• For a forum such as ModelsWard, I would like to see the opposite: less on motivation/background, more on technical contributions and evaluation.
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.7psjs5wgb6mg
• @sinisa: yes, I could agree, even though the reviewer wrote":
  • Abstract and Introduction are adequate? Too short
• We will provide a technical explanation of the tool, visual interface with tool and prototypes

Finish the Acnknowledgement section

WHO: @mprinc @sinisarudan @birger

PROBLEM: We need to understand what to do with this section. What is its destiny?

FACTS:

• It has 2.5 pages
• it is "marginal" to the rest of paper

DECISION (?!):

• @mprinc: Probably just reduce and remove not so strong aspects
• @sinisarudan:
• @birger:

KEEP

• It is already there and reviewed, strange to remove
• will promote our strategy and work
• return Friendship Manager simulations results? (that we had in the '20 version of the paper)
• will motivate us in the future work
• it can be already useful in process-mining of facilitators and participants in ColaboFlow and Poieto

REMOVE

• more consistent paper
• more space for writing other parts of the paper
• underresearched
• under-practised
• might take time to reach the acceptable level in ColaboFlow

@mprinc, @sinisarudan, @birger

ACTIONS: QUESTIONNAIRE, WRITE

R: 1.1. justification for dismissing declarative business process modelling approaches as the baseline is not convincing

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.ste30tmvoxl9

QUESTIONNAIRE:

• provide questions to address it (facilitators, developers, users)

Write:

• Introduce stakeholders of the COPI4P communities
  • Organizers: imperative
  • Facilitators: imperative + declarative
  • Participants: declarative + imperative

Should we add them and how?

@sinisarudan @mprinc
ACTIONS: RESEARCH, WRITE

• R.1.3. the literature review is not up−to−date. A more recent comparative review is needed.

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.u34yssmeotpc

• search for newer literature

• go through good conferences last years in the domain and search relevant papers and hot-topics and trends

• look for references from "soft"-field, CSCW, social, work practices, motivation

• @mprinc I think we should focus on the critical comparative aspects to update, but for non-critical studies (like, social, motivation related, etc) we can afford us older but more sound references
  We should find something BEFORE the rebuttal and argue that others are not crucial (like CSCW or BPMN), and there are no relevant for the F2V

@mprinc @sinisarudan @rusi

community vs group vs team

• unify the terminology, especially in the F2V (Face-to-virtual) BPMN
  we mention “three participants level: individual, group, community.“
• put it in the terminology

@sinisarudan @mprinc
Rethink how to reshape the paper through the disruptive digitization prism

ACTIONS: BRAINSTORM, RESEARCH

R3.6:

• no evaluation of the proposed solution;
• at least a feedback report from the persons involved in the workshop would add value to the paper.

INTEGRATE:

• We already did a lot of it from before but we need now to integrate and expand
• we can provide SUS (System Usability Scale) and CSI (Creativity Scale Index) results that we already have
• We did with a survey with facilitators and will put it in the paper

BRAINSTORM:

• @sinisarudan Very important to be integrated in the paper!
• We might do the same with developers, business executives and participants
  • we can also ask Climathon participants of 2020 as well

• #22
• Publications
  • me
  • others
• BIOs
  • me
  • others

@mprinc

ACTIONS: CLARIFY

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.4gcgiiqel9
R3.2: verbose and ambition too large. See for example "we need to address and model social, technical, democratic, geographical, psychological , artistic , racial , religious , scientific , and many other "domains" or fields of inquiry"

WRITE:

• It was not about ambitions of supporting it, but about design that doesn’t intrinsically excludes it
• we can clarify this at that very example, although the whole talk about the paradigm shift communicated that already
• Explain an example of inclusiveness vs exclusiveness, in the paradigm section, maybe with democracy framework as an example, espec as we have published a conference paper on it ;)

@birger, @mprinc, @sinisarudan

ACTIONS: RESEARCH+WRITE, QUESTIONNAIRE

Table: https://www.papeeria.com/p/d238812d40a53ed3b7b1d5d47c7fa01a#/engagement-list.tex
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.v2xbgri1eo15

This aspect is new and it emerged through the survey, questionnaire so we need to put it in the paper properly, but as an additional aspect of paper but also the finding of the paper

RESEARCH+WRITE:

• @birger (with us) can:
  • evaluate the list
  • understand the systematic approach
  • add any model-based insights
• suggest relevant papers on similar scales

@mprinc @sinisarudan @birger

R2.2: no attempt made to use the abstractions available from BPMN to "mimic" non-coordinated activities
demonstrate (using a systematic approach) that the concepts/activity types you need cannot be modelled with what BPMN provides.

