UML vs BPMN for detailed design documentation

[F Cantoni@localhost Paolo F Cantoni]

We're embarking on a process to create a unified modelling environment for Business Level Architecture (using ArchiMate with extensions), down to  physical modelling of real artifacts.

In business modelling, there's a change-over from ArchiMate to BPMN (for example as mentioned and documented in: : Mastering ArchiMate Edition II by Gerben Wierda).
However, when looking at more technical detailed design, we can describe  detailed program flow using UML activity diagrams etc. The EA help file has a section: Comparison of UML Activities and BPMN Processes  which seems to say that you can render any UML Activity diagram in BPMN, but not necessarily in the other direction.  That's my understanding.

Has anyone used BPMN diagrams for detailed program or computing process (as opposed to business process design)?

If so, can you share your experiences?
Any "traps for young players"?

TIA,
Paolo

[original message]

[Bellekens@localhost Geert Bellekens]

Paolo,

I've seen it in practice (overly detailed BPMN diagrams) and I found in that case BPMN was nut used anymore for BPM, but for functional modelling. Something which I think is still better done with use cases.

Recently I've seen a lot of companies that use a combination of Archimate (architecture), BPMN (business processes) and UML (functional and technical analysis), and it seems to work pretty good.

Each of those fields is usually analysed by a different profile, and each of these profiles seems to feel right at home with their respective modeling language.

Geert
[original message]

[F Cantoni@localhost Paolo F Cantoni]

Thanks for that Geert,
I guess my question wasn't as wide as your answer.  My question specifically, was: if you're using a UML Activity diagram, is there any problem with replacing it with a (as) semantically equivalent (as possible) BPMN Process diagram.  I'm thinking that I can use a specific subset of BPMN for expressing the same semantics of the UML it's replacing.

In our situation, we're not trying ot use 3 different  modelling methodologies, but trying to create a more unified holistic methodology that "dips its lid" to the originating methodologies.

I agree with you on Use Cases - that woudl be an example where we might extend our unified methodology to include the concept.

Paolo
[original message]

[qwerty]

I have successfully used simple BPMN diagrams to enhance use case scenario descriptions. It's easily possible to use BPMN as replacement for ADs and to use additional features offer by BPMN by and by.

q.
[original message]

[AndyJ]

My preference is to have a jumping off point, where the modelling switches from BPMN down to UML (Use Case).

For example, on the BPMN diagram you have an Activity "Purchasing Clerk Creates Purchase Order" which is linked by a message to the "Purchasing System" lane, and an Object called "Purchase Order".

Any occurrence of a Human interfacing with a System is potential for a Use Case.

If you BPMN diagram has activities like (Add Line to Purchase Order) I'd suggest that it has gone down too low into the weeds.

I can see reasons why someone would like to create that kind of duplication across different modelling paradigms, but I'd prefer not to.

Andy
[original message]

[Bellekens@localhost Geert Bellekens]

6061786F7E6667626B0E0 wrote:

My preference is to have a jumping off point, where the modelling switches from BPMN down to UML (Use Case)

I'm with AndyJ on this one.

Geert
[original message]

[F Cantoni@localhost Paolo F Cantoni]

[original message]