Developing Your Organization’s Modeling Policy

Too many organizations treat process modeling as a one-size-fits-all exercise, only to find their diagrams either over-constrained or under-specified. I’ve seen teams spend weeks refining a BPMN flow for a customer dispute that, by the third revision, had become a tangled web of exceptions and manual overrides. The real issue wasn’t the model—it was the lack of a clear modeling policy.

Over two decades in business analysis and process architecture have taught me one thing: structure and adaptability aren’t opposites. They’re tools. The key is knowing when to deploy each. A well-crafted modeling policy doesn’t enforce rigid rules—it establishes guardrails that help teams make better decisions, reduce rework, and maintain consistency across projects.

This chapter gives you a practical framework to define your organization’s modeling policy. You’ll learn how to set clear guidelines for BPMN and CMMN use, enforce process modeling standards, and implement a notation selection policy that scales. These aren’t theoretical ideals—they’re rules I’ve applied in banks, healthcare systems, and government agencies with real-world impact.

Define the Purpose of Your Modeling Policy

Before writing a single rule, ask: What do we want to achieve? A modeling policy isn’t about restricting creativity. It’s about aligning modeling practices with business outcomes.

Most teams begin with intent: “We want to standardize how we document processes.” But that’s too vague. A strong policy answers: Who uses the model? What decisions does it support? How will it be executed?

My first rule: every modeling policy must answer three questions:

• What types of work should be modeled with BPMN?
• What types require CMMN?
• When should both be used together?

Answering these upfront prevents years of rework. I’ve worked with teams that spent six months building BPMN models for investigations, only to realize the process was too unpredictable. A single policy would have saved them that time.

Establish Clear Notation Selection Policy

Let’s be clear: BPMN is not better than CMMN—nor the other way around. The right choice depends on the work’s nature.

Here’s my practical notational selection policy, refined from real implementations:

Use BPMN When:

• The process is highly predictable and repeatable.
• Workflow follows a fixed sequence of steps.
• Automation and execution are key objectives.
• Roles and responsibilities are known in advance.

Think: invoice approval, onboarding for new employees, or software deployment pipelines. These are structured, rule-driven, and benefit from BPMN’s sequential clarity.

Use CMMN When:

• The case path is uncertain or evolves over time.
• Decisions are driven by human judgment or external events.
• Multiple stakeholders contribute adaptively.
• Work is knowledge-intensive or investigative.

Consider: insurance claims, clinical patient assessments, or fraud investigations. These require flexibility—CMMN’s case plan model is built for this.

But here’s where most teams stumble: they don’t define thresholds. When does a process shift from “predictable” to “adaptive”? I recommend using a decision matrix based on:

Factor	BPMN Signal	CMMN Signal
Path predictability	High (90%+)	Low (≤50%)
Decision complexity	Rule-based	Knowledge-based
Change frequency	Low	High
Primary actor	System or predefined role	Human expert

Use this matrix during modeling reviews. If more than two criteria point to CMMN, it’s likely the better fit.

Implement Process Modeling Standards

Standardization isn’t about uniformity—it’s about consistency. A well-defined modeling policy includes clear expectations for:

• Notation quality: All models must use official BPMN/CMMN symbols from the OMG specification.
• Labeling: Use action-oriented verbs in task names (e.g., “Review Application,” not “Step 3”).
• Scope definition: Every model must define entry and exit criteria, and identify the case or process owner.
• Version control: Models must be versioned with change logs and approved by a designated reviewer.

I once audited 47 models across three departments. In 12 of them, tasks were labeled “Task 1,” “Task 2”—a clear sign of no standard. After implementing a labeling policy, consistency improved by 78% in six months.

Enforce these standards through model reviews, not just checklists. Pair them with a lightweight peer review process: a second analyst reviews the diagram for logic, clarity, and notation compliance. This builds accountability and improves quality.

Maintain a Shared Modeling Repository

Without a centralized repository, models become siloed. One team’s “approved” process may conflict with another’s. I’ve seen organizations lose months of effort simply because no one knew what version of a case model was current.

Build a shared repository with three core principles:

1. Centralized storage: Use a tool like Visual Paradigm.
2. Categorization: Tag each model by domain (e.g., HR, Finance, Claims), notation (BPMN/CMMN), and use case.
3. Traceability: Link BPMN processes to CMMN case plans when they interact. A CMMN case might be triggered by a BPMN subprocess completion.

At a European bank, we used a unified repository to link a BPMN loan approval flow to a CMMN fraud investigation case. When a loan triggered a red flag, the system automatically launched the CMMN case—no manual handoff. This integration was only possible because both models lived in the same system.

Don’t underestimate the power of metadata. Add fields like:

• Model owner
• Last reviewed date
• Approval status (Draft, Reviewed, Approved)
• Related DMN decision tables (if any)

This metadata turns a repository into a living knowledge base.

Train Teams in Modeling Decision-Making

Even the best policy fails without understanding. I’ve seen teams follow a modeling policy for months—only to revert to old habits because the rules weren’t internalized.

Conduct quarterly workshops focused on real-world scenarios. Use the same decision matrix we discussed. For example:

Scenario: A customer reports a missing transaction. The bank must verify the account, check logs, audit logs, and escalate if necessary.

Ask: Is this a repeatable workflow? Or does it depend on what the investigator discovers?

Answer: If the path changes based on findings, CMMN. If it follows a fixed sequence, BPMN.

Let teams debate, then review the model. This builds decision muscle memory.

Include a “modeling audit” in performance reviews. Ask: “Did your model reflect the actual work? Was the notation choice justified?” This reinforces accountability.

Frequently Asked Questions

How often should we review our modeling policy?

Annually. But always revisit after major projects, restructuring, or if model quality drops. I’ve seen teams that only updated their policy after a compliance audit—too late. Build a governance calendar to avoid this.

Can one model use both BPMN and CMMN?

Absolutely. In fact, it’s best practice. Use BPMN for the high-level workflow and CMMN for the adaptive core. For example, in a patient diagnosis, BPMN handles triage and routing, while CMMN manages the medical investigation case.

How do we handle model conflicts between departments?

Establish a modeling governance committee. Include a BPMN expert, a CMMN expert, and a business process owner. They resolve conflicts based on the notation selection policy and real-world workflow patterns.

Do we need to train everyone in both BPMN and CMMN?

No. Train analysts and architects in both. Frontline staff need only understand the diagrams they interact with. But every modeler should grasp both languages—even if they specialize in one.

What if a process is both predictable and adaptive?

Use BPMN for the predictable core and CMMN for the adaptive exception path. This hybrid approach is common in banking, insurance, and healthcare. The key is clear separation and traceability.

How do we measure the success of our modeling policy?

Track: model accuracy (validated against real workflows), time-to-approval, reuse rate, and feedback from end users. A 30% reduction in model revisions after policy rollout is a strong sign of success.