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.d0syw9wqhe4m
• @mprinc : I assume this is for the SUB-PROCESS PALETTES, as the DECORATIONS&NEW-ELEMENTS one is rather obvious
• @sinisarudan : are we aware of those abstractions? we should mention at least ONE that is not sufficient

R3.4 the proposed BPMN extension (Table2) needs some justifications

• Why this set of elements? Are they other alternative choices that you considered and why did you select this set
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.jt94q6tcxlik

R2.4 more formally define the set of 8 extensions

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.261nvncayiqt
  • ?! in the sense of addressing which BPMN classes (we think this), or mathematically (PetriNet, theory of sets, …)?

WRITE:

• this is the result of our Participatory Action Research
• Write about the abstraction scenario and explain why it doesn't fit
• As simple as arguing why BPMN has multiple icons for activity
• Why there is for social media (Barambila’s extension)
• Compare and say that none of them fits
• Semantical analysis

QUESTIONNAIRE:

• mostly done: some quick questionnaire with facilitators with the larger set of elements and get answers
• We understand justification of such a suggestion, but Universality doesn’t necessary go with their applicability which we argued
• AR, FG, S, we didn’t provide it here as we focused on theoretical aspect, and wanted to provide it in separate HCI and CSCW papers
• nevertheless we still have see it as not-final and that will be a part of the future work

Table 1

F2V features

• @sinisarudan: malo mi tu karakteristike nisu bas najbolje, ili nepotrebne ili u neke druge karaktereisticnije

5 EXTENSION OF BPMN TO SUPPORT COPI4P AND FACE-TO-VIRTUAL PROCESSES

• {warning} - Parametrized warning, communicating with process performers or facilitators
  • maybe we should generalize this as notification, with diff types: warning, info, error...?
• skill
  • should we unify it as one of the transformations?
  • it should also be individual or community -typed
• “The process covers some common scenarios of the interviewed practitioners/facilitators, to demonstrate how extensions are universally applicable.”

• Pay registration
• Fix
  • process- engagement
• Build
  • disable isBlinded
  • upload to papperia
    • images
    • main.tex
    • main.bib
  • @Zhenia:check the text
  • check
    • tables
    • images
    • no comments
    • no debug
• питати их да
  • избаце Дина
  • keywords: BPM, face-to-virtual process, hybrid process, BPMN extension, COVID-19 digital disruption, creative processes digitalizing
  • title: Is wrong: Paper # 56: Extending BPM(N) to support Face-to-virtual (F2V) a Process Modeling
    • Should be: Paper # 56: Extending BPM(N) to support Face-to-virtual (F2V) Process Modeling

@mprinc, @sinisarudan, @birger

ACTIONS: RESEARCH+WRITE

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.gnz7pxyhqob1
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.d6zjyj7wt0qb

R:

• I am yet to be convinced that using a business process is the right basis to model what you need. Are there no other notations/modelling languages better suited? discussion about other approaches, what features they provide, could be the better foundation than BPMN
• R1.2. there are no deep explanations (answering "why" questions) of the extensions and a preliminary evaluation
• What about the usefulness (and usability) of the suggested approach? The small demonstrations in The small demonstrations in Section 6 are not convincing.
  • Very unclear WHAT extension or what aspects o it?
  • Do they speak of section 5?
• R2.1 the paper fails to convince me that the "extension" that is proposed is indeed necessary.
  R2.4.1 - ... you will need to provide further examples ... does not demonstrate a wider applicability
• @mprinc F2V is enough :) but OK
• @sinisarudan: maybe through more workshops, other players, communities, I guess

QUESTIONNAIRE:

• address simplicity and clearness of the solution
• mostly done: address need and benefit of it
• try to understand
  • how do they feel with it
  • is something serious missing
  • Try to express their workflows with it (a separate session)

RESEARCH+WRITE:

• State-of-the-art
  • Address simpler solutions (UML or visual activity graphs)
  • Address equally complex (ArcheMate, UML Executable)
• Address other relevant languages and models and argue problems
  • standardization
  • execution
  • extendability
  • bridging across different domains: declarative, imperative, cases
  • support for all aspects: decision tables, system values, ...

WRITE:

• Argue why both extensions are necessary immediately where we introduce them
• Argue on activities types why each is necessary
• Argue on non-palette scenarios and compare solutions arguing on the simplicity of the palette solution
• Similar to R1.2.
• It is outcome of AR, FG, S that are satisfied with it, especially considering proposals of other reviewers of “patching” with standard BPMN (sure we can use GOTO for LOOP)
• We provided extensions with the same UML/BPMN concept of stereotypes
• Future work: we will interview fore tpye of community facilitators, we will generalize them as additional suggestions come

