Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework

A semiotic framework for evaluating the quality of conceptual models was proposed by (Lindland OI, Sindre G and Sølvberg A (1994) Understanding Quality in Conceptual Modelling, IEEE Software 11(2), 41–49) and has later been extended in several works. While the extensions have fixed some of the limitations of the initial framework, other limitations remain. In particular, the framework is too static in its view upon semantic quality, mainly considering models, not modelling activities, and comparing these models to a static domain rather than seeing the model as a facilitator for changing the domain. Also, the framework's definition of pragmatic quality is quite narrow, focusing on understanding, in line with the semiotics of Morris, while newer research in linguistics and semiotics has focused beyond mere understanding, on how the model is used and impact its interpreters. The need for a more dynamic view in the semiotic quality framework is particularly evident when considering process models, which themselves often prescribe or even enact actions in the problem domain, hence a change to the model may also change the problem domain directly. This paper discusses the quality framework in relation to active process models and suggests a revised framework based on this.

[1]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Interaction as a Framework for Modeling , 1997, Conceptual Modeling.

[2]  John Krogstie,et al.  Harmonising Business Processes of Collaborative Networked Organisations Using Process Modelling , 2004, Virtual Enterprises and Collaborative Networks.

[3]  Alex Voss,et al.  Innovation in use: Interleaving day-to-day operation and systems development , 2000 .

[4]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[5]  John Krogstie,et al.  Evaluating flexible workflow systems , 1997, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[6]  Pär J. Ågerfalk.  Information Systems Actability: Understanding Information Technology as a Tool for Business Action and Communication , 2003 .

[7]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Actability: a Way to Understand Information Systems Pragmatics , 2002 .

[8]  Arne Sølvberg,et al.  Understanding quality in conceptual modeling , 1994, IEEE Software.

[9]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework , 2003, 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[10]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Usability in social action: reinterpreting effectiveness efficiency and satisfaction , 2003, ECIS.

[11]  Håvard D. Jørgensen,et al.  Interactive Process Models , 2004 .

[12]  Jon Atle Gulla,et al.  Semantically Accessing Documents Using Conceptual Model Descriptions , 1999, ER.

[13]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[14]  Babak A. Farshchian,et al.  Gossip: An Awareness Engine for Increasing Product Awareness in Distributed Development Projects , 2000, CAiSE.

[15]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Process Models: Empirical Testing of a Quality Framework , 2002, ER.

[16]  Ewa Braf,et al.  Knowledge demanded for action : studies of knowledge mediation in organisations , 2004 .

[17]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999 .

[18]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  A process modelling success model: insights from a case study , 2003, ECIS.

[19]  John Krogstie,et al.  Defining quality aspects for conceptual models , 1995, ISCO.

[20]  Göran Goldkuhl.  Anchoring scientific abstractions - ontological and linguistic determination following socio-instrumental pragmatism , 2002 .

[21]  John Krogstie,et al.  Quality of Interactive Models , 2002, ER.

[22]  B. Randell,et al.  Signs, norms and information systems , 1993 .

[23]  Steinar Carlsen,et al.  Organizational metaphors as lenses for analyzing workflow technology , 1997, GROUP.

[24]  Bo Dahlbom.  The Idea that Reality is Socially Constructed , 1992 .

[25]  Kristian Billeskov Bøving,et al.  Design for Dummies - understanding Design Work in Virtual Workspaces , 2002 .

[26]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Knowledge Management Systems: Representation and Communication in Context , 2005 .

[27]  Guttorm Sindre,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Process Models : Empirical Analysis of a Quality Framework , 2022 .

[28]  Ian Robertson,et al.  Active Models in Business , 1995 .

[29]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Organizational Learning: A Theory Of Action Perspective , 1978 .

[30]  Amin Rajan,et al.  In the age of the smart machine , 1990 .

[31]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The knowledge-creating company , 2008 .

[32]  John Krogstie,et al.  Interactive Models for Supporting Networked Organisations , 2004, CAiSE.

[33]  Peter Wegner,et al.  Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms , 1997, CACM.

[34]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  The D.EU.PS Model: A Tool for Studying Effects of Information Systems Design , 2003 .