The 2010 International Conference on Business Process Management is coming to the United States for the first time. The 8th instance of the premier academic BPM conference will be held at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken NJ between September 14-16 2010, with Workshops on Monday, September 13th.

The conference brings together researchers and practitioners focused on process analysis and design, workflow implementation, process mining, process innovation, and other related topics. For more information please refer to the official BPM 2010 web page.

BPM Day is a vendor-neutral executive seminar on Business Process Management, Automation, and Innovation. It’s the third time I’m organizing this at Stevens Institute of Technology In Hoboken, NJ, and I’m really excited to have the backing of industry experts Keith Swenson, Robert Shapiro, and Nathaniel Palmer for this event. Hoboken is a 15 minute subway ride from Manhattan, the venue is our state-of-the-art center for technology management, and feedback from our last group of guests has been overwhelmingly positive. If you are in the tri-state-area and can spare a day to learn about BPM this is a great opportunity for you. Follow the link for the full announcement.

Read the rest of this entry »

Business Process Management can be complex topic, and building skills related to process analysis, implementation, management and governance requires guidance. I have written about the different skills required to master BPM in my January 08 BPTrends column. For illustration purposes, the image below shows a hierarchy of BPM skills following Bloom’s taxonomy of learning goals: At the most basic level a student should be able to recall facts and definitions. Being able to read process documentation is the next level up, followed by the ability to create such a documentation. Real value is added at the top three levels of the hierarchy, when students are able the critically evaluate BPM concepts, integrate and synthesize them, and develop new methodologies and approaches.

This is not just theory – I’m teaching a series of BPM-related courses at Stevens Institute of Technology both on campus and online. The capstone course of this program is BPM & Workflow Implementation. Students are encouraged to document and develop their own process designs using tools such as Lombardi Blueprint, TIBCO Business Studio, SunGard IPP and itp Commerce Process Modeler. We run process simulations, perform risk analyses, and evaluate process designs in light of desired performance metrics, governance mechanisms, organizational constraints and implementation considerations. Our WebCampus operations is readying this course for the Spring II semester – running from March 23 through June 27, 2009. Course delivery is web-based and self-paced, with podcasts, screencams, videocasts, and WebEx-style meetings. If you can’t travel to Stevens, why not have Stevens come to you?

Enroll here or find more information here.

Tags: BPM, Business Process Management, online course, podcast, skills, teaching, training, webcampus

For the past few weeks I’ve been heavily involved in the organization of a SOA symposium to be held at the FDIC building in Washington, D.C. on April 2nd and 3rd. The event brings together experts from industry, government, and academia – attendees will be able to hear about case studies of SOA in practice, leading research, and technology innovations. The agenda promises a great event – 27 speakers covering design, technology, governance and people issues in 2 days, book signings, and a seminar on the Speed of Thought by Stephen R.M. Covey. Keynotes include Dennis Wisnosky (U.S. Department of Defense), Thomas Erl (SOASchool.com), Sandy Carter (IBM), and Paul Strassman (Information Economics Press). The event is a great value at $250 for the 2 day event (for industry participants, government representatives have free access). Take a look at www.soasymposium.com for the details and registration, or download the flyer below for a one-page summary.

SOA Symposium 2009 Invitation

Tags: conference, SOA, Symposium, Washington

Business Process Analytics provides process participants and decision makers with insight about the efficiency and effectiveness of organizational processes.

There are three reasons why we might want to measure different aspects of business processes:

1. To evaluate what has happened in the past,
2. to understand what is happening currently, or
3. to build an understanding of what might happen in the future.

The first area focuses on the ex-post analysis of completed business processes, i.e., on Process Controlling. You can find several papers (and an e-book) on this site that explain this approach in detail. Process Controlling may or may not involve a preexisting formal representation of the business process in question. If no documented process model exists, or if the scope of the process extends across multiple systems and process domains such a model may be inductively generated through Process Mining. Leading research on this topic is being conducted by Wil van der Aalst’s research group at TU/Eindhoven – make sure to check out their ProM framework. The second area focuses on the real-time monitoring of currently active business processes, i.e., Business Activity Monitoring. The third area uses business process data to forecast the future behavior of the organization through techniques such as scenario planning and simulation and is known as Process Intelligence.

To date, the audit information produced by most Business Process Management systems is formatted in proprietary ways, and for historically good reasons – each system may implement the internal state model of a process instance and an activity instance differently. Most systems offer basic monitoring and reporting functionality out of the box, built on their own format. But what if you need to integrate the audit information of several BPMS? What if you need to correlate process instances that cross other applications in your IT infrastructure, such as imaging systems, messaging infrastructures, etc.? You will need some common format for these audit events.

In the mid-1990s the Workflow Management Coalition had attempted to standardize a format for these events, it was dubbed the Common Workflow Audit Format (CWAD), and it was utterly unsuccessful. First, it was developed just prior to the onset of XML. Second, it used variable headers and footers around a common body for different types of audit events (i.e. it was not very elegantly designed). Third, at the time most vendors treated audit information as a source of debugging information, but not as a source of business intelligence.

For quite a while now the WfMC has discussed a rework of this initial attempt and I am happy to announce that we have just released the first public review version of the Business Process Analytics Format (BPAF). BPAF is a tool-agnostic XML schema for events that occur over the lifecycle of a business process instance.

During the initialization and execution of a process instance, multiple events occur which may be of interest to a business, including events that relate to the instantiation and completion of process activities, internal process engine operations and other system and application functions. Using BPAF-based information, a business can determine what has occurred in the business operations managed by a business process management system. BPAF is designed as an implementation-independent data format that enables the aggregation and correlation of audit data across multiple platforms. While we anticipate that the major sources for BPAF data will be business process management systems, the use of the standard is not limited to these systems and other information systems may publish events following the BPAF data structure to allow for easier integration with other process-related audit data.

The schema is pretty straightforward, here is a graphical snapshot:

The key to BPAF is a classification of audit events that can occur over the life-cycle of a process instance. CWAD used three different state machines, resulting in three different event formats: One for processes, one for activities, and one for work items. We integrated everything into a single state model that incorporates what we learned from the Wf-XML state machine with the proposed activity states of BPEL4People and WS-HumanTask.

If you are interested in the details, here is the public review version of the specification: 2009-02-20-WfMC-TC-1015-Business-Process-Analytics-Format-R1

To learn more and to actively influence the standardization process, please, head over to the WfMC Wiki where you can download the BPAF XML schema and participate in the further development of this specification.

Tags: Audit, BPAF, Process Analytics, Process Controlling, Process Intelligence, WfMC-TC-1015

2008 is almost over, and maybe the quiet time is a good time to get started on that paper you always wanted to write… The 2009 BPM conference will be held in Ulm, Germany, and below you can find everything you need to know to submit to this highly rated event:

Call for Papers – BPM 2009
7th International Conference on Business Process Management
Ulm, Germany, 7-10 September 2009
http://www.bpm2009.org

BPM 2009 is the seventh conference in a series that provides the most distinguished specialized forum for researchers and practitioners in business process management (BPM). The conference has a record of attracting innovative research of highest quality related to all aspects of business process management including theory, frameworks, methods, techniques, architectures, and empirical findings.

Traditionally, the BPM conference attracts the outstanding researchers in the field and abides to the highest academic standards. BPM solicits original research papers that break new ground in or make significant novel contributions to the field. The acceptance rate in previous editions has been around 14%. The BPM conference also aims at bridging the viewpoints of leading research outcomes with practical demands and industrial experience.

In addition to the main research track, BPM 2009 will include an industrial papers track. Accordingly, the conference encourages practitioners to submit experience and application papers reporting on innovative industrial implementations and applications of business process management methods and techniques, with particular focus on their impact on information technology use or business practice. These papers have to go beyond mature prototypes and potentially applicable methods and techniques, and must be based on extensive industrial experience or empirical data.

