Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

David Kuhlen

1 a

and Andreas Speck

2 b

IU International University of Applied Sciences, Waterloohain 9, 22769 Hamburg, Germany

Christian-Albrechts-Universit

at zu Kiel, Hermann-Rodewald-Straße 3, 24118 Kiel, Germany

Keywords:

Requirements Engineering, 3D Modelling, Software Development.

Abstract:

The use of 3D objects may enhance the requirements engineering procedures. Different approaches using

3D modelling in requirements engineering, are described in the academic literature. Furthermore, the state

of research shows objectives which can be obtained by using 3D modelling. This provides a good basis to

formulate a reference model which helps project managers to plan the use of 3D modelling in requirements

engineering. In order to support the usage of 3D modelling in requirements engineering, a reference model

is designed. This model should help project managers, to plan the usage of 3D modelling. For doing so,

project managers need to know why, how and when to use 3D modelling. The ﬁndings from literature were

used in combination with an experiment, to elaborate a recommendation for using 3D models in requirements

engineering. The experiment was combined with a survey in a requirements engineering lecture at IU Inter-

national University of Applied Sciences. The experiment shows 3D modelling by using LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY® to be a liked method. The method seems to facilitate the motivation and collaboration. However, a

further pre-analysis, before using the regular LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® method shows no signiﬁcant effect,

to improve the analysis. A reference model was proposed to guide the usage of 3D modelling in requirements

engineering. Especially the phases of requirements elicitation and the solution design beneﬁt from using 3D

modelling techniques in this proposal.

1 INTRODUCTION

Requirements engineering (RE) seeks to facilitate the

planning and understanding of upcoming software

functionalities. Within RE, customers and business

analysts discuss these functionalities. Business ana-

lysts try to understand the wishes of the customers and

customers try to be understood. However, these un-

derstandings often struggle, because software devel-

opment is such an abstract discipline. In order to facil-

itate the understanding, the 3D objects like LEGO®

SERIOUS PLAY® and additionally technologies of

3D print should be used. With the help of 3D el-

ements, it should be possible to extract objects that

match to software functionalities / software modules,

in order to help users to plan how to mix functionali-

ties to get a working software.

Using 3D objects which describe software mod-

ules promises to facilitate the understanding. How-

ever, currently the procedures within requirements

engineering are mostly based on 2D textual require-

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8338-7527

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7603-2493

ments deﬁnition. Even if using 3D objects could lead

to improvements, there is no procedure, how to deal

with 3D requirements descriptions. In order to allow

business analysts to use 3D objects in requirements

engineering, the classic processes have to be trans-

formed to ﬁt to 3D artifacts. This paper seeks to en-

hance the procedure of requirements engineering, us-

ing 3D objects. Our investigation tries prescriptive

to improve the way, how requirements engineering

works. By the elaboration of a reference model, we

try to answer the leading question, how to integrate

3D modelling techniques in requirements engineer-

ing. In order to answer this question, the following

questions have to be examined: RQ1: What is the ob-

jective, why we should use 3D modelling techniques,

in requirements engineering? RQ2: Is a preparatory

analysis helpful, to beneﬁt from 3D modelling tech-

niques? RQ3: Which activities within requirements

engineering can be supported by using 3D modelling

techniques? In order to answer our leading question,

we ﬁrst analyze related literature, seeking for methods

which integrate off-the-shelf 3D bricks and 3D print-

ings in requirements engineering. After this, we per-

214

Kuhlen, D. and Speck, A.

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models.

DOI: 10.5220/0011989400003464

In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2023), pages 214-225

ISBN: 978-989-758-647-7; ISSN: 2184-4895

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

form an analysis on the meta-requirements, that has to

be fulﬁlled by a valid reference model. The method

of our investigation is described in the section ”analy-

sis” too. In the section ”results” the created reference

model will be described.

2 RELATED WORK

As the need for multiple software projects starts due

to the objective of digital transformation, related lit-

erature addresses the ﬁeld of business change. Chal-

lenges, regarding to the digital transformation were

analyzed by (Sundberg, 2019). Sunderberg explained

everyone to be responsible for the success of the dig-

ital transformation (Sundberg, 2019). This empha-

sizes the relevance of customers for the success of

development projects. Furthermore, the paper is re-

lated to investigations on software engineering. Es-

pecially research on the methodologies of require-

ments engineering is a relevant basis for this paper.

