=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1859/bpmds-04-paper
|storemode=property
|title=Defining Auto-Adaptive Modeling Interfaces Based on Stakeholder Proximity
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1859/bpmds-04-paper.pdf
|volume=Vol-1859
|authors=Alexander Nolte,Jens Gulden
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/emisa/NolteG17
}}
==Defining Auto-Adaptive Modeling Interfaces Based on Stakeholder Proximity==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1859/bpmds-04-paper.pdf
Defining Auto-Adaptive Modeling Interfaces
based on Stakeholder Proximity
Alexander Nolte1 and Jens Gulden2
1
University of Pittsburgh
135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
anolte@pitt.edu
2
University of Duisburg-Essen
Universitätsstr. 9, 45141 Essen, Germany
jens.gulden@uni-due.de
Abstract. Collaboratively analyzing complex business processes using
graphical modeling notations such as BPMN, EPC and others can be
considered a common practice in most organizations. In recent years the
use of large interactive displays has increasingly gained attention in these
settings due to the possibility for multiple participants to interact with
the displayed process models at the same time. Using such displays has
the potential to improve the efficiency of collaboration, but they are not
capable of solving one of the main issues of such settings in that it is
not always feasible for all stakeholders to interact with the same mate-
rial since they inevitably have different perspectives and are interested
in different aspects of a process. In this research-in-progress-paper, we
are aiming at creating a system that provides different stakeholders with
different visualizations based on their proximity to that visualization.
This will allow stakeholders to interact with a representation of a pro-
cess that is suitable for their needs. We will outline the functionality of
this system and describe our proposed approach for evaluation. We will
also elaborate on future use scenarios of the concept of proximity in the
context of collaborative process modeling.
Keywords: Collaborative modeling, large interactive displays, proxim-
ity, adaptive user interfaces
1 Multiple Stakeholder Modeling Scenarios
Visualizations of business processes using specific modeling notations such as
BPMN, EPC, and others can be considered a common practice in most orga-
nizations. These models serve as documentation for existing processes and as a
basis to analyze and subsequently improve them [16]. It is common to document
and analyze processes collaboratively, because they usually affect multiple peo-
ple from different backgrounds such as managers, process participants, software
engineers and others. Involving all stakeholders is necessary, in order to ensure a
comprehensive documentation of a process that is not solely focused on a single
perspective [9]. Approaches to collaboratively analyze processes are commonly
2Defining Alexander
Auto-Adaptive
NolteModeling
and Jens Interfaces
Gulden Based on Stakeholder Proximity 39
referred to as collaborative modeling [17, 15, 18]. Collaboration in this context
usually takes place in workshops where process stakeholders are supported by
facilitators that guide the communication and translate verbal contributions by
stakeholders into elements of a modeling notation.
The use of large interactive displays in these settings has increasingly gained
attention in recent years [12, 5, 13] due to the possibility for multiple participants
to interact with process models at the same time which increases the efficiency
of collaboration since participants can work in parallel on different parts of a
model. However, not all participants are knowledgeable about or interested in
all aspects of a business process. It is rather common that, e. g., managers are
likely to be interested in understanding how different parts of a business process
work together, software engineers are probably interested in technical aspects,
and process participants are usually more interested in the specifics of the par-
ticular processes that they are involved in. Current approaches do not consider
these differing needs as all participants work on the same visualization during a
workshop. We are aiming at overcoming this gap by providing different stake-
holders with different visualizations of a process based on their individual needs.
In this paper we present the concept of a system that shows specific visual-
izations of a process tailored to the target audience. The approach automatically
analyzes the distance between workshop participants and a model display, and
alters the visualization of the model based on the information needs of the par-
ticipants. The aim of this system is to improve the usability of business process
models in workshop settings that are supported by large interactive displays.
It also serves as a first use case for future work into applications of analyzing
proximity in collaborative modeling.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We will first elaborate
on problems of stakeholders using specific modeling notations to analyze pro-
cesses (Sect. 2), before taking a look at related work and discussing different
visualization techniques and techniques of user distinction and proximity analy-
sis (Sect. 3). Afterwards we will describe a scenario of how proximity can be used
in a workshop context to overcome the different requirements and preferences
of different target audiences (Sect. 4), before outlining our system and research
design (Sect. 5). The paper finishes with an outlook on our future study and
an overview of future use applications for the concept of proximity analysis in
collaborative modeling (Sect. 6).
