Advertisement

Goal Commitment and Competition as Drivers for Group Productivity in Business Process Modeling

  • Peter Rittgen
Chapter

Abstract

Computer support for collaborative modeling (or group modeling) has been an issue of research for two decades now. Early studies include Dean et al. (1994) and they found that a collaborative tool (basically a text editor) for the IDEF0 activity modeling language was able to reduce modeling time substantially by splitting large groups of more than 20 people into smaller teams each of which would work on a computer to elaborate a different chunk of a large model.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Araujo, R. M. d., & Borges, M. R. S. (2007). The Role of Collaborative Support to Promote Participation and Commitment in Software Development Teams. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 12(3), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandara, W., Gable, G. G., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Factors and measures of business process modeling: Model building through a multiple case study. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(4), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belton, V., Ackermann, F., & Shepherd, I. (1997). Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and V.I.S.A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(3), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommel, P. v., Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Proper, H. A. E., & Weide, T. P. v. d. (2006). Exploring modeling strategies in a meta-modeling context. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: Otm 2006 workshops - otm confederated international workshops and posters, awesome, cams, cominf, is, ksinbit, mios-ciao, monet, ontocontent, orm, persys, otm academy doctoral consortium, rdds, swws, and sebgis, proceedings (Vol. 4278, pp. 1128–1137). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, R. O. (1994). The Focus Theory of Group Productivity and its Application to the Design, Development, and Testing of Electronic Group Support Technology. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  6. Conklin, J., Selvin, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sierhuis, M. (2003). Facilitated Hypertext for Collective Sensemaking: 15 Years on from gIBIS. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling (LAP’03), Tilburg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  7. Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, Mine, and Ours: Facilitating Group Productivity through the Integration of Individual and Group Goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dean, D. L., Orwig, R. E., Lee, J. D., & Vogel, D. R. (1994). Modeling with a group modeling tool: Group support, model quality, and validation Information systems: Collaboration technology, organizational systems and technology, Proceedings of the 27th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 214–223). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dean, D. L., Orwig, R. E., & Vogel, D. R. (2000). Facilitation Methods for Collaborative Modeling Tools. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L. (1981). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: HealthGoogle Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2 (2), 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fjermestad, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2001). Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 115–159.Google Scholar
  14. Frederiks, P. J. M., & Weide, T. P. v. d. (2006). Information Modeling: the process and the required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammond, L. K., & Goldman, M. (1961). Competition and Non-Competition and its Relationship to Individual and Group Productivity. Sociometry, 24(1), 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003). Motivation Gains in Computer-Supported Groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(10), 2080–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, A. M., & Wright, P. M. (1989). Investigation of the Construct Validity of a Self-Report Measure of Goal Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 951–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Lindeman, L., & Proper, H. A. (2006). Capturing Modeling Processes - Towards the MoDial Modeling Laboratory. In R. Meersman, Z. Tari & P. Herrero (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2006: OTM 2006 Workshops - OTM Confederated International Workshops and Posters, AWESOMe, CAMS, COMINF, IS, KSinBIT, MIOS-CIAO, MONET, OnToContent, ORM, PerSys, OTM Academy Doctoral Consortium, RDDS, SWWS, and SebGIS, Proceedings, Part II, Montpellier, France (Vol. 4278, pp. 1242–1252). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A., Proper, H. A., & Weide, T. P. v. d. (2005). Formal Modeling as a Grounded Conversation. In G. Goldkuhl, M. Lind & S. Haraldson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on the Language Action Perspective on Communication Modeling (LAP`05), Kiruna, Sweden (pp. 139–155). Linköping and Borås: Linköpings Universitet and Högskolan i Borås.Google Scholar
  21. Karau, S. J., Markus, M. J., & Williams, K. D. (2000). On the Elusive Search for Motivation Gains in Groups: Insights from the Collective Effort Model Journal Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31(4), 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kemsley, S. (2010). Enterprise 2.0 Meets Business Process Management. In J. v. Brocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on Business Process Management 1 (pp. 565–574). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two Investigations of the Relationships among Group Goals, Goal Commitment, Cohesion, and Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krogstie, J. (1995). Conceptual Modeling for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations (PhD Thesis). Trondheim: Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Trondheim.Google Scholar
  26. Lind, M., & Seigerroth, U. (2010). Collaborative Process Modeling: The Intersport Case Study. In J. v. Brocke & M. Rosemann (Eds.), Handbook on Business Process Management 1 (pp. 279–298). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (60), 48–58.Google Scholar
  28. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A Review of the Influence of Group Goals on Group Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1285–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The Effects of Choice on Intrinsic Motivation and Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson, A. (2001). Enterprise Modeling in Practice: Situational Factors and their Influence on Adopting a Participative Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  31. Pritchard, R. D. (Ed.). (1995). Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  32. Puca, R.-M., & Schmalt, H.-D. (1999). Task enjoyment: A mediator between achievement motives and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 23(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reinig, B. A., & Shin, B. (2002). The Dynamic Effects of Group Systems Support on Group Meetings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 303–325.Google Scholar
  34. Rittgen, P. (2009). Self-organization of interorganizational process design. Electronic Markets, 19(4), 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rittgen, P. (2010a). Quality and perceived usefulness of process models. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing.Google Scholar
  36. Rittgen, P. (2010b). Success Factors of e-Collaboration in Business Process Modeling. In B. Pernici (Ed.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 22nd International Conference, CAiSE 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia, June 2010, Proceedings (Vol. LNCS 6051, pp. 24–37). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenbaum, M. E., Moore, D. L., Cotton, J. L., Cook, M. S., Hieser, R. A., Shovar, M. N., et al. (1980). Group productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 626–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. vom Brocke, J., & Thomas, O. (2006). Reference Modeling for Organizational Change: Applying Collaborative Techniques for Business Engineering Proceedings of the 12 th Americas Conference on Information Systems: Connecting the Americas, Acapulco, México, August 4–6, 2006 (pp. 680–688). Atlanta, Georgia, USA: AIS.Google Scholar
  40. Weingart, L. R. (2006). Impact of Group Goals, Task Component Complexity, Effort, and Planning on Group Performance. In J. M. Levine & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small Groups (pp. 309–326). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vlerick Leuven Gent Management SchoolGentBelgium
  2. 2.University of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations