The document summarizes research on integrating collaborative process modeling and electronic brainstorming. It describes limitations of separate tools and proposes a solution using an interactive large screen and individual devices. Participants contribute process elements electronically and see contributions integrated into a shared process model in real-time. An empirical study found the approach supported easy contribution and post-processing without production blocking. Future work includes enhancing simultaneous modeling and flexible transitions between idea generation and structuring stages.

1. The Integration of Collaborative Process
Modeling and Electronic Brainstorming
in Co-Located Meetings
Thomas Herrmann, Alexander Nolte
1

2. Overview
RUB
• Background and problem
• the case and derived requirements
• technical solution and employed procedure
• empirical results
2

3. The goal to be achieved
RUB
• 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
3

4. Example of a typical
process model RUB
Case: electronic ordering and coordination of services for elderly people
4

5. Detail – SeeMe – Semi-structured,
socio-technical Modeling
RUB
5

6. Case: electronic ordering and
coordination of services RUB
Checking of
orders
Improvement
of services communication
Service
Forward bundled
Agency service requests
Transferring data Quality
Coordination
electronically management
Report and
Customer Documentation Service Provider
6

7. Detail – SeeMe – Semi-structured,
socio-technical Modeling
RUB
Brainstorming
support
should be
organized in a
way that it
immediately
contributes to
process
modeling
7

8. Limitations to be overcome
RUB
• 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,
…
8

9. Requirement: Combination of
various collaboration modes RUB
Participants …
• 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 …]
9

10. Types of Individual
Brainstroming Contributions RUB
The participants can contribute simple process elements and their names
modifying evaluation bad
Role
relative Activity
an order Entity Condition /
Event
form weather
The need for differentiation between the types of elements may lead to
production blocking Confirma-
A neutral element can be chosen tion call
Benefit: notation elements can be easily combined to a process model by
drag and drop
Problem: 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
10

11. Work with contributed items in
facilitated group discussions RUB
• 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
11

12. RUB
Solution
12

13. Cycles of experience and
requirements gathering RUB
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
13

14. Environment
RUB
Interactive large screen
(4.8m x 1.2m)
WiFi-Network allows participants to
use their own browser capable
devices  Low threshold
14

15. Webinterface
RUB
Webinterface Modeling tool on large
screen
• Quick and easy to use
• Supports element types according to the modeling notation
• Green tick indicates that the contribution is captured
15

16. Modeling tool on large
screen RUB
• Integrates contributions directly into the model
• Contributions appear as elements according to the
modeling notation
• Supports awareness for others’ contributions
16

17. Procedure of the case study
RUB
• 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
17

18. Selected results – I
RUB
• 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
18

19. Selected results – II
RUB
• 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
19

20. Selected results – III
RUB
• 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
20

21. Future work
RUB
• 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
21

22. RUB
Thank you for your kind attention
thomas.herrmann@iaw.rub.de
alexander.nolte@iaw.rub.de
www.imtm-iaw.rub.de
22