BPMN 2.0 - How do I link models in a sequence, and allow users to navigate?

Unfortunately the BPMN notation doesn't have an object for this (like a process interface), and it assumes that every process has a clearly defined start and end event - this is different than in EPCs because there the event before/after a process interface in EPCs acts more like an intermediate event in BPMN... theoretically you could "print" multiple EPCs on one canvas.

BPMN has a "link" event, but this is only to be used in the same process if you run out of space to create an understandable model. It is not permitted to use it as a process interface.

One workaround is to use multiple pools. According to the spec pools can be used for processes, org units/roles, systems, or data. If you standardize on using them only for processes, you can use other pools as black boxes and "send/receive messages" between them. Don't be confused if you wouldn't use "real" messages in that process (like emails or letters), this is just the way to say "I cross the border to another pool" in BPMN, so you will also use the message connection -with or without envelope- for phone calls or other communication means.

You might also decide in your project that pool objects might be able to have other BPMN Collaboration Diagrams assigned to them, so that you can use the assignment icon for navigation. Please note the use of "Link" and "Message" events and assignments in the graphic below (catch/throw symbols and you may want to reuse the same object).

Hi Peter,

thanks for bringing up this question! I have moved your post to the "BPMN Community" group, because that's exactly the type of question we want to discuss here: Learning BPMN.

I think Roland gave you already a fairly comprehensive answer. I think the answer depends also a little bit if you want to rely on an official BPMN way or if you are willing to do it the ARIS way. In case of ARIS, I would use a more abstract process model (maybe BPMN or EPC), which coordinates the different subprocesses. So the upper one has functions/activities, which do get BPMN process diagrams assigned. If you want to navigate from one subprocess to another, you would use the button  to first navigate to the more abstract process. There, you use the assignment icon  to go to the next subprocess. Here a picture showing the complete navigation:

Hi Peter,

I agree to the explanations of Roland and Sebastian. In BPMN there is no construct for the process interface, and therefore no direct support for this in ARIS Designer for BPMN.

My suggestion is the following:

Use an explicit start and end event for each process. And if it fits from a semantical point of view, then use a occurrence copy from the end event of the first process as start event of the second process (see next image).

ARIS Designer offers a "paste as start event" funcionality in BPMN, which allows you to paste an end event easily as a start event. Then the navigation is easy as well. Just use the "Occurrences" Tab within the properties window.

I hope this will help.

Thanks guys - great responses from one and all.

You have all summarised my exact problem:

I can't link one BPMN process to the other directly unless we use pools (but this doesn't work visually for me end users unfortunately), and I have been pushing the abstract approach already as suggested by Sebastian. i.e. level 4 models are the detailed activities, the level 3 models are the level 4's combined into a sequence of events.

We have come up with a workaround though:

1. As per Sascha's suggestion, we are linking one process to the next by having the end event of process 1 be the start event of process 2

2. However, we have cheated an created a process interface shape for our BPMN2.0 stencil, and created an assignment from process 1 to process 2 by saying "Go to process 2"

3. This approach allows us to generate end-to-end models and allows the users to easily see what comes next

4. As per Sebastian's suggestion, use abstact models where they don't exist to give a higher level view of the end-to-end sequence

5. Manage the process interfaces in a seperate library as they are actually function shapes

Feels like a fudge, but I need to keep my end users happy!!!! See the example from our resident expert Scott...(I am the mouth, he is the brain!)

Thanks to one and all for your feedback. Please keep the suggestions coming though. :)

On a related note, does anyone know why I can create an assignment between 2 objects from one Process Diagram to another, but not between 2 collaboration diagrams?

I could understand if i couldn't do it on either, but not on one and not the other.

Thanks

Pete 

Hi Peter,

An assignment has the meaning of describing an object in more detail. And this is not the case in having a collaboration assigned to a task or event. A task can represent a process, but not a collaboration.

I hope this is a satisfying explaination.

Thanks Sascha, that explains it but doesn't make my life any easier sadly...! :-)

Excellent discussion here and I am excited by the solutions.

