As result of some spirited back and forth on my previous post with FTF member Camunda, plus response from Oracle (original BPMN 2.0 Examples team member), I have a bit more information on the intent and usage of process dataInput in BPMN 2.0, and whether it can have incoming and/or outgoing data associations in BPMN 2.0. To recap: The BPMN 2.0 metamodel (UML) allows dataAssociation between any item-aware elements, which include dataInput, dataOutput, dataObject, property, and dataStore.
Based on a very successful July class, with 35 students, including several from Europe and Asia, we're going to do another one in September. Save the date - BPMN Method and Style training, live online on September 19, 20, and 21 from 11am-4pm ET (8am-1pm PT, or 5pm-10pm Europe time). The class will leverage some brand new features of itp commerce Process Modeler for Visio v5.6. The price of the training is $1095 for 1, $995 each for 5, or $895 each for 10 or more.
Interest in BPM training and certification is accelerating, and being able to understand and create BPMN process models has become a critical foundation skill. We've set the dates for the next 3-day virtual classroom: July 11, 12, and 13 from 11am-4pm ET (8am-1pm PT, or 5pm-10pm Europe time). Check out Sandy Kemsley's review of the last one. [Note: I'm tweaking the content, based on some of her comments. The next one will be the best yet!
I rarely get comments on my obscure techie BPMN 2.0 posts, but this one seems to have legs. Kris Verlaenen of jBPM has a thoughtful response, posted both as a comment to mine and on his own site (to show a diagram). He says, It seems to me, from reading the specification, that data input and output associations are meant to be "local", by which I mean they are not intended to be referenced from outside the element in which they are defined.
I have run across 5 BPMS vendors interested in my BPMN-I work: Activiti, BonitaSoft, Oracle, SAP, and IBM. Of the five, BonitaSoft is so far the most successful in actually implementing BPMN 2.0-based model interchange. Not only that, they are the only one so far that has implemented any of my suggestions for conforming to the xsd and BPMN-I. Here's an example. I created the following diagram in itp commerce Process Modeler for Visio: That's the top level diagram.
The second edition of my book BPMN Method and Style is now available. It just went up on Amazon US today, not yet in UK. Here is the link to the Amazon page. Wow, that was a lot of work. I've moved the book's website www.bpmnstyle.com to a section of this site, making it easier to maintain and respond to comments. I decided this time to wait for the printed book before I sent off copies to reviewers, so reviewer comments should show up on bpmnstyle.
The questions of BPM vs Case Management, process vs case, and - almost too horrible for some Case people to contemplate - BPMN extensions for case management - are getting all frothy again. Here is my take on the topic. 1. The question is BPM part of case management, or is case management part of BPM? is a metaphysical one. I think, however, it is a proxy for the real question, can a BPMS do a good job with case management, or do you need a special dedicated tool?
At this week's SAP Tech Ed conference in Las Vegas, BPM is definitely off the main track. The only other BPM analyst here that I recognized is Jim Sinur of Gartner. The keynote sessions were all about HANA, SAP's new in-memory analytics platform that is the key to reinvigorating the entire SAP portfolio (at least the parts they still care about). HANA-enabled BPM won't come until 2012, but it should provide a significant performance boost (process transactions per hour) as well as powerful real-time process analytics.
My BPMN training includes post-class certification. It's optional, and not everyone who tries for it gets it. For the first few years we offered it, only 10-15% of students got certified. Now it's well over half, and in some classes close to 100%. I actually think it's the most valuable part of the offering, and I'm glad that students now think so, too. A number of organizations offer a broad "
About 99% of the effort in drafting the BPMN 2.0 standard, and 95% of the bad rap it has received, relates to "executable" BPMN 2.0 models. It's been over a year since publication of the final spec, and it seems that executable BPMN 2.0 tools don't really exist yet. I hope I'm wrong. For years any BPM tool that had some notion of boxes and arrows claimed to support BPMN, and no doubt many BPM Suites now claim to support BPMN 2.
