How to use BPMN to show cash flow/logistic flow?

[Janice]

Dear All,

Recently, I conducted a BPMN training to introduce BPMN basic elements
in our company. In the class, one student asked about if BPMN can
model the cash flow and logistic flow (the flow that shows how “real
thing”, such as stock, product…etc, goes in and out).
Based on my knowledge from BPMN spec 1.2, I don’t think there is any
element can represent “money” or “product”. But I’m not sure. Is this
the constraint of BPMN?
Or there are other different ways to model cash flow and logistic
flow?

Thank you for your help in advance.

Best Regards,
Janice

[Hong Lee Yu]

Conceptually, you could use artifact to represent money or product.

Sent from my iPad

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPMN Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to BPMN...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to BPMNforum+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/BPMNforum?hl=en.
>

[Nil]

Janice,

You wrote such things like: "...stock, product…etc, goes in and out" and "...model cash flow and logistic
flow...". Be sure the nature term "flow" always refers to a "business process", and "BPMN wil be constrained to support the concepts that are aplicable to business processes".  “money” or “product” will be depicted as artifacts conected to you business process. According spec 1.2 you can use any image to place the elements to represent these artifacts.

Nil

2010/12/7 Janice <x9kk...@gmail.com>

[Neal McWhorter]

Janice,

This is a great question and one which has generated a lot of debate in the standards committee (OK.... at least on my part although some other people shared my concerns). In addition, the BPMN Evaluation Team report (which I led and which was driven by end-user organizations) cited this as one of their key concerns. Unfortunately these issues didn't get addressed so the picture isn't pretty.

In the BPMN 1.x series of standards the Artifact object was something that was allowed to be expanded to accommodate things like material goods. The standard provided a "Data Object" as a particular version of the Artifact but it didn't provide any real semantics to support this. Essentially the artifact was something that could be illustrated as flowing from one activity to another but that was about it.

In BPMN 2.0 the old Artifact still exists but it has effectively been gutted. It is now purely a graphical construct with absolutely no semantics. The old Data Object has been given some badly needed detailed semantics and is now a separate element in its own right. This means that there is no longer effective standards-based way to specify in BPMN 2.0 the physical flow of goods between activities. Graphically BPMN still allows graphical extensions for Artifacts so I typically draw them with associations between activities. In BPMN 1.x directed associations were allowed for this. In BPMN 2.0 you must use non-directed associations for these kinds of things. Directed associations (the dash-line with an arrow head on one end)  have been deprecated and "data associations" have been created as a new model element. These look exactly like the old "directed associations" from BPMN 1.x but are only available for "data aware" elements in BPMN. That effectively excludes user created elements. So to be compliant you could draw an Artifact and connect it between two activities with dashed line without arrow heads. That's not very helpful in my opinion but that's all BPMN 2.0 has to offer.

All that is detailed standards issues that only are important if you are modeling with a tool where you want to enforce standards compliance. If you are modeling without needing to do that then you really don't have to worry about all that. In that case I'd suggest that you model using whatever symbol you like and used the dash-line with arrow-head notation to connect the activities. BPMN 2.0 does introduce the idea that inputs can be a flow constraint. So if you treat your materials (cash, products, etc) as Data Objects (not ideal) you could show these going into an activity and you are effectively saying that their availability constrains the activity's ability to start. This is new in BPMN 2.0 because in BPMN 1.x "Data Objects" did not have any impact on flow.

I imagine all this is probably more than you were asking for! Once you wade through all my answer if you have some more specific questions about your particular situation I'd be happy to try to help you figure out how to address them.

Neal McWhorter

Principal | Enterprise Agility

www.enterprise-agility.com

neal.mc...@enterprise-agility.com

[Janice]

Dear Hong Lee and Nil,
Thank you for your suggestion regarding how to model cash and physical
product.
After searching for information about cash flow, I think it’s not
proper to diagram cash flow in BPD.
But for logistic flow, I think I will create a “product” artifact in
our company as conventions to present how products come and go.


Dear Neal,
Thank you for sharing such comprehensive information on data object
and data association.
Frankly speaking, I can only get 60% of your idea when I first read
your reply. After checking the 2.0 spec., though, I think I have got
90% of it.
Thank you so much. I have learned a lot from you on data object.

Based on my understanding on the student’s need, his purpose is to
present all information in a BPD with data, cash, and physical
product.
If BPMN allows users to extend artifact to serve their own needs and
we just model processes for business instead of execution, I think it
would be okay to define our own product artifacts in the company.

The 10% I don’t quite understand is that, as you said, “data
associations look exactly like the old directed associations from BPMN

1.x but are only available for “data aware” elements in BPMN. That

effectively excludes user created elements.” I’m not sure if I
understand what you mean by “data aware elements” and why it would
exclude user created elements.

Thank you in advance. : )

Best Regards,
Janice

[Neal McWhorter]

Janice,

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. I was afraid that my response was a bit too much but I was glad to hear that you managed to wade through it and find some value.

For what you're looking for I'd be tempted to say that strict BPMN compliance isn't the best approach. BPMN is all about building a software machine and what you're talking about is a process modeling exercise. I think using the elements of the notation without strict compliance probably will fit what you're trying to do best. We've encouraged several clients to do the same thing for similar reasons.

On the "data aware" front. Actually I misspoke. BPMN 2.0 uses the term "item-aware" but I always think of it as "data-aware". My mistake. But the gist of this is that "data associations" (i.e. the little dashed lines with an arrow on one end that connects an artifact to two activities in BPMN 1.x) got a lot smarter in BPMN 2.0.  Now these associations can only be used if you define a data object that maps the outputs of one activity to the inputs of another one. The "data object" then is just a way of visualizing that mapping and that mapping contains what BPMN calls items... or what most of us would call data.

This is generally what I think you're trying to do with your cash, products etc on your flows. The problem, once again, is that BPMN is defining a software machine. So there isn't any thought given to ways to generalize this to domains that aren't software machines. So it would be a major effort to make all of this technically correct for the kind of scenario you're describing and the value just isn't there for doing it. Ironically the 2.0 standard does use some illustrations that are more generic (e.g. it shows "Research Notes" passing between activities) even though it doesn't really do a good job supporting this kind of modeling.

I hope this helps. Once again it's a bit complicated once you dig into the details. 

Have a good holiday...

Neal McWhorter

Principal | Enterprise Agility

Business Vision Delivered

www.enterprise-agility.com

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Janice <x9kk...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Dear Neal,
Thank you for sharing such comprehensive information on data object
and data association.
Frankly speaking, I can only get 60% of your idea when I first read
your reply. After checking the 2.0 spec., though, I think I have got
90% of it.
Thank you so much. I have learned a lot from you on data object.

Based on my understanding on the student’s need, his purpose is to
present all information in a BPD with data, cash, and physical
product.
If BPMN allows users to extend artifact to serve their own needs and
we just model processes for business instead of execution, I think it
would be okay to define our own product artifacts in the company.

The 10% I don’t quite understand is that, as you said, “data
associations look exactly like the old directed associations from BPMN

1.x but are only available for “data aware” elements in BPMN. That

effectively excludes user created elements.” I’m not sure if I
understand what you mean by “data aware elements” and why it would
exclude user created elements.

Thank you in advance. : )

Best Regards,
Janice