Www binare optionen 602 blogspot en
Also, detailing the task assigning mechanism in the above diagram would make things so much clearer, in my opinion. I assume the reason you made your tasks User Tasks is in order to imply some software driven assignment mechanism. But what if the manual process above has a manual assigning mechanism?
BPMS or workflow, meaning that tasks are assigned, delivered and marked as done. The essence of the work may be done somewhere else. You are right - this is another hidden or not well-explained at least assumption of BPMN. There are many aspects that should be considering when building a business process. BPMN in particular is fitted just for the process scheme, and this one aspect alone is tough enough.
In some organizations the office secretary plays the role of a process engine: Manual task is for some autonomous activities. I am still not clear what is implied the moment a User Task is used in a diagram. Some task assignment mechanism? This is where I am still unclear. If a user does not use any piece of software to perform their activity, what type of task would you use? But in your diagram, the instance of process is initiated by the buyer.
So who assigns the task to first User Task? Both user and manual tasks are performed by humans; the difference is that user task is performed by a human with computer smartphone, tablets etc. I just asked what task type would you use to show a human does an action for a process from Middle Age? You cannot use User Task, can you? Let me ask you another question. Or rather share an assumption. I think we model for the purpose of documenting and maybe executing the process in a process engine or software system.
I write software myself. I try to write readable software. I do other things as well. My code tells a story. I write a story using a programming language as much as I can. Some people say the code is the most reliable documentation, facing humans when source code is read and facing computer processor when it is executed in binary form.
The code does not have ambiguities at all. If you agree, then I ask you how can that be achieved when the graphical symbols expressing a process allow for so much almost arbitrary interpretation?
If there is anything that chases people away from BPMN, I dare to say it is this very ambiguity before other difficulties. Does this mean that when somebody creates a diagram, the other readers of diagram have to have a loose understanding? Because this has an impact on business.
Can you live with loose reliability in your business? You can, but you will try better than just that. One way would be to have a clearer definition of concepts. There are just a few ambiguities there, I think. Besides, BPMN is not the first standard created by agreement. Or Bpmn will become if it is not already a collection of dialects. And then, like in Italy, people speaking southern dialects will have a hard time understanding people from other parts.
Even tough they may claim they all speak Italian…. Your concern is valid but fortunately there is a simple answer: I was wondering how to decide when to choose to model activities of a process as subprocesses in an orchestration and when to model those parts as separate pools collaboration.
I am working on a big process diagram and it has around 7 subprocesses, but each has around activities. All activities are internal to some institution. There are occasional interactions with applicant. The process is about a property sale process thru cadastre office. I have the feeling that rather than model thru lanes it is better to model as multiple pools, roughly one for each subprocess. A subprocess is a process as well, so one pool per subprocess makes sense to me as well.
This way the process is more manageable. Of course if you care about your diagrams being perceived by business people. There should be sound reasons to switch to collaboration e. I blogged on this topic long time ago: I have a huge diagram and I have a hard time printing it. Does Bizagi Modeler handle well big diagrams? Just dig into top menu. Yet any good BPM diagram fits into one screen or one A4 page of paper, period.
My process is modeled as 7 subprocesses, each subprocess having on average 5 activities. But if I expand each of the 7 subprocesses. How would you print it in this case? One printout of the process with collapsed subprocesses and then one page for each expanded subprocess? How do you handle these cases. I just expressed my possible approach. With some exceptions, expanded subprocess are evil. We introduce subprocesses to isolate abstractions and to make things simpler. When you consider Send task an automatic task, how do you make sense of the fact it has a performer attribute?
The standard should have instead added this attribute only to those subtypes of Activity which were intended in the standard to be human performable. Every ok, almost every element is placed on some lane just because there is no other room on the page.
Yet not for each element it is meaningful. But one may choose not to show lanes. With your help and based on my experience I will avoid almost always the lanes and I will use groups and annotations, instead. Actually, whether one uses lanes or groups, they should only be used on subprocesses having no subprocesses, ie leaf-processes, otherwise one is back to square one.
So to show that they happen always, one needs some annotation next to message flow. I find it more convenient to have the task symbol by itself imply this, without resorting to annotations. So you might be right….
Messages are auxiliary comments here. But Bizagi people, who also support BPMN2, allow the performer on any task, so they blindly follow the spec which allows performers on any Activity. To them, even a subprocess may have performer, which I find funny. I think it is all because subprocess is also an activity. But, if you go to your example related to state machine, a subproceses may be made of events and gateways only.
In my opinion, subprocesses as well should not have performer. If they are made of any activity such as a User Task, that is the one that should have the performer set, not the container subproceses.
I love the BPMN2 spec! I like your clear distinction between User tasks and everything else. But, I wonder, how do you represent the reaction to a signal that an event has happened? You are forced to use events. But then how do you represent the fact that some human reacts to an event? I think this is what gives most discomfort, plus other things I will not elaborate on yet. I agree - BPMN allowing performer for any activity i. I used the term signal like a notification that something has happened, i did not think at all of signal event.
And the seller must go thru cadastre staff. The seller must apply and bring some documents to cadastre staff. Later on, during the processing of this sale, cadastre staff discovers they need some document corrections from seller. At that time, the process must pause after notifying somehow the seller about the issue and wait for seller to come. How would you model the wait in process and the arrival of seller other than using events? I guess you will suggest modeling this thru some User task performed by staff where there must be interaction with seller using mandatory message flows between user task and seller, right?
Why do you thing a message interaction and external entities are obligatory? I guess you could also omit start and end events, for consistency, but those may be kept as an exception and for clarity, especially if you have parallel branches, terminate end events etc. Then, when making the process executable, you would drop some of the user tasks for the tasks that were automated and instead would use some service tasks and events and event gateways etc.
Am I assuming correctly? I think it ads info which is necessary in order to understand how it works. I consider a diagram a story-teller: Do you have another view on this?
I find of immense value taking a process, modeling it as manual process and then presenting the executable version of it, where various parts are automated completely and some of the humans executing something in the process would be replaced by some automated service and most of them would continue to exist as User tasks, managed by the process engine in conjunction with some usually integrated task manager.
This is the perspective of a guy who keeps trying to learn and improve on BPMN2, guess who?! I also think that when modeling the executable process, some interactions, which otherwise may be omitted, will HAVE to be present for the engine itself, anyway. How would you model the intermediate message catching event Payment Received and its corresponding message throwing event if it was a manual process?
And process logic is about what to do next once an activity completes, based on its outputs into process logic. But sometimes the process logic, such as some following gateway, makes more sense if the interactions just before the gateway where shown, because otherwise the task name must imply the interactions and that would be too much,I guess.
In that case, the question used to label the gateway makes more sense if in the show interactions some text was used to label messages etc. Exactly what do we mean by calling an element automatic?
Does it mean it is performed by a software? Do we use them in process diagrams designed for comuter-less execution? There is always a process engine behind a BPMN model. It may be a software engine or it may be a human playing the same role: More Flying Club miles. Choose the best card for you and start getting even more rewards when you spend. How to Drill an Oil Well.
Drilling an oil well is a massive project that requires multiple teams of workers and very deep pockets. But money and manpower aren't enough.
Sign in to continue to YouTube Enter your email. Coq au vin recipe - enjoy this crockpot or stovetop chicken in red wine sauce. It is gluten-free and this variation is low-carb. So, 32 bits of latitude, longitude and altitude and then three 8 bit values for the size and precision. A blog post at "The Signal" on Tanos Micro T-Loc Systainer. Add to Cart Quick view. Official Opinion Bit A little bit of opinion. This LOC collection is budget-friendly because the. I like the fact that all the eyeshadows have a bit of.
Canadian coffee and donut chain. Serving breakfast and lunch as well. Parts Lookup How to order parts.
Vancouver's last Inner Harbour marina space goes on market. PDC Logic specializes in partnering with drilling companies to find solutions to your. Metro Vancouver real estate: Duke of Westminster and Windows PowerShell: Windows Powershell Working with Active Directory. Center Rock used advanced drilling technology to break through to the. His one bit of unwanted public attention was a massive 5. The Duke of Westminster's influence in Metro Vancouver: The top 10 best-written blogs Among all the garbage in the blogosphere are gems like these.
This review is the subjective opinion of a.