A Study on Tangible Participative Enterprise Modelling

  • Dan Ionita
  • Julia Kaidalova
  • Alexandr Vasenev
  • Roel Wieringa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9975)


Enterprise modelling (EM) is concerned with discovering, structuring and representing domain knowledge pertaining to different aspects of an organization. Participative EM, in particular, is a useful approach to eliciting this knowledge from domain experts with different backgrounds. In related work, tangible modelling – modelling with physical objects – has been identified as beneficial for group modelling.

This study investigates effects of introducing tangible modelling as part of participative enterprise modelling sessions. Our findings suggest that tangible modelling facilitates participation. While this can make reaching an agreement more time-consuming, the resulting models tend to be of higher quality than those created using a computer. Also, tangible models are easier to use and promote learnability. We discuss possible explanations of and generalizations from these observations.


Enterprise modelling Tangible modelling Participative modelling Empirical study 



The authors would like to thank Anders Carstensen for adapting his EM course at Jönköping University to accommodate our study. The research has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement ICT-318003 (TREsPASS) and from the Joint Program Initiative (JPI) Urban Europe via the IRENE project.


  1. 1.
    Barjis, J.: Collaborative, participative and interactive enterprisemodeling. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 24. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cakir, M.: Constructivist approaches to learning in science andtheir impolications for science pedagogy: a literature review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 3(4), 193–206 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edelman, J., Grosskopf, A., Weske, M., Leifer, L.: Tangible businessprocess modeling: a new approach. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, vol. 9, pp. 153–168, August 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F3-Consortium: F3 reference manual. Technical report MSU-CSE-00-2, SISU, Stockholm (1994). eSPRIT III Project 6612Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C.: Tangible or not tangible - a comparative study of interaction types for process modeling support. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8511. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Front, A., Rieu, D., Santorum, M.: A participative end-user modeling approach for business process requirements. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 33–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_3 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garde, J., van der Voort, M.: The procedure usability game: a participatory game for development of complex medical procedures & products. In: Proceedings of the CIRP IPS2 Conference 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosskopf, A., Edelman, J., Weske, M.: Tangible business process modeling - methodology and experiment design. In: Rinderle-Ma, S., Sadiq, S., Leymann, F. (eds.) ER-BPM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 43. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hinckley, K.: Synchronous gestures for multiple persons andcomputers. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2003, pp. 149–158. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ionita, D., Wieringa, R., Bullee, J.-W., Vasenev, A.: Tangible modelling to elicit domain knowledge: an experiment and focus group. In: Johannesson, P., Lee, M.L., Liddle, S.W., Opdahl, A.L., López, Ó.P. (eds.) ER 2015. LNCS, vol. 9381, pp. 558–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-25264-3_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaidalova, J., Siegerroth, U., Bukowska, E., Shilov, N.: Enterprise modeling for business and it alignment: Challenges and recommendations. Int. J. IT Bus. Alignment Gov. 5(2), 44–69 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindland, O.I., Sindre, G., Solvberg, A.: Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11(2), 42–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lübbe, A.: tangible business process modeling: design and evaluation of a process model elicitation technique. Ph.D. thesis, Universitt Potsdam (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, G.: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63, 81–97 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nurcan, S., Rolland, C.: Using EKD-CMM electronic guide book formanaging change in organisations. In: Proceedings of the 9th European-Japanese Conference on Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, pp. 105–123 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persson, A., Stirna, J.: An explorative study into the influence ofbusiness goals on the practical use of enterprise modelling methods and tools. In:Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD). Kluwer, London (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Renger, M., Kolfschoten, G.L., Vreede, G.J.D.: Challenges in collaborative modelling: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Simul. Process Model. 4(3–4), 248–263 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinson, P.: Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Appl. Linguist. 22(1), 27–57 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling: Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scholtz, B., Calitz, A., Snyman, I.: The usability of collaborativetools: Application to business process modelling. In: Proceedings ofthe South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A.: Ten Years Plus with EKD: reflections from using an enterprise modeling method in practice. In: Proceedings ofthe 11th International Workshop on Exploring Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2007). Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative enterprise modeling: experiences and recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72988-4_38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12(2), 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Unhelkar, B.: The Quality Strategy for UML, pp. 1–26. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vessey, I., Galletta, D.: Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Inf. Syst. Res. 2(1), 63–84 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weitlaner, D., Guettinger, A., Kohlbacher, M.: Intuitive comprehensibility of process models. In: Fischer, H., Schneeberger, J. (eds.) S-BPM ONE 2013. CCIS, vol. 360, pp. 52–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36754-0_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Ionita
    • 3
  • Julia Kaidalova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexandr Vasenev
    • 3
  • Roel Wieringa
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of JönköpingJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.School of InformaticsUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  3. 3.University of Twente, Services, Cybersecurity and Safety GroupEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations