Designing Collaborative Processes Andréa Magalhães Magdaleno1, Renata Mendes de Araujo1,2 and Marcos R.S. Borges3 1 NP2Tec
– Research and Practice Group in Information Technology - UNIRIO Av. Pasteur, 458, Urca, Rio de Janeiro –RJ, Brazil, 22290-240
[email protected] 2 Department of Applied Informatics - UNIRIO Av. Pasteur, 458, Urca, Rio de Janeiro –RJ, Brazil, 22290-240
[email protected] 3 PPGI - Graduate Program in Informatics, IM&NCE, UFRJ PO Box 2324, 21910-240, Brazil
[email protected]
Abstract. This research aims at providing an approach for designing business processes for adequate collaborative support. This approach comprises the explicit representation of collaboration practices in business process. It is argued that, by explicitly considering collaboration in process models, collaboration can be discussed within the organization; moreover requirements for collaborative support can be further identified. This paper proposes a process maturity model (CollabMM) which organizes collaboration practices and a method which provides a progressive step for introducing those practices into business process models.
1 Introduction In a competitive environment, organizations need flexibility to meet customers’ demands, by offering customized and high-quality products and services. Group working turned out to be an important business strategy, having been required as an instrument to overcome these challenges [1][2][3][4]. However, in current business processes practices, collaboration is usually left implicit. Despite recognizing the advantages that collaboration can bring, many organizations still do not know how to promote it [5][6] whereas adopted initiatives are still fragile and ill-structured. Previous work sustains that process modeling, awareness and automation can improve the way participants face and feel committed towards their work within the organization as well as towards other participants [7][8]. In this work, we argue that collaboration can be systematically encouraged in organizations by explicitly considering it in process modeling. Additionally, it is discussed how collaboration can be designed in business process models, aiming at turning processes more adequate to collaborative support. This paper proposes a process maturity model (CollabMM) which organizes collaboration practices to be introduced in business processes. The maturity model
was defined based on well-known group supporting aspects: communication, coordination, awareness and memory. We claim that organizations can take advantage of the effort of thinking about modeling and defining their processes and explicitly embed into these processes collaboration aspects. For this purpose, the paper further proposes a method for using the framework associated to a process modeling methodology.
2 Collaboration (CollabMM)
Maturity
Model
for
Business
Processes
In software engineering [9][10] and knowledge management [11] domains, maturity models have been proposed as an attempt to organize the respective body of knowledge of a domain and to provide a framework for evaluating organizations and their processes regarding the set of practices suggested in the model. Likewise, in the BPM context, the BPMMM (Business Process Management Maturity Model) [12][13] has been proposed to help organizations determine their BPM implementation stage, by identifying strengths and weaknesses, and the necessary steps to reach an advanced maturity level. Although this framework considers the human factor as an important variable, it does not investigate the level of existing cooperation in process modeling and execution upon maturity process assessment. As an attempt to organize a set of practices which can enhance collaboration in business processes, the collaboration maturity model for business processes – CollabMM – is proposed. CollabMM describes an evolutionary path in which processes can achieve a progressively higher maturity on collaboration, while changing from one level to a higher one. A first issue arising in the attempt to define the CollabMM is the identification of the main relevant aspects for collaboration to be considered in a business process. The Groupware research area boasts of extensive literature discussing what the main aspects comprising group interaction should be. The area has already reached a consensus regarding four group supporting aspects: communication, coordination, awareness and memory [6][7][14][15]. The present work starts from this initial classification to organize specific practices which can be embedded into business processes as an attempt to improve the collaboration, based on the literature in groupware research. The CollabMM is organized in four maturity levels: Ad-hoc, Planned, Aware and Reflexive, as shown in figure 1. Levels are a way of prioritizing practices for improving collaboration in a process. A specific level comprises a group of related activities which can be executed together, aiming at improving the process collaborative capability (Figure 1).
Fig. 1. Overview of the CollabMM Level 1 – Ad-Hoc: In this level, collaboration is not explicitly represented in business processes. However, processes in the first level cannot be featured as with total absence of collaboration. Collaboration may happen, but it is still dependent on individual initiative and skills, and its success depends on the relationship and/or affinity among people. Figure 2 represents a metaphor of individual effort where people do not act like a group.
Fig.2. Metaphor for level 1 – Ad-hoc [16]
Level 2 – Planned: In this level, business processes in organizations start to be modified aiming at including basic collaboration activities. The first attempt to achieve it is by planning for collaboration. Planning comprises formalizing groups, roles and responsibilities (social awareness) [17] [18]; and defining the appropriate communication channels among group members. Coordination is another strong aspect at this level. Groups need leadership and management in order to work well. The role of a coordinator is needed in the process to centralize and manage activities, and to foster commitment, encouraging members to achieve their results. The leader is also responsible for assigning roles and responsibilities (figure 3), for planning group work, and finally, for consolidating and integrate individual artifacts as the group result [18].
Fig. 3. Metaphor for Level 2 – Planned [16] Level 3 – Aware: In this level the process includes activities for monitoring and controlling how collaboration occurs. Group members are aware of their tasks and responsibilities and are committed towards them. Regarding awareness, group members understand the process in which they are engaged, main objectives, their roles and responsibilities and how their activities are related with others to perform these objectives [17] (figure 4). Additionally, processes at this level explicitly consider a shared knowledge repository for storing group artifacts. Process participants are aware of this repository and know that they must contribute to it by updating their work results.
Fig.4. Metaphor for Level 3 - Aware [16] Level 4 – Reflexive: In the reflexive level processes are designed to provide ways for self-understanding, identifying the relevance of the results that had been produced and sharing this knowledge inside the organization (figure 5). Considering communication, processes must be formally concluded and their results communicated. Lessons learned can be captured; strengths and weaknesses are analyzed; success and challenges are shared; ideas for future improvements are collected; workgroup results are published, and participants should celebrate [1]. The achievement of goals can be assessed, both for individual as well as for group goals [17]. Group members are aware of the manner in which the group collaborates during the process execution, while process tacit knowledge is shared through ideas, opinions and experiences, thereby enhancing group memory.
Fig.5. Metaphor for level 4 - Reflexive
3 Using CollabMM to Turn Collaboration Explicit Enhancing collaboration in a process can be a costly activity. All processes within an organization bear space for improvement; however, choice must be made of those which are relevant for having their collaboration discussed and appropriately supported [19] [20]. For each selected process, it is necessary to define which maturity level in CollabMM must or is expected to be reached by the process. The following steps should be performed according to the selected collaboration maturity level. Reaching the Planned Level (2): To address the need for social awareness, the method suggests the elaboration of an additional diagram – a role-based model [21]. This model depicts the information flow between process participants, increasing the understanding of collaboration in the process. Social awareness can also be improved by adding an initial group socialization activity to the process. During this meeting, the group leader will be defined, and the group composition model should be created. This model is constructed considering the location model and group members information such as: name, telephone number, e-mail, city and function. The group composition model favors the notion of group distribution and contact among group members. The effort of creating the model helps people interact and enjoy one another. Furthermore, the method suggests the inclusion of new activities to build communication and coordination plans. Finally, the method recommends that activities containing the creation of an artifact should be detailed in a sub-process. The sub-process describes the necessary steps to collaborative construction of an artifact in which we have the division of work and ensure the consolidation of different parts through collaboration among group members. Reaching the Aware Level (3): To reach this level, the process must be designed to include activities so as to track the evolution of group work. This tracking is important to anticipate potential problems and to ascertain whether the work is being done as planned. During tracking activities, the group will draw up minutes recording the positive and negative aspects observed during work, and can review communication and coordination plans. Besides, if the group receives new members,
this should be the appropriate moment to integrate them as well as to review the group composition model. Regarding explicit knowledge, the method suggests that process definition group establish a centralized repository to store process artifacts, bearing easy access to process members. Afterwards, it is important to include new activities in the process model to enforce repository updating during process execution. Finally, the process must be published in a physical or digital environment. For instance, it is possible to imagine the process published in the organization intranet. The environment choice depends on the resources available there in. Reaching the Reflexive Level (4): To reach this level, processes are designed to include activities, which aim at the evaluation of both individual and collaborative work by process participants. Additionally, a final activity is included in the process in which the work must be formally closed with lessons learned. Regarding sharing tacit knowledge, the method proposes the creation of a glossary of terms used in the processes. Additionally the process definition group should establish the tacit knowledge sharing channel to be used by process participants.
