Functions map inputs with outputs as expected from a performing agent whatever its nature (concrete or abstract) or means (physical, logical, or magical).
They are not to be confused with objectives (which don’t necessarily specify performing agents or detail inputs) nor with activities (which purport to describe concrete execution paths).
Those distinctions are critical when the aim is to align business processes requirements with systems architecture capabilities.
Functions & Processes
Functions are complete (contrary to objectives) and abstract (contrary to activities) descriptions of what organizations (represented by actors), system architectures (represented by services), or objects (through operations) can do. As such they are akin to interfaces or types, and cannot be instanciated on their own. Processes on the contrary describe how activities are executed, i.e instanciated (#).
That understanding provides for a modular approach to business processes:
- Business processes can be defined with regard to business functions independently of the way they are supported.
- Business rules can be managed independently of the way they are applied, by people or systems.
- Business logic can be factored out in functions (business or systems) or set within specific processes.
Yet that would not be possible without some modeling across enterprise architecture layers.
Functions & Models
Functions are meant to facilitate reuse across enterprise architectures, which entails descriptions that are clearly and easily accessible: context, modus operandi, expected outcome. Whatever the modeling method(s) in use, it’s safe to assume that different stakeholders across enterprise architectures will pursue different objectives, to be defined with different concepts. If they are to communicate they will need some explicit and unambiguous semantics for the links between processes, functions, and activities:
- Functional flows are used between processes and functions (a) or actors (d), or between actors and functions (e).
- Composition or aggregates are used to specify where the business logic is to be employed, by functions (b) or by processes (c).
- Documentation references (f) are used between unspecified actors and business logic, in case it would performed by people.
Finally, the semantics of connectors used between functions will have to be consistent with the one used to connect them to processes and activities.
Considering that functions are neatly set within the systems modeling realm, one would assume that inheritance and structure connectors can be used to detail and combine them. Yet, since functions cannot be instantiated, some paring down can be applied to their semantics:
- Traditional structure connectors are set with regard to identification: bound to structure for composition, set independently otherwise. Since functions have no instances that criterion is irrelevant and the same reasoning goes for composition.
- Likewise, since functions have no states to be considered, inheritance of functions can be represented by aggregates.
As far as functions are concerned, structures as well as inheritance connectors can be fully and soundly replaced by aggregate ones, which could significantly improve the mapping of business processes, activities, and supporting functions.
- Architecture Capabilities
- Alignment for Dummies
- Alignment: from Empathy to Abstraction
- Requirements & Architecture Capabilities
- From Process to Services
- The Cases for Reuse
- The Economics of Reuse
- EA Documentation: Taking Words for Systems