Oct
24
2010

Our forth wish for BPMN 2.1 in respect to process execution – rework of a task

Our next wish belongs a simple functionality, but helps again to reduce programming effort and a source of error. Working on business cases there is often the situation that a task is addressed to an organisational unit and somebody takes the task over. The flow goes on, but due to some missing things it may come back to that special task. And to avoid that somebody else needs the setup-time again the former performer should be addressed again to rework the task. To summarize: first time address the task to  a group afterwards to the first performer.

We have solved this with an attribute named remember receiver which is flagged for that special task as shown in the following graphic.

Process example explaining the rework aspekt

Process example explaining the rework aspekt (designed with Signavio)

Do you have another idea how this behavior could be solved within the BPMN?

See our first, second, and third wish also.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace

Download PDF
Written by Dr. Martin Bartonitz in: english,general | Tags: , , , ,

1 Comment »

  • Yes, your second task “check paper” there is a classic where there is work to be done, and there is *always* a choice to be made. One might say that in any task, there is a choice to determine if the process up to the point has done the job. If you find you are given a task, and the staps before it are incomplete, you should be given an option to send it back.

    Modeling it as you did with a “choice” give to the use is a very convenient thing. Some people call this a “quality loop” where every person involved checks the quality of the work, and sends it back if not done correctly. Of course, if your organization does send it back a lot, and there is a lot of re-work, this too can be a waste. So when a job is sent back, there also should be an alert to people who monitor the process and find out if they could prevent the reason for having to send it back. Still, if you omit the option to send it back, then you will never know this, so it is far better to include it.

    http://kswenson.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/human-process-trouble-ticket/

    If you examine the “Trouble Ticket” process, you will see this “rework of a task” used correctly. I agree, this should be a formal part of the BPMN spec, or at least some sort of “best practices” for BPMN.

    -Keith
    http://kswenson.wordpress.com/

    Comment | 31 October 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment


3 + = five

Theme: TheBuckmaker.com Web Templates | Bankwechsel Umschuldung, Iplexx IT Solutions