Advertisement

Scaffolding Stakeholder-Centric Enterprise Model Articulation

  • Stefan Oppl
  • Stijn Hoppenbrouwers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 267)

Abstract

Involving stakeholders in enterprise modeling, besides rendering valid models, also helps stakeholders articulate and align their views on their organization. This requires that stakeholders are able to understand and actively perform conceptual modeling for representing their views on enterprise structure and behavior. The specific skills required for this should not be taken for granted and need to be developed explicitly. Scaffolding is an educational concept that allows to embed learning support mechanisms in operative modeling processes. The present article introduces a framework that makes it possible to view scaffolding as an integral part of stakeholder-centric modeling activities. The framework is validated with respect to its descriptive and discriminatory power by an ex-post analysis of the design and application of an existing modeling method.

Keywords

Scaffolding Stakeholder-centric modeling Articulation Alignment 

References

  1. 1.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Enterprise Modeling. Tackling Business Challenges with the 4EM Method. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Insfrán, E., Pastor, Ó., Wieringa, R.: Requirements engineering-based conceptual modelling. Requir. Eng. 7, 61–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies, I., Green, P., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., Gallo, S.: How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 358–380 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., Pavao-Zuckerman, M.: Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv. Ecol. 7, 8 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morris, W.T.: On the art of modeling. Manag. Sci. 13, B–707–B–717 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M.: Elicitation approaches in enterprise modeling. In: Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J., Persson, A., Wißotzki, M. (eds.) Enterprise Modeling. The Enterprise Engineering Series, pp. 39–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Willemain, T.R.: Model formulation: what experts think about and when. Oper. Res. 43, 916–932 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tavella, E., Papadopoulos, T.: Expert and novice facilitated modelling: a case of a viable system model workshop in a local food network. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 66, 247–264 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Recker, J.C., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How novices design business processes. Inf. Syst. 37, 557–573 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Powell, S.G., Willemain, T.R.: How novices formulate models. Part I: qualitative insights and implications for teaching. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58(8), 983–995 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franco, L.A.: Rethinking soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 231, 720–733 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Briggs, R.O., Kolfschoten, G.L., De Vreede, G.J., Lukosch, S., Albrecht, C.C.: Facilitator-in-a-box: process support applications to help practitioners realize the potential of collaboration technology. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 29, 159–194 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hjalmarsson, A., Recker, J.C., Rosemann, M., Lind, M.: Understanding the behavior of workshop facilitators in systems analysis and design projects. CAIS 36, 421–447 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R.E.: Models for understanding. Rev. Educ. Res. 59(1), 43–64 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A.: Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3, 36–59 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strauss, A.: Continual Permutations of Action. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T.: Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 94–118 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Kunau, G., Loser, K.U.: Modelling cooperative work: chances and risks of structuring. In: Proceedings of COOP 2002, pp. 53–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dix, A., Gongora, L.: Externalisation and design. In: Presented at the Proceedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D.: Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16, 409–421 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frederiks, P.J.M., van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl. Eng. 58, 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bider, I., Henkel, M., Kowalski, S., Perjons, E.: Technology enhanced learning of modeling skills in the field of information systems. In: Proceedings of 8th IADIS IS (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stender, P., Kaiser, G.: Scaffolding in complex modelling situations. ZDM Math. Educ. 47, 1255–1267 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G.: The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr. 17, 89–100 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Beishuizen, J.: Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: a decade of research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 271–296 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts (1978)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dennen, V.P.: Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. Handbook Res. Educ. Commun. Technol. 2, 813–828 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jumaat, N.F., Tasir, Z.: Instructional scaffolding in online learning environment: a meta-analysis. In: Proceedings of Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE) (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bulu, S.T., Pedersen, S.: Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 58, 507–529 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Su, J.-M.: A self-regulated learning tutor to adaptively scaffold the personalized learning: a study on learning outcome for grade 8 Mathematics. In: Proceedings of UMEDIA 2015 8th (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fretz, E.B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E.A., Krajcik, J.S., Soloway, E.: An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Res. Sci. Educ. 32, 567–589 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandkuhl, K., Lillehagen, F.: The early phases of enterprise knowledge modelling: practices and experiences from scaffolding and scoping. In: Stirna, J., Persson, A. (eds.) The Practice of Enterprise Modeling. LNBIP, vol. 15, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carstensen, A., Holmberg, L., Sandkuhl, K., Stirna, J.: Integrated requirements and solution modeling: an approach based on enterprise models. In: Innovations in Information Systems Modeling: Methods and Best Practices (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oppl, S.: Towards scaffolding collaborative articulation and alignment of mental models. In: Proceedings of ICKM 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prusak, N., Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B.B.: From visual reasoning to logical necessity through argumentative design. Educ. Stud. Math. 79, 19–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ozmantar, M.F., Roper, T.: Mathematical abstraction through scaffolding. In: Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Land, S.M., Zembal-Saul, C.: Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: an investigation of progress portfolio. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 51, 65–84 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abdu, R., Schwarz, B., Mavrikis, M.: Whole-class scaffolding for learning to solve mathematics problems together in a computer-supported environment. ZDM Math. Educ. 47, 1163–1178 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chin, C., Osborne, J.: Students’ questions and discursive interaction: their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 883–908 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    King, A., Rosenshine, B.: Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction. J. Exp. Educ. 61, 127–148 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xun, G.E., Land, S.M.: A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 52, 5–22 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., Fischer, F.: Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1–35 (2016). doi: 10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
  43. 43.
    Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., Fischer, F.: Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 2, 211–224 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oppl, S., Alexopoulou, N.: Linking natural modeling to techno-centric modeling for the active involvement of process participants in business process design. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. (IJISMD) 7(2), 1–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Software ScienceRadboud UniversityNijmegenNetherlands
  2. 2.Model-Based IS GroupHAN University of Applied SciencesArnhemNetherlands

Personalised recommendations