Collaborative Business Process Modeling in Multi-surface Environments

  • Alexander Nolte
  • Ross Brown
  • Craig Anslow
  • Moritz Wiechers
  • Artem Polyvyanyy
  • Thomas Herrmann


Analyzing and redesigning business processes is a complex task which requires the collaboration of multiple actors such as process stakeholders, domain experts and others. Current collaborative modeling approaches mainly focus on modeling workshops where participants verbally contribute their perspective on a process along with ideas on how to improve it. These workshops are supported by modeling experts who facilitate the workshop and translate participants’ verbal contributions into a process model. Being limited to verbal contributions however might negatively affect the motivation of participants to actively contribute. Interactive technology such as smartphones, tablets, digital tabletops and interactive walls can provide opportunities for participants to directly interact with process models. Multi surface environments where different interactive technologies (e.g. display walls, tabletops, tablets, and mobiles) are combined also allow for orchestrating different modes of collaboration. In this chapter we describe an approach that combines different styles of collaboration using various interactive surfaces in a multi surface environment. Testing this approach in three different settings we found indications that interactive technology not only improves involvement by participants but also speeds up workshops and improves the quality of collaboration outcomes. The studies also revealed means for improving the proposed approach.


Business Process Business Process Management Modeling Notation Modeling Expert Collaborative Modeling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Harmon P (2016) The state of business process management. Business process trendsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumas M, La Rosa M, Mendling J, Reijers HA (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allweyer T (2009) BPMN 2.0, Business process model and notation. Books on demand, NorderstedtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendling J, Strembeck M, Recker J (2012) Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis Support Syst 53:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reijers HA, Mendling J (2011) A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part A. 41:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrmann T (2009) Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. In: Whitworth B, de Moore A (eds) Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 336–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoppenbrouwers S, Proper H, Weide T (2005) Formal modelling as a grounded conversation. In: Proceedings of the 10th international working conference on the language action perspective on communication modelling (LAP05), pp 139–155Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prilla M, Nolte A, Herrmann T, Kolfschoten G, Lukosch S (2013) Collaborative usage and development of models: state of the art, challenges and opportunities. Int J e-Collaboration. Special issue on “Collaborative usage and development of models.” 9:1–16Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rittgen P (2010) Collaborative modeling: roles, activities and team organization. Int J Inf Syst Model Des (IJISMD). 1:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gjersvik R, Krogstie J, Følstad A (2001) Participatory development of enterprise process models. In: Proceedings of EMMSAD’01, pp 195–215Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1995) Teamwork in group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 11:113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bostrom RP, Anson R, Clawson VK (1993) Group facilitation and group support systems. In: Jessup LM, Valacich JS (eds) Group support systems: New perspectives. Macmillan, pp 146–168Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18:5–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herrmann T, Nolte A (2014) Combining collaborative modeling with collaborative creativity for process design. In: Rossitto C, Ciolfi L, Martin D, Conein B (eds) COOP 2014–proceedings of the 11th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, 27–30 May 2014, Nice (France). Springer International Publishing, pp 377–392Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrmann T, Nolte A (2010) The integration of collaborative process modeling and electronic brainstorming in co-located meetings. In: CRIWG 2010, LNCS 6257. Springer, pp 145–160Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiechers M, Nolte A, Ksoll M, Herrmann T (2014) Using mobile devices to overcome idle times in modelling workshops. Mensch and Computer 2014–Workshopband: 14. Fachübergreifende Konferenz für Interaktive und Kooperative Medien–Interaktiv unterwegs-Freiräume gestalten. 327Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seyed T, Burns C, Costa Sousa M, Maurer F, Tang A (2012) Eliciting usable gestures for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, pp. 41–50Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Streitz NA, Gei\ssler J, Holmer T, Müller-Tomfelde C, Reischl W, Rexroth P, Seitz P, Steinmetz R (1999) i-LAND: an interactive landscape for creativity and innovation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 120–127Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Döweling S, Tahiri T, Schmidt B, Nolte A, Khalilbeigi M (2013) Collaborative business process modeling on interactive tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 21st European conference on information systems, pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolb J, Rudner B, Reichert M (2013) Gesture-based process modeling using multi-touch devices. Int J Inf Syst Model Des 4:48–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oppl S, Stary C (2014) Facilitating shared understanding of work situations using a tangible tabletop interface. Behav Inf Technol 33:619–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrmann T, Nolte A, Prilla M (2013) Awareness support for combining individual and collaborative process design in co-located meetings. