Should activities be atomic?


I would like to know if BPMN activities must be atomic or not?

It means, having an “AND” inside an activity title is wrong?


Thank you.

Hi @hamedhomaee,

it depends. First they should be understandable.

And they should provide value for the whole process.

A single task may have an “and” in the name.

In your example, what about “Enter required data”? Or even better, replace “required data” with a specfic term to describe the data.

Usually for each user task you have to fill out a form and press the submit (or in the Camunda Tasklist the “Complete”) button. This name didn’t bring a lot of value to the process as it is very generic and could be used in any user task.

When it comes to automated processes, don’t be too atomic with user tasks. Screenflow with User tasks may be a bad user experince, as the user is not allowed to go back and revise their inputs done in earlier tasks until you explicitly model it with gateways and sequence flows.

A rule of thumb is to provide different user tasks when the work is splitted over a longer time or the user changes between tasks.

Hope this helps, Ingo

1 Like

Asking the BPMN specification every activity (human or automated) is atomic.

Asking real world, cf. @Ingo_Richtsmeier’s answer :wink:

I am not asking this question only with respect to Camunda, but I was wondering if having an “and” in anactivity title is generally against specification or any best practice or not?

Generally speaking you should model your activities distinct / atomic.

Having an and in there adds unnecessary ambiguity. In your case, you could argue that Fill out the form and submit is overspecific and meaningless at the same time. Provide account details or whatever (depending on the process) is a better name for an (atomic) activity.

1 Like