A Qualitative Research Approach to Obtain Insight in Business Process Modelling Methods in Practice

In this paper we are concerned with the development of an observational research approach to gain insights into the performance of Business Process Modelling Methods (BPMMs) in practice. In developing this observational approach, we have adopted an interpretive research approach. More specifically, this involved the design of a questionnaire to conduct semi-structured interviews to collect qualitative research data about the performance of BPMMs. Since a BPMM is a designed artefact, we also investigated Design Science Research literature to identify criteria to appreciate the performance of BPMMs in practice. As a result, the questionnaire that was used to guide the interview is based on a subset of criteria of progress for information systems theories, while the observational research approach we adopted involves the collection of qualitative data from multiple stakeholder types. As a next step, the resulting questionnaire was used to evaluate the performance an actual BPMM in practical use; the DEMO method. Though the analysis of the collected qualitative data of the DEMO case has not been fully performed yet, we already foresee that part of the information we collected provides new insights compared to existing studies about DEMO, as is the fact that a variety of types of stakeholders have been approached to observe the use of DEMO.

[1]  Robert Winter,et al.  Design science research in Europe , 2008 .

[2]  José Tribolet,et al.  Enterprise Governance and DEMO Guiding enterprise design and operation by addressing DEMO's competence, authority and responsibility notions , 2010 .

[3]  José M. Tribolet,et al.  Towards Objective Business Modeling in Enterprise Engineering - Defining Function, Value and Purpose , 2012, EEWC.

[4]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Pieter J. Toussaint,et al.  Use cases and DEMO: aligning functional features of ICT-infrastructure to business processes , 2002, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[6]  Joseph Barjis,et al.  A Business Process Modeling and Simulation Method Using DEMO , 2007, ICEIS.

[7]  Luís Velez Lapão,et al.  Using Enterprise Ontology for Improving Emergency Management in Hospitals , 2012, MIE.

[8]  Kris Ven,et al.  Using the DEMO methodology for modeling open source software development processes , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[9]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Anatomy of a Design Theory , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  N. Rescher Methodological Pragmatism: A Systems-Theoretic Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[11]  Marko Bajec,et al.  An approach for concurrent evaluation of technical and social aspects of software development methodologies , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Jan L. G. Dietz,et al.  Advances in Enterprise Engineering VIII , 2014, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[13]  Robert Winter,et al.  Theoretical stability of information systems design theory evaluations based upon habermas's discourse theory , 2011, ECIS.

[14]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  Method Engineering: Theory and Practice , 2006, ISTA.

[15]  Kris Ven,et al.  The Adoption of DEMO: A Research Agenda , 2009, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[16]  Stephan Aier,et al.  Scientific progress of design research artefacts , 2009, ECIS.

[17]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design science as nested problem solving , 2009, DESRIST.

[18]  Stephan Aier,et al.  Criteria of progress for information systems design theories , 2011, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[19]  Bart-Jan Hommes,et al.  Assessing the quality of business process modelling techniques , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[20]  Martin Op't Land,et al.  Towards a fast enterprise ontology based method for post merger integration , 2009, SAC '09.

[21]  John R. Venable,et al.  Identifying and Addressing Stakeholder Interests in Design Science Research: An Analysis Using Critical Systems Heuristics , 2009, CreativeSME.

[22]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[23]  Tobias Mettler,et al.  Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design , 2009, DESRIST.

[24]  Robert Winter,et al.  Method Versus Model - Two Sides of the Same Coin? , 2009, CIAO! / EOMAS.

[25]  André Vasconcelos,et al.  Enterprise Dynamic Systems Control Enforcement of Run-Time Business Transactions , 2012, EEWC.

[26]  S. Chatterjee,et al.  Design Science Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[27]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft , 2007, Inf. Organ..

[28]  H. Rubin,et al.  Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data , 1995 .

[29]  Yang Liu,et al.  A Study of the Patterns for Reducing Exceptions and Improving Business Process Flexibility , 2012, EEWC.

[30]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

[31]  Markus Helfert,et al.  Using Enterprise Ontology Methodology to Assess the Quality of Information Exchange , 2012, AMCIS.

[32]  John Mingers,et al.  Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies , 1997 .

[33]  Salvatore T. March,et al.  Design and natural science research on information technology , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[34]  Miguel Mira da Silva,et al.  Using Enterprise Ontology for Improving the National Health System - Demonstrated in the Case of a Pharmacy and an Emergency Department , 2012, KEOD.

[35]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research 1 , 2022 .

[36]  Hans Weigand,et al.  LAP : 10 years in retrospect , 2005 .

[37]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The method evaluation model: a theoretical model for validating information systems design methods , 2003, ECIS.

[38]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .