Advertisement

Tangible Media in Process Modeling – A Controlled Experiment

  • Alexander Luebbe
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6741)

Abstract

In current practice, business processes modeling is done by trained method experts. Domain experts are interviewed to elicit their process information but typically not involved in actual modeling. We created a tangible toolkit for process modeling to be used with domain experts. We hypothesize that it results in more effective process elicitation.

This paper assesses nine aspects related to ”effective elicitation” in a controlled experiment using questionnaires and video analysis. We compare our approach to structured interviews in a repeated measurement design. Subjects were 17 student clerks from a trade school.

We conclude that tangible modeling leads to more effective elicitation through activation of participants and validation of results. In particular, subjects take more time to think about their process and apply more corrections to it. They also report to get insights into process modeling.

Keywords

process elicitation tangible media controlled experiment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Byrd, T., Cossick, K., Zmud, R.: A synthesis of research on requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition techniques. MIS Quarterly, 117–138 (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper, D., Schindler, P.: Business Research Methods, 10th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Creswell, J.W.: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Pubns, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    van Dongen, B., van der Aalst, W., Verbeek, H.: Verification of ePCs: Using reduction rules and petri nets. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 372–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Field, A.: Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frederiks, P.J.M., Van der Weide, T.P.: Information modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(1), 4–20 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosskopf, A., Weske, M.: On business process model reviews. In: CAiSE 2010, pp. 31–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammer, M., Champy, J.: Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. Collins Business (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holschke, O., Rake, J., Levina, O.: Granularity as a cognitive factor in the effectiveness of business process model reuse. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2009. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 245–260. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: SIGCHI, pp. 234–241. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jedlitschka, A., Ciolkowski, M., Pfahl, D.: Reporting experiments in software engineering. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, 201–228 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kirk, J., Miller, M.: Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Landis, J., Koch, G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luebbe, A., Weske, M.: The effect of tangible media on individuals in business process modeling - a controlled experiment. Tech. Rep. 41, Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT Systems Engineering (2010), http://bpt.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/Public/AlexanderGrosskopf
  16. 16.
    Persson, A.: Enterprise modelling in practice: situational factors and their influence on adopting a participative approach. Ph.D. thesis, Stockholm University (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Recker, J., Rosemann, M.: The measurement of perceived ontological deficiencies of conceptual modeling grammars. Data & Knowledge Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rittgen, P.: Success factors of e-collaboration in business process modeling. In: Pernici, B. (ed.) CAiSE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6051, pp. 24–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., Bakker, A.: The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies 3(1), 71–92 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schneider, K.: Generating Fast Feedback in Requirements Elicitation. In: Sawyer, P., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sedera, W., Gable, G., Rosemann, M., Smyth, R.: A success model for business process modeling: findings from a multiple case study. In: PACIS, Shanghai (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevenson, A.: Oxford Dictionary of English, vol. 24. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stirna, J., Persson, A., Sandkuhl, K.: Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 546–560. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Wild, W.: Handling events during business process execution: An empirical test. In: ER-POIS at CAISE, pp. 19–30 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Springer, Netherlands (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xie, L., Antle, A.N., Motamedi, N.: Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of TEI, pp. 191–198. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Luebbe
    • 1
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations