Virtual Business Role-Play: Leveraging Familiar Environments to Prime Stakeholder Memory During Process Elicitation

  • Joel Harman
  • Ross Brown
  • Daniel Johnson
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
  • Udo Kannengiesser
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9097)

Abstract

Business process models have traditionally been an effective way of examining business practices to identify areas for improvement. While common information gathering approaches are generally efficacious, they can be quite time consuming and have the risk of developing inaccuracies when information is forgotten or incorrectly interpreted by analysts. In this study, the potential of a role-playing approach for process elicitation and specification has been examined. This method allows stakeholders to enter a virtual world and role-play actions as they would in reality. As actions are completed, a model is automatically developed, removing the need for stakeholders to learn and understand a modelling grammar. Empirical data obtained in this study suggests that this approach may not only improve both the number of individual process task steps remembered and the correctness of task ordering, but also provide a reduction in the time required for stakeholders to model a process view.

Keywords

Business process management Process elicitation Subject-oriented business process management 3D virtual worlds Human-computer interaction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    von Alan, R.H., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28(1), 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balota, D.A., Marsh, E.J.: Cognitive psychology: Key readings. Psychology Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsalou, L.W., Niedenthal, P.M., Barbey, A.K., Ruppert, J.A.: Social embodiment. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 43, 43–92 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P.: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, R., Rinderle-Ma, S., Kriglstein, S., Kabicher-Fuchs, S.: Augmenting and assisting model elicitation tasks with 3D virtual world context metadata. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Missikoff, M., Liu, L., Pastor, O., Cuzzocrea, A., Sellis, T. (eds.) OTM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8841, pp. 39–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coughlan, J., Lycett, M., Macredie, R.D.: Communication issues in requirements elicitation: a content analysis of stakeholder experiences. Information and Software Technology 45(8), 525–537 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques: empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: 14th IEEE International Conference Requirements Engineering, pp. 179–188 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dinh, H.Q., Walker, N., Hodges, L.F., Song, C., Kobayashi, A.: Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, 1999, pp. 222–228. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan, I., Miller, A., Jiang, S.: A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(6), 949–964 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleischmann, A., Ra, S., Singer, R.: S-BPM Illustrated. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosskopf, A., Edelman, J., Weske, M.: Tangible business process modeling – methodology and experiment design. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43, pp. 489–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo, H., Brown, R., Rasmussen, R.: A theoretical basis for using virtual worlds as a personalised process visualisation approach. In: Franch, X., Soffer, P. (eds.) CAiSE Workshops 2013. LNBIP, vol. 148, pp. 229–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammer, M.: What is business process management? In: Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management, pp. 3–16. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harman, J., Brown, R., Kannengiesser, U., Meyer, N., Rothschädl, T.: Model as you do: engaging an S-BPM vendor on process modelling in 3D virtual worlds. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C. (eds.) S-BPM In the Wild - A Field Study Book. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harmon, P., Wolf, C.: The state of business process management 2014, BPTrends Technical Report (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hew, K.F., Cheung, W.S.: Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in k-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 33–55 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kabicher, S., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Human-centered process engineering based on content analysis and process view aggregation. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 467–481. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 7(1), 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oppl, S., Rothschädl, T.: Separation of concerns in model elicitation – role-based actor-driven business process modeling. In: Zehbold, C. (ed.) S-BPM ONE 2014. CCIS, vol. 422, pp. 3–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsaye, K., Chignell, M.: Expert systems for experts. Wiley (1988)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perfetti, C.A.: Lexical density and phrase structure depth as variables in sentence retention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8(6), 719–724 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Poppe, E., Brown, R., Recker, J., Johnson, D.: Improving remote collaborative process modelling using embodiment in 3D virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Asia-Pacific Conference on Conceptual Modelling, vol. 143, pp. 51–60. APCCM 2013. Australian Computer Society Inc, Darlinghurst, Australia (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Qu, C., Brinkman, W., Wiggers, P., Heynderickx, I.: The effect of priming pictures and videos on a question-answer dialog scenario in a virtual environment. Presence 22(2), 91–109 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J.: The six core elements of business process management. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. IHIS, pp. 107–122. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schacter, D.L., Buckner, R.L.: Priming and the brain. Neuron 20(2), 185–195 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith, E.A.: The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(4), 311–321 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sneed, S.: Mapping possibilities of S-BPM and BPMN 2.0. In: Oppl, S., Fleischmann, A. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2012. CCIS, vol. 284, pp. 91–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verner, L.: Bpm: The promise and the challenge. Queue 2(1), 82–91 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Virvou, M., Katsionis, G.: On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-Engage. Computers & Education 50(1), 154–178 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wiecha, J., Heyden, R., Sternthal, E., Merialdi, M.: Learning in a virtual world: experience with using second life for medical education. Journal of medical Internet research 12(1), e1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zacks, J.M., Tversky, B.: Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9(2), 88 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhu, X., Recker, J., Zhu, G., Maria Santoro, F.: Exploring location-dependency in process modeling. Business Process Management Journal 20(6), 794–815 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Harman
    • 1
  • Ross Brown
    • 1
  • Daniel Johnson
    • 1
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
    • 2
  • Udo Kannengiesser
    • 3
  1. 1.Science and Technology FacultyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Metasonic GmbHPfaffenhofenGermany

Personalised recommendations