<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Business Process Visualization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/</link>
	<description>A Blog about Enterprise BPM and Business Process Improvement by the folks at BP3</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: out sourcing </title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-3320</link>
		<dc:creator>out sourcing </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 12:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-3320</guid>
		<description>It has been shown that feedback loops improve performance by focusing on how individual performance affects overall results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It has been shown that feedback loops improve performance by focusing on how individual performance affects overall results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Column 2 : links for 2009-02-27</title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>Column 2 : links for 2009-02-27</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-142</guid>
		<description>[...] Process for the Enterprise » Blog Archive » Business Process Visualization Scott Francis comments on John Reynolds&#039; post about process visualization, adding some information on standardization of process analytics and audit information. (tags: bpa) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Process for the Enterprise » Blog Archive » Business Process Visualization Scott Francis comments on John Reynolds&#39; post about process visualization, adding some information on standardization of process analytics and audit information. (tags: bpa) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Francis</title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-138</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Francis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-138</guid>
		<description>Michael- 

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply - I think this is a very good summary of BPAF events as they relate to BPMN.  I realize they are at different levels of generalization, but keep in mind that those BPMN models will be instantiated, and so the events that appear at the model level will become instance-level events when the process is instantiated.  So I think its important to BPMS vendors to appreciate how BPAF (and BPAF events) correspond to the BPMN models their customers and process authors are likely to create.  

Equally, they&#039;ll want to provide baked-in measurement and analysis based on these standards (I hope). Well, if not, I&#039;m sure 3rd party tool vendors will fill the gap if BPMS tools continue to grow the market.  

Thanks again, appreciate the insights!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael- </p>
<p>Thanks for the very thoughtful reply &#8211; I think this is a very good summary of BPAF events as they relate to BPMN.  I realize they are at different levels of generalization, but keep in mind that those BPMN models will be instantiated, and so the events that appear at the model level will become instance-level events when the process is instantiated.  So I think its important to BPMS vendors to appreciate how BPAF (and BPAF events) correspond to the BPMN models their customers and process authors are likely to create.  </p>
<p>Equally, they&#8217;ll want to provide baked-in measurement and analysis based on these standards (I hope). Well, if not, I&#8217;m sure 3rd party tool vendors will fill the gap if BPMS tools continue to grow the market.  </p>
<p>Thanks again, appreciate the insights!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Francis</title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-4576</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Francis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-4576</guid>
		<description>Michael- 

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply - I think this is a very good summary of BPAF events as they relate to BPMN.  I realize they are at different levels of generalization, but keep in mind that those BPMN models will be instantiated, and so the events that appear at the model level will become instance-level events when the process is instantiated.  So I think its important to BPMS vendors to appreciate how BPAF (and BPAF events) correspond to the BPMN models their customers and process authors are likely to create.  

Equally, they&#039;ll want to provide baked-in measurement and analysis based on these standards (I hope). Well, if not, I&#039;m sure 3rd party tool vendors will fill the gap if BPMS tools continue to grow the market.  

Thanks again, appreciate the insights!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael- </p>
<p>Thanks for the very thoughtful reply &#8211; I think this is a very good summary of BPAF events as they relate to BPMN.  I realize they are at different levels of generalization, but keep in mind that those BPMN models will be instantiated, and so the events that appear at the model level will become instance-level events when the process is instantiated.  So I think its important to BPMS vendors to appreciate how BPAF (and BPAF events) correspond to the BPMN models their customers and process authors are likely to create.  </p>
<p>Equally, they&#8217;ll want to provide baked-in measurement and analysis based on these standards (I hope). Well, if not, I&#8217;m sure 3rd party tool vendors will fill the gap if BPMS tools continue to grow the market.  </p>
<p>Thanks again, appreciate the insights!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael zur Muehlen</title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-137</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael zur Muehlen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-137</guid>
		<description>Scott, I enjoy your blog and appreciate your thoughts on BPAF. To clarify the notion of a BPAF event:
 
At the analytics level we are talking about events that are generated by the state changes of a process instances and its components (i.e., activity instances, process performers etc.) at run time. In the context of a BPMS all process activities have a common internal state model that is independent of the activity semantics. That means at runtime the activity &quot;post invoice&quot; and the activity &quot;review application&quot; both transition through states such as &quot;ready&quot;, &quot;running&quot;, and &quot;completed&quot;. Whenever a change from one state to the other occurs, this can be recorded as an event. These events are typically not modeled in a designed process model, but they could be used to construct one in a bottom-up fashion (through process mining).

