On BPMN – Michael zur Muehlen
But BPMN never had one critical element – a stepwise path for users and vendors that allowed them to phase in the use of individual symbols while making sure that the resulting models could be moved between tools. The original BPMN specification had the distinction between a simple subset of the language and the full set, but nobody I know found the simple set sufficient to do any meaningful modeling
On BPMN – Bruce Silver
The problem is that BPMN 2.0 is a massive spec, and it’s no longer just about the diagram shapes and symbols. In BPMN 1.x the acronym stood for Business Process Modeling Notation, and it really was about the diagram. In BPMN 2.0 they changed it to Business Process Model and Notation. Changing the “ing” to “and” was significant. The model is not just what is in the diagram, but all the semantic detail underneath each shape and symbol.
On BPMN – Håvard Jørgensen and Frank Lillehagen
Though BPMN has emerged as a dominant business process modeling standard, the jury is still out on whether it is suitable for business people. Even for IT people, some argue that the number of constructs you need to understand in order to build a process model is too large
On BPMN – Dave Duggal