Advertisement

A Qualitative Research Approach to Obtain Insight in Business Process Modelling Methods in Practice

  • Céline Décosse
  • Wolfgang A. Molnar
  • Henderik A. Proper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 165)

Abstract

In this paper we are concerned with the development of an observational research approach to gain insights into the performance of Business Process Modelling Methods (BPMMs) in practice. In developing this observational approach, we have adopted an interpretive research approach. More specifically, this involved the design of a questionnaire to conduct semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative research data about the performance of BPMMs. Since a BPMM is a designed artefact, we also investigated Design Science Research literature to identify criteria to appreciate the performance of BPMMs in practice. As a result, the questionnaire that was used to guide the interview is based on a subset of criteria of progress for information systems theories, while the observational research approach we adopted involves the collection of qualitative data from multiple stakeholder types. As a next step, the resulting questionnaire was used to evaluate the performance an actual BPMM in practical use; the DEMO method. Though the analysis of the collected qualitative data of the DEMO case has not been fully performed yet, we already foresee that part of the information we collected provides new insights compared to existing studies about DEMO, as is the fact that a variety of types of stakeholders have been approached to observe the use of DEMO.

Keywords

enterprise modelling in practice information systems method evaluation criteria qualitative research approach 

References

  1. 1.
    Dias, D.G., Lapão, L.V., Mira da Silva, M.: Using enterprise ontology for improving emergency management in hospitals. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 180, 58–62 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dias, D.G., Mendes, C., Mira da Silva, M.: Using Enterprise Ontology for Improving the National Health System-Demonstrated in the Case of a Pharmacy and an Emergency Department. In: Filipe, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development (KEOD 2012), pp. 441–451. SciTePress, Barcelona (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dias, D.G., Mira da Silva, M., Helfert, M., Shuyan, X.: Using Enterprise Ontology Methodology to Assess the Quality of Information Exchange Demonstrated in the case of Emergency Medical Service. In: Proceedings of the 18th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2012), pp. 1–11. Association for Information Systems, Seattle (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerreiro, S., Vasconcelos, A., Tribolet, J.: Enterprise dynamic systems control enforcement of run-time business transactions - Lecture notes. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 46–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maij, E., Toussaint, P.J., Kalshoven, M., Poerschke, M., Zwetsloot-Schonk, J.H.M.: Use cases and DEMO: aligning functional features of ICT-infrastructure to business processes. International Journal of Medical Informatics 65, 179–191 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henriques, M., Tribolet, J., Hoogervorst, J.: Enterprise Governance and DEMO - Guiding enterprise design and operation by addressing DEMO’s competence, authority and responsibility notions, 473–476 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pombinho, J., Aveiro, D., Tribolet, J.: Towards Objective Business Modeling in Enterprise Engineering–Defining Function, Value and Purpose. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Op ’t Land, M., Zwitzer, H., Ensink, P., Lebel, Q.: Towards a fast enterprise ontology based method for post merger integration. In: Shin, S.Y., Ossowski, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2009), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 245–252 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagayoshi, S., Liu, Y., Iijima, J.: A study of the patterns for reducing exceptions and improving business process flexibility. In: Albani, A., Aveiro, D., Barjis, J. (eds.) EEWC 2012. LNBIP, vol. 110, pp. 61–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barjis, J.: A business process modeling and simulation method using DEMO. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2007. LNBIP, vol. 12, pp. 254–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumay, M., Dietz, J.L.G., Mulder, J.B.F.: Evaluation of DEMO and the Language / Action Perspective after 10 years of experience. In: The Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, Kiruna, Sweden, pp. 77–105 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Enterprise Engineering Institute website, http://www.demo.nl/publications
  13. 13.
    Winter, R.: Design science research in Europe. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 470–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aier, S., Fischer, C.: Criteria of progress for information systems design theories. Information Systems and e-Business Management 9, 133–172 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Method Engineering: Theory and Practice. In: Karagiannis, D., Mayr, H.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems Technology and Its Applications, ISTA 2006, Klagenfurt, Austria. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), p. 84 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mettler, T., Rohner, P.: Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2009), p. 1. ACM Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kensing, F.: Towards Evaluation of Methods for Property Determination: A Framework and a Critique of the Yourdon-DeMarco Approach. In: Beyond Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organizational Effectiveness, pp. 325–338 (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seligmann, P.S., Wijers, G.M., Sol, H.G.: Analyzing the structure of IS methodologies, an alternative approach. In: Maes, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the First Dutch Conference on Information Systems, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, pp. 1–28 (1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.G.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rescher, N.: Methodological pragmatism: A systems-theoretic approach to the theory of knowledge. Blackwell, Oxford (1977)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moody, D.L.: The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods. In: Ivan (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2003), Naples, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hommes, B.-J., van Reijswoud, V.E.: Assessing the quality of business process modelling techniques. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2000), pp. 1–10 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weigand, H.: LAP: 10 years in retrospect. In: The Language Action Perspective on Communication Modelling, Kiruna, Sweden, June 19-20, pp. 1–8 (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khavas, S.S.: The Adoption of DEMO in Practice - Dissertation for a Master of Science in Computer Science (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winter, R., Gericke, A., Bucher, T.: Method versus model – two sides of the same coin? In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huysmans, P., Ven, K., Verelst, J.: Using the DEMO methodology for modeling open source software development processes. Information and Software Technology 52, 656–671 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ven, K., Verelst, J.: The adoption of DEMO: A research agenda. In: Albani, A., Barjis, J., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) CIAO! 2009. LNBIP, vol. 34, pp. 157–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mingers, J., Brocklesby, J.: Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25, 489–509 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Myers, M.D.: Qualitative research in information systems 21(2), 241–242 (June 1997), MISQ Discovery, archival version: http://www.misq.org/supplements/; Association for Information Systems (AISWorld) Section on Qualitative Research in Information Systems, updated version: www.qual.auckland.ac.nz (last modified March 21, 2013)
  30. 30.
    Walsham, G.: Interpreting information systems in organizations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walsham, G.: The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research. Information Systems Research 6, 376–394 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myers, M.D., Newman, M.: The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization 17, 2–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S.: Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aier, S., Fischer, C.: Scientific Progress of Design Research Artefacts. In: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research 28, 75–104 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gregor, S., Jones, D.: The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, 312–335 (2007)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., Kuechler, B. (eds.) DESRIST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7286, pp. 423–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Venable, J.R.: Identifying and Addressing Stakeholder Interests in Design Science Research: An Analysis Using Critical Systems Heuristics. Information Systems–Creativity and Innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises, 93–112 (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Aier, S., Fischer, C., Winter, R.: Theoretical Stability of Information Systems Design Theory Evaluations Based upon Habermas’s Discourse Theory. A Journal on the Theory of Ordered Sets and Its Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design science as nested problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), p. 8 (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vavpotic, D., Bajec, M.: An approach for concurrent evaluation of technical and social aspects of software development methodologies. Information and Software Technology 51, 528–545 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Céline Décosse
    • 1
  • Wolfgang A. Molnar
    • 1
  • Henderik A. Proper
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Public Research Center Henri TudorLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations