I need to create a process with various subprocess indicating in the top, in columns, the area of the organization that it's responsable for the function or event and I don't know what model I need to choose, an EPC model or a BPMN model. Another question is, if it´s possible create subprocess on EPC like in BPMN? or create links to other pages in EPC like the subprocess in BPMN?
Thanks!
Hello Virginia,
here is an example of an EPC in table layout:
As you can see you place the Function satellites in columns representing the connection types. "Carries out" is the connection type for the entity actually performing the function. Here I took org. units, because you talked about "areas of the organization". My recommendation would be to use "role" objects instead, if you design to-be-processes. This way you gain the flexibility to decide later and independently on the allocation of roles to "positions" and "org. units" in the organization, using org. charts.
Place only one function in each "Relationships" row. Create new rows for more functions in your process. The first column takes your control flow. All satellite objects will have implicit connections to all functions in the same row. You can customize the columns you need and add more columns or delete unneeded columns.
As to the question of BPMN vs. EPC: This is sometimes a dogmatic decision an organization takes depending on preferences and knowledge of the opinion leaders involved. My recommendation is to use EPC for business processes, because it is more expressive in its possibilities to foster abstractions in all directions: Information architecture (input/output, KPIs), functional architecture (capabilities, IT functions, applications), organization (roles, org. units, positions). BPMN is stronger in modelling the solution design for processes selected for automation, particularly if you have a process execution environment, that understands BPMN directly. However BPMN does not cover organizational modelling at all. You have to define your own BPMN extensions, if you want to cover that (e. g. define a Lane to be an org. unit).
In short, both notations have their application you should use them for. ARIS supports you in converting your business processes in EPC to BPMN as a starting point for solution design and supports you in keeping BPMN solution design models aligned with the business process EPC as solution design evolves.
Current ARIS 9.8 release offers a special model type "Enterprise BPMN". This contains an extension to BPMN allowing to represent org. units, roles or Application system types to be represented as Lanes. This supports organizations which choose to model enterprise processes using BPMN notation for dogmatic reasons.
Your question on sub-processes in EPC: Like in BPMN you should distinguish sub-processes from "reusable process assets" where BPMN offers "Call Activities". Sub-Processes represent a sequence of multiple functions to be performed as a unit-of-work. The reason for defining them as a sub-process may be, that they are executed by the same person at a certain time in the same place (or system). You simply create an assignment to the function representing the subprocess in your EPC and assign another EPC model to it. This will start with the event preceding the sub-process in your main flow and end with all events created by the sub-process in the main flow. You would not use Process interface symbols in this case. They are reserved to connecting subsequent processes at the same level of detail.
In contrast process assets ("Call activities" in BPMN) represent complex processes possibly involving multiple roles, departments, systems. Such process assets need a well defined interface in order to be re-usable. In ARIS these are called "Business service". You would define a business service, associate a function object with it and assign an EPC to that function describing the reusable process.
Regards, M. Zschuckelt