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 22:241–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiechers M, Christmann N, Nolte A, Herrmann T (2015) Taking pictures from a large wall display—Why would you do that? In: Workshop on collaboration meets interactive surfaces (CMIS): walls, tabletops, mobiles, and wearablesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    OMG: Business process modeling notation (BPMN) specification. object management group (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheer A-W (1998) ARIS—Modellierungsmethoden, Metamodelle. Springer, AnwendungenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    OMG: UML 2.0 superstructure—final adopted specification. object management group (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ackermann F (1996) Participants’ perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 5:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    den Hengst M (2005) Collaborative modeling of processes: what facilitation support does a group need? In: AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Renger M, Kolfschoten GL, De Vreede GJ (2008) Challenges in collaborative modelling: a literature review and research agenda. Int J Simul Process Model 4:248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Andersen DF, Richardson GP (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13:107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Briggs R, de Vreede G-J (2009) ThinkLets: building blocks for concerted collaboration. center for collaboration scienceGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vennix JAM, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Rohrbaugh J (1992) Model-building for group decision support: issues and alternatives in knowledge elicitation. Eur J Oper Res 59:28–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee Y (2006) Design participation tactics: redefining user participation design. In: Design research society international conferenceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luebbe A, Weske M (2011) Tangible media in process modeling–a controlled experiment. In: Advanced information systems engineering. Springer, pp 283–298Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klein B, Burkhard RA, Meixner C, Treyer L (2015) Dynamic multi-view, multi-format, multi-user visualizations: for future cities. In: 2015 19th international conference on information visualisation (iV). IEEE, pp 360–365Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vessey I, Galletta D (1991) Cognitive fit: An empirical study of information acquisition. Inf Syst Res 2:63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moody DL (2009) The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. Soft Eng IEEE Trans 35:756–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sheppard SR (2005) Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environ Sci Policy 8:637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown RA, Eichhorn D, Herter J (2012) Virtual world process perspective visualizationGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harman J, Brown R, Johnson D, Rinderle-Ma S, Kannengiesser U Augmenting process elicitation with visual priming: an empirical exploration of user behaviour and modelling outcomes. Inf Syst. (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Matin E, Shao KC, Boff KR (1993) Saccadic overhead: information-processing time with and without saccades. Percept Psychophys 53:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bowman DA, McMahan RP (2007) Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer 40:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anslow C, Marshall S, Noble J, Tempero E, Biddle R (2010) User evaluation of polymetric views using a large visualization wall. In: Proceedings of the 5th international symposium on software visualization. ACM, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prilla M, Nolte A (2010) Fostering self-direction in participatory process design. In: Proceedings of the eleventh conference on participatory design 2010. ACM, pp 227–230Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dourish P, Bellotti V (1992) Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work. ACM, pp 107–114Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chokshi A, Seyed T, Marinho Rodrigues F, Maurer F (2014) ePlan multi-surface: a multi-surface environment for emergency response planning exercises. In: Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, pp 219–228Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shakeri Hossein Abad Z, Anslow C, Maurer F (2014) Multi surface interactions with geospatial data: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anslow C, Marshall S, Noble J, Biddle R (2013) Sourcevis: collaborative software visualization for co-located environments. In: 2013 first IEEE working conference on software visualization (VISSOFT). IEEE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bragdon A, DeLine R, Hinckley K, Morris MR (2011) Code space: touch+air gesture hybrid interactions for supporting developer meetings. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, pp 212–221Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Seyed T, Costa Sousa M, Maurer F, Tang A (2013) SkyHunter: a multi-surface environment for supporting oil and gas exploration. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jetter H-C, Geyer F, Schwarz T, Reiterer H (2012) Blended interaction–toward a framework for the design of interactive spaces. In: Workshop DCIS. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wigdor D, Shen C, Forlines C, Balakrishnan R (2006) Table-centric interactive spaces for real-time collaboration. In: Proceedings of the working conference on advanced visual interfaces. ACM, pp 103–107Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nolte A, Brown R, Poppe E, Anslow C (2015) Towards collaborative modeling of business processes on large interactive touch display walls. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces, pp 379–384Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ellis CA, Gibbs SJ (1989) Concurrency control in groupware systems. In: SIGMOD ’89: proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 399–407Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior. McGraw-Hill CollegeGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rittgen P (2013) Group consensus in business process modeling: a measure and its application. Int J e-Collaboration (IJeC) 9:17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nielsen J (1994) Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: CHI ’94: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 152–158Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nolte A, Brown RA, Poppe E, Craig A (2015) Exploring collaborative modeling of business processes on large interactive touch display walls. In: Workshop on collaboration meets interactive surfaces (CMIS): walls, tabletops, mobiles, and wearablesGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rittenbruch M, Sorensen A, Donovan J, Polson D, Docherty M, Jones J (2013) The cube: a very large-scale interactive engagement space. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nolte
    • 1
  • Ross Brown
    • 2
  • Craig Anslow
    • 3
  • Moritz Wiechers
    • 1
  • Artem Polyvyanyy
    • 2
  • Thomas Herrmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Technology ManagementRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Information Systems SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations