Research ArticleNo Access

XVSM Micro-Room Process Modeler

Eva Kühn

TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Argentinierstr. 8, 1040 Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author

Stefan Craß

TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Argentinierstr. 8, 1040 Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author

Johann Binder

TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Argentinierstr. 8, 1040 Vienna, Austria

Search for more papers by this author

and

Vesna Šešum-Čavić

Corresponding author.

TU Wien, Institute of Information Systems Engineering, Argentinierstr. 8, 1040 Vienna, Austria

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218843019500047Cited by:0

Abstract

Most of nowadays modeling tools for creating business processes in enterprises can be used by IT experts to semi-automatically create corresponding software artifacts of the given process. Unfortunately, these tools comprise a lot of complexity, and therefore, they are not usable by ordinary end users. In this paper, we propose a modeling tool for ad-hoc business processes with a comprehensible and simple user interface that is usable by end users to model their daily life workflows. Afterwards, a fully executable application can be created from the model automatically. Also, we introduce a notion of the so-called “micro-room concept”, which is used as a basis for the abstraction of the modeling tool. The created micro-room framework allows designing peer-to-peer applications based on configurable, shared data rooms. The evaluation and comparison analysis of the modeling tool itself and the underlying micro-room concept have been done by means of usability studies. The preliminary results show that the micro-room concept uses a more comprehensible abstraction compared to other modeling languages. It is well suited for modeling simple collaborative tasks whereas other approaches are better in case of very complex processes. Further, the developed modeling tool is more intuitive than the competing ones due to the simplifications allowed by using the micro-room concept.

Keywords:

