[kukkeliskuu]

My company has been working for some years now on usm.tools (https://usm.tools/public/landing/), based on very similar approach.

USM tools is based on Unified Service Management (USM) method, which provides the necessary concepts to take the the vision one step further. The core idea is similar however: everything a company does is a service, and services can be defined as data. The surprising finding from USM is that in practice it is possible to meaningfully define any service only through five types of processes.

As services are data, you can have multiple views on that data. And as all data is in standardized format, it becomes possible to make generic cross-references between USM and for example ISO27K as rules that refer to your data, and those rules can be evaluated. As a result, you can see your ISO27K compliance on a dashboard in real-time.

[crashabr]

Would you be able to share more? I lead a tiny non-profit org doing data literacy mentoring and I've been meaning to move more of our process docs to Logseq. Although I probably don't need a tool of the level of sophistication of usm.tools, I could take inspiration from your core ideas for our homegrown system.

[kukkeliskuu]

To understand the approach, you need to first understand the method it is based on.

I have written a simple introduction about it that you can download for free from simpleusm.com, no sign-up required.

Simple homegrown system for processes is not that difficult to do. You basically model the USM process model, templates as instances which you then copy as a basis for editing and make a UI around the editing.

You could even just use JSON files and git, but while the data model is not complex, it is still not simple enough for editing by hand in an editor.

Then the question is what is the benefit. I would say that just using USM to define your services is helpful.

By this approach you can build various stakeholders views to your services that are always up to date and do not require manual labor.