I have been thinking multiple pools as shown above so it is good to see it being proposed.

Strange how emotionally attached we become to things like process event+interface combinations.

Next issue to put to bed involves the single start event so off I go...

Regards

Craig

Hi Peter,

I share your problem, but I`m not satisfied with this explanation.

In the screenshot below you see a subprocess on the left (first level) and the process I would like to assign to this subrocess on the right (second level). But it is a collaboration diagram, so it is not possible. In my opinion it has to be possible!

What other possibility do I have to detail the message flow of the first level in the second level? I need pools and message flow!

Best regards

Eileen

Hi,

I have a question regarding the "start and end event" solution from Sascha.

Will this solution with the occurrence copy allow any "jump over" to the subsequent model inside the publisher?  Or does this solution only help in the architect?

Thanks a lot

Volker

Hi Eileen,

since the ARIS designer treats the internal elements of a sub-process in the same way as BPMN process models, there is no possibility to have message flows there.

Maybe it is possible for you to use the conversation diagram to visualize the message flows  between the diifferent processes and/or participants on the abstract level. There it is possible to model the internal process of a pool in more detail in an assigned collaboration diagram.

Best regards

Sascha

Hi Volker,

I admit that I'm not a Business Publisher expert. But for all I know it should be possible. You could use the "Details" Window. There it should be possible to use hyperlinks.

Best regards

Sascha

Hi Sascha,

you wrote: "since the ARIS designer treats the internal elements of a sub-process in the same way as BPMN process models, there is no possibility to have message flows there."

If that is true, then ARIS does not work like it is written in the BPMN 2.0 Beta specification.

Best regards

Eileen

Hi Volker,

If you use occurence copies for start and end event, you could do it using the view occurences (details window) and clickt on the other model.

Best Regards,

Saakshi

Hi all,

This questions is aimed at Sebastian's proposal in the 3 comment in this thread...

I have discovered that that BPMN 2.0 beta will not allow me to create an assignment from a value chain or function tree model to a Collaboration diagram. I understand why this might not be possible from another process model diagram, but not from a superior model.

My major issue is that being unable to link to a collaboration diagram from almost any other model will preclude me from ever using it, even though it contains much of the functionality I am looking for. I don't see anything in the BPMN 2.0 specification that would prevent linking to a collaboration diargram from a superior model either.

Any ideas on how to resolve?

Hi all,

This questions is aimed at Sebastian's proposal in the 3 comment in this thread...

I have discovered that that BPMN 2.0 beta will not allow me to create an assignment from a value chain or function tree model to a Collaboration diagram. I understand why this might not be possible from another process model diagram, but not from a superior model.

My major issue is that being unable to link to a collaboration diagram from almost any other model will preclude me from ever using it, even though it contains much of the functionality I am looking for. I don't see anything in the BPMN 2.0 specification that would prevent linking to a collaboration diargram from a superior model either.

Any ideas on how to resolve?

Hi Peter,

this is indeed a problem we are aware of. I added it to our internal bug tracking system.

Thanks Sebastian - any ideas on when it might be fixed? We don't want to proceed with 2.0 until we are comfortable it can be resolved.

Hi Peter,

if you want to speed it up and if you got a valid support contract, please open a request for it on our hotline.

Hello, I have a similar problem with BPMN 2.0. But with multiple end events in subprocesses.

When my subprocess ends in one way I would like the main process to go on to the one subprocess and when it ends in another way (different event), I would like the main process to go on to another subprocess.

How can this be modelled with BPMN 2.0 while sticking to the standard? I'm still thinking in the EPC way where I would have the both event occurence copies modeled in the subsequent subprocesses. But in BPMN 2.0? How?

Thanks.

Thank you Roland, it helped a lot.

Hi Goran,

you will have to model a gateway after the subprocess that "tests" the results of your subprocess. You can than add the conditions to the outgoing connections.

Peter, have you seen that your request to assign collaboration diagrams to VACD functions was released in SR8?

