İşbirlikli İş Süreç Modelleme Faaliyetlerini Destekleyen İki Bilgisayar Destekli İşbirlikli Çalışma Sisteminin Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, bilgisayar destekli iş birlikli iş süreçleri modelleme cBPM etkinliklerinin çevrimiçi olarak desteklenmesi sürecinde kısıtlamalar ve kolaylıkları ortaya koymak amacıyla farklı Bilgisayar Destekli İşbirliği Çalışma CSCW ortamlarının karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla, etkileşim tasarım özellikleri açısından farklılık gösteren iki CSCW sistemi ile ortak çalışmayı destekleyen iki durum çalışması yürütülmüştür. Katılımcıların dikkatlerini cBPM görevleri sırasında paylaşılan çalışma alanına nasıl odakladıklarını gözlemlemek için ikili göz izleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar tarafından sohbet mesajları ile gönderilen iletişimsel içerik ve paylaşılan çalışma alanındaki aktiviteler üzerinde koordinasyon, iletişim, farkındalık, grup olarak karar verebilme ve takım oluşturma boyutları ışığında bir etkileşim analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Etkileşim analizi, sistem tasarımlarının katılımcıların performansını ve etkileşim kalitesini cBPM boyunca önemli ölçüde etkilediğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, farklı etkileşim tasarım metodolojilerinin İş Süreçleri Modelleme BP Modelleme aşamaları olan ortaya çıkarma, biçimlendirme, geçerleme ve doğrulama üzerine etkilerini belirlemek için bir içerik analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sistemlerin etkileşim tasarım özelliklerinin, BP Modelleme aşamalarının organizasyonunu önemli ölçüde etkilediği bulunmuştur. Bulgulara dayanarak, cBPM uygulamalarında işbirliği etkinliğini artırmak için bazı tasarım önerileri yapılmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarının, sistem tasarımcılarının etkin bir eş zamanlı cBPM aracı tasarlamaları ve son kullanıcıların eş zamanlı cBPM uygulamaları için sistem seçimlerinde bir kılavuz görevi görmesi beklenmektedir.

Keywords

• İş süreci modelleme
• iş birlikli iş süreci modelleme
• bilgisayar destekli modelleme
• grup etkileşimi

A Comparative Evaluation of Two Computer Supported Collaborative Work Systems for Supporting Collaborative Business Process Modeling Activities

Abstract

In this study, a comparative evaluation of different Computer-Supported Collaborative Work CSCW environments was conducted to reveal their constraints and affordances for supporting synchronous collaborative business process modeling cBPM activities online. For this purpose, two case studies were carried out with two CSCW systems that differ in terms of their interaction design features for supporting joint work. The dual-eye tracking method was employed to monitor how the participants focused their attention on the shared workspace during cBPM tasks. An interaction analysis was performed on the communicational content exchanged by the participants in chat messages and activities performed on the shared working area in light of the coordination, communication, awareness, group decision-making and team-building aspects of collaboration. The interaction analysis suggested that the design of the systems significantly affected the participants’ performance and the interaction quality throughout cBPM. In addition, a content analysis was conducted to determine the effects of different interaction design methodologies on the formation of the Business Process Modeling BP Modeling phases namely elicitation, formalization, validation and verification. The interaction design features of the systems were found to significantly affect the organization of the BP Modeling phases. Based on the findings, some design suggestions were made to enhance the efficiency of collaboration in cBPM practices. It is expected that the results of the study will serve as a guideline for system designers in designing an effective synchronous cBPM tool, and for end users in choosing a system for their synchronous cBPM practices.

Keywords

• Business process modeling
• collaborative business process modeling
• computer supported modeling
• group interaction

References

1. Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 159-190. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9018-0
2. Bannon, L. & Schmidt, K. (1989). CSCW: Four characters in search of a context. In Proceedings of the first European conference on computer support for cooperative work (ECSCW ‘89) (pp. 358- 372). Gatwick, London. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=117731
3. Basheri, M. (2010). Collaborative learning of UML-State diagrams using multi-touch technology. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=1- 0.1.1.454.4993&rep=rep1&type=pdf
4. Cherry, S., & Robillard, P. N. (2008). The social side of software engineering—A real ad hoc collaboration network. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 495-505. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.01.002
5. Davis, R., & Brabänder, E. (2007). ARIS design platform: getting started with BPM. London: SpringerVerlag.
6. Dollmann, T., Houy, C., Fettke, P., & Loos, P. (2011). Collaborative business process modeling with comomod-a toolkit for model integration in distributed cooperation environments. In Reddy S, Tata S (eds) Proceedings of the 20th IEEE international conference on collaboration technologies and infrastructures. IEEE international workshops on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (WETICE-2011) (pp. 217-222). Paris. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5990030/
7. Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the ACM CSCW Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 107-114). Toronto, Ontario, Newyork: ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=143468
8. Forster, S., Pinggera, J., & Weber, B. (2013). Toward an Understanding of the Collaborative Process of Process Modeling. InProceedings of CAiSE Forum (pp.98-105). Valencia, Spain. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-998/Paper13.pdf

