William, You're correct that these documents are available from the TMWG web site. However, everyone should know that these are still working documents. It's for this reason that I suggested taking a look at Chapter 1 only.
I'm also quite dismayed and disappointed by your obvious disdain for a disciplined and rigorous approach to analyzing a process and determining requirements....this attitude only serves to further confuse this effort and suggest that a methodology and approach that is not only endorsed by the leading standards organizations in the world: X12, UN/CEFACT, OASIS, OMG, ISO, to name a few, and is used by the world's leading ISV's (IBM, Sun, the RosettaNet consortium, Intel, webMethods, SeeBeyond, Vitria, the automotive industry, etc.) is useless and not worthwhile. I totally and emphatically disagree with your statements and position on this issue. Why on earth would you encourage this group and health care in general to not adopt this approach but to go off in a fragmented and ultimately potentially an ineffective effort? Over the last couple of years several surveys have been conducted by The Gartner Group and the Boston Consulting Group as published in COMPUTERWORLD March 27, 2000, to better understand why IT and/or eCommerce projects and efforts do not succeed. The results of both surveys can be synopsized as follows: 67 to 75% of IT Projects Fail due to 1. Failure to analyze 2. Failure to establish a strategy 3. Failure to plan 4. Failure to manage the plan To state this another way: Only 1 in five IT projects succeed, and the characterics of successful projects include the following: 1. Up front assessment & analysis 2. Well-thought-out business strategy 3. A focused project plan 4. Effective management of the project plan 5. An understanding of the various technologies to be exploited I certainly hope you'll reconsider your attitude and position. Rachel Rachel Foerster Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd. Phone: 847-872-8070 -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:58 AM To: WEDi/SNIP ID & Routing Subject: UN/CEFACT's Modeling Methodology (UMM) Fortunately, there's no need to post (parts of) the voluminous UMM - the UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) Release 10, of November 2001, is freely available at the UN/CEFACT TMWG site at http://www.gefeg.com/tmwg/n090r10.htm, the space sponsored by David Frenkel's new hang-out, Gefeg mbH, in beautiful downtown (East) Berlin no longer obstructed by a big ugly Wall. Frankly, I've always found this kind of stuff - replete with stick figures standing in for "roles" - unreadable.... but if someone here wants to tackle it, feel free to do so! William J. Kammerer Novannet, LLC. +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rachel Foerster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2002 02:05 PM Subject: RE: auto-discovery of the "return path" (In the Kepa-DNS model) Chris, Rather than "naming" a DNS model as you suggest below, I would suggest that we adopt the UN/CEFACT Unified Modeling Methodology and develop the appropriate use cases and scenarios in a more rigorous and disciplined manner. Actually, my proposed approach to requirements developed is based on that UMM, which by the way, is based on the Rational Unified Process but adapted for standards development organizations. This is the globally recognized and used methodology for almost all systems design work, and one that is used by all of the major systems developers, such as IBM, Sun, CommerceOne, etc., all of which are active participants in the continuation of the ebXML work under both UN/CEFACT and OASIS. Additionally, major participants also include a large number of X12 members, and of course, the X12 Committee is the official U.S. representative into this effort. If there is sufficient interest, I'll post the introductory chapter of the UN/CEFACT UMM document, which is still in draft form, to this lists document server. This introduction will give everyone a good overview of this approach. Rachel
