Why Two Modeling Standards Exist
When I first encountered BPMN, I assumed it was a simple evolution of flowcharts. But the reality is far richer. The need for two distinct modeling standards—BPMN and CMMN—arose not from a desire to complicate things, but from a fundamental shift in how work is performed.
For decades, business process modeling focused on predictable, repeatable workflows. Flowcharts worked well for manufacturing, order processing, and compliance. But as organizations moved into knowledge-intensive domains—healthcare, legal services, insurance claims, IT incident management—those rigid models began to fail.
That’s where the BPMN and CMMN origins take on real significance. They didn’t emerge from theoretical design. They were shaped by actual business pain points: unstructured decision-making, unpredictable case progression, and the need for dynamic collaboration.
Both standards were developed under the Object Management Group (OMG), a trusted body for enterprise modeling. Their creation wasn’t coincidental. It reflected a recognition that not all business work fits into the same box.
Understanding BPMN history and CMMN creation helps explain why two tools exist. Not as competitors, but as complementary responses to two different realities of modern work.
Roots in the OMG Modeling Standards Ecosystem
The OMG has long championed formal modeling languages. UML was the foundation for object-oriented design. But even UML struggled with the complexity of real-world business processes.
BPMN was introduced in 2004 as a response to this complexity. It aimed to unify business and technical stakeholders with a visual language that captured structured flow, decision points, and executable logic.
Yet even as BPMN gained traction, practitioners began to notice a gap. In cases involving investigations, insurance claims, or contract negotiations, the process wasn’t linear. It wasn’t predictable. It required human judgment, dynamic task sequencing, and role-based control.
That’s why CMMN was created in 2014. It wasn’t a variation of BPMN. It was a deliberate alternative, designed for situations where workflow control is not predefined but driven by events, conditions, and human decisions.
Together, these standards form a powerful duo within the OMG modeling standards framework. They represent two distinct philosophies: one for structured flow, the other for adaptive execution.
BPMN: Born from the Need for Predictability
BPMN emerged during a time when automation and process optimization were gaining momentum. Organizations wanted to document workflows that could be executed by software.
The success of BPMN lies in its ability to model:
- Clear sequence of activities
- Decision logic via gateways
- Event-driven transitions
- Integration with executable engines
But this structure comes with a trade-off. BPMN assumes the path is known in advance. If it isn’t, trying to model it in BPMN leads to bloated, fragile diagrams that are hard to maintain.
That’s where BPMN history becomes instructive. Early adopters learned the hard way: not every process should be modeled as a sequence of steps. Some work requires flexibility, and BPMN alone cannot deliver it.
CMMN: Designed for Adaptive, Knowledge-Driven Work
CMMN was not created to replace BPMN. It was designed to handle work where the next step depends on knowledge, context, and judgment.
Consider an insurance claim investigation. The investigator may need to gather documents, interview witnesses, or request forensic analysis. The order isn’t known upfront. The path evolves.
CMMN addresses this through:
- Case Plan Model—the high-level structure of the case
- Stages and milestones—flexible planning blocks
- Entry and exit criteria—dynamic control via conditions
- Event listeners and sentries—adaptive triggers
This is where CMMN creation becomes crucial. It’s not about prescribing flow. It’s about enabling control through constraints and situational awareness.
When I worked on a healthcare compliance case, we found that trying to model the investigation process in BPMN led to over 20 gateways and 30+ path combinations. The model was unusable. Switching to CMMN cut complexity in half and made the workflow understandable.
The Evolution of Business Modeling: From Flowcharts to Knowledge Centricity
Traditional flowcharts assumed work was procedural and deterministic. But modern business is increasingly knowledge-centric.
That shift is visible in the rise of digital workspaces, case management systems, and adaptive automation. The tools we use today aren’t just about optimizing steps—they’re about managing uncertainty.
BPMN and CMMN represent two complementary responses to this shift:
| Aspect | BPMN | CMMN |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Use Case | Structured, repeatable processes | Adaptive, knowledge-driven cases |
| Control Flow | Predefined sequence | Constraint-based (conditions, events) |
| Modeling Focus | What happens next? | What can happen next? |
| Decision Ownership | Defined by flow and gateways | Driven by human judgment and data |
These aren’t just differences in notation. They reflect deeper paradigms: one built on predictability, the other on adaptability.
Why Not One Standard for Everything?
Why not just use one language? Because modeling is not about simplification. It’s about fit-for-purpose representation.
Forcing an adaptive case into a BPMN diagram leads to over-engineering. Forcing a structured process into CMMN leads to confusion and inefficiency.
When I review models from teams, I often see this tension. A team will use BPMN to model a customer dispute case, only to realize they’re modeling exceptions instead of the core process. That’s a red flag.
The answer isn’t to discard one. It’s to understand that both OMG modeling standards serve distinct, vital roles. They coexist not by accident, but by design.
Key Takeaways
Understanding the BPMN and CMMN origins isn’t just academic—it’s foundational to making better modeling decisions.
- BPMN was created to standardize structured, executable workflows.
- CMMN was created to handle complex, adaptive processes where control is dynamic.
- Both are part of the OMG ecosystem, designed to work together.
- Forcing one onto a situation meant for the other introduces unnecessary complexity.
- Real-world modeling success hinges on choosing the right tool for the work, not the most popular one.
Every time you model, ask: Is this a predictable sequence, or a case requiring judgment? The answer determines which standard to reach for.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between BPMN history and CMMN creation?
BPMN history began in 2004 as a response to the need for standardized, executable business process modeling. CMMN creation came in 2014 to address the rise of complex, adaptive work in domains like healthcare, law, and risk management. While BPMN focuses on predictable flow, CMMN was built for dynamic decision-making.
Can I use both BPMN and CMMN in the same project?
Yes, and many organizations do. It’s common to use BPMN for standard workflows and CMMN for case-based exceptions. For example, a customer onboarding process might be modeled in BPMN for the initial steps, while a dispute or investigation triggers a CMMN case.
Why did the OMG create two separate standards instead of improving one?
Because the underlying work models are fundamentally different. Trying to force adaptive processes into a structured flow creates confusion and complexity. The OMG recognized that a single language couldn’t serve both predictable and unpredictable work effectively.
Are BPMN and CMMN part of the same OMG framework?
Yes. Both are part of the OMG’s BPM+ initiative—intended to unify business process, case, and decision modeling. They are standardized under the same umbrella, but remain distinct in purpose and semantics.
Is CMMN only for legal or medical cases?
No. While commonly used in legal and healthcare domains, CMMN is suitable for any scenario involving unstructured or evolving workflows. Think: IT incident management, insurance claims, contract negotiations, or product development investigations.
How do I decide between BPMN and CMMN for a new process?
Ask: Is the workflow predictable and repeatable? If yes, use BPMN. Is the next step based on judgment, data, or events? If yes, use CMMN. A helpful rule: if you find yourself adding too many gateways or exception paths in BPMN, it may be time to switch to CMMN.