9. Frederiks, P. J., & Van der Weide, T. P. (2006). Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(1), 4-20. doi: 10.1007/978- 3-540-27779-8_11
10. Garcia, A. C., & Baker Jacobs, J. (1999). The eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication. Research on language and social interaction, 32(4), 337-367. doi: 10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2
11. Hogrebe, F., Gehrke, N., & Nüttgens, M. (2011). Eye Tracking Experiments in Business Process Modeling: Agenda Setting and Proof of Concept. In Proceedings of EMISA (pp.183-188). Hamburg, Germany. Retrieved from http://dblp2.uni-trier.de/db/conf/emisa/emisa2011.html
12. Hoppenbrouwers, S., Proper, H. E., & van der Weide, T. P. (2005). A fundamental view on the process of conceptual modeling. In Proceedings of Conceptual Modeling–ER 2005 (pp. 128-143). Austria: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11568322_9
13. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 26(1), 87-119. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=174668
14. Mauser, S., Bergenthum, R., Desel, J., & Klett, A. (2009). An Approach to Business Process Modeling Emphasizing the Early Design Phases. In Proceedings of the 16th German Workshop on Algorithms and Tools for Petri Nets (AWPN2009) (pp. 41-56). Karlsruhe, Germany. Retireved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-501/Paper6.pdf
15. Mendling, J., Recker, J. C., & Wolf, J. (2012). Collaboration features in current BPM tools. EMISA Forum, 32(1), 48-65. Retrieved from http://bpm.q-e.at/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/CollaborativeBusinessProcessModeling.pdf
16. Petrusel, R., & Mendling, J. (2013). Eye-tracking the factors of process model comprehension tasks. In Proocedings of International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering CAiSE’13 (pp. 224-239). Valencia, Spain: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-38709-8_15
17. Pinggera, J., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P., Reiter, K., Zugal, S., & Weber, B. (2013). Investigating the process of process modeling with eye movement analysis. In Proocedings of Business Process Management Workshops (pp.438-450). Tallinn, Estonia, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-36285-9_46
18. Riemer, K., Holler, J., & Indulska, M. (2011). Collaborative process modelling-tool analysis and design implications. In Proceedings of ECIS (pp. 39-45). Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=ecis2011
19. Rittgen, P. (2010). Success factors of e-collaboration in business process modeling. In Proceedings of Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE2010) (pp. 24-37). Hammamet, Tunisia,Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642- 13094-6_4
20. Roser, S., & Bauer, B. (2005). A categorization of collaborative business process modeling techniques. In Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology Workshops (pp. 43-51). Munich, Germany. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1521009/
21. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540-547. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288457
22. Software AG. (2012). ARISalign space. Retrieved August 2012, from http://www.arisalign.com/. Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.
23. Stahl, G., Zemel, A., Sarmiento, J., Cakir, M., Weimar, S., Wessner, M., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2006). Shared referencing of mathematical objects in online chat. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 716-722). Bloomington. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150138&CFID=693512810&CFTOKEN=28650001
24. Strijbos, J.-W. (2009). A multidimensional coding scheme for VMT Studying virtual math teams. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Studying virtual math teams (pp. 399–419). Boston: Springer.
25. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430
26. Weske, M. (2007). Business process management: concepts, languages, architectures. Springer, Heidelberg.
27. Woods, D, and Fassnacht, C. (2007). Transana v2.20. In Madison, WI: The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved from http://www.transana.org.
28. Zemel, A. (2005). Texts-in-interaction: Collaborative problem-solving in quasi-synchronous computermediated communication. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years! (pp. 753-757). Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1149392&CFID=693512810&CFTOKEN=28650001
29. Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Cakir, M. (2007). What's in the mix? Combining coding and conversation analysis to investigate chat-based problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 405-415. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.006