2 Challenges of Collaborative Modeling
While modeling is often scientifically reflected from an introspective single-
person viewpoint [11], and knowledge about modeling is often taught and tested
as individual competencies, an inherent purpose of creating and working with
models lies in communicating. Models are used, when their creators assume that
statements about a given subject can be expressed more easily, precisely, or bet-
ter understandable with models rather than with natural language descriptions.
With the help of interrelated model perspectives using different notations on
40
DefiningDefining
Auto-Adaptive
Auto-Adaptive
ModelingModeling
Interfaces
Interfaces
based onBased
Stakeholder
on Stakeholder
Proximity
Proximity3
different levels of granularity, the information demands of diverse stakeholders
can be addressed, while the central capability of models, providing a shared view
on the same subject matters, remains intact through interrelations between the
different perspectives.
Our work addresses collaborative modeling settings in which a group of stake-
holders with different professional backgrounds are locally joint together and syn-
chronously perform modeling activities [15]. In such a constellation, it becomes a
challenge to balance out the beneficial aspects of modeling, which allow models
to take in an interfacing role between different groups of stakeholders, with the
ability for all involved modelers to amplify cognition and communication, rather
than hinder communication by the use of natural language interpreted differently
by the involved groups. Different groups of stakeholders require different views
on models and are used to different levels of detail and granularity resulting
from their particular information demands. In real-time scenarios, there is thus
a demand to make sure that each group of stakeholders is able to cognitively
access their relevant parts of the model, without at the same time disrupting
other groups during their modeling activities.
We present an approach for a modeling scenario where multiple stakeholders
meet in the same room and jointly perform modeling activities at large interac-
tive displays. For such a setting, we suggest an automatic adaptation mechanism
that adjusts the views in which models are presented to the information needs
according to the respective stakeholders. The view will be adapted depending on
which stakeholders are currently working on a model. We expect such a mecha-
nism to not only improve efficiency of collaborative modeling activities, but also
to lead to fundamental changes of how collaborative modeling in close proximity
can be performed in the future.
3 Related Work
A number of publications cover the area of software-supported collaborative
multi-stakeholder modeling. Mendling et al. [11] discuss specifics of collaborative
business process modeling, and identify multiple characteristics that are relevant
when software is considered supportive in collaborative settings. This covers,
e. g., the ability for communication, coordination, and group decision making in
each of the stages of the modeling process, such as modeling, validation, and
verification. The majority of the work that had been examined for this purpose
presupposes that collaborative modeling takes place in remote settings, where
participants are distributed over large physical distances.
Both remote collaboration settings, and collaborative modeling in near local
proximity, are reflected by Forster et al. in [6], who discuss specifics of human
modeling behaviour in collaborative modeling environments. In our paper, we
particularly focus on co-located collaborative modeling scenarios with partici-
pants meeting in the same place.
For the domain of business process modeling, Silva and Roseman [20] identify
that “[c]urrent approaches to support stakeholders’ collaboration in the mod-
4Defining Alexander
Auto-Adaptive
NolteModeling
and Jens Interfaces
Gulden Based on Stakeholder Proximity 41
elling of business processes envision an egalitarian environment where stake-
holders interact in the same context, using the same languages and sharing the
same perspectives on the business process” [p. 1]. We share this analysis and con-
sider it even generalizable for other modeling domains beyond business process
modeling.
Monsalve et al. [2] examine variations of different modeling languages on
the concrete level of notation elements, relative to the information demands of
different stakeholders. The intended application of that work again lies in the
field of business process modeling, with the declared aim to “simplify business
process modeling notations”. By doing so, the work offers a set of stakeholder-
related notation concepts for a given domain. The suggested notations can be
integrated as one component into a solution for automatic interface adaptation
as proposed in this work.
Proximity in the context of collaborating using large displays has been a
focus of study in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) in recent years.
Approaches such as the one presented by Butscher and Reiterer [3] indicate the
feasibility of altering visualizations based on the proximity between users and
visualizations in front of large interactive displays. These studies however are
distinctly different from the approach presented here in that they do not focus
on complex graphical visualizations such as business process models.
