AN

Dears

As we are modeling processes, we face some ARIS topics that is quite debatable. The process interface and in particular, the use of broken link in the process and displaying the interface twice using occurance copy versus using a connected flow where the interface is preceded with triggering event and succedded by the end event. Which of these has the lease impact on simulation, and should any one be adopted, what are the minimum conditions to be fulfilled to avoid sematic check errors.

Appreciate your input

 

by Ralf Angeli
Posted on Mon, 01/24/2011 - 16:44

Process interfaces are used when a process is cut into pieces and the pieces are put into different diagrams. They are put at the end of a preceding part or the start of a subsequent part and serve as navigational aids for opening the respective diagrams. Each process interface gets an assignment pointing to the diagram with the other process part. They are therefore not the elements linking the process parts; the events are. The linking is done by placing an occurrence copy of an event at the end of the preceding process part and at the start of a subsequent process part, just before and after the process interfaces respectively.

The linking of process parts in different diagrams should be the only case where process interfaces are used. They should not be used within the process flow, i.e. directly preceded and followed by an event in the same diagram, because the semantics of such a construct are not clearly defined. Some people use process interfaces like this to indicate the reuse of process parts within the process flow, but as far as I know they were not designed for this. The recommended way for this would be to use a regular function with an EPC as an assignment where the start and end events in the assigned EPC are occurrence copies of the respective events before and after the function on the upper level. Note however that such a construct involves two levels of detail: the original EPC and the assigned EPC which describes the function in the original EPC in more detail. (In contrast, the situation described in the first paragraph above involves only one level of detail.)

The simulation will be able to cope with any of the above-mentioned constructs as long as the process parts or processes detailing functions are connected correctly by using occurrence copies of events, but my suggestion would be not to use process interfaces within the flow due to the reason mentioned above.

I'm not sure what "broken link" refers to in the original post, so I'm not able to comment on that. Hopefully the above explanations help with that nevertheless.

0

Featured achievement

Rookie
Say hello to the ARIS Community! Personalize your community experience by following forums or tags, liking a post or uploading a profile picture.
Recent Unlocks

Leaderboard

|
icon-arrow-down icon-arrow-cerulean-left icon-arrow-cerulean-right icon-arrow-down icon-arrow-left icon-arrow-right icon-arrow icon-back icon-close icon-comments icon-correct-answer icon-tick icon-download icon-facebook icon-flag icon-google-plus icon-hamburger icon-in icon-info icon-instagram icon-login-true icon-login icon-mail-notification icon-mail icon-mortarboard icon-newsletter icon-notification icon-pinterest icon-plus icon-rss icon-search icon-share icon-shield icon-snapchat icon-star icon-tutorials icon-twitter icon-universities icon-videos icon-views icon-whatsapp icon-xing icon-youtube icon-jobs icon-heart icon-heart2 aris-express bpm-glossary help-intro help-design Process_Mining_Icon help-publishing help-administration help-dashboarding help-archive help-risk icon-knowledge icon-question icon-events icon-message icon-more icon-pencil forum-icon icon-lock