Abstract
Collaboration of stakeholders to contribute to process analysis and design is a common practice in organizations to achieve better results. However, while it has been acknowledged that for stakeholders being able to directly influence design not only makes for better results but also increases their motivation, stakeholders are mostly limited to providing information and leave the design for process analysts or consultants. Furthermore, stakeholders are only involved when process analysts ask them to contribute. Consequently, stakeholders are cut off from many activities that shape the resulting process analysis and design. To overcome this problem, we propose a twofold approach: Firstly, we provide a socio-technical concept that increases – in comparison to existing approaches –opportunities for stakeholders to participate in process analysis and design. Secondly, we propose a mix of methods to evaluate the quality of participatory modeling that allows for evaluating stakeholders’ inclusion and support deriving suggestions for cyclic improvement of the concept.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Design” in this context refers to newly designing a business process as well as re-designing an existing one.
- 2.
It should be noted that the statements by the participants were translated as the study was conducted in Germany and the participant subsequently communicated in German.
References
Armitt G et al (2002) The development of deep learning during a synchronous collaborative on-line course. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 151–159
Bandara W (2007) Process modelling success factors and measures. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Baroudi JJ et al (1986) An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Commun ACM 29(3):232–238
Bratteteig T et al (2012) Organising principles and general guidelines for Participatory Design Projects. In: Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, New York, p 117
Brush A et al (2002) Supporting interaction outside of class: anchored discussions vs. discussion boards. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: foundations for a CSCL community. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 425–434
Creswell JW (2013) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Los Angeles
Davis JR, Huttenlocher DP (1995) Shared annotation for cooperative learning. In: The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning. Erlbaum Associates, pp 84–88
Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(3):497–509
Dumas M et al (2013) Fundamentals of business process management. Springer/Berlin, Germany
Fischer G, Herrmann T (2011) Socio-technical systems: a meta-design perspective. Int J Sociotechnol Knowl Dev (IJSKD) 3(1):1–33
Greenbaum J, Kyng M (1992) Introduction: situated design. In: Greenbaum J, Kyng M (eds) Design at work. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, pp 1–24.
Gruhn V, Laue R (2006) Complexity metrics for business process models. In: 9th international conference on business information systems (BIS 2006). Springer, pp 1–12
den Hengst M, de Vreede GJD (2004) Collaborative business engineering: a decade of lessons from the field. J Manag Inf Syst 20(4):85–114
Herrmann T et al (2000) Intertwining training and participatory design for the development of groupware applications. In: PDC, pp 106–115
Herrmann T et al (2004) Socio-technical walkthrough: designing technology along work processes. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on participatory design. ACM, pp 132–141
Herrmann T (2009) Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. In: Whitworth B, de Moore A (eds) Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 336–351
Herrmann T, Hoffmann M (2005) The metamorphoses of workflow projects in their early stages. Comput Supported Coop Work 14(5):399–432
Herrmann T, Kienle A (2008) Context-oriented communication and the design of computer supported discursive learning. Int J Comput Supported Collab Learn 3(3):273–299
Hoppenbrouwers S et al (2010) Towards games for knowledge acquisition and modeling. Int J Gaming Comput Mediated Simul, Spec Issue AI Games 2(4):48–66
Hoppenbrouwers SJBA, van Stokkum W (2011) Towards combining thinkLets and dialogue games in collaborative modeling: an explorative case. In: Nolte A et al (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on collaborative usage and development of models and visualizations at the ECSCW 2011 (CollabViz 2011). CEUR-WS, pp 11–18
Kensing F et al (1998) MUST: a method for participatory design. Hum Comput Interact 13(2):167–198
Krogstie J et al (2006) Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. Eur J Inf Syst 15(1):91–102
Lee Y (2006) Design participation tactics: redefining user participation design. In: Design research society international conference
Lindsay C (2003) Involving people as co-creators. In: Aarts E, Marzano S (eds) The new everyday: views on ambient intelligence. 010 Publishers, pp 38–41
Loser K-U, Herrmann T (2002) Enabling factors for participatory design of socio-technical systems with diagrams. In: PDC, pp 114–123
Marshall CC (1997) Annotation: from paper books to the digital library. In: Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on digital libraries. ACM, pp 131–140
Mendling J et al (2012) Factors of process model comprehension—findings from a series of experiments. Decis Support Syst 53(1):195–206
Mendling J et al (2007) What makes process models understandable? In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Business process management. Springer, pp 48–63
Nielsen J (1994) Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: CHI’94: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 152–158
Nolte A, Prilla M (2013) Anyone can use models: potentials, requirements and support for non-expert model interaction. Int J E-Collaboration. Special issue on Collaborative usage and development of models. 9:45–60
Prilla M, Nolte A (2012) Integrating ordinary users into process management: towards implementing bottom-up, people-centric BPM. In: Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling, LNBIP 113. Springer, pp 182–194
Rittgen P (2008) COMA: a tool for collaborative modeling. In: CAiSE’08 forum. CEUR-WS, pp 61–64
Ssebuggwawo D et al (2010) Assessing collaborative modeling quality through modeling artifacts. In: Proceedings of the third IFIP WG 8.1 working conference on the practice of enterprise modeling (PoEM 2010). Springer
Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Gasser L, Huhns MH (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, pp 37–54
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nolte, A., Herrmann, T. (2016). Facilitating Participation of Stakeholders During Process Analysis and Design. In: De Angeli, A., Bannon, L., Marti, P., Bordin, S. (eds) COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 23-27 May 2016, Trento, Italy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33464-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33463-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33464-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)