Advertisement

Normal Users Cooperating on Process Models: Is It Possible at All?

  • Alexander Nolte
  • Michael Prilla
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7493)

Abstract

Can normal people use process models for self-directed cooperation, that is, without expert guidance? According to modeling experts and corresponding contemporary research, they cannot, because they lack competencies for such usage. While the importance of artifacts such as texts, pictures and diagrams to cooperative work has been shown in many studies in CSCW and related fields, there are no answers to this question from our discipline. This paper aims at exploring this contradictory situation by exploring how users without or with little modeling practice work with models. Based on an exploratory study, we show opportunities and barriers to self-directed cooperative work with models and derive requirements for tool support. These results are compared with existing work and show that despite the special characteristics of process models, patterns known from the usage of other artifacts can also be observed in cooperative work with models. Users also showed behavior typically attributed to modeling experts, thus transcending such generic cooperation tasks.

Keywords

Cooperation support process models lay modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schmidt, K., Simone, C.: Coordination mechanisms: Towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 5, 155–200 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suchman, L.: Making work visible. Communications of the ACM 38 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prilla, M.: Models, Social Tagging and Knowledge Management – A fruitful Combination for Process Improvement. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM International Workshops 2009, Ulm, Germany (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prilla, M., Nolte, A.: Integrating Ordinary Users into Process Management: Towards Implementing Bottom-Up, People-Centric BPM. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) EMMSAD 2012 and BPMDS 2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 182–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrmann, T.: Systems Design with the Socio-Technical Walkthrough. In: Whitworth, B., de Moor, A. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems. Information Science Reference (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carell, A., Nolte, A.: Seamless integration of collaborative creativity techniques into group process modelling. In: Bodker, K., Bratteteig, T., Loi, D., Robertson, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Participatory Design 2010, pp. 182–197. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrmann, T., Nolte, A., Prilla, M.:Awareness support for combining individual and collaborative process design in co-located meetings. International Journal on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (IJCSCW). Special Issue on Awareness (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nolte, A., Prilla, M.: Process models as neutral ground in collaboration, but power matters. In: Nolte, A., Prilla, M. (eds.) Workshop on Collaborative Usage and Development of Models and Visualizations. CEUR-WS (2011), http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-777/
  10. 10.
    Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Kunau, G., Loser, K.-U.: Modeling Cooperative Work: Chances and risks of structuring. In: Cooperative System Design. A Challenge for the Mobility Age (Coop 2002), pp. 53–70. IOS Press (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rittgen, P.: Collaborative Modeling: Roles, Activities and Team Organization. International Journal of Information System Modeling and Design (IJISMD) 1, 1–19 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Witschel, H.F., Hu, B., Riss, U.V., Thönssen, B., Brun, R., Martin, A., Hinkelmann, K.: A Collaborative Approach to Maturing Process-Related Knowledge. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 343–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M. (eds.) BPM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2678, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gjersvik, R., Krogstie, J., Følstad, A.: Participatory development of enterprise process models. In: Information Modeling Methods and Methodologies, pp. 195–215 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richardson, G.P., Andersen, D.F.: Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics Review 11, 113–137 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Recker, J., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How Novices Model Business Processes. In: Hull, R., Mendling, J., Tai, S. (eds.) BPM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6336, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G.L., De Vreede, G.J.: Challenges in collaborative modelling: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Simulation and Process Modelling 4, 248–263 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cherubini, M., Venolia, G., DeLine, R., Ko, A.J.: Let’s go to the whiteboard: how and why software developers use drawings. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 557–566 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H.A., Cardoso, J.: What Makes Process Models Understandable? In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M.: The Metamorphoses of Workflow Projects in their Early Stages. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14, 399–432 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt, K., Tellioglu, H., Wagner, I.: Asking for the moon Or model-based coordination in distributed design. In: Balka, E., Ciolfi, L., Simone, C., Tellioglu, H., Wagner, I. (eds.) ECSCW 2009: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vienna, Austria, September 7-11 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heyer, C.: High-Octane Work: The oil and gas workplace. In: Wagner, I., Tellioglu, H., Barka, E., Simone, C., Ciolfi, L. (eds.) Proceedings of ECSCW 2009. Springer, Vienna (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleck, R., Fitzpatrick, G.: Teachers’ and tutors’ social reflection around SenseCam images. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, 1024–1036 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suchman, L.A.: Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pankoke-Babatz, U.: Electronic behaviour settings for CSCW. AI & Society 14, 3–30 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mendling, J., Reijers, H., Recker, J.: Activity labeling in process modeling: Empirical insights and recommendations. Information Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nolte
    • 1
  • Michael Prilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Information and Technology Management, Institute for Applied Work ScienceUniversity of BochumGermany

Personalised recommendations