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.

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.

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.