Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
participants offers for each process participant a personalized process view. The de-
signer obtains manageable process views. The process views can be aggregated or
merged into one process model. Aggregation of process views means to consider each
process view as an instance of the entire process in the logs, whereas merging of proc-
ess views means to consider each process view as a part of an instance of the entire
process in the logs (compare with Fig. 2).
5 Case Study
In this section we present a case study in which we applied the BPME method to
extract the process model of teaching from To-do's of selected process participants at
the Faculty of Computer Science, University of Vienna. For our investigation we
considered both the administrative and creative process of teaching. A bottom-up
approach was pursued to find out what activities the participants of the process per-
form to enable and support teaching at the faculty.
5.1 Collection of To-Do's in the Teaching Process
In face-to-face interviews selected persons working in key positions of the teaching
process were asked to list their activities in the process under investigation similar to
a scheduled To-do list. The interviews were conducted at the Faculty of Computer
Science at the University of Vienna in October 2010. 12 persons participated in the
survey. The selected persons were directly asked to participate in the study. The par-
ticipation in the survey was voluntary. A question of the semi-structured interview
was to specify the own role in the process of teaching. Some interviewees acted in
several roles, e.g. the role of the module coordinator and the lecturer. The interviewer
asked for the To-do's of each role successively and recorded the To-do list per role in
separate protocols. Altogether, the activities appropriate to the following roles in the
teaching process were collected (the cases illustrate persons): administrative coopera-
tor (case 1), director of study program (case 2), lecturers (cases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
16), lecturer team coordinator (case 9), module coordinators (cases 10, 11), secretary
(case 12), teaching coordinators (cases 13, 14), and technical staff (case 15).
5.2 Content Analysis of To-Do's, Log Preparation, and Mining
The protocols of the interviews were examined with the content analysis. Most of the
activities were described in full sentences rather than by means of cues that are more
common in personal To-do lists [13, p. 736]. The text material comprised 16 proto-
cols and a total of 7,814 words. A case comprised between 65 and 1077 words. We
conducted the content analysis with the demo version of the QDA Miner [8]. Analyz-
ing functionalities, like coding frequency allow recognizing reference points among
process participants. Fig. 3 illustrates an extract of the coding frequency analysis.
“Inquire date and lecture hall”, “Book date and lecture hall”, and “Check scheduling
conflict” are aggregations of more detailed tasks mentioned as To-do's. These aggre-
gated tasks were subsumed to “reservation of lecture hall”. “Inquire date and
lecture hall” includes two reference points (connections) among process participants.
