Expert-Sided Workflow Data Acquisition by Means of an Interactive Interview System

  • Daniel Ley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6776)


This paper outlines an approach for gathering workflow data via an interactive interview system. By means of this approach, data acquisition for a subsequent task and/or process analysis is conducted by a process expert instead of a process analyst as customary in application of conventional data acquisition methods. Beside other problems concerning existing techniques, this may solve the dilemma of a lacking common basis between expert and analyst in terms of process knowledge and process thinking.

A classification method is described which allows a definition of processes acquirable by the system. Furthermore, a procedure for decomposing processes is used to gather workflow data in a systematic way. During system application, feedback by sub-process models directs experts to process thinking while system records impart process knowledge for the analyst. The applicability of this approach is shown by results of a first system evaluation. Advantages and disadvantages in relation to common data acquisition methods are stated.


Data Acquisition Method Process Analysis Task Analysis Interview System Process Thinking Process Knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Havey, M.: Essential Business Process Modeling. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    White, S.A., Miers, D.: BPMN Modeling and Reference Guide: Understanding and Using BPMN. Future Strategies Inc. (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burge, J.E.: Knowledge Elicitation for Design Task Sequencing Knowledge, Thesis (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirwan, B., Ainsworth, L.K.: A Guide to Task Analysis. Taylor & Francis, London (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lindgaard, G.: Usability Testing and System Evaluation. A guide for designing useful computer systems. Chapman & Hall, London (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P.: Human Factors Methods. A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. Ashgate (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Annett, J.: Hierarchical Task Analysis. In: Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 67–82. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: Process Model Abstraction: A Slider Approach. In: Proc. International IEEE EDOC 2008. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polyvyanyy, A., Smirnov, S., Weske, M.: On Application of Structural Decomposition for Process Model Abstraction. In: Proc. 2nd International Conference on Business Process and Services Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smirnov, S.: Structural Aspects of Business Process Diagram Abstraction. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OMG Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN): Specification, Version 1.2, 2009-01-03. OMG (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 3(8), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasmussen, J.: Skills, Rules, Knowledge, Signals, Signs and Symbols and other Distinctions. Human Performance Models. IEEE Transactions on Man, Systems and Cybernetics SMC-13(3), 257–266 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A.M., Goodstein, L.P.: Cognitive Systems Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 139–183. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Prümper, J., Anft, M.: ISONORM 9241/10, Beurteilungsbogen auf Grundlage der Internationalen Ergonomie-Norm ISO 9241/10. Büro für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Ley
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for CommunicationInformation Processing and Ergonomics FKIEWachtbergGermany

Personalised recommendations