“BPM refers to a set of management disciplines that accelerate effective business process improvement by blending incremental and transformative methods. BPM’s management practices provide for governance of a business process environment towards the goal of improving agility and operational performance. BPM is a structured approach that employs methods, policies, metrics, management practices and software tools to manage and continuously optimize an organization’s activities and processes.” is one definition of BPM (Gartner: Cantara & Hill, 2008).

In the sense that BPM and ACM both have the goal to improve operational performance and to optimize the activities and processes within an organization, they are similar. Both offer process modeling, process governance and software tools.

But ACM is so different from BPM, that we, the protagonists of the book “Mastering the Unpredictable” say, that it is not BPM and that BPM is not ACM.

The ultimate goal of BPM is to define repeatable processes in a way that they can be managed, measured and optimized. This is a good goal, if the process is repeatable. Not repeatable processes are not the primary focus of BPM. ACM targets mainly not repeatable processes. Furthermore the approach of BPM typically is Top-Down whereas the approach of ACM typically is Bottom-Up.

Q: What is the key difference between BPM and ACM

The key difference is this:

In BPM the process must be defined completely before it can be managed, in IT terms it must be modeled completely before it can be executed within a Business Process Management System. In ACM a process emerges while it is being executed, and at the same time is managed.

Q: Describe how process modeling for ACM might differ from BPM. Will BPMN be useful for ACM?

I would not necessarily talk about process modeling within ACM. I would use the term process definition.

Process modeling for most people implies a graphical process model, just like with BPMN. But in ACM there is not necessarily a graphical process model. There may be for some parts or snippets of a process. Some graphical process renderings may be read-only, while the process definition is done in the form of something similar like a task-list. Some ACM process models may be graphical and editable. There certainly will be process analytics. But the emphasis in ACM is on process execution, not on process modeling. However different forms of process models will most probably emerge, that differ from BPMN.

I believe the way how ACM processes are defined should be designed independent of BPMN. Modeling skills should not be necessary to use an ACM system. It must be very intuitive. It must and will be as simple as writing down a task list or writing bullet points in a slide presentation or filling a spreadsheet.

However I think it will still be possible to export ACM processes to BPMN. If it will be possible to import BPMN to ACM I do not know. I have doubts. It is not the best use case in my opinion, because immature or rarely repeatable processes will first be defined within ACM and not as a BPMN model, and for me it does not make much sense to execute a BPMN process within an ACM system. But in the long run I may be surprised.

To my surprise Why do Process Modeling Projects fail? made it quite high in the ranks. But if I think about it – yes – I understand the question very well.

I had my own share of failed projects, especially when I was novice in the area. And each failed project taught me something that I did not know before. After a while trying again and again I discovered stunning facts that were the foundation for succeeding success.

In my eyes this is absolutely natural in the area of knowledge work. And modeling is knowledge work. Therefore it is inevitable to try, to fail, to learn and finally to succeed.

If somebody promises: “I have the silverbullet method.” something is wrong. Either the task is too simple and therefore mainly irrelevant, or it is a lie. Business Processes are far from being simple, and if they are, then they are not worth modeling them, because they describe an area where only commodity business is done.

It looks so simple on the first glance. But it isn’t. For example take the other question: How to model one process with different variations at once? It is not so simple to answer this question. In my experience what is necessary to succeed in business process modeling is a deeper understanding about the laws of the business processes domain. Otherwise the result will be too complex to be used in practical terms. For example a car can be engineered, if the engineer understands the underlying laws of physics. Even if the car modeling tools look simple in the first place, they alone are not sufficient, nor are “methods” to model. Tools can help, methods can help. But they are not sufficient. Many training classes teach tools or methods. But to achieve a deeper understanding of the laws of the business processes domain in general, and the laws of the business processes from the special domain that I am modeling, they do not suffice.

