I am just learning BPMN 2.0 modeling language.
I have to design a call center process where an operator asks several questions to a customer.
I am wondering if I need to model a message flow between customer and operator for every question (as the exchange information) or if a message flow is only needed if real documents are exchanged (e.g. an invoice is sent).
Thanks!
Let's look at the definitions in the BPMN 2.0.1 specifications (highlighting from me):
Message: An Object that depicts the contents of a communication between two Participants. A message is transmitted through a Message Flow and has an identity that can be used for alternative branching of a Process through the Event-Based Exclusive Gateway.
Message flow: A Connecting Object that shows the flow of messages between two Participants. A Message Flow is represented by a dashed lined.
So the message is not necessarily a business document that is exchanged, but any kind of communication, including spoken exchange.
The granularity of the messages depends on what you want to show in the model:
If the question/answer is just a detail in a larger process, you may want to show one summary interaction corresponding to the questions and another in reverse direction for the answers, and consider that all the questions are asked at once and all the answers provided at once, even if this does not fully correspond to reality.
If you're interested exactly in the details of the question/answer because for example different participants are involved at different stages of the Q&A, you may well single out each question and each answer separately according to the real flow. But be careful, since too detailed flows might be difficult to maintain, so some degree of abstraction is recommended.
If your interest is in very detailed dialogue scripts between a customer and the same operator, BPMN might not be the best tool: more specialised conversation flows, job stories or intent based scripts could be more appropriate (see more about the topic in this article on chatbot requirements)
Related
I've got a problem with how to transform Petri Diagram to BPMN. I don't know how to "simulate" tokens, and the situation when the flow goes back to the start.
Can anyone show me how the correct BPMN should look? :)
I basically see the three BPNM tasks Record proposal, Grant a loan, and Refuse and notify here. The Consideration place is actually a choice and would become a BPNM gateway.
You example seems to involve two actors: one making proposals and another one deciding whether to accept or refuse a proposal. This should be modeled by showing a separate pool for each actor.
If there are multiple instances that make the proposals, the multi instances attribute can be used on the pool.
If it is important that you can process exactly three proposals, I would include this in the far right condition (gateway) or as a text annotation.
So my idea of a BPMN diagram is this:
But it really depends on what aspects of the process you want to show in the model.
I'm trying to understand how to use the FAST-RTPS libraries to implement a Command and Control application. The requirement is to allow multiple writers to direct command messages to a single reader that is tasked with controlling a piece of equipment. In this application there can be one or more identical pieces of equipment being controlled, each using a unique instance of the same reader code. I already understand that I should set the reader's RELIABILITY_QOS to RELIABLE and the OWNERSHIP_QOS to EXCLUSIVE_OWNERSHIP. The part that I am still thinking about is how to configure my application so that when a writer sends a command to the reader controlling the piece of equipment, other readers that might also receive the message will not act on it. I would like to do this at the FAST-RTPS level; that is, configure the application so that only the reader controlling the equipment receives the command message versus allowing multiple readers to receive the control message while programming these readers so that only the controlling reader will act on it. My approach so far involves assigning all controlling writers and only the controlling reader to a partition (See Advanced Functionalities in the Fast-RTPS Users Manual). There will be one of these partitions for each piece of equipment. Is this the proper way to implement my requirements or are there other, better ways?
Thank you.
Since this question was asked in under data-distribution-service, this answer references the OMG DDS specification, currently at version 1.4.
Although you could use Partitions to achieve the selective delivery that you are looking for, this would probably not be the recommended approach for your use case. The main disadvantage that comes to mind is a situation where a single writer has to send control messages to multiple pieces of equipment. With your current approach, you need a single Partition for each equipment, and you additionally need each message to be written into the right Partition. This can only be achieved by attaching a single Partition to each DataWriter, which would consequently require a single DataWriter per piece of equipment. Depending on your set-up, you may end up with many DataWriters where you would prefer to have a few, from the perspective of resource usage perspective as well as code complexity.
The proper mechanism that is intended for this kind of use-case is the so-called ContentFilteredTopic, as found in section 2.2.2.3.3 ContentFilteredTopic Class in the specification. For your convenience, I quoted some of it:
ContentFilteredTopic describes a more sophisticated subscription
that indicates the subscriber does not want to necessarily see all
values of each instance published under the Topic. Rather, it wants
to see only the values whose contents satisfy certain criteria. This
class therefore can be used to request content-based subscriptions.
The selection of the content is done using the filter_expression
with parameters expression_parameters.
Using ContentFilteredTopics, each DataReader would use a filter_expression that aligns with an identifier of the device that it is associated with. At the application level on the sender side, DataWriters would not be aware of that; they would just be writing their control messages. The middleware would take care of the delivery to those (and only those) DataReaders for which the filter expressions matches the data.
This is a core feature of many DDS-based systems. Although the DDS specification does not require it, in many cases the implementation is smart enough to do filtering on the DataWriter side, before the message goes onto the wire, in cases where that makes sense.
I do not know how much of this is actually implemented by Fast-RTPS.
Intro
The company I work in (it is an intern-like position though, until I am done with university) recently implemented an automated warehouse solution, where goods are transported by means of autonomous shuttles. The basic functions of the shuttles are controlled by onboard electronics (microcontroller), routing through the warehouse racking is done by software solution which in turn communicates with our ERP solution. Effectively the ERP solution handles the whole warehousing.