4. Conclusion Two case studies were conducted to ascertain the applicability of CollabMM and of method proposed. The first case study was performed at a national organization considering a small medium complexity process and a high relevance to its business, involving geographically distributed participants. This process is coordinated at the company headquarters, which needs to gather and consolidate information from different areas across the country, and sends a final report to the Government. The second case study was conducted at a small consulting organization. The process analyzed in the case study was one of the processes of the Human Resources Area, aiming at selecting professionals for the organization projects. This process was evaluated as being of medium size, complexity and relevance. The results of the two case studies demonstrated that the method was easily understood and applied by business modeling professionals. From the point of view of the process designers in both case studies, the process obtained after the method application allowed them to better recognize how collaboration was intended to occur along process enactment. This feeling was also obtained when the resulting process was presented to a participant of the process being studied, who had not participated in the process modeling activity. These results moves towards the idea that the framework and the method can be used to turn business process more adequate to collaboration support by helping organizations to climb up CollabMM levels. It is intended, as future work, to propose how to identify requirements for supporting the process and its collaboration activities by integrating the method with other approaches for identifying system requirements from business processes [22][23] and for implementing workflow [24] .
Another issue is studying how the ColabMM framework can be used to assess collaboration in organizations by observing their business process collaboration capability. An instrument for assessing the collaboration maturity model is being elaborated based on a questionnaire and process observation.
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9. 10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15.
16.
17. 18.
Scholtes, P.R., Joiner, B.L., Streibel, B.J.: The Team Handbook. 2nd ed. Oriel. Madison (1996) Telleria, K.M., Little, D., Macbryde, J.: Managing processes through teamwork. In: Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 (2002) 338-350 Borelli, G., Cable, J., Higgs, M.: What makes teams work better? In: Team Performance Management, Vol. 1 (1995) 28-34 Rugullies, E.: Team Collaboration Best Practices: Getting People to Share Their Knowledge. Forrester (2003) Staniforth, D.: Teamworking, or individual working in team? In: Team Performance Management, Vol. 2 (1996) 37-41 Khoshafian, S., Buckiewicz, M.: Introduction to Groupware, Workflow, and Workgroup Computing. John Wiley & Sons. New York (1995) Araujo, R., Borges, M.R.S.: Extending the Software Process Culture – An Approach Based on Groupware and Workflow. In: International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2188 (2001) 297-311 Araujo, R.M., Borges, M.R.S, The role of collaborative support to promote participation and commitment in software development teams. In: .Software Process Improvement and Practice (2007) (to appear). CMU-SEI: Capability Maturity Model. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. Pittsburgh (2001) CMU-SEI: Capability Maturity Model Integration. Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute. Pittsburgh (2006) Ehms, K., Langen, M.: Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM. In: American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC) - Showcasing Successful Knowledge Management Implementation. San Antonio (2000) Fisher, D. M.: The Business Process Maturity Model: A Practical Approach for Identifying Opportunities for Optimization. Business Process Trends (2004) Rosemann, M., Bruin, T.: Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM Maturity. Business Process Trends (2005) Ellis, C., Gibbs, C.J., Rein, G.I.: Groupware: some issues and experiences. In: Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34 (1991) 39-58 Araujo, R.M., DIAS, M.S., Borges, M.R.S., A Framework for the Classification of Computer Supported Collaborative Design Approaches. In: 3rd International Workshop on Groupware, Madrid, Spain (1993) 91-100 Nunamaker Jr., J.F., Roman Jr., N.C., Briggs, R.O.: A Framework for Collaboration and Knowledge Management. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (2001) 1060-1071 Santoro, F. M., Borges, M.R.S., Santos, N.: Learning to Plan the Collaborative Design Process. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3168 (2005) 33-44 Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S. A Framework of Awareness for Small Groups in SharedWorkspace Groupware, Technical Report 99-1, Department of Computer Science,
19. 20. 21. 22.
23.
24.
University of Saskatchewan, Canada. http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/grouplab/papers/ (1999) Marakas, G: Decision Support Systems. 2. ed. Prentice Hall. (2002) Galbraith, J.R: Designing Organizations - An Executive Briefing on Strategy, Structure, and Process. Jossey-Bass. (1995) Cain, B. G., Coplien, J. O.: A Role-Based Empirical Process Modeling Environment. In: International Conference on the Software Process (1993) 125-133 Araujo, R. M., MKnight, D., Borges, M. R. S.: A Systematic Approach for Identifying System Requirements from the Organization´s Business Model. In: Brazilian Workshop on Information Systems, Vol. 1 (2005) 1-10 Miranda, I.S., Araujo, R.M., Borges, M.R.S, Discovering Group Communication Requirements. In: Workshop Iberoamericano de Ingenieria de Requisitos y Ambientes de Software (IDEAS), (2007) (to appear) Magdaleno, A.M., Nunes, V.T., Araujo, R.M., Borges, M.R.S.: Increasing Flexibility in Process Deployment with the Process Beans Composer. In: International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Vol. 2 (2006) 1229-1234
