Experiences of Using Different Communication Styles in Business Process Support Systems with the Shared Spaces Architecture

Bellinger²,

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

2011

Self Cite

Abstract. Selection of an enterprise modeling paradigm depends on the practical task the modeling project is trying to achieve. For example, modeling in the frame of Enterprise Architecture paradigm is, usually, aimed at alignment of the enterprise components, such as mission, vision, business processes, services and IT systems. Modeling in the frame of Business Process Management is aimed at process improvement/optimization, and modeling in the Systems Thinking paradigm is aimed at getting a holistic view on the dynamic behavior of the enterprise. This paper suggests a new approach to enterprise modeling that combine these approaches in order to reveal and improve enterprise agility. It is based on the systemic view of business processes, and it presents an enterprise as a three-layered model consisting of assets, sensors and business process instances. Elements of this model can be recursively decomposed, which allows for different levels of details when modeling an enterprise.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling an Agile Enterprise: Reconciling Systems and Process Thinking

Bellinger²,

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

2011

Self Cite

“…The company developed a tool for building Business Process Support (BPS) systems delivered as web-based services. The tool, called iPB [29], is based on the state-oriented view of business processes [30], and it employs the shared spaces technique for organizing communication/collaboration between process participants [31].…”

Section: Project One -Developing a New Process Modeling Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Just Finished a Cycle of a Design Science Research Project: What’s Next?

J. Complex Syst. Inform. Model. Q.

Johannesson

2020

The article is devoted to developing a methodological support for planning Design Science (DS) research projects. More exactly, it is aimed at developing a classification of a particular kind of cycles, inherent to DS research projects, and guidelines on how to choose the next cycle in a specific project. The classification and guidelines are based on results from an analysis of DS literature and a reflective analysis of our own research practice. As far as own research practice is concerned, two DS projects have been analyzed in detail. The analysis revealed that though both projects included cycles, the nature of these cycles was different. In the first project, cycles concerned finding a better problem to solve, while in the second project, cycles concerned finding a better solution for more or less the same problem. Both projects concern developing methodologies in the area of socio-technical systems, and the guidelines on how to choose the next cycle have special provisions related to such systems. In conclusion, the article presents examples of other projects that followed the suggested guidelines and discusses the difference of the suggested approach from other approaches to conduct DS research projects.

“… Other ways of structuring shared spaces.  Invitation techniques alongside the taxonomy suggested in [23]. The taxonomy introduces three dimensions to classify how invitation are issued: (1) issuing techniques (manual/automatic), (2) invitation scope (global/local), and (3) invitation instructiveness (non-instructive/instructive).…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Plans For The Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…* Shared space structuring concerns both shared space visualization and intra-space navigation introduced in Section 4.1. † For more detailed discussion of the issue of the invitation technique, see[23].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Structured Shared Spaces as a Basis for Building Business Process Support Systems: A Generic Model and Analysis of Examples

Johannesson

2018

CSIMQ

Self Cite

Though the concept of shared spaces had been known in Groupware and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) for quite a while, it did not become popular until the arrival of the Internet and social software. Implicitly, the concept of shared spaces has penetrated many IT-areas, including the area of Business Process Management. Though shared spaces are used in many systems and tools, like Google Drive and Projectplace, there is a lack of research investigating this usage in a generic way. The article aims to fill this gap by introducing a generic model of a Business Process Support (BPS) system based on shared space that supports the comparison, analysis and design of BPS systems. In addition, the article goes in more details on one design issue the structuring of shared spaces. This is done by analyzing and comparing two different BPS systems that exploit the concept of shared spaces, though implicitly. These systems use different approaches to shared space structuring. The first one organizes the information by grouping similar types of items without regard to the flow of activities in a business process, while the other organizes the information around groups of activities that are usually completed as a block. Which model to choose in a particular situation depends on the characteristics of the business process and its participants. In order to facilitate this choice, the article offers a number of guidelines derived from the experience of using the two BPS systems in practice. The article also discusses in what circumstances BPS systems with shared spaces are preferable to traditional workflow BPS systems.