There are multiple different approaches to distinguish users that are interact-
ing with large interactive displays. Examples for such approaches are technologies
that distinguish users based on their hand shape [19] or based on their finger-
prints [10]. These systems however are only capable of distinguishing users that
directly interact with an interactive display. They are thus only marginally useful
for our projected scenario since we are aiming at altering a visualization based
on a specific target group that does continuously interact with the displayed
material. Other approaches such as the ones presented by Pratte et al. [14] and
Turnwald et al. [21] appear to be more feasibly for this setting since they rely
on Kinect cameras to distinguish users in front of a large display. These systems
however are only capable of distinguishing users but they are only not capable of
identifying them. Identifying users however is crucial in our setting since we aim
at providing specific users with a specific visualization. We regard a combination
of bluetooth beacons and mobile phones [4, 22, 1] as the most appropriate way
to track users proximity in front on a large display.
4 Highlighting Strategies for Different Groups of
Stakeholders – A scenario
In this section we will present a scenario that outlines the usage of our system
in practice. The scenario demonstrates the diversity of information needs by
different stakeholders based on the example of an airplane Flight Sales process.
Figures 2a and 2b show the same model using multiple perspectives and different
levels of granularity. These different views can be considered suitable for different
example stakeholder groups, or combinations of stakeholders.
42
DefiningDefining
Auto-Adaptive
Auto-Adaptive
ModelingModeling
Interfaces
Interfaces
based onBased
Stakeholder
on Stakeholder
Proximity
Proximity5
A general perspective on the fundamental building block activities of the
process is displayed by the high-level process composition view shown in Fig. 1a.
This overview perspective can be assumed to be an appropriate entry point for
any heterogeneous group of stakeholders to achieve a common understanding of
the process in question, thus it offers a general default fall-back perspective to
activate for a diverse combination of stakeholders. It also provides a perspective
that is suitable for managers since they are usually more interested in the bigger
picture of how different process parts work together while operational personnel
would probably go more into the details about the specifics of process parts they
are directly involved in. An example for this would be a sales clerk who is more
interested in the specifics of the Flight Sales process rather than the specifics of,
e. g., Flight Operations (c. f. Fig. 1a).
Endpoint
https://server.org/
services/port
Booking
Flight Reservation
Operations Service
Flight
Flight Operation
Sales Service
Customer
Procurement Care
Business Service
JDBC
192.0.0.99:3306
(a) (b)
Fig. 1: Example business process composition model of a Flight Sales process on a high aggregation
level (a), example technology model of web-services for executing the Flight Sales process (b)
A technology-oriented perspective is provided by a service model view, which
explicates technological details about the web-service involved in executing the
Flight Sales process. The service model is shown in Fig. 1b. This perspective is
suitable for software engineers, technologically skilled business analysts or any
individual interested in the technical details behind the process.
Fig. 2 provides examples of the two model fragment in different highlighting
modes, the first one pointing out the business process composition view to pro-
vide an easy to understand business analysis perspective on the process. This is
shown in Fig. 2a. The second highlighting option puts the focus on technology
details of the underlying web-services. Fig. 2b exemplifies this.
It should also be noted that the perspectives presented here are not indepen-
dent from one another since they essentially cover the same process from different
points of view. The activity Flight Sales (c. f. 1a left) is thus connected to the
Booking Reservation Service and the Customer Care Service (c. f. 1b) while the
Flight Operations activity (c. f. 1a top) is connected to the Flight Operation
Service (c. f. 1b). These connections can be established as part of a collaborative
6Defining Alexander
Auto-Adaptive
NolteModeling
and Jens Interfaces
Gulden Based on Stakeholder Proximity 43
activity during a workshop when the individual teams have reached a sufficient
representation of the part of the process they are interested in.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2: Auto-adaptive emphasis on different model types based on stakeholder proximity
5 An Approach for Automatic Model Highlighting by
Proximity Analysis
For a solution which provides automatic support for performing switches between
perspectives and highlightings as outlines in the previous section 4, it is necessary
to develop a formalization to assign groups of stakeholders to appropriate model
44
DefiningDefining
Auto-Adaptive
Auto-Adaptive
ModelingModeling
Interfaces
Interfaces
based onBased
Stakeholder
on Stakeholder
Proximity
Proximity7
views. This formalization has to take into account that stakeholders with differ-
ent information needs may simultaneously access the model. The adaptive view
mechanism should in this case choose an optimal jointly suitable perspective on
the model for all involved stakeholders. Our system will use distance measur-
ing techniques to estimate what individuals are interacting with the model and
provide model views that appropriately fulfill the according information needs.
