I know there is a lot of talk about BPM these days and I am conscious that some may see it to be a craze rather than a fundamentally important piece of software.
As someone from what most would call 'The Business', I have been doing my best to learn about BPM to ensure we continue to make decisions that not only make sense to the business, but IT as well.
I have noticed while reading that mention is made to application workflow when sometimes discussing BPM. I hadn't given this much thought until recently.
Therefore, what is the difference? When would you use one and not the other?
BPM is about the process and improving it, which takes into account users and potentially more than one application,e.g. an ERP system may have more than one application to it, though there may be other uses of the term. Note that the process could be viewed without what applications or technologies are used.
Application workflow is how an application is used to go from a to b. Here it is a specific set of code that is used and what happens over the course of an application getting from a to b. In this case, the application is front and center rather than the process.
Does that provide an answer? Another way to think of it is that multiple application workflows can make up a system which is used in a process that can have BPM applied to it.
Late to the game, but workflow is to database as BPMS is to DBMS. (Convenient how the letters line up, huh?)
IOW, BPM(S) is traditionally meant to refer to a particular framework/application that allows you to manage business processes: defining them, storing them, versioning them, measuring them, etc. This is similar to how a DBMS manages databases.
Now, a workflow is a definition, much like a database is a definition. In the former case, it is a definition of operations/work (Fufill Order), steps thereof (Send Invoice) and rules/constraints on the work (If no stock, send notice). In the latter, similar case, it is a definition of data structure (CREATE TABLE) and constraints (InvoiceTotal must be > $0.00).
I think this is a potentially confusing subject, particular as some development environments use a type of process flow model to generate user facing applications (I'm thinking about Outsystems here, for example).
But, for me, the distinction is crystal clear. Application workflow, as people talk about it, refers to a user's path through an application, i.e. the pages they complete/visit, the data they enter, etc. on their way to completing a transaction of some sort. Application orkflow is a poor term for this though, I think application flow would be more meaningful.
BPM on other hand, is about modelling and executing a workflow process. By workflow, in this context, I mean a series of discrete steps (or tasks) that have to be completed (either programmatically or via human interaction) in a certain order to complete a process. These tasks can be implemented as individual application modules (each with their own "application workflow", see above). The job of the workflow engine is to make sure that these separate steps are assigned to the right people (of groups of people) in the right sequence, and that overall the process completes in an orderly way.
I don't think there's a clear answer to this at all. These are words, as opposed to theoretical concepts. If you add the word "checklist" into the mix - that just turns out to be a linear version of a process (but you can have conditionals in checklists - making them a workflow).
I am not sure how to help in reframing this question, but it's almost as if no answer can ever be possible. My own thoughts are at https://tallyfy.com/improving-efficiency-workflow-vs-business-process-management/
Related
I have recently been tasked to look into Workflow Foundation. The actual goal would be to implement a system in which the end users can define custom workflows in the deployed application (and of course, use them). Personally I have never used WF before (and reading around here on SO people are very doubtful about it - so am I reading those questions/answers), and I am having a hard time finding my way around it given the sparse learning resources available.
Anyway, there are some questions, for example, this, which mention something they call dynamic or user-defined workflows. They point out that WF makes it possible to "rehost" the designer, so that end-users can define their own new workflows after the application is deployed (without developer intervention (?), this is the part I am not really sure about).
I have been told by fellow employees that this way we could implement an application in which once this feature is implemented we would no longer have to keep modifying the application every time a new workflow is to be implemented. However, they also pointed out that they just "heard it", they don't have firsthand experience themselves either.
I have been looking around for samples online but the best thing I could find was a number guess app - barely more than a simple hello world. So not much that would point me to the right direction of how this user-defined workflow feature actually works and how it can be used, what its limitations are etc.
