<p>Last week we took a deep(-er) look at what BPMN is today and pointed out the scope, difficulties, and misconceptions in the current specification. </p><p><br></p><p>But what are ideas for improvements?</p><p><br></p><p>I am glad that you asked, because this episode is exactly about this (with a slight twist to the business side of things). In this episode of the podcast, we talk about:</p><ul><li>Today’s topic: <strong>What should BPMN 3.0 look like?</strong> Spoiler—it&#39;s more than just dots and arrows.</li><li>The hosts unpack the <strong>missing hierarchy in </strong>BPMN—why we need clear distinctions between high-level, process, and task models. Roland argues for flexibility and “N levels of process”—from value chains down to sub-processes.</li><li>J-M pushes for decision levels—models as tools for making decisions, not just communication artifacts.</li><li>Call activities: misused, misunderstood, and overcomplicated. The guys agree—most analysts don’t touch them right.</li><li>A deep dive into <strong>l</strong>anes and pools—why they’re conceptually fine but practically messy. (Stop naming your pool after your process, people!)</li><li>Both want organizational elements as first-class citizens—RACI, org roles, and system links built right into the spec.</li><li>Execution vs. documentation: the eternal BPMN dilemma. Should the spec drive engines, or help humans? (Hint: both.)</li><li>J-M dreams of BPMN models training AI agents. Roland gets heartburn just thinking about it.</li><li>“Lanes need intelligence.” The duo agree that automation, RPA, and AI will force clarity in BPMN sooner rather than later.</li><li>Roland throws shade at the spec’s quality control—gateways aren’t decisions, folks! Read the fine print.</li><li>The conversation drifts into data, risks, and controls—areas where BPMN could learn a lot from EPC and real-world practice.</li><li>We are discussing other objects: “page connectors” (process interfaces), groups, milestones, etc.</li><li>Closing thoughts: BPMN 3.0 should unify the best of documentation and execution, EPC’s expressiveness, and OMG’s rigor—with a bit more consistency, please.</li></ul><p><br></p><p>Please reach out to us by either sending an email to <a href="https://hello@whatsyourbaseline.com/">hello@whatsyourbaseline.com</a> or signing up for our newsletter and getting informed when we publish new episodes here: <a href="https://www.whatsyourbaseline.com/subscribe/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.whatsyourbaseline.com/subscribe/</a>.</p>

What's Your Baseline? Enterprise Architecture & Business Process Management Demystified

Roland Woldt / J-M Erlendson

Ep. 99 1/2 - BPMN 3(?) - Part 2 Ideas for Improvements

OCT 13, 202548 MIN
What's Your Baseline? Enterprise Architecture & Business Process Management Demystified

Ep. 99 1/2 - BPMN 3(?) - Part 2 Ideas for Improvements

OCT 13, 202548 MIN

Description

<p>Last week we took a deep(-er) look at what BPMN is today and pointed out the scope, difficulties, and misconceptions in the current specification. </p><p><br></p><p>But what are ideas for improvements?</p><p><br></p><p>I am glad that you asked, because this episode is exactly about this (with a slight twist to the business side of things). In this episode of the podcast, we talk about:</p><ul><li>Today’s topic: <strong>What should BPMN 3.0 look like?</strong> Spoiler—it&#39;s more than just dots and arrows.</li><li>The hosts unpack the <strong>missing hierarchy in </strong>BPMN—why we need clear distinctions between high-level, process, and task models. Roland argues for flexibility and “N levels of process”—from value chains down to sub-processes.</li><li>J-M pushes for decision levels—models as tools for making decisions, not just communication artifacts.</li><li>Call activities: misused, misunderstood, and overcomplicated. The guys agree—most analysts don’t touch them right.</li><li>A deep dive into <strong>l</strong>anes and pools—why they’re conceptually fine but practically messy. (Stop naming your pool after your process, people!)</li><li>Both want organizational elements as first-class citizens—RACI, org roles, and system links built right into the spec.</li><li>Execution vs. documentation: the eternal BPMN dilemma. Should the spec drive engines, or help humans? (Hint: both.)</li><li>J-M dreams of BPMN models training AI agents. Roland gets heartburn just thinking about it.</li><li>“Lanes need intelligence.” The duo agree that automation, RPA, and AI will force clarity in BPMN sooner rather than later.</li><li>Roland throws shade at the spec’s quality control—gateways aren’t decisions, folks! Read the fine print.</li><li>The conversation drifts into data, risks, and controls—areas where BPMN could learn a lot from EPC and real-world practice.</li><li>We are discussing other objects: “page connectors” (process interfaces), groups, milestones, etc.</li><li>Closing thoughts: BPMN 3.0 should unify the best of documentation and execution, EPC’s expressiveness, and OMG’s rigor—with a bit more consistency, please.</li></ul><p><br></p><p>Please reach out to us by either sending an email to <a href="https://[email protected]/">[email protected]</a> or signing up for our newsletter and getting informed when we publish new episodes here: <a href="https://www.whatsyourbaseline.com/subscribe/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.whatsyourbaseline.com/subscribe/</a>.</p>