Subbtyping: Let object types have only attributes and assignments that make sense.

My company is using BPMN for modeling processes. In this notation, type “Activity” represents a step in the execution flow of a process. Such a step can be a subprocess or task. In other words: Subprocesses and tasks are subtypes of type “Activity”.

Since ARIS didn’t allow for subtyping, we were forced to implement both, subprocesses and tasks, as activities.

Consequences:

1. Subprocesses and tasks have the same attributes

2. Subprocesses and tasks can have the same assignments

Impact of 1 (example).

We have an attribute “Financial Reporting Compliance” which is required for tasks only. However, since it had to be defined for object type “Activity”, it also appears in the attribute list of subprocesses. And there it makes no sense!

Disadvantages:

• Attribute list of subprocesses is longer than necessary
• In case of subprocesses, process modelers erroneously enter a value for attribute “Financial Reporting Compliance”.
• Trainings get more complex than necessary

Impact of 2. (example):

When creating a new assignment for a task, modelers can select a BPMN-Diagram from the list of assignments defined for type “Activity”. However, this model type makes no sense for tasks.

Disadvantages:

• Process modelers erroneously assign BPMN diagrams to tasks
• Trainings get more complex than necessary

All the disadvantages mentioned above could be avoided if ARIS would allow for subtyping.

Pretty sure, there are more use cases where subtyping will help to avoid modeling mistakes, even if you use EPC notation instead of BPMN. Thereto, just check questions below:

• Do I have objects based on the same object type, though they are semantically different?
• Do I have too many attributes in case of certain objects?
• Do I have to train modelers not to maintain some attributes depending on certain conditions?
• Did I have to introduce a special attribute which reflects the subtype of an object and which must be maintained manually?