I want to shortly explain the context of my approach to Business Process and Choreography Modeling Coaching. My guiding philosophy is a full cycle coaching approach. That means, that not only the creation of choreography models is the goal, but the role of them within the context of the preceding and succeeding steps. I intend to explain this in more detail in Webinars and Seminars in the future.

Model Business Process

First of all the Business Process itself is modeled. The focus of this activity is to identify the steps that need to be performed to reach the goal and their dependency. This is done irrespective of the participants, which are not completely clear at this point in time.

Break into Participants

This is a design decision. Often Participants are companies of the business world. Still it is a design decision how fine or coarse granular they are designed and which part of the process is executed in which participant. For example it is possible to define different departments within a company as one or many participants.

Model Choreography

Now the interaction between participants can be modeled by means of the choreography model. This is a top-down approach. Therefore it defines the frame of subsequent detailed process modeling within the participants.

Model Public Processes / Services of Participants

As a next step the public processes and services of the participants can be modeled. It is decisive to model which services which participant exposes and which constraints exist between the service operations (e.g. an order needs to be confirmed, before it can be delivered).

If a complete system is designed from scratch, the public process models and the services are designed as To-Be processes and services. But in most instances the participants will at least in part already exist. Therefore As-Is models will be created and must be aligned with the To-Be model. This is the most challenging part of all. Because if the public process of a participant cannot be freely designed, because the cost to change it is too high, then the choreography must be changed, which in turn means, that the other participant may need to change. This is the most challenging negotiation in the design process.

Derive Business Objects

Before an implementation can start, Business Objects, which implement the behavior of the participants, need to be derived. The behavior of the Business Objects needs to be made consistent with the public behavior of the participant.

In the end the public behavior of the participant will be an abstract process, while the business objects will be concrete. This will also be very clear, when it is time to model correlation rules – i.e. which message instance is processed by which process instance. At this point in time, the most natural process instance will be the business object instance. Remember: The public process is only an abstract process – therefore it does not have instances.

Model Common Monitoring Process

Now the details have been modeled and we want to re-aggregate the execution of the processes into a common process view on instance level. The Monitoring Process View is needed as a re-simplification of the already modeled details. In the optimal case the monitoring process is equal to the original process model which stood at the beginning. Most probably there will be deviations for good reasons. This of course is also a good exercise to re-confirm the original requirements and justify the deviations from it.

Today I want to speak about a small pet project that is more fun than serious. I was thinking about future collaboration patterns and to try to make business process modeling more attractive instead of thinking about modeling tool number 101.

That’s when I thought, what if Business Process Modeling could be made more real by means of virtual reality. In know – Second Life is not the place, where one would meet too many Business Process Modelers. But – there are businesses to be fair. Even though the hype is gone, it’ still there and – a place where I could try the idea of more tangible Business Process Modeling in a virtual reality.

Viola.

What, if a group of avatars would meet and collaboratively move around and build the process? Discuss about it, while they watch each other? They could simulate the process and adapt it, if necessary.

Ok – maybe the process is more like the 3D version of a paper or screen type of pattern. So why not try one or the other pattern? Like walk though the process?

Maybe completely new patterns of representing models emerge over time. Maybe it is also an idea to sit at a table and use activities like lego bricks.

Maybe even if 3D is exploited in a better way, sub processes can be displayed together with the main process. Or the whole process is like a big house with many rooms.

Interestingly enough in the last BPM 09 conference in Ulm there was a scientific discussion about tangible process modeling. There was a research project where Activities were made tangible by means of plastic bricks and people moved them around on the table. In the real world I mean. They mentioned the next challenge was to digitalize the result in a more effective way. Well – maybe virtual reality modeling is the solution to this problem. In some future.

So – that’s my fun project.

I just took the BPMN Model understanding self test. It is a research project of Humboldt University of Berlin, that I can recommend. I was asked about 30 models and how I understand them. The test takes about 30 minutes and is a nice excercise.

http://www.bpmn-selftest.org/

I made it to rank 14 of 394. However I wonder who the 13 were, that were better . So give it a try, maybe you can beat me. The test is anonymous however.

Nevertheless I want to share what I thought when I saw the models. They were quite complicated. I think if models are as complicated in a real project as those in the test, then something went terribly wrong in the first place. I agree, that it is fine for a research project to use artifical complicated models, to find out more about human model comprehension. And I am very interested in the research result. But models must be much simpler than those.

Simpler models could be reached by limiting the scope of one model – i.e. splitting it up in different parts, using submodels for example. As far as I remember human comprehension can assess 7 items at once, not more. So in essence I think a model should not contain more than about 7 important steps.

Also it can mean to model only the most important cases and model the special cases in a different model.

And it can mean to question, if BPMN is the right model language for the purpose chosen. I know that BPMN is popular and becomes even more, because it is a standard. But in my eyes the question remains, if the task flow oriented modeling it does is really the best way to do it. In my eyes it should be evaluated as a result of this research project, if goal driven and constraint based modeling would not result in much easier models.