Instances not retaining the name?

[Gary Turner]

Hello

I have a usability issue I wanted to run past some people, I am a complete rookie so I will describe the steps I took;

• 1. I created a business capability (Knowledge Management)
  2. Then I added a business process (Manage Relationships) and linked it to the capability, all good so far.
  3. Then I try to add a physical process (Close Relationships) and relate it to the business process.
  4. I create a new instance and select the process from the 'Implements Business Process' field.
  5. Then in the name field I see '::Manage Relationships'
  6. I modify it to read 'Close Relationships::Manage Relationships'
  7. I have tried variations; no spaces, removing one of the colons, adding 'to' between the colons.
  8. Whenever I click off the instance in the instance browser, then select the instance again, everything except '::Manage Relationships' is lost from the name.

I must be missing something or doing something wrong, hopefully you can help!

Many Thanks
Gary

[Kevin Campbell]

Gary

Frightening to think I'd be attempting to answer a question having asked so many myself

Several of the name fields within Essential are system generated - this is one of them. Try populating the "Process performed by actor role" field and you'll see what comes before the :: in the generated name.

The physical process is a specific instance of a logical process with the addition of the "who and how" added, so you'll actually need to have "close relationship" as a logical business process first before you can create a physical instance of that process being performed by an actor.

We've used the APQC "process classification framework" which creates a three tiered hierarchy mapped in Essential to Business Domain (9 of these), Business Capability (49 of these) and Business Process (257 of these). Not all of these processes are supported by an application somewhere, but for those that are we'll create a physical process (or several if it's done in several places using different systems) mapped to the business process with the addition of actor and role. It may be that for you "Knowledge Management" should be modeled as a domain, "Manage Relationships" as a capability and "Close Relationship" as a logical process.

Good luck!

Kevin

[Gary Turner]

Kevin, thanks for the info and the tips re process mapping. I'll give it a go later.

I'm thinking of this as a journey ....!

Thanks again
Gary

[jonathan.carter]

Thanks for picking this one up, Kevin!

Spot on.

If you find that the name of instances seems to have a mind of its own it is most likely because we have setup some automatic naming - typically for fully-qualified names like usages of things in an architecture. This takes a LOT of leg-work (finger-work? ) out of defining things like the usages on architectures and in most cases you can let the tool handle the fully-qualified naming simply by 'wiring up' the instance appropriately.

Jonathan