I was looking at the same issue today and also searched for some BPMN 2 examples, as I don't have much experience with BPMN. At the OMG site (http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/Beta2/) I found a PDF with examples. In these examples they use something called a call activity. The documentation for the example (page 5) says about the call activity: "It is like a wrapper for a globally defined task or, like in this case, sub-process.".

This sounds like another solution to this problem. Haven't tried it in Business Designer though.

Interesting that we had the discussion exactly about this yesterday :-)

I think you will have to look at the control flow of the process (who/which process is in charge - remember that BPMN's scope is the execution of processes).

If the control stays within the process -including all data, etc.- then you should use a call activity. If the control flow stops and another process/org unit/whatever produces the desired result in a seperate instance and you are waiting only for the result to continue (e.g. "offer accepted" or "offer declined") than you should use the message flow as shown in my first comment.

Thoughts?

As per Peters comments my issue is also with navigability within ARIS for BPMN 2.0 and reporting on models.

I have had comments from customers asking:

"if I am throwing a signal event which instantiates/triggers another process, why can't I click on the throwing signal to find the triggered process?"

OR 

"if I use a pool/lane for org unit/roles etc why can't I link these to my org charts and report accordingly?"

I have had the same questions regarding the representation of  system/domains from customers.

Before anyone jumps onto the EPC vs BPMN debate. Here in Oz (like it or not) BPMN is becoming the de jour notation for business and technical modeling - Business users like the fact that they can follow the process and see the handoffs between pools etc. and the commnets I've heard and circulated to others make perfect sense to me.

If we are not "breaking the rules" then why can't customers seamlessly navigate and associate their objects in BPMN. How about a drop down menu when you select, say a pool?

"you have chosen a pool/lane etc what object do you wish to associate with this pool/lane....org unit, role etc.?."

It's been done with data objects and you can assign data models down to the attribute level and thus have them assigned to a data architecture how come we can't go one better?

I also think it would also be useful to have symbols that could be used to annotate for things like risks.

In case anyones unaware of these I recommend the following texts:

BPMN 2.0 Handbook Published by Future Strategies Inc. ISBN 9780981987033

Available from www.FutStrat.com - Excellent book with a section on best practice guidelines

BPMN 2.0 Introduction to the standard for Business Process and Notation Thomas Allweyer ISBN 978-3-8391-4985-0

Available here with a free download on Human Readable BPMN Diagrams

http://www.bpmn-introduction.com/

BPMN Method and Style by Bruce Silver http://www.bpmnstyle.com/

Just my two cents worth

 

"if I am throwing a signal event which instantiates/triggers another process, why can't I click on the throwing signal to find the triggered process?"

Well, you can - just show the Properties (the Occurence tab) and double click on the item and you will open that model. When you look at the Relationships tab in the same window, you can also see the different relationships that exist for this object (e.g. what triggers the event and which task follows the event).

Of course you have to model that way and reuse the throwing event in your new process. ARIS supports you in doing this and automatically converts a copied end event into a start event when you paste it into a new process (nice job Sascha).

Thanks for the idea of the drop down - we are currently discussing how the BPMN implementation can be enhanced and maybe something similar will make it *no promises*. However, there are more factors that come into play, because you have to be consistent in any mapping to make sure that the reporting works (e.g. once you mapped a lane to, say, a role, then you shouldn't be able to map lanes to other objects IMHO).

Interesting discussion but won't a higher level Process Diagram showing a connecting sub-process to the other sub-process resolves the issue. 

Then there is a decision on whether it is a call activity/sub-process or an embeded sub-process, which only have an implication at process execution on a BPMN runtime engine.

You are right, but I also heard this question a lot - especially with clients who have a hard time to understand/agree with that there should be a consistent (!) leveling in your process architecture. Even then, when you are on the lower level you might want to navigate directly to the next model without the need to open the higher level model.

In the EPC notation you will find the "Process Interface" symbol for a lower level navigation, but BPMN does not know this concept and you will have to use the navigation by using occurences as described above. Of course this means that you have to teach your modelers how to do this correctly and not just to use a new object :-)

Dear all,

I am not entirely new to the ARIS product, but I don't have a working knowledge of the platform.

