BPMN & Sub-Processes

[mahoney2]

I've been doing modeling mainly in UML but with a BPMS suite being purchased, we're looking at doing modeling in BPMN. I'm very familiar with BPMN and diagraming aspects but one thing with EA has me a bit confused.

When creating a Sub-Process in a BPMN diagram, I am adding an Activity, then setting Tagged Value --> Activity Type to Sub-Process. This gives it the correct notation with the "+" symbol. However, it does not have a sub-diagram created automatically as a Business Process does. So I select it and add a composite element which creates a sub-diagram.

Is this the correct way to do it? Also is there any functionality where clicking the "+" symbol in the diagram would expand the activity to show the subprocess?


Just for reference, we are not planning on exporting using BPEL or anything into the BPMS, we just want to have as much documented in BPMN prior to purchase and implementation to speed things along.

[«Midnight»]

I think, given the EA 'idiom' of composite diagrams, that you are doing the correct thing. EA does not (at least not easily) allow you to embed a BPMN diagram inside an element.

As to BPEL, a (very) long time ago Sparx mentioned this was on their radar. We've not heard anything since. I suggest you make a (yet another) feature request. If Sparx doesn't hear that there is support for such functions, they are less likely to add them. Search my recent posts for a best practice we (the forum community) use for feature requests.

David

[Bryce Day]

Yes, this is the correct way to create sub-processes using the BPMN profile.

One thing you want to be careful of is the use of Business Processes elements verses Activity elements. If you are anything like me/us the levelling of the processes you are working on is unclear/hard to define until you have gotten part way through.

You will notice that if you want to alter Business Process elements to be Activities or Sub-Processes next rejigging the levelling the tag values are different and you may not be able to add the additional information (in the form of tags) you want to this now 'converted' Sub-Process or Activity element from a Business Process element without doing it manually.

Though not strictly correct we find the easiest way to get around this issue is to alway use the Activity element so that when you want to alter the leveling you have all required tags at your disposal. It does mean that you will be using Sub-Process elements where you would normally use Business Process element though.
Hope this helps
Bryce

[robertg]

Hello,

I'm just getting started with EA but...how do you mean that you get EA to open up a new process diagram from an Activity of type "Sub-Process"? No matter how I click I can't get it there...:-) Could you please provide some step-by-step instructions to a EA-newcomer?

 / Robert

[«Midnight»]

Hi Robert,

I suspect you're missing the step of making setting the Activity to be a composite element.

Right-click the Activity, then from the context menu select Advanced | Composite Element. If all goes as expected you'll see a small glyph that looks something like a cross between an infinity sign and a pair of eyeglasses.

Once you've got that done you should be able to double-click the Activity to enter the 'inner' diagram. You can see the new diagram in the Activity element with Project Browser.

HTH, David

[robertg]

Ahhh yes! That did it! i didn't realize that it was a generic EA behaviour to make things "Composite".

Thanks a lot David!

/ Robert

[«Midnight»]

It takes a bit of getting used to Robert.

If you ever find you simply cannot set up a composite element, check the Tools | Options | Objects dialog, you may have the Support for Composite Objects box cleared. The setting is remembered by EA, and should be the default, but you never know what somebody else might have set up.

David

[igh08191]

Hi all,

So, what is a Business Process used for?

[«Midnight»]

AFAIK since the '0.9' days of BPMN this seems to have morphed a bit. Back then it just seemed natural to set up your (business) processes and build - in the sense of drilling down to - sub-processes where they were appropriate.

Now the sub-process seems to be the workhorse. Often the business process can be thought of as the 'totality' (my word, and not the best one) of a given model (diagram).

In a very rough kind of way - the metaphor breaks very quickly, so don't try it - this could be thought of as the unnamed package that contains 'all' of a UML model. Some tools implement such a concept. The package is still there, even if you don't create it specifically. [EA uses model roots instead.]

In any case I don't see business process element used for much these days, outside of high level diagrams.

[Note that the above does should not be taken to indicate anything about the correct use of elements involved; it just reflects what I've run into.]

David