This misunderstanding drives them to the problem:
How can I modelling a unique process with different roles where some activities don't apply to some roles?
In the net I find some funny , complex, uncomplete or wrong solutions: the follow image shows one of those.
The guy explains his theory and his doubts:
"there is a way to model this, using split and join gateways.....
On the left hand side you see a split and join activity for two scenarios for roles A and C going through the same processes. They are defined in such a way that they would have a different start event. (For example a telephone call and an e-mail starting a sales process).
In the right hand side, we see a split (exclusive) with two end events for roles A and B. The two end events imply that there are two different end-states possible based on the role handling the processes; a third end-state is possible with the end event for role C.
There are many ways in which your scenario can be modeled to be sufficient, however more information is needed.
For example, is there only one type of outcome? (then you should use a exclusive or join and one end-state, with a responsible person for this end event in the correct lane)
Are there escalations for the roles? (Then model with intermediate events and show that it is an escalation and rename the processes to resemble the escalated activity chain).
Are the processes or activities on the same level of detail? (Are there activities and processes that are represented as subprocesses? Model with care, and apply them within the correct process descriptions)
Are the incoming events one and the same? (Use split exclusive or signs and make explicit when what flow is required)"
One-role-per-lane fake limit rules! :)
The real rule for BPMN is usually to combine the roles to represent a scenario. If you want to have only one activated role per activity the model would look like this...
How can I assign the lanes to multiple roles?
I don't!!! I kill the problem using a simple tecnique: I can replace Role A with Manager (Client Executive), Role A/B with Front Office Management (Client Executive + Client Administrator) and Role A/B/C with Front Office Staff (Client Executive + Client Administrator + Client Executive).
I can build a Function Allocation Diagram to do all the work for me i.e. build all the relationships I need to all the relevant objects.
This way to work has a gain:
I can have a nice view on the resposibilities using Matrix model, RECI report and the other ways to generate a two dimentional view on asserted relations between two object types.
Best regard and thanks to Mr. Damian Gawlowski and Ivo Velitchkov