Awards will be given to the best papers in different categories. In addition, authors of selected papers will be invited to submit an extended version of their paper to a special issue of Data and Knowledge Engineering (DKE, an Elsevier Science Journal).

BPM 2009 will be held in Ulm, Germany, and will be organized by the Institute of Databases and Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science of the University of Ulm. The event will be conducted at the university campus. Ulm is a lively, medium-sized city with a history of more than 1.150 years. It is located in the southern part of Germany and famous (among other things) for its cathedral with the world’s highest church tower and for being the birthplace of Albert Einstein.

Topics include, but are not limited to:

Read the rest of this entry »

As researchers, Jan Recker and I find it challenging to strike a balance between our efforts to meet the academic standards required by the wider research community and the demands regarding accessibility, relevance, timeliness and appropriateness instilled by the wider practitioner communities. We were happy to find that our blogging about research results inspires the BPM community to not only to take an interest in our research but also to critically assess this work and to post replies to it. We find this most welcome.

Our previous post on the frequency of BPMN construct usage has generated a passionate response by Bruce Silver who we know and respect as a very active contributor not only to BPM blogging in general but also to BPMN education and application specifically. Bruce makes many good points in his post and raises a number of interesting challenges. However, on some accounts we disagree with a number of the inferences he draws, so we want to clarify some aspects of our original post.

First of all, the paper and post are the result of a joint research effort between Jan Recker (QUT Brisbane) and myself (Stevens Institute of Technology), which we have stated. Jan and I started working together due to the complementary nature of our interests – standards in BPM (myself) and practical usage of modeling methods (Jan). Our study has been motivated by the fact that we know so very little about how standards such as BPMN are actually used – as opposed to what vendors, consultants and trainers think how they should be (or might be) used. – and this is what we try to explore and understand. The post and the related study are but one snapshot of our combined research. Agree with our results or not, but please give credit where credit is due. Jan is one of the most prolific researchers on BPMN; and it would be unfair to ignore his substantial contribution to this research.

We have outlined our research method in great detail in the full version of the BPMN paper, the PDF of which has been linked to from the original post. If you missed it, click here. Of course, we could have written a great deal more about the mode of analysis, but let’s be frank: how many blog readers would want to see this information in the post? (let us know if you do!) And for those of you taking an interest in research methods – both Jan and myself are more than happy to discuss the ways in which academic research is conducted. More than welcome.

We started with a simple question: BPMN is divided into a core and an extended set of constructs – does this separation hold in practice, or are there other common subsets (dialects or creoles) that can be found in practice? If there is such a common subset, we would expect a sizable number of models to share it. We found no evidence of a larger common core. Only 6 model pairs out of the 126 models used similar BPMN subsets (i.e. there were 6 subsets shared by 2 models).

We looked at the similarity among all subsets by coding the occurrence of symbols as a 50-bit string and computing the pairwise Hamming distance. On average 7 symbols differed between the BPMN subsets, and since the average model used only 9 symbols that makes the true common core very very small.

We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis on the models, trying to find the constructs that were used in groups. Indeed, several well-defined clusters emerged from this analysis: Basic Modeling Constructs, Annotations and Explanations (which include the blank XOR Gateway – not something we expected), Organization Modeling Constructs, and Control Flow Refinements. Users that move beyond these clusters seem to add individual constructs as needed, but in a rather random fashion.

Whether the 126 models we gathered are representative to all BPMN uses is a good question. Of course, we don’t claim this to be the case and we are in fact expanding our collection of models (hey Bruce, want to send us some of your seminar models?). However, so far our results have proven stable. We spend a great deal of our time with organizations using BPMN and we can assure you upfront – this is indeed indicative of how people use BPMN.