The need for methods and tools is also expressed in the questions What are the 5 golden rules of process design? And Which business process management tool and notation suit my needs best? Given what I said I would answer this:

1. We need to find out the laws of business processes domain and the special domain that I am modeling.
2. We need to find 5 rules that respect these domain laws.
3. We need to identify the notation, that best fits to these domain laws and
4. We need to build or select a tool that supports this notation and is convenient to use.

Of course this has been tried many times. BPMN 2.0 and BPMN in general is just another attempt towards this goal. But still one of the most asked questions is: Why do Process Modeling Projects fail? I have my own opinion about the natural laws of business processes. I have modeled many hundreds Business Processes with 1000+ models from the areas of Customer Relationship Management, Supplier Relationship Management, Logistics, Supply Chain Planning, Financial Accounting, Project Management, Human Resources and others. I think BPMN respects some of the laws of business processes, but not all. For example Flexibility and Extensibility is not respected enough. It is not respected enough, that the result of a process is more important than the steps within the process, because the result is needed for another process, but the steps are irrelevant. Therefore there are too many variations of the processes, which are actually not needed, if the results of processes are modeled instead of the steps leading to the result. Another opinion about BPMN type of modeling I have is that most processes are over specified. This means the model is much less flexible than the reality.

In these days the Workflow Coalition will publish a book “Mastering the Unpredictable”. There we – process thought leaders from industry – argue that today’s process technology does not yet reflect the laws of unpredictable business processes and that there exist many of those.

Two recent Gartner key Predictions give insight in this very interesting and emerging part of process technology:

By 2012, 20 per cent of customer-facing processes will be knowledge-adaptable and assembled just in time to meet the demands and preferences of each customer, assisted by BPM technologies.

By 2013, dynamic BPM will be an imperative for companies seeking process efficiencies in increasingly chaotic environments.

So the whole process technology topic is still making very necessary progress. New domain specific languages will emerge, of which BPMN is but one. These new languages will respect the now known laws of the business process domain in a better way than today.

This all is nice and good. But what should I do today? Wait for a better future? Certainly not.

What are practical findings from using BPMN? is a very clear question and it is the most asked question. And in my opinion this is the best question. Because it is possible to use BPMN in a way, that respects the domain laws of business processes, even if they are not yet built into the notation. And this knowledge is exchanged by practical tips solving practical problems. Yes, there is a need to better understand the theory as the question What is new in BPMN 2.0? indicates. But even more there is the need for practical tips.

In my experience this can be achieved by coaching and governance. This is supported by the question What is required for BPMN coaching and governance? which is also quite high in the ranks. The answer is another question: Why you need a center of excellence BPM? The answer is: To provide the necessary coaching and governance. Of course there is much more to know about what is required for BPMN coaching and governance.

In some weeks I will start a coaching program. You are invited to it. You should have theoretical background already and you should have some practical experience already as well. The number of participants is limited to 7 for one year. It includes a Kick off meeting, weekly Web-Meetings as well as monthly meetings in a city somewhere in the middle of all participants. I addition to this coaching program I will offer training classes for the public as need arises. One training class will certainly address BPMN 2.0, another probably about how to organize coaching and governance inside your company- all with a very pragmatic approach. Of course the blog also will continue and I may publish another book or articles once in a while. I am looking forward to meet many of you in person who are reading this blog now for a while.

I aswered, that I have experience with that and that I agree that there is a tremendous potential with that. That really was an interesting discussion, because I did not hear such analysis before in the discussions in the public marketplace. I think this is the right direction to think.

I had already governed the design of the process of about 200 or more business objects, creating about 2.000 models including roughly about 5.000 web service operations. I didn’t use BPMN for that, because it was not flexible enough for this purpose, neither any of the existing languages. I used an own Domain Specific Language (DSL) for Modeling the behavior of those Business Objects.

