Comments on: Five Things They Left Out of BPMN 2.0 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/ Bruce Silver's blog on business process management Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:22:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: BPMN 2.0のプロセスモデル相互運用性のゆくえ « 岩田研究所 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-7138 BPMN 2.0のプロセスモデル相互運用性のゆくえ « 岩田研究所 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:38:25 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-7138 [...] 2.0の開発に参画しているBruce Silverの2009年4月14日付けブログ、Five Things They Left Out of BPMN 2.0（BPMN 2.0から外された5項目）では、外された項目の3に「 Model [...] [...] 2.0の開発に参画しているBruce Silverの2009年4月14日付けブログ、Five Things They Left Out of BPMN 2.0（BPMN 2.0から外された5項目）では、外された項目の3に「 Model [...]

]]> By: andreasleue http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-7053 andreasleue Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:30:45 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-7053 Dear Bruce, as for 2) "Semantics of non-executable models", you might be interested in our work at http://www.ooem.org/#OOBPM The site describes an approach to modelling business as well as IT processes within one and the same integrated model. We intend to propagate this into BPMN and/or UML - ideally both unifying themselves some time into the future. There is a slideshow giving more information and background at http://www.ooem.org/oobpm3-en.pdf If possible and desired, we're willing to support the standardization process by contributing our experience. Regards, Andreas Dear Bruce,

as for 2) “Semantics of non-executable models”, you might be interested in our work at http://www.ooem.org/#OOBPM

The site describes an approach to modelling business as well as IT processes within one and the same integrated model. We intend to propagate this into BPMN and/or UML – ideally both unifying themselves some time into the future.

There is a slideshow giving more information and background at http://www.ooem.org/oobpm3-en.pdf

If possible and desired, we’re willing to support the standardization process by contributing our experience.

Regards,
Andreas

]]> By: sfrancis http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-6995 sfrancis Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:50:05 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-6995 Bruce- thanks for another great writeup - a little deflating to read this, as I was hoping for more progress on these points in BPMN 2. I was less optimistic for XPDL 2.1 before I read this -after reading this, I think XPDL is going to be filling an unfilled niche (or at least RFP requirement) for portability... Scott Bruce-

thanks for another great writeup – a little deflating to read this, as I was hoping for more progress on these points in BPMN 2. I was less optimistic for XPDL 2.1 before I read this -after reading this, I think XPDL is going to be filling an unfilled niche (or at least RFP requirement) for portability…

Scott

]]> By: jakob.freund http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-6994 jakob.freund Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:28:25 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-6994 true, it's not fair to blame people who do all the work while I am sitting on my couch. Maybe I can make a contribution to BPMN 3.0, if there is the opportunity. Still, it is also going to be some work to convince the people who are afraid of "technocrats", that BPMN 2.0 really is something useful for them. Maybe I got a bit upset about that. But in the end it's all about "method and style", as you keep pointing out. true, it’s not fair to blame people who do all the work while I am sitting on my couch. Maybe I can make a contribution to BPMN 3.0, if there is the opportunity.

Still, it is also going to be some work to convince the people who are afraid of “technocrats”, that BPMN 2.0 really is something useful for them. Maybe I got a bit upset about that.

But in the end it’s all about “method and style”, as you keep pointing out.

]]> By: bruce http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-6993 bruce Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:31:26 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-6993 Jakob, It's not so bad really. On balance BPMN 2.0 is a big improvement from 1.x. If you are not modeling for execution you can still apply whatever conventions and loose semantics you like, just as before. It's more in the nature of missed opportunities... to make BPMN more portable between tools and more fully supportive of business-oriented non-executable modeling. It is a lot of work to create these standards - a full-time job for some people - and only a few companies are willing to make that level of investment. So I don't blame IBM, Oracle, and SAP for emphasizing their particular needs. They are the ones who put in the work. Jakob,
It’s not so bad really. On balance BPMN 2.0 is a big improvement from 1.x. If you are not modeling for execution you can still apply whatever conventions and loose semantics you like, just as before. It’s more in the nature of missed opportunities… to make BPMN more portable between tools and more fully supportive of business-oriented non-executable modeling.

It is a lot of work to create these standards – a full-time job for some people – and only a few companies are willing to make that level of investment. So I don’t blame IBM, Oracle, and SAP for emphasizing their particular needs. They are the ones who put in the work.

]]> By: jakob.freund http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/2009/04/14/five-things-they-left-out-of-bpmn-20/comment-page-1/#comment-6989 jakob.freund Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:32:07 +0000 http://www.brsilver.com/wordpress/?p=521#comment-6989 Hi Bruce, thanks for the news. I am really sad that your proposals could not make their way into the spec. And I am wondering what the other authors consider a "Business" Process. Don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of BPMN, and I am looking forward to 2.0. But I am angry about the ignorance of people who do not seem to have any experience in real BPM-projects, which exist for decades now, long before BPEL, execution engines or even the internet. Of course it was obvious that something published by "OMG" has a strong focus on IT. Then again, OMG claims to cover both fractions, Business and IT, when they promote their OCEB-certificate. Therefore, I expect them to regard Business needs in the most important BPM-standard out there (which is BPMN and definitely not BPEL). What they obviously failed. And the world does not care who actually wrote the spec, whether they are from SAP, IBM or what ever. It is OMG who "owns" BPMN. This means it is up to the us, the tool vendors, consultants and trainers, to make something pratically useful out of this, and to convince business people that BPMN has not become a nerd's toy... Jakob Hi Bruce,

thanks for the news. I am really sad that your proposals could not make their way into the spec. And I am wondering what the other authors consider a “Business” Process. Don’t get me wrong. I am a big fan of BPMN, and I am looking forward to 2.0. But I am angry about the ignorance of people who do not seem to have any experience in real BPM-projects, which exist for decades now, long before BPEL, execution engines or even the internet.

Of course it was obvious that something published by “OMG” has a strong focus on IT. Then again, OMG claims to cover both fractions, Business and IT, when they promote their OCEB-certificate. Therefore, I expect them to regard Business needs in the most important BPM-standard out there (which is BPMN and definitely not BPEL). What they obviously failed. And the world does not care who actually wrote the spec, whether they are from SAP, IBM or what ever. It is OMG who “owns” BPMN.

This means it is up to the us, the tool vendors, consultants and trainers, to make something pratically useful out of this, and to convince business people that BPMN has not become a nerd’s toy…

Jakob

]]>