Bruce likens a frequency count of BPMN symbols to a character count in a document. We disagree – BPMN symbols are more like words, since they have semantics and are governed by formation rules. There are no formation rules at the character level in most languages. One could liken the frequency count to the frequency with which words in the English language are used – and that provides a much more useful metric than a character count. Linguists talk about the difference between an active and a passive vocabulary – words that we use versus words that we understand. It is possible that the use of BPMN is emerging along the same lines – a modeler might understand many of the symbols, but will frequently restrict him or herself to a more limited subset. To illustrate this: You may understand many entries in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of the English language, but you do not use them frequently (or at all).

Do the models we collected have errors? Absolutely. Some of them we find useful in modeling courses – to show the types of errors usually made in practice. Our intention was not to analyze perfect BPMN models – we find those in every training course and in tool documentations, etc. The BPM reality looks different. Our intention was to analyze the current practice of BPMN modeling, not the indended application of the language. English speakers abuse their language – I know I do – but that does not mean that their sentences are meaningless.

Turning to some of the conclusions we draw from our research, we would like to clarify some aspects: What we call ‘the real core set of BPMN’ is what our analysis showed to be the most frequently used BPMN symbols found in the models considered. This does not mean we imply this set to be the core set of BPMN to be used by everyone. Rather, this is the minimal set of BPMN constructs actually used in practice so far. Is this set little more than flowcharting? Absolutely true. Absolutely.

But what does that tell us? People, and organizations, use BPMN for purposes similar to those organizations ten, twenty years ago that employed flowcharting – they want to describe their operations in simple, graphical terms. The process modeling efforts in most organizations at this stage are simply not advanced or mature enough to start specifying service-enable workflows with exception behavior in BPMN. No, most people use it simply for flowcharting.

What we conclude from this observation is that the ecosystem of vendors, consultants and trainers should be aware of this and should plan, manage and employ their efforts (be it tool development, BPMN training or modeling workshops) accordingly. We present a number of conjectures based on these observations, some of which appear to be troubling to Bruce. This is worrisome to us, we hope we can clarify this a bit more:

• First, we see a great deal of training programs introducing the full BPMN specification to large number of stakeholders. Our results show, however, that most of this training is in fact only applicable to a small number of BPMN application areas. So we have to ask: Are there any tailored BPMN training programs? What should the ‘BPMN beginner’ course look like and how this body of knowledge then be extended by specialist courses? One of the suggestions we raise is indeed to start with the set of BPMN symbols that in fact are widely used in practice. Why? Because this would allow the BPMN beginner to instantly be able grasp, understand and use the majority of models in practice. Sure, (s)he would not yet be an expert, sure (s)he would not yet have learned about the benefits and expressive power of advanced BPMN. But (s)he can go out and leverage the knowledge instantly and make contributions. Without having to digest the complexity of a full-blown course. We do not imply that business users do not understand the more refined BPMN symbols, we have just found little evidence that they use them frequently.

• Second, we suggest to tool vendors to rely more on empirical information about BPMN use when having to make trade-off decisions in BPMN support. Let’s face it – many BPMS do not support the full set of BPMN constructs. This makes sense, because if the system does not have the capability to execute the semantics of a specific construct (say, a transaction around a set of activities) then if would not make sense to allow a system analyst to draw this symbol. So which constructs can a vendor neglect initially and which need to be supported? We would argue that it is of best interest to vendors to focus on those constructs heavily used in practice. Why? Because this would give them access to the widest share of the market. Simple as that. This does not mean, that our suggestion is of a static nature. Of course not. Over time, full support should be given – and (relating to our previous conclusion) also BPMN users should learn the advanced features of BPMN. But organizations and tool vendors alike often face a need to achieve results very very fast. Which also means that releases are built and deployed that are far from finished.