My primary concern is this: it is alright that one can define custom workflows but no workflow is worth a penny without the possibility of actually inputting data throughout the process. For example, even if the only thing I need to do is to register a customer in a complaint management system, I would need the customer's name, contact, etc. If the end user should be able to define any workflow the given toolset makes possible then of course there needs to be a way to provide the workflow consumers with a way of inputting data through forms. If the workflow can be of pretty much any nature then so needs to be the data - otherwise if we need to implement the UIs ourselves then this "end-user throws together a workflow" feature is kind of useless because they would still end up at us requiring to implement a form or some sort of data input for the individual steps.
So I guess that there should be a way of defining the "shape" of the data that needs to be filled at any given user interaction phase of the workflow which I can investigate and dynamically generate forms based on the data. So for example, if I found that the required data was made up of a name and a date of birth, then I would need to render a textbox and a datepicker on the page.
What I couldn't really figure out from the Q&As here and elsewhere is whether this is even possible. Can I define and then later "query" the structure of the data to be passed to the workflow at any point? If so, how? If not, how should this user-defined workflow feature even be used, what is it good for?
To clarify it a little, I could imagine something as specifying a complex type, which would be the view model (input model) in a regular MVC app, and then I could reflect over it, get the properties and render input fields based on that.
Windows Workflow Foundation is about machine workflows, not business workflows. True, it is the foundational tool set Microsoft created for building their business workflow products. But out of the box WWF does not have the components you need to quickly and easily build business workflows. If you want to send an email in a workflow, you have to write that from scratch. Just about anything you can think of doing from a business point of view you have to write from scratch.
If you want to easily create business workflows using Microsoft products check out the workflow stuff in SharePoint. It is the easiest of the Microsoft products to work with (in my experience.) If that does not meet your needs there are other products like BizTalk.
K2 is another company with a business workflow product that uses WWF as their base to more easily build business workflows, the older K2 products actually create web pages automatically to collect the data from the user.
WWF is very low level, arguably it lost traction after they re-wrote the whole thing in 4.0. While not publically stated by Microsoft, my personal opinion is Service Fabric (from Microsoft) achieves the goals WWF originally tried to solve which was a "more robust programming environment."
I watched some videos, read some blogs about it. SO has many questions and answers on that subject but I can not find anywhere exact answer for my question.
Almost every question and answer has a lack of usage context.
I have one middle sized, asp.net-mvc, monolith application which is running in one process on IIS. I want to (refactor and) go all the way with DDD (and CQRS without separated storage for reads and writes for now) but for me it looks like impossible mission without breaking some rules/guides/etc.
Bounded Context
For example I have more than one BCs. Each should not cross their boundaries which means should not share their storage. Right?
It is not possible if you use the whole known (everywhere scattered over the web) solution to work with NHibernate session and UoW.
Aggregate Root
Only one AR should be modified in one transaction. When others ARs are involved should introduce eventual consistency (if I remember those are Eric Evans words).
I try to do it but it is not easy in app like that. Pub/Sub not working as desired because if event is published then all subscribers are take their action within one transaction (NSB/MT does that way).
If event handlers wants to modify others ARs they should be executed in separated transactions, right?
Is it possible to deal with it in monolith application (application where whole code works in one process)?
It is not possible if you use the whole known (everywhere scattered
over the web) solution
[...]
if event is published then all subscribers are take their action
within one transaction
I think you're setting yourself useless and harmful constraints by trying to stick to some "state of the art".
Migrating an entire application to DDD + CQRS is a massive undertaking. Some areas of it don't have well-documented beaten paths yet and you'll probably have a fair bit of exploration to do. My best advice would be to stay at a reasonable distance from "the way people do things". Both in traditional ASP.Net web apps because mainstream practices often don't match the way DDD+CQRS works, and in CQRS itself because the case studies out there are few and far between and most probably very domain specific, with a tendency to advocate the use of heavy tools which may not make sense in your context.
You may need to think out of the box, adopt things incrementally and refrain from goldplating everything. You'll be better off starting with very simple implementations that suit your needs exactly than throwing a ton of tools and frameworks at your codebase.
For instance, do you really need a service bus or could a simple Observer pattern suffice ?
