Please check this out as well:

http://www.selfmademiracle.com/motivationmodel/is-extrinsic-motivation-effective/

Wow. Not quite sure what to say. Your review was interesting, but not flattering, to say the least.

First off, the fact that the EBMM is property of Microsoft is an indirect effect of the fact that I work at Microsoft. I am not part of a project or funded exercise, in any business division, to create a business motivation model. My site was not a “backhand” way for Microsoft to steal anything. My goal, publically stated, is to produce a model that can become an open standard.

In pursuit of that goal, I have joined the Object Management Group and I am currently in the process of clearing hurdles within Microsoft to present and submit the EBMM for open standards consideration.

In that vein, if there is a contribution that you would like to make to the model, to improve on some of the flaws that you pointed out, I am very happy to work with you, GIVE YOU CREDIT. I cannot pay you, because, honestly, I am not being paid either. Not for this work.

As for the licensing page that you noted, the license is the same that is used on CodePlex. I will move the motivationmodel.com site to CodePlex as soon as I cross the internal obstacles to releasing the model in an Open Source manner. Note that no part of a product or service of Microsoft has ever been discussed, before release, on MSDN or CodePlex. I assure you that this is no attempt by Microsoft to steal any IP or use it without paying for it.

That said, your post implies a certain lack of affinity for the “possession economy.” My paper was published completely outside the possession economy, in as open a way as I can, given the ownership of the model. My objective is to provide the leadership to raise the models, and knowledge, of the entire industry. At the end of the day, it will not be owned by Microsoft. It will be submitted to the OMG. Therefore, contributions to the model are contributions to all of EA, not to me personally or to Microsoft.

I am sorry that you feel “cheated and abused.” That is as far from my intent as it could be. That said, the wordpress site will be taken down (it doesn’t work anyway), and the content will move to CodePlex as soon as I can get it there.

While I cannot personally relieve you of your discomfort, I would like to work with you to improve the EBMM in its next version. Your experience and contribution would be invaluable to closing the gaps you describe and making the model more relevant for all enterprises.

I do believe that the key innovation in the EBMM is the addition of the Business Model element in business motivation, something that is not in the source models (except the Osterwald model). I do define an enterprise in a different manner, as a collection of business models. I also define a company in another part of the model, leaving open the possibility that an enterprise is not the same as a company (a fact that I have observed many times, but which most metamodels have no way to reconcile).

All of the other negatives that you point out are negatives that exist in the source models. I did not insert a great deal of original research in the EBMM for very important reasons: I cannot show a use case where those additions would be interesting, valuable, or correct.

I would like to hear more about the “fatal flaw” in the definition of Vision from the OMG BMM that I incorporated. You did not provide context for that comment, but it is quite interesting and I’d like to know more.

You also mention “social context, reputation, geography or environment” as influencers for business strategy. I find that fascinating. Note that geography is part of the Business Model area, not the influencer area. The other concepts are interesting, but I’d like to hear the traceability from those concepts to a strategic influencer or driver.

Note that “Brand” would be a subtype of “Products and Services” in the Business Model portion of the EBMM. If you feel that “brand” is an important concept to capture in a model at this level, I’m happy to discuss it with you. There are many aspects of “product offering” that are important to the definition of a business but which may reasonably fall outside a “business motivation model” and I’m unconvinced that the notion of “brand” is important enough to jump to top level model from the underlying “products and services” level, independent of the considerations that provide context for the success of a brand.

If you would be amenable to discussing your concerns in detail, please do not hesitate to reach out to me via my blog or the e-mail address provided in this comment. I look forward to any collaboration you would interested in providing.

Sincerely and with respect,
Nick Malik
Enterprise Architect
Microsoft IT Enterprise Architecture