BPMN diagrams by nature describe processes at the model level (i.e. they can serve as a root for the instantiation of multiple instances that may follow different execution paths). The event types supported by BPMN (message, timer, complex, etc.) describe conditions under which a particular process path can be traversed (in the case of catching events), or are representations for specialized activities that result in communication activities (throwing message, signal events).

So, in brief, BPAF events and BPMN events are described at different levels of generalization. BPAF events are instance events, while BPMN events are model events.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, I enjoy your blog and appreciate your thoughts on BPAF. To clarify the notion of a BPAF event:</p>
<p>At the analytics level we are talking about events that are generated by the state changes of a process instances and its components (i.e., activity instances, process performers etc.) at run time. In the context of a BPMS all process activities have a common internal state model that is independent of the activity semantics. That means at runtime the activity &#8220;post invoice&#8221; and the activity &#8220;review application&#8221; both transition through states such as &#8220;ready&#8221;, &#8220;running&#8221;, and &#8220;completed&#8221;. Whenever a change from one state to the other occurs, this can be recorded as an event. These events are typically not modeled in a designed process model, but they could be used to construct one in a bottom-up fashion (through process mining).</p>
<p>BPMN diagrams by nature describe processes at the model level (i.e. they can serve as a root for the instantiation of multiple instances that may follow different execution paths). The event types supported by BPMN (message, timer, complex, etc.) describe conditions under which a particular process path can be traversed (in the case of catching events), or are representations for specialized activities that result in communication activities (throwing message, signal events).</p>
<p>So, in brief, BPAF events and BPMN events are described at different levels of generalization. BPAF events are instance events, while BPMN events are model events.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael zur Muehlen</title>
		<link>http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/2009/02/business-process-visualization/comment-page-1/#comment-4575</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael zur Muehlen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bp-3.com/blogs/?p=485#comment-4575</guid>
		<description>Scott, I enjoy your blog and appreciate your thoughts on BPAF. To clarify the notion of a BPAF event:
 
At the analytics level we are talking about events that are generated by the state changes of a process instances and its components (i.e., activity instances, process performers etc.) at run time. In the context of a BPMS all process activities have a common internal state model that is independent of the activity semantics. That means at runtime the activity &quot;post invoice&quot; and the activity &quot;review application&quot; both transition through states such as &quot;ready&quot;, &quot;running&quot;, and &quot;completed&quot;. Whenever a change from one state to the other occurs, this can be recorded as an event. These events are typically not modeled in a designed process model, but they could be used to construct one in a bottom-up fashion (through process mining).

BPMN diagrams by nature describe processes at the model level (i.e. they can serve as a root for the instantiation of multiple instances that may follow different execution paths). The event types supported by BPMN (message, timer, complex, etc.) describe conditions under which a particular process path can be traversed (in the case of catching events), or are representations for specialized activities that result in communication activities (throwing message, signal events).

So, in brief, BPAF events and BPMN events are described at different levels of generalization. BPAF events are instance events, while BPMN events are model events.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, I enjoy your blog and appreciate your thoughts on BPAF. To clarify the notion of a BPAF event:</p>
<p>At the analytics level we are talking about events that are generated by the state changes of a process instances and its components (i.e., activity instances, process performers etc.) at run time. In the context of a BPMS all process activities have a common internal state model that is independent of the activity semantics. That means at runtime the activity &#8220;post invoice&#8221; and the activity &#8220;review application&#8221; both transition through states such as &#8220;ready&#8221;, &#8220;running&#8221;, and &#8220;completed&#8221;. Whenever a change from one state to the other occurs, this can be recorded as an event. These events are typically not modeled in a designed process model, but they could be used to construct one in a bottom-up fashion (through process mining).</p>
<p>BPMN diagrams by nature describe processes at the model level (i.e. they can serve as a root for the instantiation of multiple instances that may follow different execution paths). The event types supported by BPMN (message, timer, complex, etc.) describe conditions under which a particular process path can be traversed (in the case of catching events), or are representations for specialized activities that result in communication activities (throwing message, signal events).</p>
<p>So, in brief, BPAF events and BPMN events are described at different levels of generalization. BPAF events are instance events, while BPMN events are model events.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

