I wanna to draw a business use case diagram for a specified problem.
The problem has some rules. Now I wanna to ask that:
Is it correct to put business rules when drawing business use case?
I would say that it is correct to add any information that makes your diagram easier to understand. If you can't find the proper diagram item for the information you want to include, use comments.
I agree with #Konamiman that some flexibility in what we "should" do with our diagrams is reasonable, our objective is to communicate. In this particular situation I would have expected Business Rules to be a largely internal implementation feature of a system and so when we describe the Business Use cases (how the system is used) we probably don't need to mention them. "Approve Insurance Claim" may well be a use case for the system, and probably uses Business Rules internally, but does the reader of the diagram need to know that?
I can imagine that you may have additional "Change Business Rule" use case.
Related
What is the relationship between an FDD and a DFD of the same system?
Functional decomposition is about partitioning the functionality of a big complicated system, into smaller, preferably simpler parts. The FDD is a tool that aids you in this process. Basically, you are breaking down of the capabilities of a complicated system, into a set of more specific logically grouped capabilities.
Now, a data flow diagram deals with how data flows through a system for a specific function of the system. So, each of the above mentioned capabilities might very well have their own unique data flows.
For example, if you have an FDD diagram describing a blogging system. You might have functions for say, displaying a blog post, editing a blog post and potentially sending a link to a blog post to a friend.
These three functions will all have fairly different data flows, which can be modelled separately with DFDs. So, I'd say the relationship between these two types of diagrams are that one can help identify the individual functions, which might, or might not, need to have an associated dataflow mapped.
Hope that is helpful.
i've been trying to figure out how to deal with Business Rules in the following format:
a booking has 1 to n (n = 200) articles
problem P shall be handled by the System XYZ
a specifict data-class shall be supported in the System XYZ
the communication to the customer shall be done by the organization Z.
it is possible to change a specific value in an order
the system XYZ shall be able to evaluate if a customer is able to pay monthly rates
in addition, many rules i got explain certain things that need to be fulfilled in order to let a future system work correctly. In my eyes, these rules are technical requirements. So, what would be the best choice? Hard-coding these Business Rules in Business Processes (it just sounds so wrong) or embedding a Business Rule Management System (with a Rules Engine) next to a Business Process Management?
My guess is that a Rule Engine is not the best choice for this. There are sometimes more than one possibilities and scenarios written down in each Business Rule and the common "if-then" statement does not apply in the most cases.
So i found out that in most cases there is this "if-then" statement (literature etc.), but then the SBVR from the OMG comes in (Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules). It confuses me because there it isn't required to formulate rules with "if-then" et cetera.
I assume that these rules are not specifically meant to be built in a rules engine, but rather kept an eye on during the implementation of the software and after this process. Yet i think that these Business Rules might change. Wouldn't it be naive to hard-code them in Business Processes?
If there's anyone with a hint, i'd be very thankful.
BR
Yeah, you just need to choose the right tool for the job. You should take a look at the Drools and JBPM projects. Where the main goal is to make the rule engine to coexist with the process engine. So for some of those "Rules" you can create a business process to take care of it and for another one you can just write a proper business rule. And the third option is to mix both worlds.
Can anyone gives us tricks, uses case, book and any other ressources for how to Capture and manage requirements from a statement of work(SOW).
A Statement of Work usually identifies your business objectives and spells out the scope. From there I would (very loosely):
Attempt a very high-level model of business functionality (my preferred form is a Use Case Model).
Engage with the business owner(s) to confirm the high-level model.
Attempt - in conjunction with the business owner(s), to model the business requirements (my preferred method is use cases).
It's possible to capture requirements as a list in a document or wiki. It's also possible to capture them purely diagrammatically. I use Visio. I've also used requirements management tools such as RequisitePro. I prefer use cases that start out as diagrams and add step-wise narratives as needed.
I am completely new in analysis and design.....
please some one tell me :
what is the difference between System use case and Business use case ?
As far as I know, there is only one diagram in UML called use case diagram..
Now, what about them ? Do they have separate diagram?
Thank you
From Wikipedia:
A business use case is described in
technology-free terminology which
treats the business process as a black
box and describes the business process
that is used by its business actors
(people or systems external to the
business) to achieve their goals (...)
A system use case is normally
described at the system functionality
level (for example, create voucher)
and specifies the function or the
service that the system provides for
the user (...)
So, in short, business use cases are more about what the users expect the system to do, and system use cases are more about what the system actually does.
A business use-case describes the steps in a process that achieve a business goal.
A system use-case describes behavior of a system that automates a business use-case.