• Third, we think that our last conclusion was misread. Our intention is not to discredit the sizable development effort that went into the BPMN specification. More than 120 people participated in more than 120 interactions, be they face to face or conference calls. That’s a lot of BPM expertise leading to the current specification. We do not discourage advancement. We actually like BPMN’s advanced vocabulary. But have you asked end users what they think? Well, we did. Not only in this study but also in Jan’s large-scale BPMN usability studies we did find that users are in fact very troubled by the sheer number of, for example, event constructs. Are they used at a large scale? No. Do users understand their full capacity? Typically not. Why is this not at all reflected in BPMN development? That is exactly our point. Sure, our argument is a somewhat provocative statement. But if it helps to channel some attention to end usage, that’s fair by our standards.

We know a great deal about what BPMN can do in theory, how it is implemented in tools, how training programs (like Bruce’s) look like and even how we generate code from the diagrams and how the semantics can be tested and vigorously verified. But what do we know about how organizations engaged in BPM initiatives use it? Very little. Again, we were motivated by exactly this dearth of knowledge about real-life BPMN practice. Why? Because our own experiences with BPMN and with those organizations using it gave us this hunch that the theoretical usage (what vendors and consultants and trainers tell us) often has little to do with what the end users think or do (the practical usage). And why is it important to know what the end users think and do? Because it can help the researchers, vendors, consultants and trainers of this world to channel their attention and efforts to those problems real users face. Instead of the problems we think exist in practice.

We try to feed our empirical research back to the BPMN community – in the form of blogs, practitioner papers, or even directly by knocking on the door of OMG. Whether we are heard, and whether our findings have the type of impact we hoped is a different story. But we are always open for debate.

Tags: BPMN, modeling, practice, usage

by Michael zur Muehlen (mzurmuehlen@stevens.edu) and Jan Recker (j.recker@qut.edu.au)

BPMN is the de facto standard for graphical process modeling. While there are other graphical languages to represent processes (EPCs, IDEF, Flowcharts, Petri Nets, among others), no other notation has seen such an uptake in such a short time as BPMN has. It is widely supported by both free and commercial process modeling tools, the WfMC has made XPDL 2.0 and 2.1 a de-facto persistency format for BPMN diagrams, and a large number of courses on modeling processes with BPMN are being offered.

Now, BPMN is a complex language. The current incarnation (BPMN 1.1) consists of 52 distinct graphical elements: 41 flow objects, 6 connecting objects, 2 grouping objects, and 3 artifacts. That’s a lot of vocabulary to learn, given that each graphical elements has meaning and rules associated with it. So what is the minimum subset of BPMN that a process modeler should know? The answer: Less than you think.

To answer this question we collected a large number of BPMN 1.0 diagrams (126 in total), from consultants, seminar participants, and online sources. We analyzed which BPMN symbols were actually used in these diagrams. The full version of our research, which we will present at the Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering in June, can be found here. But since this is an academic paper, here are the practical highlights of our study.

None of the diagrams we looked at used more than 15 different BPMN constructs, and none used less than 3. The models themselves contained considerably more elements, but a model with, e.g., 5 tasks connected by sequence flow was recorded as using the task symbol and the sequence flow symbol. The average subset of BPMN used in these models consisted of just 9 different symbols. That means that the average BPMN model uses less than 20% of the available vocabulary.

Figure 1 shows which construct we found across which percentage of the diagrams we collected.

Figure 1: Frequency distribution of BPMN construct usage

The results of our study are:

• Only five elements (normal flow, task, end event, start event, and pool) were used in more than 50% of the models we analyzed. These, plus the data-based XOR gateway form what we call the common core of BPMN (marked in yellow in fig. 1).
• Six additional elements were found in at least 25% of the models – gateways (parallel and unmarked XOR), lanes, text annotations, message flow, and start messages, we call these the extended core of BPMN (marked in green in fig. 1).
• 17 elements were used in less than 3 models – seven elements occurred in just two models, five in just one, and five elements were not used in any of the models we studied.

