Improving Business Process Model and Notation Diagrams with the Node-Function-Object Approach

Introduction. The BPMN standard system (notation) is widely used in business process modeling. However, it is not expressive enough to represent technical and production mechanisms. BPMN poorly describes parallel flows with strict resource constraints, insufficiently supports modeling of physical parameters and technological conditions. These and other shortcomings worsen the analysis of performance and reliability, reduce the applicability of models for optimization and verification. The objective of the presented work is to create a method that uses an alternative notation and thus limits the impact of the listed shortcomings of BPMN in modeling production processes.

Materials and Methods. The basis of the new solution was a comparison of BPMN and the notation for the system “node – function – object” (NFO). The elements of the diagrams were the intersections of some connections (nodes). They contained functional elements (functions, processes), which in some cases also had the characteristics of a substance (objects). A comparative analysis of the normative systems of BPMN and NFO showed the possibility of mutual transformation of diagrams. The processes were visualized using the CASE (Computer Aided Software Engineering) tool NFO-toolkit and the Stormbpmn program according to the BPMN rules. The NFO diagram was described in the XPDL2 language.

Results. Six sequential operations have been developed for converting a NFO diagram into BPMN, and four — for the reverse transformation. The scheme of component production is shown in the context and decomposition, from the requirement for the development of the workflow to the issuance of products. Decompositions of the NFO elements “Injection Molding Machine”, “Master” and “Development Department” are presented, each of which corresponds to a decomposition of the same-name track of the BPMN notation pool. It has been proven that converting a BPMN diagram to a NFO improves the description of the process as a whole and to any degree of detail. The NFO approach does not refer to the graphical notation system of BPMN, which increases labor costs and the risk of simulation errors. The XPDL language describes processes, connectors, splitters, relationships, external entities, and other elements of NFO diagrams.

Discussion. The main advantages of NFO notation over the BPMN approach are: easier procedure for creating models and their better visualization. A simple graphic set of NFO reduces simulation time and increases its accuracy. The NFO approach is focused on taking into account information and material connections. This means that it is possible to conduct functional cost CASE analysis, which is impossible using the BPMN method. The XPDL language is suitable for describing elements of NFO diagrams, and the solution can be Russified.

Conclusion. Content redundancy and other shortcomings of the BPMN notation are eliminated through using a more universal and convenient notation — NFO. The research results will contribute to the development of the theory and practice of graphanalytic modeling of production processes, and simplify the procedure for their development and automation.

1. Panteleev AS, Shmatin AK. Problems of Digitalization and Robotization in Modern Russian Realities. Avtomatizirovannoe Proektirovanie v Mashinostroenii. 2022;(13):155–158. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26160/2309-8864-2022-13-155-158

2. Bochkaryov PYu, Korolev RD, Bokova LG. Comprehensive Assessment of the Manufacturability of Products. Advanced Engineering Research (Rostov-on-Don). 2023;23(2):155–168. https://doi.org/10.23947/2687-1653-2023-23-2-155-168

3. Korotkii AA, Yakovleva DA, Maslennikov AA, Golovko IV. Modeling of Information Support to Optimize Logistics Tasks in Transport Sector Using a Programmable Container Transformer Simulator. Advanced Engineering Research (Rostov-on-Don). 2020;20(3):311–316. https://doi.org/10.23947/2687-1653-2020-20-3-311-316

4. Alenikov AS, Mamonova IV, Kololeeva KI. Variant Approaches to the Choice of Notation When Modeling Business Processes in the Enterprise. Bulletin of the Academy of Knowledge. 2020;39(4):33–41.

5. Aksenova OP, Aksenov KA, Antonova AS, Smoliy EF. The Analysis of Graphic Notations for Simulation Modeling of Enterprise Business Processes. Scientific Review. Technical Science. 2014;(1):45–54. URL: https://scienceengineering.ru/ru/article/view?id=17 (accessed: 17.06.2025).

6. Udaltsova NL. Modern Methods of Business Process Analysis and Modeling. Leadership and Management. 2021;8(2):185–200. https://doi.org/10.18334/lim.8.2.112126

7. Vakorin MP, Konstantinov DS, Mylnikova AP. Assessment of the Applicability of Business Process Description Notation for Modeling the Information Security Risk Management Process in an Organization. Young Scientist. 2022;445(50):6–8. (In Russ.) URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/445/97853/ (accessed: 15.06.2025).

8. Repin V. Modeling Business Processes in BPMN Notation in Business Studio 5: Field Guide. Moscow: Izdatel'skie resheniya; 2020. 106 p. (In Russ.)

9. Potryasaev SA. Integrated Modeling of Complex Processes Based on BPMN Notation. Journal of Instrument Engineering. 2016;59(11):913–920. https://doi.org/10.17586/0021-3454-2016-59-11-913-920

10. Zhikharev AG, Zimovets OA, Tuboltsev MF, Kondratenko AA. Systems Theory and Systems Analysis. SI. Matorin (ed). Moscow: Direktmedia Pablishing; 2021. 456 p. (In Russ). URL: https://biblioclub.ru/index.php?page=book&id=574641 (accessed: 05.06.2025).

11. Belaychuk AA, Bratchenko SA. Essential and Redundant Gateways in BPMN 2.0. Business Strategies. 2017;(4):3–7. https://doi.org/10.17747/2311-7184-2017-4-03-07

12. Ivanov S, Kalenkova A. Comparing Process Models in the BPMN 2.0 XML Format. Proceedings of ISP RAS. 2015;27(3):255–266. https://doi.org/10.15514/ISPRAS-2015-27(3)-17

13. Matveev AS, Rudenko AYu, Prochukhan VV. Development of Recommendations for Transition from IDEF0 Notation of Business Processes Modeling to BPMN Notation. Business. Education. Law. Bulletin of Volgograd Business Institute. 2016;36(3):176–182. URL: https://vestnik.volbi.ru/upload/numbers/336/article-336-1688.pdf (accessed: 17.06.2025).

14. Zimovets OA, Malkush EV, Matorin SI, Korsunov NI. Comparison of DFD, IDEF0, IDEF3, EPC and BPMN Notations with UFO-analysis Notation. Economics. Information Technologies. 2024;51(4):936–945. https://doi.org/10.52575/2687-0932-2024-51-4-936-945

15. Klimenko AV, Zhulin AB, Plaksin SM, Golovshchinsky KI, Sivasheva NM, Suvorova IK, et al. Development of Methodological Recommendations for the Description and Optimization of Processes in Executive Authorities in the Context of Preparation for the Implementation of the EAR: Research Report. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2010. 193 p. (In Russ). URL: https://textarchive.ru/c-1946975.html (accessed: 08.06.2025).