As Nurova explains, the digitalization requires stake-

holders, following a valid procedure, having the right

competences and technologies as well as resources

(Nurova, 2020). Within this paper, new procedures

will be discussed which act on the problem of mis-

understandings, as it is a common problem between

stakeholders having a lack of competences (Balzert,

2008) First, this paper is related to investigations on

software development. Within the ﬁeld of research

on software development, it is closely related to re-

search on requirements engineering as also on ways,

to improve software development. Current research

shows techniques of requirements engineering to an

important ﬁeld of research, in order to improve soft-

ware development. Bosch mentioned e.g. that soft-

ware has to be more customizable, in order to fulﬁll

the need of different customers (Bosch, 2009), p. 1.

However, such customization has to be planned and

techniques which facilitate the planning of adapting

software could help software producers. As a con-

sequence of projects becoming more complex and

faster, techniques which enhance the visualization,

like 3D modeling, become more important (Ober-

hauser and Pogolski, 2019). The discipline of require-

ments engineering is an important ﬁeld of research

in the context of software engineering. Balzert ex-

plains the process of requirements engineering to con-

sist of the activities (1.) elicitation of requirements,

(2.) speciﬁcation, (3.) analysis, validation, and ac-

ceptance, (4.) modelling, (5.) again analysis, valida-

tion and acceptance and (6.) requirements manage-

ment (Balzert, 2009), p. 444 - 445. Pandey et al.

propose a process model of requirements engineer-

ing (Pandey et al., 2010). Their model contains the

four main tasks ”requirements elicitation and devel-

opment”, ”documentation of requirements”, ”require-

ments veriﬁcation and validation” and ”requirement

management and planning” (Pandey et al., 2010), p.

288 - 290. Their process starts with the identiﬁcation

of stakeholders, ﬁtting to different groups of business-

, customer- and user- sources of requirements (Pandey

et al., 2010), p. 289. As part of the requirements anal-

ysis, agreement and communication are mentioned to

be important activities (Pandey et al., 2010, p. 288).

Commonly, the four main tasks of RE are (1.) the

elicitation, (2.) the documentation, (3.) the review

and acceptance and (4.) the management of require-

ments (Hruschka, 2014), p. 14 - 15 (Pohl and Rupp,

2015), p. 4 - 5. Similar to this, Sommerville men-

tions three main activities in the requirements engi-

neering process to be (1.) the elicitation and analy-

sis, (2.) the speciﬁcation and (3.) the validation of

requirements (Sommerville, 2016), p. 55. Improve-

ments in requirements engineering which help cus-

tomers to work together with software developers to

plan new software, are important to face the digital

transformation. As Digilina et al. explained, the labor

market changes (Digilina et al., 2020). The work of

employees moves from simple tasks to higher com-

plex tasks, e.g. to solve problems (Digilina et al.,

2020), p. 1237. In new work environments, creativ-

ity becomes an important skill (Digilina et al., 2020),

p. 1238. Furthermore, Digilina et al. emphasize the

dominance of projects as a temporary form of work

(Digilina et al., 2020), p. 1237 f.. As the purpose

of projects is always to fulﬁl new requirements, re-

quirements engineering could become more impor-

tant in the future. In order to facilitate the understand-

ing of processes and to perform valid analysis on de-

signed business processes, process simulations can be

helpful (Rosenthal et al., 2021). Currently, the tech-

niques of 3D modelling are widely used in order to

enhance the understanding of processes. Mostly, 3D

techniques were used to create virtual realities. An

early attempt to use 3D virtual reality models to sup-

port manufacturing processes is described by Sankar

et al (Sankar et al., 1997). Sankar et al. present a de-

sign environment (Sankar et al., 1997). An analysis of

the use of virtual realities in the ﬁeld of education by

using different devices with Head Mounted Displays

(HMDs) is presented by (Marougkas et al., 2022).

Marougkas et al. discuss different HMD-systems for

virtual realities which can be used in education, com-

paring their characteristics (Marougkas et al., 2022).