References

1. J. Becker, M. Rosemann and C. von Uthmann , Guidelines of Business Process Modeling (Springer, Berlin, 2000), pp. 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3, https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45594-9_3. Crossref, Google Scholar
2. J. Mendling, H. Reijers and W. M. P. van der Aalst , Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg), Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2) (2010) 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.08.004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584909001268. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
3. G. Decker, R. Dijkman, M. Dumas and L. García-Bañuelos , The business process modeling notation, in Modern Business Process Automation, Chap. 13 (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 347–368, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03121-2_13. Crossref, Google Scholar
4. OASIS Web Services Business Process Execution Language (WSBPEL) TC. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, 2007. Available at: http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html. Google Scholar
5. C. Ouyang, M. Dumas, W. M. P. van der Aalst, A. H. M. ter Hofstede and J. Mendling , From business process models to process-oriented software systems, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(1) (2009) 2:1–2:37, https://doi.org/10.1145/1555392.1555395. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. A. I. T. Rowstron and P. Druschel , Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems, in IFIP/ACM Int. Conf. Distributed Systems Platforms, Middleware ’01, London, UK (Springer, Berlin, 2001), pp. 329–350. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. O. Babaoglu, H. Meling and A. Montresor , Anthill: A framework for the development of agent-based peer-to-peer systems, in 22nd Int. Conf. Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS’02), Washington, USA (IEEE, New York, 2002), pp. 15–21. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. T. Kawashima and J. Ma , TOMSCOP — A synchronous P2P collaboration platform over JXTA, in 24th Int. Conf. Distributed Computing Systems Workshops — W7: EC (ICDCSW’04), Washington, USA (IEEE, New York, 2004), pp. 85–90, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=977399.977832. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. J. Walkerdine, D. Hughes, P. Rayson, J. Simms, K. Gilleade, J. Mariani and I. Sommerville , A framework for P2P application development, Comput. Commun. 31(2) (2008) 387–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2007.08.004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2007.08.004. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. S. Craß, E. Kühn and G. Salzer , Algebraic foundation of a data model for an extensible space-based collaboration protocol, in 13th Int. Database Engineering & Applications Symp. (IDEAS) (ACM, New York, 2009), pp. 301–306. Google Scholar
11. E. Kühn, R. Mordinyi, L. Keszthelyi and C. Schreiber , Introducing the concept of customizable structured spaces for agent coordination in the production automation domain, in 8th Int. Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems — Vol. 1, AAMAS ’09 (International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, 2009), pp. 625–632, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1558013.1558100. Google Scholar
12. D. Gelernter , Generative communication in Linda, ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 7(1) (1985) 80–112. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
13. S. Craß, T. Dönz, G. Joskowicz and E. Kühn , A coordination-driven authorization framework for space containers, in 7th Int. Conf. Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) (IEEE, New York, 2012), pp. 133–142, https://doi.org/10.1109/ARES.2012.56. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. Object Management Group. OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Version 2.5, 2015. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/. Google Scholar
15. G. Reggio, M. Leotta, F. Ricca and E. Astesiano , Business process modelling: Five styles and a method to choose the most suitable one, in Second Edition of the International Workshop on Experiences and Empirical Studies in Software Modelling, EESSMod ’12 (ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 8:1–8:6, https://doi.org/10.1145/2424563.2424574, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2424563.2424574. Crossref, Google Scholar
16. W. Harrison, C. Barton and M. Raghavachari , Mapping UML designs to Java, in 15th ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA ’00 (ACM, New York, 2000), pp. 178–187, https://doi.org/10.1145/353171.353184, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/353171.353184. Crossref, Google Scholar
17. R. Gitzel and M. Schwind , Experiences with hierarchy-based code generation in the J2EE context, in 4th Int. Symp. Principles and Practice of Programming in Java, PPPJ ’06 (ACM, New York, 2006), pp. 216–223, https://doi.org/10.1145/1168054.1168087, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1168054.1168087. Crossref, Google Scholar
18. Object Management Group. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0.2, 2013. Available at: http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0.2/. Google Scholar
19. L. Zhao, K. Letsholo, E.-V. Chioasca, S. Sampaio and P. Sampaio , Can business process modeling bridge the gap between business and information systems? in 27th Annual ACM Symp. Applied Computing, SAC ’12 (ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 1723–1724, https://doi.org/10.1145/2245276.2232054. Crossref, Google Scholar
20. S. Brahe and K. Schmidt , The story of a working workflow management system, in Int. ACM Conf. Supporting Group Work, GROUP ’07 (ACM, New York, 2007), pp. 249–258, https://doi.org/10.1145/1316624.1316661. Crossref, Google Scholar
21. K. Göser, M. Jurisch, H. Acker, U. Kreher, M. Lauer, S. Rinderle, M. Reichert and P. Dadam , Next-generation process management with ADEPT2, in BPM Demonstration Program at the 5th Int. Conf. Business Process Management (BPM’07), Brisbane, Australia, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 272 (CEUR-WS.org, Aachen, Germany, 2007), 4 pp. online only at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-272/. Google Scholar
22. M. Reichert and P. Dadam , Enabling adaptive process-aware information systems with ADEPT2, in Handbook of Research on Business Process Modeling (IGI Global, 2009), pp. 173–203. Crossref, Google Scholar
23. J. Becker, D. Pfeiffer and M. Räckers , PICTURE — A new approach for domain-specific process modelling, in CAiSE’07 Forum at the 19th Int. Conf. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Trondheim, Norway (2007). Google Scholar
24. J. Becker, B. Weiß and A. Winkelmann , Developing a business process modeling language for the banking sector — A design science approach, in 15th Americas Conf. Information Systems (AMCIS, San Francisco, 2009), p. 709. Google Scholar
25. H. Holz, O. Rostanin, A. Dengel, T. Suzuki, K. Maeda and K. Kanasaki , Task-based process know-how reuse and proactive information delivery in tasknavigator, in 15th ACM Int. Conf. Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM ’06 (ACM, New York, 2006), pp. 522–531, https://doi.org/10.1145/1183614.1183689, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1183614.1183689. Crossref, Google Scholar
