Thanks for the response! I can see how employing a single root-level top-most process and then putting the original top-level processes underneath that root will enable an analyst to then utilize the BPMN notation of a tilde to indicate that the orginal processes can all execute ad hoc.

However, doesn’t some additional work need to be done, other using than the tilde, to document how all the orginal processes interrelate? If so what?

Tony Markos

Thanks for the great comment. It has been quite a while since I’ve personally done anything with BPMN, so please take my thoughts with a shaker of salt.

I think the collection of top level processes, any of which can be initiated arbitrarily, should be treated as independent (or interdependent, if they are) processes. I think by definition, a top-level process is implicitly ad-hoc.

If however, you do need to model the possibility of concurrent processing, I would suggest creating a “root” top level process like “Run the Business” within which each “top level process” is treated as a sub-process.

What do you think?

The BPMN covers ad hoc SUB-processes (by use of the tilde). But what about top-level processes? Especially for larger scale systems, processes at the top-most “big picture” level can happen in any order and/or all at the same time. How does BPMN handle such?

It would seem that just using the tilde convention at the “big-picture” level would not be nearly adequate: Some work must be done to show how the top-level processes interrelate.

Tony Markos