Is it common practice to have UML diagrams supplement BPMN diagrams? For instance, assume I have a task in a BPMN diagram called "Get Payment Authorization Details". Would it be proper to then have a UML use case and activity diagram indicating in detail how the system achieves that task?
Any input would be very helpful!
Thanks,
vinny
Hi Vinny,
Absolutely. Use whatever tools work best for the job. A BPMN workflow is going to be somewhat synonomous with a UML activity diagram. Though BPMN has a more expansive notation that can help capture more complete information in my opinion.
The UML 2.0 standard has 13 different types of diagrams to capture different kinds of information in different situations, so you could say that there are 12 other UML diagrams that support the UML activity diagram. Why not use these to support your BPMN workflow? I say use whatever works.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Chris.
Your answer is refreshing. My current approach is using BPMN to communicate business processes, whether they include humans or electronic systems, to the stakeholders in a manner that is non-techy. For instance, even though "Get Payment Authorization Details" is an activity that occurs electronically, I still communicate it as part of the business process. I then may have an Activity diagram showing what the system does to get payment authorization details: "Relay Account Info" --> "Get Account Info" --> "Account in System?" [yes --> "Check Account Status" --> "Status Okay?"...] [no --> "Send Authorization"...].
I'm trying to use UML more for IT than to model business processes. Seems like a logical approach to me!
brought to you by enabling practitioners & organizations to achieve their goals using: