(Feedback from Danny DELCAMBRE ; 2 October, 2017)

A better alignment in terminologies used in GAMSO and GSBPM, with GSIM and even more with cross-industry frameworks for enterprise architecture or business process management should be aimed at. The conceptual base used in GAMSO/GSBPM should be more explicit and for instance could make better use of GSIM as a meta-model. In this view it could be proposed to requalify the models as business function models rather than activity or process models. The use of terms capability, function, service, process, and activity should be as far as possible consistent with EA (Enterprise Architecture) and BPM (Business Process Model) cross-industry standards.

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. InKyung Choi

     

    (Feedback from ONS, 2 October, 2017)

    Describe issue or need

    Language used is not aligned with GAMSO:

    • GAMSO is an activity model. GSBPM should also be an activity model. GSBPM should be an activity model that refers specifically to the statistical production process.

    Different words are used for the same things in the different modernisation standards (see Grofils & Museux, 2016):

    Phases impacted

    All

    Suggested Improvement

    Align all the language as close to TOGAF, BPMN and GAMSO as possible. This needs to be done in conjunction with GAMSO.