@mprinc @sinisarudan @birger

• Terminology
  • Remove less important or reduce definitions
  • link external
• THE CHALLENGES OF FACE-TO-VIRTUAL COLLABORATIONS AND COMMUNITIES
  • Remove less important aspects
  • Remove repetitions
• RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • Remove repetitions
  • Remove unnecessary
• RESEARCH AND FINDINGS ON FACE-TO-VIRTUAL WORKFLOWS AND COMMUNITIES
  • reduce community definitions
  • remove weak-findings
  • reduce table from
    • from weak-findings sections
    • from engagements
    • not unique to F2V
• EXTENSION OF THE TRANS-DOMAIN ECOSYSTEM DESIGN PARADIGM
  • now it is 4.5 columns (too long?)
  • "To understand and address such business process ..." is duplicated
  • "Additionally, the ecosystem values..." is duplicated
• EXTENSION OF BPMN TO SUPPORT COPI4P AND FACE-TO-VIRTUAL PROCESSES
  • Table
    • CI genome - shorten
    • reduce images
    • reduce vertical spacing
    • reduce fonts
    • digitize (digital disruption) the workflow - reduce to meaningfully work, instead of a unique asset
    • Face-to-virtual is practiced in multiple ways - remove as it is expressed in process-engagement
• SUB-PROCESS PALETTES - REDUCING IMPERATIVE NATURE OF A PROCESS
  • An example of trans-domain ecosystem
    +
  • Evolution of trans-domain ecosystem and emergence of sub-process palette
    +
• CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
  +
• REFERENCES
  • Remove older references if not necessary

@mprinc @sinisarudan

• Fix decorations

Everything is moved from this gDoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit to the issues

• @sinisarudan: All stressed out:
  • Needs more experimental results? Yes
  • Needs a comparative evaluation? Yes
  • Improve critical discussion? (validation): Yes
  • Conclusions/Future Work are convincing? No
• COVID-19 has a more dramatic impact and need to improvement to F2V processes than other type of processes

ColaboFlow + Modelsward - ToDo

• \todo[inline]{@Zhenia:check}
• Sinisa Rudan : ti mozes ili
• 1) podatke sredjivati
• 2) tumaciti i unositi rezultate za dekoracije
• 3) redukovati kolicinu teksta (research methodologies, BPMN decorations, research, The Challenges of Face-to-virtual Collaborations and Communities)
• fix diagrams and conclusions after integrating all results
• include Oleg’s answers
• digitizing
• ubaciti u 2. poglavlje, u abstract i intro oko Covid-era
• da li treba објашњење дијаграма за values? activities su vec objasnjene na dijagramu
• veze iz extension ka paradigm shift
• send the survey (WITH VIDEO DESC) to other facilitators to fill it!
• acknowledge: Uri, Oleg, Irina, Dimitrije, .... Jack? .... и другима
• проучити BPMN format definicije dekoracija
• tabelu “F2V (Face-to-virtual) BPMN Extension” srediti
• slike nove i opise
• izglasane staviti umesto starih
• osveziti reference
• sredti dijagram prema rezultatima istrazivanja
• - MOTIVATION as decoration NEDOSTAJE?
• mozemo resiti problem nedostatka "motivation" u dekoraciji sa prebacivanjem fokusa ne druge softparametre koje imamo:
• The similar goes for other "soft"-parameters of business processes, like performers' social and psychological aspects or satisfaction, among others.
• [ ]
• [ ]
• - kako cemo tumacitti rezultate? transparetno? kako pisati rad na osnovu rezultata? ako ih nemamo?
• - u koliko sati, koji dan, zatvaramo primanje rezultata?
• [ ]

@mprinc, @sinisarudan, @birger

• Make it stronger
• Make it more attractive for citing (as many do not read/download paper at all)
  • findings on COVID-19 vs. F2V
  • finding of F2V vs. stakeholders
  • BPMN is missing on frontend and executive

@mprinc @sinisarudan

ACTIONS: WRITE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.a8g89seuquqt

• R3.1: Despite 7 pages .... which are exactly the processes targeted by the research and
  • WHY it is necessary to model them with an extension of BPMN, remain unclear

WRITING:

• We can switch from part of our motivation to the findings from our survey and

ACTIONS: ORGANIZE, WRITE

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.gklup93aczta

• start with an example or with a scenario of the kind of processes you want to address in order to be more concrete.
• Responding to the WHY question is mandatory
  • sounds uninformed as we argue it quite a lot through problems that we faced and want to solve

WRITING:

• our motivation and expressing challenges of the COPI4P should be WHY
• The whole introduction and arguments are talking about why. We can address the example earlier and talk about survey and our research earlier that are use needs for it.

RESEARCH:

• we should start surveys with focus groups by co-designing workshops in ColaboFlow :) with some generic support (text, icons, …)

@sinisarudan @mprinc

ACTION: WRITING

• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0GuM8_O88Mq_vk028m0TLS6HtFMcD4dmJqXTdsqtrY/edit#heading=h.xyo80e24h0s5

R2.7

• A footnote in the title of a paper.
  • we tried to find a better solution already, will try
• Section 1 (Introduction) do not provide a sufficient outline on what this paper is about
  • sure
• Section 1.1 should be moved into a separate section
• hm, ok
• Using Wikipedia as external references is not standard practice in scientific work
  • It is used only for informative purpose, for not-sci critical definitions, which are much easier to cope and understand, rather than artificially introduce irrelevant papers
• Tables 1 and 2 should fit onto a single page
  • probably we will keep them but rather fix format unless we can slim them down to a single page