RB
Hello,
Please have a look at the attached process model. Both occurrences 'Register document status' are of the same object. I assume, because the connections share the same start object and end object, they refer to the same connection object. In consequence both incoming connections have the same 'Condition expression'.
There are various ways to change this I suppose:
- Create another 'Register document status' object. But since the task is exactly the same I would not prefer to do that.
- Empty the 'Condition expression' attribute values and use text fields.
Would there be another way?
Thanks,
Ralf
Hello Ralf,
I disagree that both functions are the same from a process perspective, although obviously you would have them both implemented using common code.
You have some reason you sometimes want to have the task performed by a manager and at other times by a clerk. If you wanted to model the roles using a function allocation diagram and assign the roles to the respective task you would have to assign both roles to the function, which contradicts to what you wanted to express in the BPMN model.
A task or function in a process flow is unique in the process. You should not reuse tasks/functions in processes. A task is the place in the process, where process state (predecessor, successor), actors (roles, persons), ressources (IT systems, IT functions, capabilities) meet to perform a certain process step. And the step executed by the manager is different from the one performed by the clerk, because it's important for you to model that.
If you want to express, that a certain set of competencies and authorizations are required to perform a process step (task/function) consider the capability object, which you may use in the function allocation diagram. This way you can create a catalogue of reusable capabilities across all processes and roles. So both functions may be supported by the capability "Can register document status".
Regards, M. Zschuckelt
Thanks! That is a very good explanation.
In my case the Clerk would set the status to 'completed' whereas the Manager would set it to 'ongoing'. This is not related to competencies or authorization. Both are using the same mechanism to set the status. Even the Clerk could set it to 'ongoing' if he wishes to.
But it makes sense when you refer to the FAD. The FAD would semantically not be the same as the BPMN. Good point.
So, obviously I should no use the same object. What would you suggest? A definition copy or two objects with different labels, something like 'Set "complete" status' and 'Set "ongoing" status'? Conventions related question I guess.
Thanks,
Ralf
Since definition copies are separate objects without any link to the original, it doesn't matter if you create one as a copy from the other or just name a second one as the first one. There is no way to tell the difference later. You can rename the first one without influencing the second and vice versa.
I suggest to give them different names, though, in order to avoid confusion. If you decide to take the same name, ARIS will ask you, if you want to reuse the other object as another occurrence. Tell ARIS to redefine the name. ARIS has no problems with multiple objects of the same name, because every object is identified by a technical GUID. It is the user, who will have trouble telling them apart, whenever he wants to refer to it or find it.
Note: Most people use the "Description/Definition" attribute to give more details about an object. Your description above shows, you might want to give different descriptions about what should normally happen in the respective step. That is another hint, that the tasks actually are different.
Regards, M. Zschuckelt
