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.
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson. 1997. Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13, 2: 107--129.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. science 286, 5439: 509--512.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Robert Briggs and Gert-Jan de Vreede. 2009. ThinkLets: Building Blocks for concerted Collaboration. Center for Collaboration Science.Google Scholar
- Bo Cheng and Xizhi Wu. 2006. A modified PLSR method in prediction. J. Data Science 4: 257--274.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Jacob Cohen. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological bulletin 70, 4: 213.Google Scholar
- Matthias Dehmer and Abbe Mowshowitz. 2011. A history of graph entropy measures. Information Sciences 181, 1: 57--78. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marlon Dumas, Marcello La Rosa, Jan Mendling, and Hajo A Reijers. 2013. Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul Erdos and Alfréd Rényi. 1960. On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci 5, 1: 17--60.Google Scholar
- Paul Harmon and Celia Wolf. 2016. The state of business process management. Business process trends.Google Scholar
- Marielle den Hengst. 2005. Collaborative Modeling of Processes: What Facilitation Support Does a Group Need? In AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, 73--80.Google Scholar
- Thomas Herrmann. 2006. SeeMe in a nutshell - the semi-structured, socio-technical modeling method.Google Scholar
- Thomas Herrmann. 2009. Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems: 336--351.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- John Krogstie. 2012. Model-based development and evolution of information systems: A Quality Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics: 159--174.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Jan Mendling, Hajo A. Reijers, and Jorge Cardoso. 2007. What makes process models understandable? In Business Process Management. Springer, 48--63. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- OMG. 2003. UML 2.0 Superstructure - Final Adopted Specification. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
- OMG. 2006. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Specification. Object Management Group.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Jan Recker. 2010. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal 16, 1: 181--201.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Peter Rittgen. 2010. Collaborative Modeling: Roles, Activities and Team Organization. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 1, 3: 1--19. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Richard Soley and others. 2000. Model driven architecture. OMG white paper 308, 308: 5.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- William MK Trochim. 1989. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and program planning 12, 1: 1--16.Google Scholar
- Duncan J Watts and Steven H Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. nature 393, 6684: 440--442.Google Scholar
Index Terms
When to say "Enough is Enough!": A Study on the Evolution of Collaboratively Created Process Models
Recommendations
Design and Implement Eduwiki for Collaborative Lesson-Preparing Activities
CW '08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on CyberworldsLesson-preparing can be seen as the prerequisite that drives teachers teaching activities. However, many lesson-preparing platforms do little consideration on the real requirments of teaching. Although these systems support some aspects of lesson-...
Collaboard: a remote collaboration groupware device featuring an embodiment-enriched shared workspace
GROUP '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group WorkIn this paper we present a mixed presence groupware device called "CollaBoard". The device improves collaboration between co-located and remote partners by providing a high level of workspace awareness. This is achieved by superimposing a life-size ...
Carpeno: interfacing remote collaborative virtual environments with table-top interaction
Creativity is enhanced by communication and collaboration. Thus, the increasing number of distributed creative tasks requires better support from computer-mediated communication and collaborative tools. In this paper we introduce “Carpeno”, a new system ...






Comments