Abstract
We have created a haptic toolkit that people can use to map and discuss their working procedures. We call it tangible business process modeling (t.BPM). Process modeling is an approach to capture work items, their order constraints, the data processed and people responsible in a graphical model. Typically, experts create these models using software tools. Domain experts are questioned but passive when the model is created. Our approach uses a set of plastic tiles and whiteboard markers for modeling. Thereby, we can engage novice users into shaping their processes at the table.
In the first year, we iterated towards the solution. While we are convinced that our approach yields advances, scientific investigation was yet missing. In this year, we have conducted a controlled experiment that compares t.BPM to structured interviews. We found that people have more fun, learn more, do more reviews and corrections with t.BPM. Finally, people take more time to think and talk about their processes. In this chapter, we outline our approach and research agenda. We present the experiment setup and results. Finally, we explain our next steps towards method development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bruner, J.S., 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), p.21–32.
Cooper, D. & Schindler, P., 2008. Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Davis, A. et al., 2006. Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In 14th IEEE International Conference Requirements Engineering. p.179–188.
Edelman, J., Grosskopf, A. & Weske, M., 2009. Tangible Business Process Modeling: A New Approach. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’09.
Greenwald, A.G., 1976. Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use. Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), p.314–320.
Grosskopf, A., Edelman, J. & Weske, M., 2009. Tangible Business Process Modeling – Methodology and Experiment Design. In B. Mutschler, R. Wieringa, & J. C. Recker, hrsg. 1st International Workshop on Empirical Research in Business Process Management (ER-BPM’09). Ulm, Germany: Springer Verlag, p.53–64.
Grosskopf, A. & Weske, M., 2010. On Business Process Model Reviews. In workshop proceedings of ER-POIS: Empirical Research on Process Oriented Information Systems affiliated to CAISE10. p.31–42.
Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B., 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. p.234–241.
Krallmann, H., Schönherr, M. & Trier, M., 2007. Systemanalyse im Unternehmen, Oldenbourg Verlag.
Laue, R. & Gadatsch, A., 2010. Measuring the Understandability of Business Process Models – Are we asking the right questions? In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Business Process Design (BPD 2010).
Lewin, K., 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), p.34–46.
Luebbe, A. & Weske, M., 2010. The effect of tangible media on individuals in business process modeling – a controlled experiment. Technical Report 43. Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering. Available at: http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/Public/AlexanderGrosskopf
Mayer, R.E., 1989. Models for understanding. Review of educational research, 59(1), p.43.
Melcher, J. u. a., 2009. On Measuring the Understandability of Process Models (Experimental Results). In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Empirical Research in Business Process Management (ER-BPM).
Mendling, J., Reijers, H. & van der Aalst, W.M., 2009. Seven Process Modeling Guidelines. Information and Software Technology (IST), 53. p.127–136.
Miller, G.A., 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological review, 63, p.81–97.
OMG, 2009. Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) 1.2, OMG.
Plattner, H., Meinel, C. & Leifer, L.J. hrsg., 2010. Design Thinking – Understand, Improve, Apply, Springer.
Schaufeli, W.B., Martinez, I.M. u. a., 2002. Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), p.464.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M. u. a., 2002. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), p.71–92.
Schneider, K., 2007. Generating Fast Feedback in Requirements Elicitation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4542, p.160.
Sedera, W. u. a., 2004. A success model for business process modeling: findings from a multiple case study. In Proceedings of the 8th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.
Stevenson, A., 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press.
Stirna, J., Persson, A. & Sandkuhl, K., 2007. Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4495, p.546.
Susman, G.I. & Evered, R.D., 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative science quarterly, 23(4), p.582–603.
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P., 1991. Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction 8(4). p.351–362.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P. & Höst, M., 2000. Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction, Springer Netherlands.
Xie, L., Antle, A.N. & Motamedi, N., 2008. Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In TEI ’08: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. New York, NY, USA: ACM, p.191–198.
Zhang, J., 1997. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive science, 21(2), p.179–217.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the students that supported this work. First and foremost Karin Telschow. She helped setting up, running and evaluating this experiment. Likewise, Markus Güntert helped to setup and run the experiment. Finally, we thank Carlotta Mayolo for her support in the video analysis phase.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Luebbe, A., Weske, M. (2012). Determining the Effect of Tangible Business Process Modeling. In: Plattner, H., Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21643-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21643-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21642-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21643-5
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)