Comments on: BPMN 2.0 Update

By: bruce

bruce — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:31:45 +0000

@allweyer,
It’s even worse than that, since I really doubt the non-BPEL BPMS vendors will rush to embrace executable BPMN. I think they are quite content to use BPMN only for the “abstract” flow model, and rely on their own proprietary tools for executable design. The good news, however, is that the question of non-executable BPMN is now front and center with the BPMN 2.0 technical team, and I expect some kind of resolution in the March submission. But time will tell.
–Bruce

By: allweyer

allweyer — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:29:17 +0000

If it wouldn’t be possible to create non-executable BPMN models, the rising attention towards this standard would vanish very soon. BPMN would be turned into a rather technical workflow specification language – only to be used by specialists in an IT project, and only if a process engine happens to be used as part of the solution.

During the last year, I have held a number of BPMN seminars in large companies (in industries such as manufacturing, chemicals, media, finance). All of them are looking for a standard which can be used for modeling business processes on a business level. These models should be suitable for communicating requirements to IT, based on a common language.

All of the participants liked BPMN, and most of them have started using this notation – but none of them is currently considering it as a language for specifiying executable processes.

The reality is: Today most IT projects do not make use of a process engine. Still they do need a common language for business and IT. My understanding was that BPMN aimed to provide such a common language. BPMN has a good chance to become an accepted standard and to gain widespread acceptance. This success will be destroyed if BPMN is reduced to specifying executable processes.

I am very concerned about what I am reading in your post about the current development in the OMG. Please don’t let them kill the BPMN success!

By: sfrancis

sfrancis — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:54:16 +0000

Bruce -
great post. in particular, I would like to see the BPMN 2.0 spec continue to support (schema-valid) non-executing BPMN models. Its hard to believe that people won’t still be doing non-executing models – OR – writing models that aren’t executable *yet* – that will be moved between users or tools or installations for final fit-and-finish.

A non-executing model that is well-formed should still be a valid model…

Also, kudos for helping out – I know participating in OMG processes is time consuming and hard work, but I’m glad the consulting point of view is being represented in there by someone with your experience.

Scott

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:09:51 +0000

Hello Bruce,
Nice to read something from you again, after long time. Thanks for the update, I agree with you on everything except one; XMI format.
It’s a key standard for tools to exchange metamodels.
The XMI file released by IBM-SAP-Oracle group is so valuable, where it includes information that captures the semantic of BPMN-2.0 in a consistent and an explicit way, for the first time, rather than the implicit vague one in BPMN-1.1. I think this is the first sign of “tipping point” you talked about in [BPM Standards in Perspective]. For example, you can take that XMI file and manipulate it in whatever way you want with any standard tool such as RSA, and even open source tools, like Eclipse.

As a feedback for you; that XMI file released by IBM-SAP-Oracle group, is missing information about all metamodels in chapter-12 of the latest specs. I know it’s not final yet, but I hope see it complete in next release.

Finally, please write more, because you’re a great educational source for me and I’m learning a lot from you.

Scott