Does anyone have an opinion on the use of the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) as a means to communicate business processes?
...
This list seems to me to be a very limited subset of "all business stakeholders". Does anyone use BPMN, and if so for what?
Many thanks.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for posting the information about the BPMN. It aroused my curiosity. I looked at the article and the samples which they used, and there didn't seem to me, to be anything particularly remarkable or innovative about it, other than the attempt to standardize the use of symbols in flowcharts. I see that it was written by Stephen White from I.B.M, so I gather that there was some rationale for computer software developers to propose a methodology to ensure that they are creating software that does what their customers want...and that the customers understand what they are buying. It seems that the proposed BPMN is to be the common "vehicle" for communication. It would appear to have some merit in that regard.
The article stated that it took 2+ years to develop it, and it looks like something developed by a committee...and overworked. I would tend to agree with you that it appears too complex to be readily utilized, but then, there always is a learning curve with any new methodologies.
Anyone who uses MSVisio Software is already familiar with the generally accepted symbols for "activities", "decisions" etc. The stencils in MSVisio already do what the committee has re-invented. Perhaps they just want to ensure standardization in the use of graphic elements and to establish some basic models...kind of laying the groundwork for communication.
As for using it...without being aware of it, I would say that I am using a very similar methodology (see attachment). I use flow charts to define all Key processes, and where time permits, I often develop flowcharts for the drill-down activities or "Work Instructions" which are referenced in the Flow Charts. One thing I don't like about the BPMN is that they add a lot of text outside of the "stencil shapes", and I think much of that information can be incorporated into the text inside the "rectangle" or "diamond" or whatever. My sample includes a shape for "input" on the left of the activity and "output" on the right. I also include a colored rectangle for the "reference standard" (ISO/TS, ISO 14000, Customer-specific reqt's, etc.). This sample looks busy but in MSVisio you can include or "hide" any grouping of elements to simplify the flow chart...and customize it for your audience. This particular view is used by Internal Auditors to provide reference to applicable standards. It also demonstrates the use of "swimming lanes" to distinguish activities performed at a "Sales/Design Site", vs. the "Manufacturing Site". Activities which are shared straddle the line (something the BPMN model doesn't mention).
I find the information in their "Activity" rectangles too vague to be useful, and, from my perspective, would require the creation of supporting "narrative" documents that would tell the user what they have to do. They don't reference input and output documents either, which means, you'd have to go elsewhere to get more detail.
I think that a lot of companies have utilized similar methodologies to initially achieve certification of the ISO family of standards, but now that the dust has settled, they are finding that these documents are too vague, and not comprehensive enough to be used as training tools, and are poor audit tools, unless you have very well-developed internal auditors. I think the BPMN is not bad for a "first kick at the cat", but I think it is of limited utility.
...and there you have it...MHO.
Thanks again for opening the discussion.
Patricia