Tutorial Reference Examples PMN Examples Business Rules and BPMN Monthly Invoicing Additional Information Res Processing a Batch of Orders eassigulng User Tasks ‘Iwo Step Escalation BPMN Modeling Styles Avold Crossing Flows Naming Conventions ‘Symmetric Madeting ‘Use Equal Task Sizes BPMN Examples save your spot Online Modeler ‘ur modelers an ontine and desktop tool for designing, ciscussing and sharing BPMN diagrams with your (ey Modeler © Overview ‘We have taught BPMN to thousands of people and we apply the notation in our daily project work since 2007. Below you can find lots of BPMN examples of common modeling problems, Regardless of your specific project or your industry, there are a lot of common questions about using BPMN. In our experience, ‘most of the BPMN examples Below are useful to any BPMN user. We joined the OMG in 2009 as an influencing member. Since then, we have been partcipatingin the evelopment of BPMN 2.0, Business Rules and BPMN Modeling Scenario Lets say we want to mode! process in BPMN and the process induces some business rules. We will use the example of creating a bill. In order to create the bila discount needs to be computed. The sum ofthe order and the customer type are the relevant criteria to compute the discount. This isa very simple example which will show us where to apply BPMN and where not to. The Solution as BPMN 2.0 DiagramExplanation During modeling, we focus on the process low. In this example, the process has two stops. A discount is computed before the bill is created. The result isa very simple process, Itdoes not make sense to model the calculation of the discount itself inthe BPMN modet (see the example below). For the rules decision tree, fa evety adltional criteria, the cardinaltes will grow exponentially. That is not what we wantin a BPMN model Therefore, it makes sense to Separate process and business rules. The Wrong Way to Model It Dependent Instances Modeling Scenario Let's say we want to model a process with concurring instances, We are sing a simple example. If one credit check of a customer is running, we da not want another credit check for the same customerto be performed atthe same time, The reason coulé be that the total number of credit checks performed influences the result ofthe check.Lot's assume that we are running credit check fora customer and we get a second request forthe same customer at the same tie. \What all solutions have in common i that every new instance needs te check for concurring instances on the data level before starting the actual credit check, Solution with Signal Event | = C= a cet i Platform Solutions Resources Company Pricing Explanation ‘The signal event isthe easiest and most compact way to model the interaction between different instances, The problem ofthe signals that it functions as a broadcast and does not address any specific instance. So, strictly speaking, the cust ris ignored and all waiting instances catch it. Solution with Message Event i ces em cect i g Explanation This solution isa bit more complex, since you need to determine the recipient (a single instance) ofthe message. That induces @ second data request before the end ofthe instance, However, this isthe correct way to salve the problem that occurs inthe signal event solution. Solution with Timer and Loop 8 ees 4 B eck i Explanation Inthis example we do not need any communication between instances, The instance itself checks periodicity ift can process to the credit check. ‘The downside is that this might cause delays and overhead due tothe loop,Four Eyes Principle Modeling Scenario We want to model the following situation using BPMN 2.0. For a request (e.g. a payment to approvals of tw diferent people are needed. A Process Engine should ensure that both approvals are full before the request is approved, The manual steps that are performed bythe wo approvers should also be modeled inthe BPMN diagram. The anproval decision is performed using portal with aTaslst The Use Cases ‘The use cases fortis patter are numerous, Here are some examples: + Payment Approval + Invoice Anproval + Contract Appr The Solution as BPMN 2.0 Diagram nor rdsaee) Explanation \We use separate pools for the Process Engine, forthe 4st Approver and for the 2nd Approver. This way, we can clearly define who isin control of which process, In the engine pool, user tasks are used, These user tasks correspond tothe tasks which are shown in the Tasklist ofthe 4st and the 2nd approver. ‘The interaction between the user tasks in the engine and between the manual process ofthe approvers is modeled using message flows. These message flows encapsulate the manual steps which the approver needs to perform in order to complete the user task. ‘The Tasklst itself s not modeled, in order to recuce complexity Var Approver as Collapsed Pools tionsos Approver Determination with LDAP Taleo JD aecite on oe amg endaae) Monthly Invoicing Modeling Scenario This example explain avery comman struggle with structuring BPMN 2.0 diagrams. Let's say her is a lawyer woofers lgal advice to his customers. The service works as follows: The customers can ask or lagal advice whanevor they ned it The lawyer provides the requested aie and puts the billable hours on the customer’ timesheet When the month s ver, the lawyer's ace th ‘ountant determines the billable hours based on ime sheet and creates the invoice This example illustrates a very common modeling scenario. snot the steps ofthe processes that are dificult, i's the structure ofthe diagram. The Solution as BPMN 2.0 Diagram1 \ 3 - ey ova HI daira ng est RE] asta Explanation ‘The most important aspect ofthe diagram i its structure. ‘The Provide Legal Advice process is performed many times per month, The Monthly Invoicing process is only performed once a month. Therefore, these two processes should be modeled as separate noo, Of course these twe pools are not completely independent from each other. Why? They work on the same data ~ the customer's time sheet. Our ability to model such a data-related connection is very limited in BPMN. This is due tothe fact that BPMN is focused on control flow rather than on data flow. However, we can use the data store element to model this connection an the data level The Wrong Way to Model It § @obeee LI Le tee, Explanation why this is wrong Int example, both processes are mixed into one. This is ~ at best ~ avery implicit way to model. It would mean that for every provided legal advice an invoice is sent once the month is over. This way of modeling s wrong in most cases. Adi