The Integration of Collaborative Process Modeling and Electronic Brainstorming in Co-Located Meetings

Thomas Herrmann, Alexander Nolte

RUB

2

•Background and problem

•the case and derived requirements

•technical solution and employed procedure

•empirical results

Overview

RUB

3

The goal to be achieved

• The design of new processes or process parts requires creativity

• Modeling and ideation (e.g. Brainstorming) can – but do not necessarily – benefit from collaboration

“an idea or product that deserves the label ‘creative’ arises from the synergy of many sources and not only from the mind of a single person”

[Csikszentmihalyi, 1996]

Modeling and ideation have to be integrated in a way that supports a seamless transfer of brainstorming results in to the process diagram

RUB

4

Example of a typical process model

Case: electronic ordering and coordination of services for elderly people

RUB

5

Detail – SeeMe – Semi-structured, socio-technical Modeling

RUBCase: electronic ordering and

coordination of services

6

Customer

Service Agency

Checking of orders

communication

CoordinationQuality management

Improvement of services

Service Provider

Transferring dataelectronically

Forward bundledservice requests

Report andDocumentation

RUB

7

Detail – SeeMe – Semi-structured, socio-technical Modeling

Brainstorming support

should be organized in a

way that it immediately

contributes to process modeling

RUB

8

Limitations to be overcome

• Brainstorming tools and process modeling tools are mostly separated:– Most electronic brainstorming systems are text

based– Means for structuring - clustering, sorting, trees

(bubbl.us), mind mapping - are not aiming on process diagrams

• Creativity barriers: production blocking, evaluation apprehension, cognitive inertia, …

RUB

9

Requirement: Combination of various collaboration modesParticipants …• think in solitude about their possible contributions to the

teamwork (individual user-interface)• take inspirations into account by observing what others

are contributing (shared user-interface, large screen)• intensively take part in (facilitated) communication• work on the process model as shared material

[Herrmann, 2010: Support of collaborative Creativity …]

RUB

10

Types of Individual Brainstroming Contributions

Activity EntityRole Condition /Event

The participants can contribute simple process elements and their names

The need for differentiation between the types of elements may lead to production blockingA neutral element can be chosen

Benefit: notation elements can be easily combined to a process model by drag and dropProblem: short labels/names of notation elements can only be understood in the context of the process domain or of the process model as a whole

modifyingan order

evaluationform

relative bad weather

Confirma-tion call

RUB

11

Work with contributed items in facilitated group discussions

• Unclear labels are explained• Brainstorming items are clustered and/or sorted (by the

facilitator or chauffeur)• Process structures (nesting, relations) are drafted (and

completed after the workshop)

Problems: People cannot have the complete process in mind but need to jump between different areas or phases of the process Linear walkthrough and facilitation causes production

blocking

RUB

12

Solution

RUB

13

Cycles of experience and requirements gathering

1. Drafting new processes within the socio-technical walkthrough

too linear

2. Using card based brainstorming

time consuming transfer

3. Using electronic brainstorming

structures are not compatible – constant re-orientation of participants is required

Developing a new solution

RUB

14

Environment

WiFi-Network allows participants to use their own browser capable devices Low threshold

Interactive large screen

(4.8m x 1.2m)

RUB

15

Webinterface

Webinterface

• Quick and easy to use• Supports element types according to the modeling notation• Green tick indicates that the contribution is captured

Modeling tool on large screen

RUB

16

Modeling tool on large screen

• Integrates contributions directly into the model• Contributions appear as elements according to the

modeling notation• Supports awareness for others’ contributions

RUB

17

Procedure of the case study

• Starting with prepared high-level model which serves as a frame for the brainstorming

• Inviting domain and process experts• Start with a warm-up to get used to the technology• Procedure for each part of the model:

Brainstorming, Clustering, Order chronologically

RUB

18

Selected results – I

• Easy to use:

writing contributions did not interfere with ideation, people were not distracted by using the tool

11 participants contributed 129 brainstorming items in just 19 minutes

• Graphical elements vs. text-based brainstorming:

Gathering the contributions as graphical elements made the post-processing considerably easier

RUB

19

Selected results – II

• Participants should be able to change / enhance own contributions:

Trade-off between short element description, which can be dragged and dropped – and need for explanation

• Possible solution:

comments which

can be hidden

RUB

20

Selected results – III

• Production blocking avoided:

Participants can work in solitude and simultaneously

• Facilitator‘s interface at the large screen needs improvement:

clustering sorting, merging of contributions, elimination of redundancies, prepare brainstorming tables and prompts

• Process model as scaffold:

the already visible process structure and elements provides context and serves as an orientation

RUB

21

Future work

• Commenting on or deletion of own contributions• Several brainstorming tables in parallel• Sequentially providing several prompts for each

brainstorming table

Provide a web-based facilitator interface for the preparation of brainstorming tables and prompts

[cf. Briggs, R., de Vreede, G.J., 2009: ThinkLets…]• Enhancing simultaneous work on the large screen• Flexible transitions between brainstorming, clustering and

modeling• Clustering and transfer into the process model structure

RUB

22

Thank you for your kind attention

thomas.herrmann@iaw.rub.de

alexander.nolte@iaw.rub.de

www.imtm-iaw.rub.de

RUB

23

Examples for the integration brainstorming and modeling

• Usage of pre-specified modeling notation elements and / or transformation of neutral elements

• Process design by drag an drop from a brainstorming table

• Immediate insertion of contributions into existing super-elements

• Two levels:

short names of elements combined with comments