skip to main content
research-article

When to say "Enough is Enough!": A Study on the Evolution of Collaboratively Created Process Models

Published:06 December 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Organizations conduct series of face-to-face meetings aiming to improve work practices. In these meetings, participants from different backgrounds collaboratively design artifacts, such as knowledge or process maps. Such meetings are orchestrated and carried out by facilitators and the success of the meetings almost solely depends on the experience of the facilitators. Previous research has mainly focused on approaches that support facilitators and participants in the upfront planning of such events. There is however, little guidance for facilitators and participants once a meeting has started. One critical aspect -- among others -- is that during a meeting, the facilitator and participants need to decide for how long the iterative process of discussion and design should continue. We argue that we can provide support for such decisions based on the evolution of artifacts collaboratively created during such meetings. This paper presents a multi-level, multi-method analysis of artifacts based on experts' observations in combination with network analytics. We study the use of automated analytics to assess the evolution of collaboratively created artifacts and to indicate maturity and established consensus of the collaborative practice. We propose a computational approach to support facilitators and participants in deciding when to stop face-to-face meetings.

References

  1. Mark S Ackerman, Juri Dachtera, Volkmar Pipek, and Volker Wulf. 2013. Sharing knowledge and expertise: The CSCW view of knowledge management. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4--6: 531--573. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. David F Andersen, Jac AM Vennix, George P Richardson, and Etiënne AJA Rouwette. 2007. Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58, 5: 691--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson. 1997. Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13, 2: 107--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Christopher Andrews, Alex Endert, and Chris North. 2010. Space to think: large high-resolution displays for sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Wasana Bandara, Guy G. Gable, and Michael Rosemann. 2005. Factors and measures of business process modelling: model building through a multiple case study. European Journal of Information Systems 14, 4: 347--360. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. science 286, 5439: 509--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R.P. Bostrom, R. Anson, and V.K. Clawson. 1993. Group facilitation and group support systems. In Group support systems: New perspectives, L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich (eds.). Macmillan, 146--168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Robert Briggs and Gert-Jan de Vreede. 2009. ThinkLets: Building Blocks for concerted Collaboration. Center for Collaboration Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Bo Cheng and Xizhi Wu. 2006. A modified PLSR method in prediction. J. Data Science 4: 257--274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Irene-Angelica Chounta and Nikolaos Avouris. 2014. Towards the real-time evaluation of collaborative activities: Integration of an automatic rater of collaboration quality in the classroom from the teacher's perspective. Education and Information Technologies: 1--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Irene-Angelica Chounta, Tobias Hecking, Heinz Ulrich Hoppe, and Nikolaos Avouris. 2014. Two Make a Network: Using Graphs to Assess the Quality of Collaboration of Dyads. In Collaboration and Technology. Springer, 53--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Herbert Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in Communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine and Stephane D. Teasley (eds.). American Psychological Association, 127--149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacob Cohen. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological bulletin 70, 4: 213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Matthias Dehmer and Abbe Mowshowitz. 2011. A history of graph entropy measures. Information Sciences 181, 1: 57--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Marlon Dumas, Marcello La Rosa, Jan Mendling, and Hajo A Reijers. 2013. Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Erik Duval. 2011. Attention please!: learning analytics for visualization and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 9--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Paul Erdos and Alfréd Rényi. 1960. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci 5, 1: 17--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Paul Harmon and Celia Wolf. 2016. The state of business process management. Business process trends.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Marielle den Hengst. 2005. Collaborative Modeling of Processes: What Facilitation Support Does a Group Need? In AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 73--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas Herrmann. 2006. SeeMe in a nutshell - the semi-structured, socio-technical modeling method.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomas Herrmann. 2009. Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems: 336--351.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas Herrmann, Gabriele Kunau, and Kai-Uwe Loser. 2007. Socio-technical self-description as a means for projects of introducing computer supported cooperation. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 232c--232c. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Thomas Herrmann and Alexander Nolte. 2014. Combining Collaborative Modeling with Collaborative Creativity for Process Design. In COOP 2014 - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 27--30 May 2014, Nice (France), 377--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas Herrmann, Alexander Nolte, and Michael Prilla. 2013. Awareness support for combining individual and collaborative process design in co-located meetings. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 2: 241--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. H. U. Hoppe, J. Engler, and S. Weinbrenner. 2012. The impact of structural characteristics of concept maps on automatic quality measurement. In International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2012), Sydney, Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gwendolyn L Kolfschoten, Robert O Briggs, Gert-Jan De Vreede, Peter HM Jacobs, and Jaco H Appelman. 2006. A conceptual foundation of the thinkLet concept for Collaboration Engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 7: 611--621. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. John Krogstie. 2012. Model-based development and evolution of information systems: A Quality Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics: 159--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jure Leskovec, Jon Kleinberg, and Christos Faloutsos. 2007. Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 1, 1: 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Roberto Martinez, Judy Kay, James R. Wallace, and Kalina Yacef. 2011. Modelling symmetry of activity as an indicator of collocated group collaboration. In User Modeling, Adaption and Personalization. Springer, 207--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jan Mendling. 2010. Foundations of Business Process Modeling. In Handbook of Research on Modern Systems Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications, M.R. Syed and S.N. Syed (eds.). IGI Global, 189--222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Jan Mendling, Hajo A. Reijers, and Jorge Cardoso. 2007. What makes process models understandable? In Business Process Management. Springer, 48--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. OMG. 2003. UML 2.0 Superstructure - Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. OMG. 2006. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification. Object Management Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Michael Prilla, Alexander Nolte, Thomas Herrmann, Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, and Stephan Lukosch. 2013. Collaborative Usage and Development of Models: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC) 9, 4: 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jan Recker. 2010. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16, 1: 181--201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Peter Rittgen. 2010. Collaborative Modeling: Roles, Activities and Team Organization. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 1, 3: 1--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Peter Rittgen. 2013. Group consensus in business process modeling: A measure and its application. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC) 9, 4: 17--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. E.A.J.A. Rouwette, J.A.M. Vennix, and T. Mullekom. 2002. Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review 18, 1: 5--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Richard Soley and others. 2000. Model driven architecture. OMG white paper 308, 308: 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Amy Soller, Alejandra Martínez Monés, Patrick Jermann, and Martin Muehlenbrock. 2001. From mirroring to guiding: a review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Denis Ssebuggwawo, Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, and Erik Proper. 2010. Assessing collaborative modeling quality based on modeling artifacts. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. Springer, 76--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. William MK Trochim. 1989. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and program planning 12, 1: 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. nature 393, 6684: 440--442.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. When to say "Enough is Enough!": A Study on the Evolution of Collaboratively Created Process Models

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!