I recently published new German translations of the Decision Management Manifesto and the German RuleSpeak documents on my website,

Although it seems that users tend to follow an either-or-concept, both are important. As Ron Ross points out, there are a variety of business rules that cannot become described in a decision model. Otherwise, SBVR and the RuleSpeak approach lacks an inherent approach to structuring. As a result, "rule book"-projects with thousands of business rules emerge in practice. In order to master such projects, we need a classification criterion, preferably a top-down criterion.

DMN addresses the structuring problem (among other problems) by describing decisions and breaking them down into sub-decisions and inputs. The result is a decision network that offers us the desired top-down structure. (See our workshop on the BCS website.)

Both have in common that we need to know the concepts used. We have to know what we are talking about. Compare the standard SBVR (semantics of the Business Vocabulary and Rules) of the Object Management Group). We define the "concepts" used. RuleSpeak / SBVR is also used to explain the rules of the (DMN) decision tables.

To understand these documents, a basic understanding of the term "concepts" and of SBVR is an advantage. Ron Ross has dedicated this question to some blog posts. For example. "What's the concept?!" In short, I define "concept" as follows: "A concept is an object through which we communicate about in natural language." What qualities does it have? Which business rules apply to the object? Which requirements must the object fulfil?

This definition makes it clear that the used objects must be classified meaningful.

In the German language "concept" is often used in the sense of "plan, procedure" and "draft". We are closer to another definition: A concept is an object of interest; we speak about it. Whether it's data, software objects, business processes and business process objects, decisions or anything else.

The book featured examples of several tools: Qualiware, Visual Paradigm, MagicDraw), Signavio, DecisionsFirst. These applications are used by us in Projects and Workshops. For sure you find more interesting solutions in the Web used by us in Projects too. Examples are Adonis, Intellior, Semtalk, ARIS (softwareag.com) or BIC.

Users often ask which tool is the most suitable for me? The question cannot be answered without further ado. The answer is undoubtedly partially subjective. Several criteria play a role. Which one has the higher priority depends on your project task. The primary or only criterion is not, which notation is supported and is most suitable for my task? This is definitely a big advantage of the standard notations. The nature of the presentation and the meaning of the elements is standardized. In addition, the OMG standard notations include an exchange format. This allows the exchange between tools and platforms. No manufacturer can claim to own a better BPMN. The standard notation is supported or not. The implementation and support of new standard notations is often a temporary question. Other criteria are more important: ease of use of the solution, output formats and reports, the ability to easily add additional attributes not included in the standard notation (e.g. IGOE), proprietary representations, support for a role concept, and more.

Social Networks, events as "Process Solution Day" discuss the question.