Comments on: BPMN and ITIL http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/ Bruce Silver's blog on business process management Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:03:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: kewbss http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/comment-page-1/#comment-573 kewbss Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:47:36 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/#comment-573 Bruce, I came across this post (again) while thinking about Exercise 15 of the training ... I was planning to do an ITIL process. FWIW I think your 'best practice' approach is an improvement on the diagram above. Labelling of the message activity clearly shows its purpose ... the flow to an End Message event is redundant and adds clutter. For a novice at least, it takes a conscious effort to realise that this end event does not actually signal the end of the sub-process ... arrival of a message at the parallel intermediate message event is the 'critical path' as far as process completion is concerned. Bruce,

I came across this post (again) while thinking about Exercise 15 of the training … I was planning to do an ITIL process.

FWIW I think your ‘best practice’ approach is an improvement on the diagram above. Labelling of the message activity clearly shows its purpose … the flow to an End Message event is redundant and adds clutter.

For a novice at least, it takes a conscious effort to realise that this end event does not actually signal the end of the sub-process … arrival of a message at the parallel intermediate message event is the ‘critical path’ as far as process completion is concerned.

]]> By: Integrity Management Solutions http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/comment-page-1/#comment-347 Integrity Management Solutions Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:52:43 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/#comment-347 <strong>Process Standards and Technology...</strong> When implementing Service Support and Delivery processes it is very important to document the process with process diagrams and textual information. However, when creating the process diagrams the format of the diagram is at the discretion of the autho... Process Standards and Technology…

When implementing Service Support and Delivery processes it is very important to document the process with process diagrams and textual information. However, when creating the process diagrams the format of the diagram is at the discretion of the autho…

]]> By: bruce http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/comment-page-1/#comment-321 bruce Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:02:01 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/#comment-321 Marlon, I think I see the piece you are objecting to. I tried to explain it in my post, but perhaps it is incorrect. I could have used a message intermediate event to send the Technical RFC, but my convention is to reserve that symbol for a receiving event, and use a Task to indicate the "work" done to create the event and an end event to actually send it (e.g. attach a message flow in choreography diagram), so that the pairing of event labels would be obvious. Maybe that implies that the event is sent twice? That was not my intention. Does the name of the task or the little mail icon on it mean an event is sent? It sounds like my convention may not be best practice, but I don't think actually incorrect. Marlon,
I think I see the piece you are objecting to. I tried to explain it in my post, but perhaps it is incorrect. I could have used a message intermediate event to send the Technical RFC, but my convention is to reserve that symbol for a receiving event, and use a Task to indicate the “work” done to create the event and an end event to actually send it (e.g. attach a message flow in choreography diagram), so that the pairing of event labels would be obvious. Maybe that implies that the event is sent twice? That was not my intention. Does the name of the task or the little mail icon on it mean an event is sent? It sounds like my convention may not be best practice, but I don’t think actually incorrect.

]]> By: marlon_dumas http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/comment-page-1/#comment-317 marlon_dumas Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:36:49 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2006/12/07/bpmn-and-itil/#comment-317 Bruce, You have a history of posting BPMN models with all sorts of mistakes. Well, I believe now it's your turn to step into the dock as there seems to be a bug in your model (although minor). Inside the muti-instance sub-process, after creating the technical RFC, the sub-process sends this technical RFC (to the change management process I assume). But after sending the technical RFC, the process then sends again an RFC (through the 'end message event' labelled "RFC"). So the (technical) RFC is sent twice! Bruce,
You have a history of posting BPMN models with all sorts of mistakes. Well, I believe now it’s your turn to step into the dock as there seems to be a bug in your model (although minor). Inside the muti-instance sub-process, after creating the technical RFC, the sub-process sends this technical RFC (to the change management process I assume). But after sending the technical RFC, the process then sends again an RFC (through the ‘end message event’ labelled “RFC”). So the (technical) RFC is sent twice!

]]>