nal Information Required after User Task Modeling ScenarioLot's assume we want to model the following scenario: we want to execute a user task which s performed bya user ina portal. After the usor task is completed, aidtional information might be required. If that isthe case, the process engine sends an information request either to another user Golution 1) orto a technical service (solution 2) Solution 1: Request information from another User Solution 2: Request information from a technical service Processing a Batch of Orders from a Marketplace The Situation ‘We want to model the following scenario using BPMN 2.0: e's assume a company receives orders from diferent distribution channels. One of th channels isa marketplace. Within certain intervals of time, the orders from the marketolace are fetched as a batch. Every orderin tis batch needs tobe validated before being imported into the ERP System. The Solution as BPMN 2.0 DiagramSone Marto 1 ' & \ & 1 Process Order i ' i \ ies i \ . wi 7 1 ‘The Explanation ‘This example shows avery commen modeling scenario. We sometimes callita1-to-n problem. One pracess instance (Import of Orders) results i many single process instances of another process (ERP System). Typical constructs are mult instance or loops that star other arocesses using. messages (message flows). Reassigning User Tasks Modeling Scenario Lets assume, that we need to make sure that a certain u task s dtinitely performed, Therefore, the user tasks needs to be reassigned as soon as the current assignee is unavailable, eg, due to leave or sickness. Solution 4: Message boundary event and reassignment service Note ‘This makes sense ithe engine calls a service to determine the new assignee, Solution 2: Message boundary event and reassignment rules1 . = & 1 é sons, Note ‘This makes sense i the engine calls a rule engine to determine the new assignee, Solution 3: Message boundary event and implicit reassignment Note ‘This makes sense i the engine determi 5 the new assignee itself eg. By using an expression, Two Step Escalation Modeling Scenario ‘We wil use the following example to illustrate how to mo ‘Sometimes the pizza delivery screws up and the delivery takes longer than 30 minutes. Then we complain to the delivery service, Alter that, we give them another 20 minutes to deliver the piza. If they co not make it in time, we give up and cancel our order. ‘8 two step escalation using BPMN 2.0. When want a pizza, we order one. Solution 1: Two Event-Based Gateways Advantages of this solution This solution vory explicitly shows how the two step escalation is performed, Timers are modeled soparatoly, followed by tholr corresponding escalation activites Disadvantages of this solution‘The event-based gateway is not an intuitive BPMN symbol ofthe BPMN standard, experience is required. Using two event-based gateways makes the model larger and leads to duplication ofthe “Pizza received” message event Solution 2: Receive Task with timers attached onplante Advantages of t solution ‘This models smaller than the frst solution and probably the way most developers would solve the problem on the engine. Since we use a non- interrupting attached timer event, this solution i mare exible when i comes to multiple complaints (6, we want o complain every 5 minutes until 50 minutes are over) Disadvantages of this solution The rect ive tasks usually not intuitive forthe “business guys", who would rather use message receive events for that kind of wait state. The way thatthe interrupting and non-interrupting timer collaborate requires profound understanding of attached events. Solution 3: One Event-Based Gateway with a generic timer bud Advantages of this solution ‘This models the compact and generic solution to the problem. Ifit comes to -step escalation then you will need this generic approach to avoid huge diagrams. Disadvantages of this solution ‘The generic solution is less explicit than the other solutions. We do nat see the actual dur durations jon ofthe timers, asa single timer is used for both For afast understanding ofthe two step escalation, this method of modeling isnot suitable. BPMN Modeling Styles Avoid Crossing Flows Recommendation ‘This BPMN example is about cresting a good layout of process models, The better the layout, the higher the degree of understanding. That is what |e want to achieve when we create process models.‘Try to avoid crossing flows as much as possible, This will increase understanding of APMN process models - for both experienced and inexperienced BPMN users. Of course itis not always possible to entirely avoid this problem. Bear in minc that it always makes sense ta invest some extra time in optimizing the layout ina way that most crossing flows are eliminated. ‘The examples below illustrate the problem with an abstract example, Good Example of Handling Flows Counter-example Naming Conventions Recommendation Most important: every BPMN symbol should have a label Events should be labeled using object + past participle. Start events should always be labeled with an indication ofthe trigger of the process. End events should be labeled with the end state of the process. ‘The process (poo) itsolf should also always be labeled. Ths label should indicate the name ofthe process and the roe that is performingit. ‘Tasks should be labeled using object + verb. This forces the modeling person to focus on whats really done during the task. XOR Gateways should be labeled witha question, The outgoing sequence flows should be labeled with the possible answers to these questions (Conditions) Good Example of NamingThe Generic Version Counter Example Symmetric Modeling Recommendation ‘This BPMN example is about cresting a good layout of process models. The better the layout, the higher the degree of understanding. That is what \We want to achieve when we create process models, We have determined that symmetric structures increase understanding of BPMN process models - for both experienced and inexperienced BPMN, Good Example of a Symmetric ModelUse Equal Task Sizes Recommendation We recommend to always use equal task sizes. ‘The reason is simple. People tend to interpret task sizes although they do not have any semantics in the BPMN standard ‘Some think that bigger tasks are more important than smaller tasks ~ according te SPMN that is wrong, ‘Some think that bigger tasks take more time than smaller tasks ~ according to BPMN that is wrong. You can easily avoid that contusion by using equal task sizes Good Example of Equal Task Sizes Counter-example i i t7O9oe0e00