Advertisement

Speech Acts in Actual Processes: Evaluation of Interfaces and Triggers in ITIL

  • Johannes TenschertEmail author
  • Jana-Rebecca Rehse
  • Peter Fettke
  • Richard Lenz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 308)

Abstract

Today’s organizations are socio-technical systems in which human workers increasingly perform knowledge work. Interactions between knowledge workers, clerks, and systems are essentially speech acts controlling the necessity and flow of activities in semi-structured and ad-hoc processes. IT-support for knowledge work does not necessarily require any predefined process model, and often none is available. To capture what is going on, a rising number of approaches for process modeling, analysis, and support classify interactions and derive process-related information. The frequency and diversity of speech acts has only been examined within delimited domains, but not in the larger setting of a reference model covering different types of work and domains, multiple takeholders, and interacting processes. Therefore, we have investigated interactions in the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL). ITIL is a collection of predefined processes, functions, and roles that constitute best practices in the realm of IT service management (ITSM). For ITIL-based processes, we demonstrate the importance, prevalence, and diversity of interactions in triggers, and that further abstraction of interactions can improve the reusability of process patterns. Hence, at least in ITSM, applying speech act theory bears great potential for process improvement.

Keywords

Speech act theory ITIL Knowledge-intensive business process Adaptive case management Integration 

References

  1. 1.
    Berg, M., Aarts, J., van der Lei, J., et al.: Ict in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods Archive 42(4), 297–301 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lund, S., Manyika, J., Ramaswamy, S.: Preparing for a new era of knowledge work. McKinsey Q. 4, 103–110 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tenschert, J., Lenz, R.: Towards speech-act-based adaptive case management. In: AdaptiveCM 2016–5th International Workshop on Adaptive Case Management and other Non-workflow Approaches to BPM (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swenson, K.D.: Innovative organizations act like systems, not machines. In: Fischer, L. (ed.) Empowering Knowledge Workers: New Ways to Leverage Case Management, pp. 31–42. Future Strategies Inc., New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stiehl, V.: Definition of process-driven applications. Process-Driven Applications with BPMN, pp. 13–41. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07218-0_2 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Great Britain Cabinet Office: ITIL Service Strategy 2011. Best Management Practices. TSO (The Stationery Office), London (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Great Britain Cabinet Office: ITIL Service Design 2011. Best Management Practices. TSO (The Stationery Office), London (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Great Britain Cabinet Office: ITIL Service Transition 2011. Best Management Practices. TSO (The Stationery Office), London (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Great Britain Cabinet Office: ITIL Service Operation 2011. Best Management Practices. TSO (The Stationery Office), London (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Great Britain Cabinet Office: ITIL Continual Service Improvement 2011. Best Management Practices. TSO (The Stationery Office), London (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Perspectives on reference modeling. In: Fettke, P., Loos, P. (eds.) Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, pp. 1–20. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tenschert, J., Michelson, G., Lenz, R.: Towards speech-act-based compliance. In: 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tenschert, J., Lenz, R.: Supporting knowledge work by speech-act based templates for micro processes. In: Reichert, M., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNBIP, vol. 256, pp. 78–89. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42887-1_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Austin, J.L.: How to do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ballmer, T.T., Brennenstuhl, W.: Speech Act Classification - A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Springer, Heidelberg (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67758-8 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-33149-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietz, J.L.G.: The deep structure of business processes. Commun. ACM 49(5), 58–64 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Nuffel, D., Mulder, H., Van Kervel, S.: Enhancing the formal foundations of BPMN by enterprise ontology. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO!/EOMAS -2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 115–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01915-9_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Decker, G., Barros, A.: Interaction modeling using BPMN. In: ter Hofstede, A., Benatallah, B., Paik, H.-Y. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4928, pp. 208–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78238-4_22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Auramäki, E., Lehtinen, E., Lyytinen, K.: A speech-act-based office modeling approach. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 6(2), 126–152 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alter, S.: System interaction patterns. In: 2016 IEEE 18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), vol. 1, pp. 16–25, August 2016Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 1994, pp. 456–463. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kimbrough, S.O., Moore, S.A.: On automated message processing in electronic commerce and work support systems: speech act theory and expressive felicity. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 15(4), 321–367 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schoop, M.: Habermas and searle in hospital: a description language for cooperative documentation systems in healthcare. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Communication Modeling - The Language/Action Perspective (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoop, M., Jertila, A., List, T.: Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl. Eng. 47(3), 371–401 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerke, K., Tamm, G.: Continuous quality improvement of IT processes based on reference models and process mining. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rohloff, M.: A reference process model for IT service management. In: Benbasat, I., Montazemi, A.R. (eds.) 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Looso, S., Goeken, M.: Application of best-practice reference models of IT governance. In: Alexander, P.M., Turpin, M., van Deventer, J.P. (eds.) 18th European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 1375–1388 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Francescomarino, C.D., Rospocher, M., Ghidini, C., Valerio, A.: The role of semantic annotations in business process modelling. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2014, pp. 181–189. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Tenschert
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jana-Rebecca Rehse
    • 2
  • Peter Fettke
    • 2
  • Richard Lenz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science 6 (Data Management)Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)ErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Information Systems (IWi)German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations