Designing systems for managing dynamic collaborative research processes - Presentation Transcript
TENCompetence Workshop, Manchester 2007 Designing Systems for Managing Collaborative Research Processes Scott Wilson, CETIS; Yoichi Takayama, Ernie Ghiglione, James Dalziel, MELCOE This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence
Context
Two linked projects: RAMS & DRAMA
Research by MELCOE
Funded by DEST as part of programme backing Australia’s research capability
Why collaborative research workflow?
Plenty of work to date in process automation, especially data analysis
Relatively little work on communication and collaboration-heavy processes
Emphasis in funding on collaborative work (e.g. multi-partner) but patchy practice
Possibility of scaffolding collaborative processes to improve effectiveness
Which kinds of processes?
Research management
Research quality assessment
Online research collaboration
Data collection
Monitoring, positioning new opportunities
Proposal development
Scheduling
Research process characteristics
May be weakly structured
While some processes may be pre-determined, the majority exhibit dynamic properties, and may diverge from design at runtime
Alternate periods of individual and team activity
Potential benefits
Greater standardisation of common or repeatable research processes, leading to higher quality outcomes and improved efficiency;
The ability to share descriptions of common research processes both within institutions, and between institutions – including the ability to adapt and localise shared research processes;
Greatly improved accountability and audit for processes involving multiple actors across multiple steps – such as for research assessment (e.g., RQF/RAE assessor workflows), as well as for research itself (e.g., as a deterrent to academic fraud); and
Providing a process-oriented checklist to ensure the ordered completion of relevant research tasks.
Potential risks
The technology may be costly when compared to the actual benefits
The technology may require new competences to devise and execute research processes, placing control of such processes into the hands of IT specialists rather than researchers themselves
The technology may restrict unnecessarily the diversity of activities and approaches to conducting research
The technology may be perceived as an attempt to control rather than enable the work of researchers
Six Lenses (so far…)
BPM
HIM
BPOKM
CSC
Learning Design
VSM
Simple workflow…
… can exhibit complex behaviour
Is it worth the trouble?
“ One might argue that in a world where routine processes have been automated by systems, these value-adding, creative, innovative human activities are what business is all about. An organisation in which people interacted only via scripts loaded into machines could not think, could not respond, could not change and could not possibly provide effective support for its customers. And if human-driven processes are indeed critical, they deserve effective computer support.” (Harrison-Broninski (2004)
Cybernetic Analysis using the VSM
Attempt to identify design principles using structured approach
the VSM by Stafford Beer
Previously applied in pedagogic analysis of elearning systems (Liber & Britain, 1999 & 2004)
Simplified VSM (Liber & Britain, 2004)
Topics of analysis
Distribution of work
Monitoring
Audit
Self-organisation
Reverberation
Strategy
Distribution of work
How do users end up in process roles?
How are resources managed?
Useful perspectives:
Winograd and Flores (1986): CFA
Russell et al (2004): workflow resource patterns
Simplistic concepts of work distribution abound in IT systems…
But simplicity can be deceptive! In some cases it just pushes complexity to the outside
Other considerations in work distribution
Capability management
Role-capability mapping and user-capability assessment
Monitoring (system 3)
Monitoring for variety management
Monitoring and self-regulation
Challenge: identifying process states in dynamic, diverging processes
Solutions: minimal representations (van der Alst, 2001); analog roll-up; declaration
Issues: assumptions of control
Requirement for openness in monitoring
Audit (System 3*)
Process auditing
Rewind and reflect
Sampling
Intervention
Self-organisation
Self-organization can dramatically reduce the management demands of a system
Delegation of process design
Delegation of process initiation
Requirement for workflow tools to be usable by process participants, not specialists
Reverberation
Avoiding ‘process blindness’ or blinkered viewpoint leading to clashing activities
Cross-cutting communication; openness of processes across related groups
Unforeseen events
In work distribution, requiring reallocation, escalation, delegation…
In process development, requiring redesign, termination, suspension…
Monitoring and intervention
Algedonic channel
Strategy (System 4)
Forecasting
Monitoring trends in the wider world
Implementing strategy
Recursions and perspectives
Work Item
Work Package
Project
Team
Unit
Department
University/Company
Consortium
From LAMS to RAMS
Flexible role definitions supporting dynamic processes and shared ownership
Choice of work distribution models, not just “simple assignment”
Processes able to be redesigned while running by the participants
Monitoring interfaces available for all participants, not just “teacher” role
Analog and asserted digital indicators for monitoring
Dashboard for multiple-level monitoring
Tools to interact with more structured processes (e.g. bid/RQF submission, grid data processes)
Modified WfMC Reference Model
Observations
Collaborative processes do not lend themselves to todays BPM methods
Requirements for eResearch turned up using VSM-driven approach are also useful in eLearning
Future work
Aligning process and policy (and the gray area inbetween)
0 comments
Post a comment