Author Topic: Defined variables / string interpolation  (Read 510 times)

Glassboy

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 898
  • Karma: +52/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Defined variables / string interpolation
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2017, 11:44:00 am »
I'm pretty sure there are lots of videos that tell "all guys from New Zealand are cannibals".

Longpork?  Only on special occasions. 

Glassboy

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 898
  • Karma: +52/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Defined variables / string interpolation
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2017, 11:46:51 am »
In terms of other (non toolset) ways of dealing with this, the one approach I've seen is for the analysis to use a lot of newly-invented terms (essentially process-specific role descriptions) that none of the stakeholder groups are likely to recognise, and then having a "glossary per discipline" to translate into real-world business language.

Or find an industry ontology - for example FIBO for the finance sector - and map all of your internal terms to the ontology's term as an abstraction.  Output a bunch of PDFs with the synonym maps and give them to stakeholders.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: +71/-79
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Re: Defined variables / string interpolation
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2017, 10:43:16 am »
Thanks for the responses. I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised to find EA can't handle this. I had been trawling through the user help (not always a fruitful exercise) and not found any hints at this capability.

In terms of other (non toolset) ways of dealing with this, the one approach I've seen is for the analysis to use a lot of newly-invented terms (essentially process-specific role descriptions) that none of the stakeholder groups are likely to recognise, and then having a "glossary per discipline" to translate into real-world business language.

This has the disadvantages that-

  • It's a lot of work
  • None of the stakeholders will recognise the language in the model
The latter is because they cannot recognise each other's language.  So you are NO worse off, and in fact, are ahead of the game.  Because you, at least, recognise the differences in language.  A case in point:  Within the last five years, I sat in on a meeting where there were 6 people (including me). In the course of a 1 hour meeting, I heard at least 8 different meanings of the term "Business Role" used by the participants. I apparently, was the only one who detected this, and, more importantly, I was the only one concerned about the (effective) lack of communication.  And we wonder why our systems don't work!

<rant>
It is not "just a matter of semantics", it is EXACTLY a matter of semantics!
</rant>

There is NO shortcut.  Having workied in both health and other saftey critical systems, people can die if we get stuff wrong.

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!