26. A. Wombacher and B. Mahleko , Finding trading partners to establish ad-hoc business processes, in OTM Confederated Int. Conf. on the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems (Springer, Berlin, 2002), pp. 339–355, https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36124-3_20, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-36124-3_20. Crossref, Google Scholar
27. T. Stoitsev, S. Scheidl and M. Spahn , A framework for light-weight composition and management of ad-hoc business processes, in 6th Int. Conf. Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design, TAMODIA’07 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007), pp. 213–226, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1782434.1782458. Crossref, Google Scholar
28. S. Dustdar, T. Hoffmann and W. van der Aalst , Mining of ad-hoc business processes with teamlog, Data Knowl. Eng. 55(2) (2005) 129–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2005.02.002, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2005.02.002. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
29. B. Weber, S. Rinderle, W. Wild and M. Reichert , Ccbr-driven business process evolution, in 6th Int. Conf. Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR), Chicago, USA (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 610–624. Crossref, Google Scholar
30. K. Sintoris and K. Vergidis , Extracting business process models using natural language processing (nlp) techniques, in 2017 IEEE 19th Conf. Business Informatics (CBI), Vol. 1 (IEEE, New York, 2017), pp. 135–139, https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2017.41. Crossref, Google Scholar
31. A. Koschmider, T. Caporale, M. Fellmann, J. Lehner and A. Oberweis , Business process modeling support by depictive and descriptive diagrams, in Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures, eds. J. KolbH. LeopoldJ. Mendling (Gesellschaft fr Informatik e.V., Bonn, 2015), pp. 31–44. Google Scholar
32. M. Riefer, S. F. Ternis and T. Thaler , Mining process models from natural language text: A state-of-the-art analysis, in Tagungsband der Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI-16), 9–11 March, Illmenau, Germany (Universität Illmenau, 2016), https://www.dfki.de/web/forschung/publikationen/renameFileForDownload?filename=RieferTernisThaler2016_Text2ModelMining.pdf&file_id=uploads_2848. Google Scholar
33. J. Schobel, R. Pryss, W. Schlee, T. Probst, D. Gebhardt, M. Schickler and M. Reichert , Development of mobile data collection applications by domain experts: Experimental results from a usability study, in 29th Int. Conf. Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2017), No. 10253 in LNCS (Springer, Cham, 2017), pp. 60–75, http://dbis.eprints.uni-ulm.de/1479/. Crossref, Google Scholar
34. A. Front, D. Rieu and M. Santórum , A participative end-user modeling approach for business process requirements, in Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. BPMDS 2014, EMMSAD 2014, eds. I. Bideret al., Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 175 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2014), pp. 33–47. Crossref, Google Scholar
35. P. Antunes, D. Simíes, L. Carriço and J. A. Pino , An end-user approach to business process modeling, J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 36(6) (2013) 1466–1479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2013.03.014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2013.03.014. Crossref, Google Scholar
36. J.-P. Lombardi and J. Vogel , Wizard-based process modeling for business users, in Int. Conf. Advanced Visual Interfaces, AVI ’10 (ACM, New York, 2010), pp. 406–406, https://doi.org/10.1145/1842993.1843085. Crossref, Google Scholar
37. I. Weber, H.-Y. Paik and B. Benatallah , Form-based web service composition for domain experts, ACM Trans. Web 8(1) (2013) 2:1–2:40, https://doi.org/10.1145/2542168, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2542168. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
38. M. A. Talib, Z. Yang and Q. M. Ilyas , A framework towards web services composition modeling and execution, in IEEE EEE05 Int. Workshop on Business Services Networks, BSN ’05 (IEEE Press, Piscataway, 2005), p. 4. Google Scholar
39. T. Stoitsev, S. Scheidl, F. Flentge and M. Mühlhäuser , From personal task management to end-user driven business process modeling, in Int. Conf. Business Process Management, eds. M. DumasM. ReichertM.-C. Shan, Vol. 5240, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 84–99, http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/bpm/bpm2008.html#StoitsevSFM08. Google Scholar
40. S. Meyer, K. Sperner, C. Magerkurth and J. Pasquier , Towards modeling real-world aware business processes, in 2nd Int. Workshop on Web of Things, WoT ’11 (ACM, New York, 2011), pp. 8:1–8:6, https://doi.org/10.1145/1993966.1993978, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1993966.1993978. Crossref, Google Scholar
41. J. Münch, O. Armbrust, M. Kowalczyk and M. Soto , Software Process Definition and Management (Springer, Berlin, 2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
42. S. Craß, T. Dönz, G. Joskowicz, E. Kühn and A. Marek , Securing a space-based service architecture with coordination-driven access control, J. Wirel. Mob. Netw. Ubiquit. Comput. Dependable Appl. 4(1) (2013) 76–97. Google Scholar
43. J. Gray and L. Lamport , Consensus on transaction commit, ACM Trans. Database Syst. 31(1) (2006) 133–160. Crossref, Google Scholar
44. P. Jordan, Selection of an appropriate usability evaluation method, Project, Department of Design Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (2008). Google Scholar
45. Deutsches Institut für Normung, DIN EN ISO 9241-110, Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 110: Dialogue principles (ISO 9241-110:2006); German version EN ISO 9241-110:2006, https://www.din.de/de/mitwirken/normenausschuesse/naerg/normen/wdc-beuth:din21:110514174. Google Scholar
46. J. Prümper , Der Benutzungsfragebogen ISONORM 9241/10: Ergebnisse zur Reliabilitt und Validität, in Software-Ergonomie ’97, R. LiskowskyB. M. VelichkovskyW. Wünschmann (eds.), Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM, Vol. 49, pp. 253–262, Vieweg $+$ Teubner Verlag (Stuttgart), https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-322-86782-7_21. Google Scholar
47. G. Gediga , The IsoMetrics usability inventory: An operationalization of ISO 9241-10 supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems, Behav. Inf. Technol. 18(3) (1999) 151–164, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tbit/1999/00000018/00000003/art00002. Crossref, Google Scholar
48. K. Hamborg , Gestaltungsunterstützende Evaluation von Software: Zur Effektivität und Effizienz des IsoMetricsL Verfahrens, in Mensch & Computer 2002, M. HerczegW. PrinzH. Oberquelle (eds). Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM, Vol. 56. Vieweg $+$ Teubner Verlag (Stuttgart/Leipzig/Wiesbaden), https://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-322-89884-5_31. Google Scholar
49. G. Gediga, K. Hamborg and H. Willumeit , The IsoMetrics Manual (Osnabrücker Schriftenreihe Software-Ergonomie Nr. 7), Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften (1998), pp. 73–84. Google Scholar

Published: 1 July 2019

Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles in IJCIS!

Check out these titles in digital security!

Vol. 28, No. 02

Metrics

Downloaded 9 times

History

Accepted 24 May 2019

Keywords

PDF download

System Upgrade on Tuesday, March 30th, 2021 at 2am (ET)

XVSM Micro-Room Process Modeler

Abstract

References

Recommended