We then looked at the co-occurrence of BPMN symbols – i.e., are certain constructs used in combination, and how frequently? The combination of certain elements is mandated by the BPMN specification – you cannot use lanes without pools, or data objects without associations. But if there is a common subset used by many models, this would constitute a true “common core”. A detailed analysis revealed that BPMN elements fall into several well-defined groups. Figure 2 shows these groups as frames around the respective BPMN elements. The numbers within each frame represent the number of models (out of 126) that contain all elements within the frame.

Figure 2: Grouping of BPMN elements

Our findings are:

• The common core of BPMN is very small. The subset of BPMN across the different models varied considerably. While nearly all models contain tasks and sequence flow, adding symbols to this set leads to a near exponential drop in models that share the (bigger) set of symbols. For example, while 65 models contain tasks, sequence flow, start and end events, only 25 also contain parallel gateways, and just 10 contain parallel gateways and data-based XOR gateways.
• There are two types of BPMN modelers. While our sample is too small to explore this proposition in detail, we found anecdotal evidence that two groups of modelers use BPMN: Those who use pools and lanes to represent organizational responsibility for tasks, and those who use gateways to represent the control-flow rules of the process in detail. In other words, one group uses BPMN to specify inter-organizational settings (process choreography). Mostly, these users will be consultants or process analysts working on organizational (re-) engineering and process improvement. The other BPMN user group is leaning more towards workflow engineering (process orchestration). These users will likely be designers and analysts seeking to articulate precise flow conditions, for instance, in the context of workflow engineering or process simulation.

Implications

Our findings have implications for practitioners, software vendors, and standards makers alike.

• Practitioners can begin studying the use of BPMN by focusing on the most commonly used symbols first, leaving more specialized and lesser-used constructs for those who need more specialized BPMN training (e.g. systems analysts).
• Software vendors that are not supporting the entire BPMN vocabulary can assess what percentage of BPMN diagrams can be represented in their tool, and where enhancements should be made.
• Finally, Standards-makers should review whether a more complete, but also more complex language is a desirable result of the standardization process. Creating BPMN took six years. How much time was spent on defining those seventeen symbols that we found are hardly used? And will the extensions of BPMN 1.1 entice users to expand their commonly used vocabulary, or will they go unused?

If you would like to learn more about this research, we encourage you to read the full version of our paper:

• Michael zur Muehlen, Jan Recker. (Jun 16, 2008). “How Much Language is Enough? Theoretical and Practical Use of the Business Process Modeling Notation”, 20th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2008), Montpellier, France, June 16-20, 2008., Springer LNCS. Download (657 kb PDF)

You can find additional research on process modeling and process management in the publications section of this site, and in Jan’s QUT eprints directory.

As always, your questions or comments are much appreciated.

Tags: BPMN, modeling, simplicity, usage

So, you’re charged with improving business operations. Maybe even deploy a BPM system. Defining Key Performance Indicators and assess the operational risk of your processes. What are the skills you need – and who needs them? For the past year and a half, I have been working on re-tooling Stevens Institute of Technology’s educational offerings around BPM, and I’m happy to report that we have just launched our Business Process Management & Service Innovation Program online (howe.stevens.edu/BPM).

This Advanced Graduate Certificate consists of four courses that cover the strategic, tactical, and operational aspects of managing and improving business processes. Our brand new BPM & Workflow Implementation course (MIS 712 WS) will start online January 28th with an information session, and online enrollment is available this week at www.stevens.edu/registrar and gradschool.stevens.edu, the Call Number is 11624. The course focuses on the documentation, improvement, and implementation of processes using state-of-the-art BPM technology. Topics include managing Business Processes and Business Rules, documenting and managing operational process risk, simulating processes, and more. We are partnering with TIBCO, IDS Scheer, Lombardi and SunGard to provide students with hands-on experience using the latest BPM tools. Classes are delivered using WebCampus, Stevens’ award winning distance learning program, iTunes University, live instructor sessions using InterWise, and our eLearn platform WebCT.