In order for our proposed system to have the desired effect we require three
separate pieces of information:
1. We need to be able to identify each person as a certain stakeholder with
respect to the process that is being modeled.
2. We need to be able to assess the desired visualization for each stakeholder.
3. We need to be able to assess the proximity between each individual stake-
holder and part of a the model that is displayed on a large interactive display.
The former two only need to be identified once at the start of a workshop, while
the latter needs to be continuously monitored.
Before conducting a workshop we will identify potential roles and correspond-
ing information needs based on the process that will be analyzed and based on
the goal of the workshop. These roles will then be fed into a web-based system
that will be used at the start of a workshop to allow stakeholders to self-register.
The registration will allow participants to couple their mobile phones with a
role that can be selected based on the roles in the system. This information then
allows us to track users in front of a display based on their mobile phone and
provide them with a visualization that is suitable for their information needs.
6 Conclusion and Future Work
The conceptualizations presented in this paper have laid the foundation for a
novel business process modeling support approach, which allows to dynamically
adapt model perspectives to physical locations of modelers. The approach is
implementable on the basis of existing proximity analysis technology and with
the help of large interactive displays.
We are currently in the process of preparing an initial evaluation of our ap-
proach which will be based on an existing touch enabled process modeling editor
[8]. For the study we will divide the participants into two groups that will work in
parallel on their perspective on a process model. The setup will be based on the
approach described by Grapenthin et al. in the context of software management
[7]. They use each wall of a room for a different visualization of the software that
will be developed. We will adapt this approach by using two walls of a room for
two different perspectives on the same process. A third wall will be used to show
an overview of both visualizations in order to allow stakeholders to align their
respective views and indicate connections between them. The whole workshop
will be supported by an experienced process modeller. Interactions will be video
taped for future analysis and we will have an observer for each group taking
notes of the process of the collaboration. The focus of the observation as well
8Defining Alexander
Auto-Adaptive
NolteModeling
and Jens Interfaces
Gulden Based on Stakeholder Proximity 45
as the subsequent analysis will be to assess the feasibility of the approach. We
are specifically interested in identifying patterns of how people move between
displays and how this setup affects their collaboration. These insights will then
be used to build a fully functional prototype based on proximity measurement
technology described in section 3. This prototype will be subject to further eval-
uation that focuses on aspects such as handling diverse groups of users in front
of the same screen. This could, e. g., be done by showing different visualizations
and their connections on different layers that become more or less transparent
as the respective stakeholders come closer to the wall or move further away
from it. The prototype will also undergo quantitative user studies focusing on a
multidimensional scheme of measurements that cover aspects such as collabora-
tion efficiency, stakeholder involvement, the stakeholders understanding of the
modeled process, acceptance of the system, and the quality of the final product.
We finally envision additional application scenarios for proximity technol-
ogy in collaborative modeling workshops. One of these scenarios is to assess the
proximity of workshop participants among each other, thus to identify who col-
laborates with whom during the course of a workshop. This information might
be useful for facilitators and participants in order to ensure that different stake-
holders with different perspectives actually engaged in a meaningful exchange,
contributing to the overall quality of the model while improving the collaboration
experience.
References
1. Dragan Ahmetovic, Masayuki Murata, Cole Gleason, Erin Brady, Hironobu Tak-
agi, Kris Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa. Achieving practical and accurate indoor
navigation for people with visual impairments. In Web for All, 2017.
2. Alain April, Alain Abran, and Carlos Monsalve. Representing unique stakeholder
perspectives in BPM notations. Software Engineering Research, Management and
Applications, ACIS International Conference on, 00:42–49, 2010.
3. Simon Butscher and Reiterer Harald. Proxemics-aware multi-focus visualizations
to support mutual awareness during co-located collaboration. In Workshop CMIS
2015 (in conjunction with ITS ’15), 2015.