Use cases are the values provided to the actors by the systems or organizations under study.
For organizations, named business use case;
For systems, named system use case.
See the picture below (drawn by myself):
Use cases can be divided into two types. It is not necessary, but if someone ask you to do that, it is possible.
System use case represents the use cases which are done by the system(not manually).
For example: In a online hotel reservation system a user books a room. So the booking is a system use case and the user is a system user.
Business use case represents the use cases which are done manually. It is not necessarily done by the system.
For Example: Manual hotel reservation via telephone call. A user calls the hotel and books a room. Here telephoning is not a system use case, because it is not done by the system. The user is also not a system user, because they do not interact with the system.
Software architecture comprises among others with the business view (description of business processes) and with the system view (description of the system). A business use case is describing the functionality of the business view, and the system use case is describing the functionality of the system view. The business use case has its graphic stereotype in the UML standard.
What's the point of using Fit/FitNesse instead of xUnit-style integration tests? It has really strange and very unclear syntax in my opinion.
Is it really only to make product owners write tests? They won't! It's too complicated for them. So why should anyone Fit/FitNesse?
Update So it's totally suitable for business-rules tests only?
The whole point is to work with non-programmers, often even completely non-technical people like prospect users of a business application, on what application should do and then put it into tests. While making tests work is certainly too complicated for them, they should be able to discuss tables of sample data filled out in e.g. Word. And the great thing is, unlike traditional specification, those documents live with your application because automated tests force you to update them.
See Introduction To Fit and Fit Workflow by James Shore and follow links to the rest of documentation if you want.
Update: Depends on what you mean by business rules? ;-) Some people would understand it very narrowly (like in business rules engines etc), others---very broadly.
As I see it, Fit is a tool that allows you to write down business (as in domain) use cases with rich realistic examples in a document, which the end users or domain experts (in some domains) can understand, verify and discuss. At the same time these examples are in machine readable form so they can be used to drive automated testing, You neither write the document entirely by yourself, nor requre them to do it. Instead it's a product of callaboration and discussion that reflects growing understanding of what application is going to do, on both sides. Examples get richer as you progress and more corner cases are resolved.
What application will do, not how, is important. It's a form of functional spec. As such it's rather broad and not really organized by modules but rather usage scenarios.
The tests that come out of examples will test external behavior of application in aspects important from business point of view. Yes, you might call it business rules. But lets look at Diego Jancic's example of credit scoring, just with a little twist. What if part of fit document is 1) listing attributes and their scores and then 2) providing client data and checking results, Then which are the actual business rules: scoring table (attributes and their scores) or application logic computing the score for each client (based on scoring table)? And which are tested?
Fit/FitNesse tests seem more suitable for acceptance testing. Other tests (when you don't care about cooperation with clients, users, domain experts, etc., you just want to automate testing) probably will be easier to write and maintain in more traditional ways. xUnit is nice for unit testing and api tests. Each web framework should have some tool for web app/service testing integrated in its modify-build-test-deploy cycle, eg. django has its little test client. You've lots to chose from.
And you always can write your own tool (or preferably tweak some existing) to better fit (pun intended) some testing in your particular domain of interest.
One more general thought. It's often (not always!!!) better to encode your tests, "business rules" and just about anything, in some form of well defined data that is interpreted by some simple, generic piece of code. Then it's easy to use the data in some other way: generate documentation, migrate to new testing framework, port application to new environment/programming language, use to check conformance with some external rules or other system (just use your imagination). It's much harder to pull such information out from code, eg. simple hardcoded unit tests or business rules.
Fit stores test cases as data. In very specific format because of how it's intended to be used, but still. Your domain specific tests may use different formats like simple CSV, JSON or YAML.
The idea is that you (the programmer) defines an easy to understand format, such as an excel sheet. Then, the product owner enters information that is hard to understand for people that is not in the business... and you just validate that your code works as the PO expects running Fit.
The way used in xUnit, can be used for programmers as an input for easy to understand or simple information.
If you're going to need to enter a lot of weird examples with multiple fields in your xUnit test, it will became hard to read.
Imagine a case where you have to decide whether to give a loan to a customer, based on the Age, Married/Single, Amount of Childrens, Wage, Activity, ...
As a programmer, you cannot write that information; and a risk manager cannot write a xUnit test.
Helps reduce redundancy in regression and bug testing. Build manageable repository of test cases. Its like build once and use for ever.
It is very useful during cooperation of the QA and devs teams: QA could show to developer the result of the failed test and a developer will easyly help to solve an environment issue and will understand steps for reproducing a bug.
It is suitable for UI and even for API testing.