Regarding NHibernate, most implementations out there use a (single) Session Per Request approach, but just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the only one. Have you tried using multiple ISessions (one for each BC) available at a more programmable level, such as per-action, or managed entirely manually ? Conversely, have you considered sharing a database between Bounded Contexts at first and see for yourself if that's bad or not ?
I'm doing some research on the workflow concepts and specifically BPMN standard. And I'm mostly interested in the available software on the subject.
I've already studied software like Activiti and jBPM, both of which are implemented in Java. As great as they are, I'm looking for something else. Even though such software call themselves BPM Engine I would rather name them BPM Engine Servers. They are stand alone servers (with web based GUI) which makes it really hard to embed them in other servers.
Now my question is: Is there a concept as BPM Engine in the manner it only executes the given BPM with the given data, only one step? Without any GUI or direct user interaction (something like a library)? What should I search for? What is it named? Are my expectations valid?
[UPDATE]
I've spent the last hours studying Activiti's user guide. I'm still not sure if I can use it the way I want it to! And I'll be grateful if someone can confirm it.
I'm interested in a console-like application which I can run whenever I like, give it the previously running process (most likely serialized as a string). The engine should construct the process based on the given history.
Once the process is reconstructed, I would like to move it forward one step by telling it what has happened. Then it should inform me of the next tasks to be performed and shutdown.
Finally I'll be storing the updated process after getting it as a string (the engine should serialize it in a way so it can unserialize it later).
I don't want the engine to have its own database or memory storage. I want it to shutdown completely once it's done. This is what I mean by Engine, no user interaction, no storage access.
Can any of the BPM engines perform in such a way?
perhaps I am missing your point, but Activiti is really nothing more than a jar file that can be embedded in any other java application. Certainly in order to run Activiti in any meaningful way you need a backing datastore (database) and one or more process definition, but as you can see from the unit tests that are part of Activiti, the database can be in memory and the process definition can be included in the war. There are many examples of Activiti (and likely jBPM) used as simply an embedded state machine with no exposed UI or user interaction.
My company has implemented a number of such solutions for different organizations.
If I have missed your point, feel free to give me an example of your requirement, I'm sure we have addressed it at one time or another.
You might be interested in Bonita BPM.
This open source BPM solution offers an execution engine that can be used as a standalone.
Just like its competitors, it also offers an optional GUI in the form of a web based application: Bonita Portal.
I think the challenge for what you want to do is that most of the BPM Engines separate the definition of the process from the execution. So for most of them you need someplace that will allow you to store the definition long term (typically a database) and then they track the state of a given instance of that definition for you.
If you wanted a truly stateless BPMN "interpretation" engine, then your serialized data would have to include not only the current state of the process, but he process definition as well. I'm sure this can be done, but I don't think any of the engines have taken this approach as doing so would add complexity to the solution, and solves a problem that not many people seem to be asking about.
Additionally it begs the question "given that we now have a process that knows what task it is on, how does that task actually get executed?" In most of the solutions I've seen the execution of the task takes place in the same server as the engine. In some where the execution is in a different technology, the "executor" doesn't understand the Process much at all except to make a call to signal "okay this thing is done" and the engine handles what happens next. You want to have this data in a serialize data structure of some sort, so the question would arise "If we have this stateless BPMN Engine, would the executor of the task have to update the serialized data to indicate the state change for the task".
There are other requirements of the BPMN specification that I think would make your approach very difficult, such as how to handle items like Intermediate Message Events that are either waiting for a specific time, or a message, before moving the process forward. While all of these are potentially solvable, it certainly would take significant re-engineering of current approaches.
I'm trying to join the behaviour driven development approach, but to use it I need to understand how to think in that way.
I'd like to test it on a new personal project I'm starting right now (I'll use RoR)
The project will provide APIs to collect data from external applications, it will provide an authentication system (devise), several models to collect data as needed, and a payment system to purchase subscriptions which will give some premium-only features.
What kind of tests should I perform in order to cover all these functionalities but DRY?
