You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Looking ahead to modeling a micro workstation process.
My statement from a previous topic:
"Customize a Visual Modeler (ideally Open-BPMN) specifically for manufacturing process authors making it more flowchart like and translate it to BPMN that the kernel will understand. This means enforce a different set of rules within the Visual Modeler but translate the diagram when it is saved to proper BPMN xml that the workflow kernel will execute."
Thinking through this and experimenting, if there was a way to customize Open-BPMN to only make available a subset of elements by removing them from the palette such as pool, lane, script task, business rule task, ... Also consider removing the ability to do parallel paths. The idea is to keep the micro processes simple. Ideally the execution path would be similar to a flowchart where there are primarily task, decisions, and events with supporting elements such as data objects.
I have many subject matter experts that have been using our current framework for over 20 years and deliver over 10 large projects a year. My plan is to work with them this coming week to show them Open-BPMN and get their thoughts on how to use a visual modeler to define workstation-type processes. Also introduce the concept of event-oriented definition because they definitely think task-oriented today. Maybe they will take to it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Greg,
I see you considerations about the modelling tool. In general Open-BPMN is designed to build a very flexible and extensible tool for BPMN. By implementing a custom model-server you can customize the behavior of the modeller in many many ways. Imixs-Workflow itself is just an extension of Open-BPMN to include the Imixs-Workflow features. So in its core Open-BPMN is a standard BPMN 2.0 Modelleing tool and you can extend it's behavior by implementing your own BPMN Language server. And in this way you can address the points you mentioned here. You can reduce and extend the modelling elements, add additional validation rules to validate models at modelling-time. And you can customize the property panel for every element too!
Further more Open-BPMN is based on the Eclipse-GLSP-Project . This is an extremely powerful modeling framework. And it is not limited to BPMN.
Indeed, the colleagues from Eclipse-GLSP I know well, are developing specialized modeling tools for industrial companies. For example, to program micro controllers of industrial plants based on a graphically model.
In fact, even different aspects of modeling can be mapped in specialized diagram editors within one IDE. This means that there are practically no limits at the modeling level! OK - there are some limits - time & money ;-)
Looking ahead to modeling a micro workstation process.
My statement from a previous topic:
"Customize a Visual Modeler (ideally Open-BPMN) specifically for manufacturing process authors making it more flowchart like and translate it to BPMN that the kernel will understand. This means enforce a different set of rules within the Visual Modeler but translate the diagram when it is saved to proper BPMN xml that the workflow kernel will execute."
Thinking through this and experimenting, if there was a way to customize Open-BPMN to only make available a subset of elements by removing them from the palette such as pool, lane, script task, business rule task, ... Also consider removing the ability to do parallel paths. The idea is to keep the micro processes simple. Ideally the execution path would be similar to a flowchart where there are primarily task, decisions, and events with supporting elements such as data objects.
I have many subject matter experts that have been using our current framework for over 20 years and deliver over 10 large projects a year. My plan is to work with them this coming week to show them Open-BPMN and get their thoughts on how to use a visual modeler to define workstation-type processes. Also introduce the concept of event-oriented definition because they definitely think task-oriented today. Maybe they will take to it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: