Who it's for
process owners, automation leads, and business analysts designing or reviewing automated workflows.
What participants can do by the end
Identify the core BPMN 2.0 notation elements, events, tasks, gateways, pools, and lanes, and apply correct notation to a given process description. Apply BPMN 2.0 to model a complex, multi-lane business process including exception handling, parallel flows, and boundary events. Examine a BPMN process model for correctness errors, automation readiness gaps, and missing exception handling using a structured review checklist. Critique the automation design decisions embedded in a BPMN model, task assignment, subprocess use, and event handling, against RPA and BPM platform requirements. Recommend improvements to a flawed BPMN process model, justifying changes against automation efficiency, exception handling, and GCC compliance requirements.
How the three days build:
Day one covers core BPMN elements, events, tasks, and the three gateway types, how pools and lanes represent organizational boundaries, and which notation choices actually affect implementation, before modelling multi-lane processes with cross-functional handoffs, boundary events, error events, compensation, and reusable subprocess patterns, then reviewing models against syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic correctness criteria using a ten-point quality checklist built from common GCC process automation errors. Day two covers automation decision points, which tasks to automate, augment, or keep human, and how RPA, BPM, and AI automation each map to different BPMN task types, then moves into critiquing automation design quality, efficiency, exception handling, compliance, gateway logic against reality, and testing models for path coverage and exception scenario validation. Day three synthesizes review and critique findings into a formal recommendation, addresses GCC compliance considerations for automated process models, and covers presenting the improved model to both business and technical stakeholders.
Participants leave able to catch automation failures on paper, before they become production incidents.
Why this matters specifically for automation projects
an ambiguous gateway or a missing exception path costs almost nothing to fix on a BPMN diagram, and considerably more once it’s been built into an RPA bot or a live BPM deployment handling real transactions. Organizations that review models against a structured checklist before implementation catch these gaps at the cheapest possible point in the project. This program exists so BPMN stops being a documentation exercise and starts being the quality gate automation projects actually need.