David W. McCoyI have just put the last comma in a new piece of research that will be out this quarter, entitled: Taking the Mystery Out of Business Rule Representation. As a hint at what we researched, I am including one of the main graphics: a chart that shows the various rule representation approaches plotted against two axes:
- Complexity – How hard is it to use one of these techniques? How much work do I have to do to make it work for me?
- Linguistic Power – What do I get in return for my hard work? How close can I come to representing the real language dynamics that real speakers use when talking about business rules?
The research analyzes each alternative approach and advises on how users and rule developers can optimize the complexity-versus-linguistic-power dichotomy. Watch for the research, and if you have any comments, fire away.
Business Rule Representation: A Tradeoff of Complexity and Linguistic Power
Source: Gartner
Category: Business Process Management (BPM) Business Rule Management (BRM) Technowishing Tags: Business Rule Management (BRM), David McCoy, Gartner
4 responses so far ↓
1 James Taylor March 12, 2009 at 7:00 am
Dave
Interesting topic. I wrote a response (linked from my name) and I am looking forward to getting my hands on the report.
# Where would template-driven rules fall?
# What about some of the graphical representations for individual rules?
# How does the imprecision of natural language affect its linguistic power?
Enjoy
JT
James Taylor
CEO, Decision Management Solutions
2 David McCoy March 12, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hi James
I read your post. Great questions. Three answers:
First, I did not cover every known rule representation type, so the individual rule approach you mention is not explicitly covered. However, I tried to write this research at a meta-level and talk about categories versus instances. In that case, you might be able to slot additional approaches into my defined buckets.
Template-driven rules fall in the structured-language category, in my taxonomy. They are more complex than graphical aids (trees, tables), but an easier form of language than CNL.
Ambiguity can certainly equal power – but it’s a different kind of power. Ambiguity and imprecision are socio-political powers, purposefully or accidentally hiding the truth. My definition of linguistic power implies intent and capability to be clear and precise. So, by definition, imprecision is a weak point. If imprecision is used as a purposeful weapon, it is a weakness; if it is accidental, it is a weakness – as far as business rules go. For political speeches and short stories, the analysis would be radically different.
Cheers
David McCoy
3 TomDebevoise.com » The Expert Systems Debate in Business Rules March 14, 2010 at 3:47 pm
[...] need visual metaphors (Decision Tables or Rule Flows) to solve the problems. My point here is echoed by Dave McCoy with the Gartner [...]
4 TomDebevoise.com » Unpacking Decision Management: A Changing Landscape April 26, 2010 at 7:01 am
[...] The vast majority of the business rules literature (1)(2)(3)(4) and products are built on the assumption that business rules should be expressed as a linguistic, symbolic or interpreted evaluation of facts. However, the characteristic of this approach make it difficult to create, control and manage changes (5)(6). [...]
Leave a Comment