I thought I should use both RSpec and Cucumber. For Devise I'll follow the documentation on their website, but it's not clear to me what kind of tests should I perform to check the data has been collected correctly and it is displayed correctly to the user and which tools use for that task. Also If you could provide a simple example of how would you organize tests and development for this kind of project will help (i'm not asking about real testing code -because I see it really depends upon the implementation-, but about development process and KIND of tests you would perform). If you need some more details to take a choice please let me know and feel free to invent it since it's for educational purposes.
I don’t think there can be any mention of BDD without someone chiming in that it’s all about the communication. So I’ll be that guy: it’s all about the communication! The real value is the exploration of functionality in accessible terms with different stakeholders to establish what the system needs to do transparently. With everybody talking the same language, it’s much easier to communicate goals. When it comes to implementation, developers know what they’re doing, stakeholders know what they’re getting and there shouldn’t be too many surprises (except for the things you missed / captured incorrectly / haven’t realised yet, perhaps).
So, get out there, speak to your stakeholders and work out what the person commissioning the system wants it do. If this is a solo effort, you're going to need to wear a number of different hats.
Your BDD tests will cover the behaviour of the system - units of desired functionality. You'll still need to do unit tests etc. - no change there.
As product owner, think about what you want the system to do – not how. You likely don’t care how things work, as long as they do work. If you’re a developer, this will likely be the difficult shift in thinking. When I first started looking into BDD, I was convinced that it made sense to go through UI journeys and technical details etc. in scenarios. It doesn’t. That stuff belongs in the step definitions. As developer, you can define all of the how stuff there.
As for keeping it DRY… Write your scenarios exactly how you need to in order to capture the required behaviour. Then you can worry about refactoring and identifying opportunities for step re-use. The use of regular expressions will help here too, to some extent. It’s tempting to go super-imperative and have a whole suite of re-usable steps, but you’ll likely realise it’s all very brittle when a change to a single step ripples through all of your scenarios, not just the one it was supposed to affect. If you're interested into any form of web automation, check out the web automation pyramid.
Useful resources (and lots of examples):
http://books.openlibra.com/pdf/cuke4ninja-2011-03-16.pdf < awesome free eBook – fun to read, too.
http://www.slideshare.net/lunivore/behavior-driven-development-11754474 < Liz really knows her stuff!
http://dannorth.net/2011/01/31/whose-domain-is-it-anyway/
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=declarative+vs+imperative+BDD < go Team Declarative!
I'm not sure this meets your exact requirements, but this is how I do BDD (example is a webapp):
Pretend you're sitting in front of the computer as a user of your application. Write down the steps you need to perform to achieve one of the use cases, for instance:
Navigate to the system's url
Login
Select the function you require
Enter the relevant data to execute the function
Click the button to initiate the function
Wait for the system to respond
Ensure the data on the screen matches the data you expect.
If any of these steps fail to execute, or the data is incorrect, the test has failed.
Once you have this in a test file, you then use Gherkin/Cucumber/Webdriver to implement the code required to execute each of the steps. Each method of this is re-usable, so once you've implemented login in one place, it should work everywhere you call it.
for testing with cucumber or rspec for devise try this
see this - cucumber/rspec
or on github
I would like to design a Inventory system. Some key features listed below.
Multi User
Multi Branch
Support Online and offline Invoicing
Multi Currency
Language requirements : -
C# 2.0
SQL2005 Server
I appreciate your valuable suggestions and ideas to design perfect Inventory system.
If you have any Database sample model to design such a system please don't hesitate to inform me.
Thanks.
You have some of your requirements listed here, but you do not have enough information to complete a design of an invoicing system, plus you have an unrealistic goal of a perfect inventory system - what is perfect for one person is imperfect for another; I'd settle for aiming for best of breed if I were you.
Do you have access to your customers? If you do, you need to sit down with them and find out what they want. A good way to do this is to model their working processes. Write down what steps they do from start to finish, and what influences their work (known as external actors or interfaces). This is a long process, but will end up with you being able to state exactly what is done, when, and in what order, plus the functional and non-functional constraints on the system.
Once you have this information, actually designing the physical system is relatively straightforward. Good luck.
[Big hint] The process I have described here makes heavy use of UML.[/Big hint]