My summary of that exercise is, that I agree to the original question. Only by modeling the process of Business Objects which are part of the ERP system, the ERP system’s web services will as a result have the right granularity. What is the right granularity for web services? Reusability. If web services are reusable, then they pay off most. In order for them to be reusable, they need to fulfil certain conditions. A web service operation should only do one thing at a time., i.e. not trigger an endless chain of activities in the system. It should have clearly defined preconditions. The effects and results of the web service operations must be clearly defined in terms, that can also be preconditions to other web service operations. That are the most important criteria in my view.

A system must be designed for this philosophy from the beginning. I strongly believe that adding web services to an existing system falls short of this goal. Even if it has some value, it would not use the full potential.

In general what I miss in the public standards is a language to describe the behavior of web services. Yes, BPMN 2.0 goes into that direction. But BPMN 2.0 still has to prove that it can fulfil the promise in practice. I think to a degree it can. It will turn out later, if it is possible to simplify the language or if it becomes an inspiration for other approaches (e.g. constraint based instead of workflow based).  And using BPMN 2.0 in itself does not guarantee the success. Additional guidance is necessary, certain quality criteria that each model must fulfil.

However, if the behavior of web service operations of an ERP system is defined, and if the granularity of the web service operations are so, that they are reusable, then the potential is very big. Because it means, that it is possible to attach own processes to that ERP service and even to interweave own processes in-between ERP processes. For example to add an approval before the release of an order under certain conditions, to add an own method of calculating benefits for the payroll and the like.

However as a limitation to the original question I would say, that not all of the processes modeled could be customized or changed arbitrarily. There are certain core processes, that the ERP system offers, that can not be changed without the danger of losing the consistency of the process. Therefore it is clearly necessary to describe which part of the process needs to remain stable and which parts of the process can change or are open for additions and interweaving. This of course must be part of the model.

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.

So – it is very useful to have this tool for the top-down design of process interaction now. Inversely it can be used for the validation of an already existing bottom-up modeling. In reality it will be a mixture between the two. It is of central importance to have the enforceability in mind, that is to define a process, that is actually executeable by the participants. For this the model levels serve as basis for validation.

If we go down to the technical modeling, it is now possible to model Conversations, which are groups of Message Flows, Correlations, which are assignments between a message and a process instance, Service Bindings, Data Flow, … Compared to BPMN 1.2 the DataFlow is more than an artifact now (i.e. more than just a pictogram). It has a datastructure and the Activities have DataInput and DataOutput. Also the DataObject can be used as Parameterspecification for reusable Subprocesses. The Events have been enhanced. There are complex Events, Events , that can interrupt an activity or not, it is possible to define Event-Subprocesses that run aside from the Sequence Flow.

Here some critical comments from my side may be allowed. I think the workflow type of modeling is too strong in this. First there are strong sequence flow relationships established, only to be loosened later by many Events. I think it would be better for the future to define the relationships more loosely from the beginning. For example they could be modeled as preconditions depending on the status. That is something for the future.

Personally I found the discussion around the relationship between public and private processes very fascinating. One time it seemed like we had so many problems with it, that we could not do it. And additionally to this there was the climax of the debate with the concurrent submission. We were blamed, that our model was too strict. A very good discussion! But we found a very simple and elegant solution to these problems. The sequence flow is now not so strict than it was before. It has been loosened, and the difficulties disappeared.

Furthermore one important area is to have in mind the asynchronity of messages. That can produce race conditions between messages. However this in my opinion is not mainly a technical problem, but is due to the asynchronous nature of business processes, that I hope to discuss in the Blog as well in the future. Most problems on the message technology side can be avoided on the business process design level – and that is good news.

There are more changes from 1.2 to 2.0, but in my view these were the most important.BPMN has become quite powerful. Sometimes it is not so clear as to how to solve a certain modeling problem. However the success will depend on elaborating best practices and good guidance.

My wishlist for BPMN in the future? Modeling of Interactions with and of Business Objects. Find simpler ways to model special cases. Model a Process specific  Status.

But now is the time that BPMN 2.0 has to be used and proven in practice. After that we can establish our common opinion about the wishlist for the future. It is a language. And the vocabluary is only the beginning of the process to learn to speak that language. Therefore a good coaching process is what I can recommend.

