest you read the standard itself before calling it bollocks, particularly given the effort put into it, and the fact that you clearly don't have any expertise in business modeling. By all means point our where you think it reads like an advertisement, or where it needs strengthing, but removing it will be a dis-service to the community. 217.155.15.254 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.194.33 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) — 82.47.194.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I certainly hope that the BMM entry is not deleted, and especially that it's not deleted because of a misunderstanding of what it is. The BMM specification does not claim that it “makes it possible to figure out what you're doing, remember what you did, and figure out what you're going to do next”. It says that if you want to govern your business effectively, then you need (as ongoing activities) to be figuring out what you're doing, remembering what you did, and figuring out what you're going to do next. In particular, it says that you ought to state explicitly your reactions to change and to justify your decisions - and you ought to make the rationale visible to all stakeholders. The BMM helps in three ways. First, it provides a fact model to help stakeholders communicate consistently. This consists of: (1) about 40 concepts, with definitions, so that when stakeholders talk about, for example, ‘Goal’ and ‘Objective’, they know that they both mean the same things - even if they might individually use other terms in other contexts; (2) fact types that link concepts, such as ‘Assessment judges Influencer’, ‘Assessment identifies Risk’, ‘Business Policy governs Course of Action’, which provide a checklist for making assessments and decisions. Second, the BMM defines a boundary for governance. One part of this is that there are influencers - things (such as competition, regulation and technology) that affect your business but are not directly under your control. You have to monitor them and assess when and how to react to them by changing things that are under your control (such as your business policies and courses of action), and measuring the effectiveness of your changes against desired results. The other part of the boundary is that your governance decisions have to be realized. The business policies and courses of action in your BMM need to reference the affected business processes, organizational responsibilities, resources, product/service specifications, etc. – but their detail is in your operational business systems, not in your BMM. Third, the BMM specification provides the basis for building a software tool in which a business can create and maintain an instance of the BMM for itself. OMG specifications require that any compliant tool must be able to interchange its models with other compliant tools. One important application of this will be distributing reference models within an industry. For example, suppose a trade association reached agreement with a regulator on acceptable interpretation of, and compliance with, a regulation. It could present this in BMM interchange form, and send it to all its members who have BMM-compliant tools. This would be immediately usable, and more convenient than getting the advice in, say, a pdf document. “And you paid how much for that?” Well, nothing, actually. Object Management Group specifications are available, free, from http://www.omg.org. If you decide that the BMM would be useful to you, you might choose to pay for a tool that implements the specification; several OMG members are software vendors who are developing BMM tools. Or you might decide to implement it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qioqe (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP - this is a bona fide standard. Just because some wiki editor may disagree with it, doesn't alter the fact that it exists and is therefore a valid Wikipedia reference. Isvana (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP - BMM is the product of an open standards activity and represents an area of interest to a broad community. It also represents an evolving area of interest, and Wikipedia can provide a valuable forum for presentation of insights and experiences.  I see no justification for deletion.Fred.cummins (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * — Fred.cummins (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KEEP - BMM is an important standard to a large and growing community of strategy professionals who create models of business plans, as well as the tool vendor community that supports their efforts. Bridgeland (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * — Bridgeland (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Fails to assert the notability of the subject through independent reliable sources. The only sources cited are either the original paper or the standard. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.