If you are charged with analyzing, designing, or improving business operation this program will provide you with the state-of-the-art skills necessary to understand, communicate, and align your business processes and the technology that supports them. If you have any questions or comments I look forward to discussing this with you in more detail. For more musings on the educational aspects of BPM be sure to check out my column on bptrends.com.

Tags: BPM, course, distance learning, education, online

The topic-du-jour in BPM circles is the handling of human and automated decision making in processes. Two major areas that intersect here are the management of business rules (such as “customers with more than 100,000 frequent flier miles receive priority treatment when flights are oversold“) and business processes (such as “rebook voluntary denied boarding customer“). There has been plenty of work done in both domains, but until very recently they did not talk to each other very much.

That has changed quite rapidly, as the business rules community realized that it needed some ways to represent the structured order of long-running decision-making activities (as typically found in workflows), and as the process community realized that modeling decisions and rules using activity networks, BPMN, or Petri Nets results in rather bloated and complex diagrams.

On the research side, my colleague Marta Indulska from the University of Queensland and I have studied the expressiveness of process and rule modeling languages using representational analysis (i.e. we used a formal ontology as a benchmark) and found that the combination of process modeling and rule modeling languages generally offers higher expressive power than either of these languages by itself. We found the combination of BPMN and SRML particularly useful, but since SRML is an abandoned effort we would recommend the combination of BPMN and SBVR. Our paper on this topic was presented at the VORTE’07 workshop and can be downloaded here.

In practice, you can do some process management with a rules engine. Natalie Glance and colleagues have written some intriguing papers on Generalized Process Structure Grammars in the mid-1990s that essentially allow the modeling of processes using a constraint language (saying things such as “the start of activity B must occur after the start of activity A”, which are difficult to express using languages such as BPMN).

In the same vein, you can handle quite a bit of decision making using graphical process modeling techniques, by building gateways into your processes. This way, your process diagram becomes (partially) a decision tree, with alternative pathways for different cases.

Coming from the process side of things, I found the formal logic and languages used in rules management standards such as RuleML rather intimidating. So when I was offered the opportunity to speak on the integration of rules and processes at the IIR BPM conference a few weeks ago, I tried to approach this topic from a pragmatic perspective:

Say you are a process modeler: How do you approach the topic of rules?

Most process models I’ve dealt with contain at least some aspects of decision making, typically found in splits (decision gateways). In particular two general types of decisions can be distinguished:

• Decisions that affect the activities to be performed (Control Flow Decision). These types of decisions determine which process steps are appropriate for a given case (workflow instance). For instance, if you are dealing with a new customer and a large order you may want to perform a credit check, whereas you would skip this step if the customer is known to you. The decision in this case has an impact on the routing of the workflow instance.

We can distinguish some sub-cases in this scenario:

• Single-criteria decisions where we only need to review one parameter
• Multi-criteria decisions where we use decision tables or similar mechanisms to determine the case type

Similarly we can distinguish between:

• Manual decisions, made by a human (e.g. when judgement is required)
• Automated decisions that can be formalized

• Decisions that affect the assignment of activities to performers (Assignment Decisions). These types of decisions determine who gets to perform a particular activity. For instance, a customer service representative may review an order up to $5,000, but above that value we want a manager to review the order. The review activity in both cases is identical, the difference lies in who gets to perform the work. The decision in this case has an impact on the assignment of the workflow instance.

So what is my point here? Whether you model these types of rules in your process modeling environment or not depends on your context, the availability of a separate rules management environment, and most critically, the frequency with which these rules change. There is no universally right or wrong way to manage the intersection of rules and processes. If your decision rules are as stable as your process, great, leave them in your BPM development environment. But if your business users want to manipulate the parameters, separate them from the process and handle them in a separate rules management environment. You’ll be glad you did.

My presentation from the IIR conference is available on slideshare.net (see embedded presentation below). And for some well-informed outside opinion you can refer to Sandy Kemsley’s timely blog post on the presentation.

Tags: BPM, BPMN, BRM, Business Rules, conference, IIR, integration, SBVR