Task
There are well documented processes for every of the four layers (operator who loads the the shuttles, shuttle itself, routing, ERP) individually. But since we kind of puzzled all four of them together to one solution (which was kind of new to all of the participating companies), there are only vague, on-the-flyish process descriptions involving all four layers available.
Now I have been tasked to come up with a solution to illustrate the processes at work.
Example
ERP signals goods in demand at assembly station A1
Warehouse operator looks at screen and starts loading boxes to be picked up by
shuttle
Warehouse operator puts in details into ERP, such as count/weight, box number,
...
Warehouse operator clears boxes for pick-up (by confirming inputs in ERP)
ERP generates transport order
ERP sends transport order to routing software
Routing software sends telegram to shuttle control
Shuttle control turns wheels and asks for directions to pick up boxes
...
Question
As mentioned, I have to graphically represent the kind of processes similar to the one shown in the (easy and not complete) example above. I need to incorporate the operator's actions as well as basic communication between shuttle, routing software and ERP.
Since I attended a course on BPMN at university it came to mind immediately. But now, after immersing myself into information about BPMN for several hours I still can't conclusively tell if BPMN helps my efforts or just further complicates the whole thing.
Is BPMN the right tool for my purpose?
Disclaimer
I am not a Business Analyst. I have looked at alternatives to BPMN (simple flowcharts, activity diagrams, ...) but they don't seem to fit.
Just putting together the existing processes for every respective layer yields no result, owing to the different and sometimes too detailed process descriptions.
Edit
The ERP is SAP ERP 6.0 EHP7 with integrated WMS component.
TL;DR: use the notation you would be implement process in, i.e. choose BPMS, not BPMN.
The notation itself means nothing unless it has proper tool for modelling and further process implementation aka BPMS. You can find dozens of comparisons (e.g. BPMN vs EPC or BPMN vs BPEL), however they won't help you unless you have clear understanding where and how you will be implement you modeled process.
Generally speaking, EPC is used for more high-level view of the process, whereas BPMN is utilized for more fine-grained view, where all technical details of communications between peers can be described. However, it depends.
I also recommend you to review this table
and answer the question to yourself whether your process changes (in)frequently or not, and whether you need separate BPM tool.
How I see it from your description: you have four participants (four layers), which are four lanes in BPMN terms, and they are collaborating/communicating with each other during the process. Generally speaking, this fits to BPMN application area, but personally I feel that you should stick your ERP tooling. I don't know which ERP you use, but every serious ERP solution includes tool for process customization. For example, SAP has Workflow,
which can widely enhance and extend existing processes within SAP. Probably, your ERP have it too.
Again, it's not clear which warehouse management system you use and if it is integrated to your ERP. It seems to be not, and it seems to be some old legacy system, because of which you start re-modelling the stuff. In this particular case it might me wiser to acquire special advanced warehouse management package (take a look at SAP's EWM features as an example) which can cover most of your requirements.
We have a number of processes that rely on interactions between two people/groups. I am trying to figure out the best way to illustrate this in BPMN.
CONSIDER:
Using the example of a pizza order, I call a pizzeria to order, an order-taker answers the phone and then we discuss my order. I am trying to accurately capture the "we discuss the order" portion of the process. Here is how I envision the diagram playing out. I call, they answer, then there's branching for a simultaneous exchange, which converges at the end of the call and my order is finished. Is this illustrated correctly? or are there better ways to show that two different entities communicating with each other at the same time to accomplish a task?
The moment you want to show interaction in greater detail than high level bird view, you typically run into troubles when remaining within the paradigm of using "one pool with several lanes". In such a case you need to draw a so called "collaboration diagram", which means you make use of several pools and hence several process definitions interacting with each other by means of message exchange. I give you an example here:
You may use those envelope symbols attached to the message flows, but you don't need to.
The big advantage of that approach is that you can now show that those processes are dependent on each other, yes, but each participant also wants to remain in drivers seat of his/her own process, e.g. by deciding what to do if the other side doesn't provide the desired answer, doesn't do anything within a reasonable time and so on. Furthermore you can look at that diagram from both perspectives and people will actually see "their own process" - and not something mixed with the concerns of others involved.
For that same reason BPMN also offers the concept of "collapsed pools" to be able to look just at the communication from one side and treat the internal details of the other side as a kind of "black box":
I am writing my Bsc. thesis about a transaction which involves several software systems. Its basically about the communication and information exchange of a ERP system and a webservice which I am implementing. There is a module on the ERP side and the web service on the other. The transaction is communication with XML files.
I want to model this process or transaction and don't know the right modelling language for that purpose. Is the UML component model the right one?
I also want to annote side information like the programming language I am using at a certain step in the process or which XML standard is beeing used. It would also be nice to annotate the asynchronous HTTP sending and receiving in the process.
Thanks for your help!
Marco
If your primary goal is to document the interactions among web service and ERP module then the most appropriate UML diagram is likely either a sequence diagram or activity diagram.
Both will help to show the protocol (sequence of interactions). Both can be annotated with anything you like using notes or constraints.
If you're trying to capture more specifics on the representation of messages UML may not be appropriate. Its strength is showing the structure of the interaction, less so structure of the messages themselves. If you want to show that detail it may be more appropriate to look at some of the web service standards, e.g. WS-choreography.
hth.