4. Sudarshan S Chawathe. Beacon placement for indoor localization using bluetooth.
In Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2008. ITSC 2008. 11th International IEEE
Conference on, pages 980–985. IEEE, 2008.
5. Sebastian Dweling, Tarik Tahiri, Benedikt Schmidt, Alexander Nolte, and Mo-
hammadreza Khalilbeigi. Collaborative business process modeling on interactive
tabletops. In Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems,
pages 1–7, 2013.
6. Simon Forster, Jakob Pinggera, and Barbara Weber. Collaborative business process
modeling. In EMISA 2012 - Der Mensch im Zentrum der Modellierung, Vienna,
Austria, September 13-14, 2012. Proceedings, pages 81–94, 2012.
7. Simon Grapenthin, Matthias Book, Volker Gruhn, Christian Schneider, and Kai
Völker. Reducing complexity using an interaction room: an experience report. In
Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on Design of communication,
pages 71–76. ACM, 2013.
46
DefiningDefining
Auto-Adaptive
Auto-Adaptive
ModelingModeling
Interfaces
Interfaces
based onBased
Stakeholder
on Stakeholder
Proximity
Proximity9
8. Thomas Herrmann. Seeme in a nutshell – the semi-structured, sociotechnical mod-
eling method, 2006. http://www.imtm-iaw.rub.de/imperia/md/content/seeme/
seeme_in_a_nutshell.pdf (2017-05-15).
9. Thomas Herrmann. Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. Hand-
book of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems, pages
336–351, 2009.
10. Christian Holz and Patrick Baudisch. Fiberio: a touchscreen that senses finger-
prints. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface soft-
ware and technology, pages 41–50. ACM, 2013.
11. Jan Mendling, Jan C. Recker, and Johannes Wolf. Collaboration features in current
bpm tools. EMISA Forum, 32(1):48–65, January 2012.
12. Alexander Nolte, Ross A Brown, Craig Anslow, Moritz Wiechers, Artem
Polyvyanyy, and Thomas Herrmann. A concept for collaborative business pro-
cess modeling in interactive spaces. In Collaboration Meets Interactive Spaces:
Theory and Practice, pages 259–286. Springer Verlag, 2016.
13. Stefan Oppl and Christian Stary. Tabletop concept mapping. In Proceedings of
the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pages
275–282. ACM, 2009.
14. Sydney Pratte, Teddy Seyed, and Frank Maurer. Projected pixels: Exploring pro-
jection feedback in multi-surface environments. In Workshop CMIS 2015 (in con-
junction with ITS ’15), 2015.
15. Michael Prilla, Alexander Nolte, Thomas Herrmann, Gwendolyn Kolfschoten, and
Stephan Lukosch. Collaborative usage and development of models: State of the
art, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of e-Collaboration. Special
issue on ”Collaborative usage and development of models”, 9(4):1–16, 2013.
16. Jan Recker. Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with bpmn. Busi-
ness Process Management Journal, 16(1):181–201, 2010.
17. M. Renger, G.L. Kolfschoten, and G.J. De Vreede. Challenges in collaborative
modelling: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Sim-
ulation and Process Modelling, 4(3):248–263, 2008.
18. Peter Rittgen. Collaborative modeling - a design science approach. In HICSS,
pages 1–10. IEEE Computer Society, 2009.
19. Dominik Schmidt, Ming Ki Chong, and Hans Gellersen. Handsdown: hand-contour-
based user identification for interactive surfaces. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pages 432–
441. ACM, 2010.
20. A. R. Silva and M. Rosemann. Processpedia: an ecological environment for bpm
stakeholders’ collaboration. Business Proc. Manag. Journal, 18(1):20–42, 2012.
21. M. Turnwald, A. Nolte, and M. Ksoll. Easy collaboration on interactive wall-size
displays in a user distinction environment. In Workshop Designing Collaborative
Interactive Spaces for e-Creativity, e-Science and e-Learning. Citeseer, 2012.
22. Faheem Zafari, Ioannis Papapanagiotou, Michael Devetsikiotis, and Thomas J.
Hacker. Enhancing the accuracy of ibeacons for indoor proximity-based services.
In IEEE ICC, 2017.