First: What is the purpose of BPMN?

1. Description of as-is processes within a company and cross companies
2. Using the models for subsequent system development. The model is the high-level specification.
3. Execution of the model (for example in Appian Anywhere) – probably translation into another execution language like BPEL.
4. Model driven development of systems.

If we want to reach and achieve the fourth step, it is clear, that the execution semantics must be clearer as before – unambiguous.

On the one hand it is required to have “soft” models in the description of as-is models and also shall-be models. This will be so in all future. But especially the connecting of business domain models with system models within a holistic model cycle is a new level of effectiveness that we set our hope to.

In my opinion, this hope is not in vain.

Furthermore a complete meta model is needed for model exchange. This is – in my opinion – overdue anyway.

Why do we model at all? We want to utilize and connect flexibility with quality. This is reached by transparency. Only by transparency it is possible to execute the needed quality assurance on this level. If this is connected with model execution or model driven development, this is even better. We have laid the foundations.

This sounds quite enthusiastic. However I am a notorious BPMN critic. Even now more than enough critics comes to my mind. However I am exhilarated what we have reached within the scope of BPMN 2.0. We have made enormous progress in some key areas. I will elaborate on this in further blog posts.

So if in this example the incomplete model is validated against the meta model, then it fails, because the meta model requires at least two participants for the conversation node. However it makes completely sense to have the cardinality 2..* in the metamodel, because there is no meaningful Conversation without at least two participants. A possible solution would be to water down the metamodel. This is not discussed for BPMN 2.0, but may be for XPDL.

So in this watered down metamodel the participants cardinality is only *, allowing for 0 participants as well. The validadion succeeds, but the semantic suffers. Furthermore the check has to be done whatsoever at some stage. So watering down the metamodel is not a good idea in my view. Instead the solution should be a model lifecycle.

In this proposal the model itself has a lifecycle, which can be active or inactive. If the model is inactive, the validation reacts gracefully against the metamodel. Only if the model is active, the validation fails, but this is indeed intended. So it is unter the control of the modeler, if he wants the full strength of the validation or not.

Such a model lifecycle is not planned in BPMN 2.0 as far as I know, but I think it is a good idea and should be considered. There is a MOF 2.0 Facility and Object Lifecycle Specification that might be considered to be used in order not to invent something new that exists already.

In the BPMN 2.0 Spec there is a proposal, that builds on a generic OMG proposal, which is not finalized and which will be standardized independent of the BPMN 2.0 standardization.

In this proposal the idea is to have a Diagram Interchange Model independent from the Domain Model, which is in my opinion, a good idea. It is generic, so that other diagram types could be modeled. The diagram validation is done agains a so called Diagram Definition Model, which is also new. The Diagram Definition Model defines, which Attributes a Diagram Interchange node or connector can have, the allowed references and additional (OCL) constraints. Furthermore each Diagram Interchange node or connector is refers to a Domain Model class – in this case a BPMN Task or Gateway or Sequence Flow for example.

Advantages I see:

• Seperation of Model and View – Model maintenance
• Multiple Diagrams for the same underlying BPMN model are possible
• Generic format for different diagram types – tools can use synergies

Disadvantages I see:

• Tools vendors can not use XSD validation. They have to implement the validation against the Diagram Definition.
• The constraints of the Domain model (e.g. Sequence Flows can only be connected to …) must be repeated in the Diagram Definition Model.
• Grafical Attributes (e.g. line thickness) must be repeated as per modeling element.
• Attribute Format (name / value) too generic in my view.

The XPDL Format used to include the Graphics Info into the Elements of the Domain model.

This is simple and straight, and current tools support it, but has the disadvantage, that it is not possible to have one modeling element (e.g. one process) appear in different diagrams. Instead, the modeling elements must be repeated as per diagram, which has many disadvantages in model execution, analysis and model driven development. The Signavio modeler, which was discussed at the meeting, follows the same approach. However it is good as long as only diagrams are drawn for visualization purposes.