I remembered seeing a ARIS demo, and in that demo, the user was using EPC, and he could link the process to a data view, and then drill down into application and system views, thereby creating the 4 views of EA. In this way, I could do impact analysis (for example, when a process is changed, I can know which application(s) will be affected/impacted.

The above was possible when EPC was used in the process modelling portion as per the demo, but I have just received a pile of hardcopy business processes from a process workshop that created processes in swimlanes very much like in BPMN. 

Question is this: Can I still enjoy the impact analysis functionality when I model in BPMN instead of EPC? I still want to related the processes to the data, and the data to the systems, and the systems to the technology used.

Much appreciated.

Hi everyone,

I am a 100% new to ARIS and need it for a consulting project.

I currently work with ARIS exopress 2.4 and use the bpmn section.

Here are my questions:

I want to link subprocesses to main processes and want to have it open when I click on it IN THE SAME WINDOW. Is that possible? I want the end-user to be able to easily navigate through different stages of details  in the process.

Additionally, all the things you discuss up here, is that possible to do in ARIS express?

Your help is very much appreciated!!

Thank you!!

Lisa

Hi there,

I've noticed there is still no resolution on this issue and there is a lot of false advcie presented in the above comments.

I'm using ARIS Express and am trying to create a subprocess that drills down to level 2 and level 3 processes. Am I correct in saying ARIS does not accomodate this?

With regards to the above comments, BPMN 2.0 is very clear on how to link processes.

1. Start and end event links are used where the author intends to link one model to another without breaking the sequence of events. It's rarely used by its purpose is usually for when the author runs out of space on the pallete.

2. A sub-process is used for when the author wants to create a model within a model and drill down to the lowest level of detail within an end-to-end process. ARIS Express does not seem to allow this for some reason - which is a terrible omission.

Can someone offer a solution on how to get around this? I'm evaluating ARIS for a major utilities company and we'll have to look elsewhere if it can't accomodate basic modelling features.

Feel free to contact me personally via ultimateguidetobpm.com

In your scenario #2, you are correct. Use Sub-Processes. If you know that you do "process one" and then do "process two" then what you've done is define a new Process with two Sub-Processes. You can now sequence to your heart's content! Problem solved. This has already been discussed in this thread..

From your scenario #1 (i.e. author runs out of space), I'd use the Link Event. Again, problem solved.

But both of these basically assume that the original poster was confusing the difference between Event and Process. I haven't seen an answer (though, I may have missed it), to the original question where I literally want to tie two (or more) Processes together - when I was properly using Event in the first place.

I can't comment on ARIS functionality (I'm here for BPMN threads, even though I don't use ARIS). But you can get close to what you seek by using more discreet End Events.

I'M INTERESTED IN COMMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY regarding this approach.

So, one of the things that differentiate a Signal Event from a generic Event is that it can reference a "Signal." At this point, it might be better to think of a signal as nothing more than a status change of some sort. Now, the End Event (Signal) of "process 1" and the Start Event (Signal) of "process 2" (and maybe processes 3,4 & 5) can all reference the same Signal. (Or same Message using Message Events.) But recording the fact that they all reference the same Signal is the important step!

To complete the picture then, we need to discreetly create the aforementioned Signal so the Events can reference them. It's an extra modeling step. But we literally need nothing more than a name for it. It's conceptual at this point.

IMHO, regardless of how it's implemented, the important point is that the models should reflect this information (i.e. "my" End Event will kick-off "your" Start Event). Using Signal or Message Events and their corresponding Signal/Message references give you that. Let the vendors figure out how to automate the UI once the model reflects it.

In my tool (YMMV), I then create a diagram that is a matrix of all the Signal Events (End and Start) cross-referenced with the Signal they reference. (Fortunately, this is auto-generated.) Hot links from the End Events take you to the this diagram.

Hot links on each of the entries can then take you to the desired process. Two clicks - but more real world. One End Event may spawn multiple Processes. (Maybe some scripting or plugin could intelligently skip the middle diagram if there was only one correlation???)

Sorry for my long-winded response.