The importance of pre-conditions and post-conditions in the “new” BPM


Traditional BPM had little need for  pre-conditions and post-conditions at process steps.

The combination of flow graph logic and data collection checks and balances put in place at process steps by BPM flow graph designers provided reasonable expectation of no-fault processing along BPM processes at run time.

Photo Credit: Ignacio Evangelists https://www.facebook.com/ignacio.evangelista.photo/

Pre-conditions needed on arrival at steps.   Post-conditions needed on exit from steps.

Photo Credit: Ignacio Evangelista
https://www.facebook.com/ignacio.evangelista.photo/

The situation changed dramatically when the industry started to need to accommodate “process fragments” in addition to traditional end-to-end processes, especially processes fragments made up of a single step.

In a run-time Case environment, if I stream a new manufacturing order onto a workflow that has as its first step “ship final product”, the Case hosting the processing needs a way to determine that the usual “design-build-test-QA” steps have been skipped over.

Traditional BPM did not have to worry about this because it was able to rely on an end-to-end process comprising “design-build-test-QA-ship”. On arrival at “ship”, all of the data attesting to completion of upstream steps would typically be on hand.

Not so in Case, where users can do what they like, including not following an end-to-end BPM process, undertaking instead to achieve the same objective by performing a seemingly random (except to the performer) sequence of steps where the only inferred links between steps is their timing.

It follows that we need pre-conditions at the initial step of key process fragments. In the above example, the processing engine will ask “Do you have a QA certificate?” and refuse to go forward in the event of a “No” response.

Once process designers get used to putting in pre-conditions at process fragment start steps they quickly see no reason for not putting pre-conditions at intermediate and final steps along process fragments.

Pre-conditions add robustness at process steps that may be impacted by data imports to Cases. (i.e. the manufacturer had a fire in the QA lab, the product was sent to an outside lab for QA certification, the results came in via an external transaction but the data was not streamed onto the process fragment because this type of extraordinary processing was not anticipated in the BPM process map).

You might ask why, with pre-conditions, would we also need post-conditions?

The reality is that BPM process maps rarely cover all eventualities so there can be data at a Case that a process fragment does not have direct access to. Here, the generic fix at the Case is to accommodate both pre-conditions and post-conditions at any process step (end-to-end processes, process fragments, ad hoc steps).

Pre-conditions and post-conditions are central to a software correctness methodology called “Design by Contract” invented by Dr. Bertrand Meyer in the mid 1980’s and implemented in the Eiffel programming language

For more information on Design by Contract™ see

https://www.eiffel.com/values/design-by-contract/

The author has no commercial affiliation with Eiffel Software.

About kwkeirstead@civerex.com

Management consultant and process control engineer (MSc EE) with a focus on bridging the gap between operations and strategy in the areas of critical infrastructure protection, healthcare, connect-the-dots law enforcement investigations, job shop manufacturing and b2b transactions. (C) 2010-2017 Karl Walter Keirstead, P. Eng. All rights reserved. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, and are not connected with Jay-Kell Technologies Inc, Civerex Systems Inc. (Canada), Civerex Systems Inc. (USA) or CvX Productions.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The importance of pre-conditions and post-conditions in the “new” BPM

  1. I love voice-to-text but it seems errors are more difficult to spot relative to ordinary typing with background spell-checking.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s