Because the BPMN Digram Exchange Proposal was too generic for some, Bruce Silver proposed an BpmnDI.XSD for a concrete XSD validation.

This approach repeats basically all or many BPMN domain modeling elements. This of course is the disadvantage, because it is but a redundant repetition of the already defined domain model. However it is no complete repetition, because the gateway type for example is not included. So a tool must look into the domain model anyway to render the gateway.

Within this discussion it came to my mind, how the GMF (Graphical Modeling Framework) solves this question. I think it is well worth to have a look at this approach, because I think it may be a good compromise.

The GMF defines a Grafical Definition Model, which only defines Shapes. This is simple to understand and straight. Then it defines a Mapping Model. Within the mapping models, nodes and connections are grouped as needed. For example it defines, that there is a node lane which can contain node Activity and Sequence Flow. As a followon the Acitivty node is connected to the Activity domain class and the Shape, that descibes how an activity should look like. The shape can be re-used, which is an advantage of the BPMN Diagram Exchange Approach. The Structures of the Diagram is already contained in the Mapping Model, so it can be serialized to XMI and XSD, which is also an advantage. However still the diagram logic is separated from the Domain Model, which is an advantage over XPDL. And it is a very generic model, which is an advantage over a mere BpmnDI.xsd.

I personally worked with the GMF, and found it quite practical. I am not proposing to use GMF per se, but maybe the approach should be further considered.

I must admit, I was a little bit surprised about the result. For me BPMN is not flexible enough and it has too many modeling elements. While this is not the majority opinion, a grave minority has the same opinion.

Some comments:

I think BPMN is great – but we just had to add on a few bits to define value add and non value add activities so that larger maps had more to narrow your focus on areas that need attention

Alan Crean, CEO @ Process Master

I agree that this is necessary to not overload the modeler with too many modeling elements.

Flexibility is a vague term that can mean many things in different situations. I would define flexibility as the ability to make changes over time as needed to respond to changes in the situation. In order to be flexible, there have to be constructs that afford the kinds of changes you will need. For instance, flexibility implies some form of control. A common pattern might be that parts of the process diagram are controlled by different people. There is no consideration in BPMN for specifying who has control over different parts. Instead, there is a built in assumption that the entire diagram is designed and maintained as a whole. That reduces flexibility.

Different people controlling different parts of the process diagram is definitely a very important part of the flexibility requirements I see. There is no concept in BPMN for this. It may well be, that it is not possible to add this concept later, because of the current semantic of BPMN.

I consider BPMN still more as a (high level) programming language for automated processes which provides rather poor support for flexible human processes.

I agree.

Just one examples of too less flexibility: Consider a process where one task can be executed by different roles (e.g. via delegation). In which Lane should I place the task? Should I show it in the “Default”-Lane? Or a copy in any other related Lane? Or even draw it across multiple Lanes?

While I know that Lanes are just a graphical partition of the process and we could easily address the problem via performers (BPMN 2.0), this is not a graphical solution. Many users (and tools too) use Lanes synonymous to performers.

Interesting case.

I guess it depends on the tool you use. We have created a new tool generation which hides the complexity of the BPMN notation against the user by using intelligent algorithms which support a highly efficient modeling process.
Our BETA was anounced on Nov 10. Innovator for Business analysts will be available shortly. C. Bergner.

It is worth trying. However my doubts are that certain limitations in the metamodel can not be overcome by a tool. However a tool can improve.

We feel the technology driven approach of BPMN when it comes to high level process landscape description. This seems to be out of scope at least in the BPMN 1.x standard.BPMN is good for visualizing low level processes that ar candidates for workflow implementations.

I agree.

It’s really interesting to see your opinion. In my opinion BPMN has a workflow modeling background. That’s why it is good for workflow type of processes. However there are a lot more of other processes.