Furthermore, Marougkas et al. investigate the use of

the term ”Virtual Reality” in the ﬁeld of education

(Marougkas et al., 2022). The use of 3D virtual real-

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

215

ities could facilitate the comprehension of processes.

For example, Aysolmaz et al. present a 3D virtual

reality approach, to improve process trainings (Aysol-

maz et al., 2016). (Aysolmaz et al., 2016) describe

a ”generic visualization approach”, which is focused

on displaying the input-/outputs of every process ac-

tivity within a process model. Brown describes a con-

cept, to use 3D virtual worlds in order to facilitate

the understanding of process models (Brown, 2010).

In order to enhance the understandability of process

models for users who are not trained in the process

notion, Brown suggests using 3D modeling (Brown,

2010), p. 25). A similar approach was presented by

Brown, Recker and West (Brown et al., 2011). Re-

garding to the understandability of process models,

Brown et al. explain the beneﬁt of 3D techniques

to integrate non-verbal communication elements, like

gestures in process models, to enhance its compre-

hensibility (Brown et al., 2011), p. 7). The commu-

nication beneﬁts from the intuitive forms, as Brown

et al. explained (Brown et al., 2011), p. 7). Es-

pecially Jagenow et al. derived interesting insights

while using a 3D virtual environment to describe pro-

cess models (Jagenow et al., 2022). As Jagenow et

al. described, many processes lack of documentation

(Jagenow et al., 2022), p. 450. As stakeholders strug-

gle to gather correct process descriptions (Jagenow

et al., 2022), p. 451, the proposed visualization of

Jagenow et al. helps stakeholders to better understand

processes (Jagenow et al., 2022), p. 453. Oberhauser

and Pogolski present an approach, which illustrates

business processes on multiple layers in 3D land-

scapes (Oberhauser and Pogolski, 2019). They found

beneﬁts of 3D expressions of business processes re-

garding to the visualization of interacting objects in

space (Oberhauser and Pogolski, 2019), p. 17. Fur-

thermore, this paper is related to research which ad-

dresses challenges in requirements engineering. One

of the most important steps within requirements engi-

neering is the elicitation of process models. Harman

et al. elaborated an approach to use 3D virtual worlds

to help stakeholders design process models (Harman

et al., 2016). Within a virtual environment, stakehold-

ers play to interact as usual with objects and the soft-

ware captures a formal process model which ﬁts to

this interaction (Harman et al., 2016), p. 9. The inter-

action within a 3D virtual world accelerates the con-

struction of process models (Harman et al., 2016), p.

23. Not only with focus on requirements engineer-

ing, Badakhshan et al. described challenges which

emerge while dealing with processes. Due to inter-

views, Badakhshan revealed, that it is hard to ensure

a similar understanding of business processes within

an organization (Badakhshan et al., 2020). In order to

better the situation, Badakhshan presents a tool which

also improves the documentation (Badakhshan et al.,

2020), which is also important in requirements engi-

neering. This work bases on the ﬁndings of previ-

ous research, which investigates the use of 3D mod-

els to enhance requirements engineering. An early at-

tempt of doing 3D visualization to support require-

ments engineering is described by (Teyseyre, 2003).

Teyseyre proposed a method of formal requirements

description in Z (Teyseyre, 2003), p. 47. The require-

ments speciﬁcation would be translated to Prolog-

Code (Teyseyre, 2003), p. 48. After the developer

visualized the speciﬁcation in a 3D world, the cus-

tomer can interact with the designed 3D objects, be-

cause their behavior is formally described (Teyseyre,

2003). This procedure is a functionality in the Tool

ReqViz3D by Teyseyre (Teyseyre, 2003). The use of

such a visualization leads to improvements regarding

to the understanding as far as cost savings in require-

ments engineering (Teyseyre, 2003). By using toys,

representing 3D model elements, Nass et al. elabo-

rated a method which is able to improve requirements

engineering (Nass et al., 2018). Their so-called ”Tan-

gible Ecosystem Design” consists of a set of methods

and tools, to facilitate the communication between

stakeholders to build software services (Nass et al.,

2018). Nass et al. described their workshop pro-

cedure as to (1.) deﬁne the purpose of the software

ecosystem, (2.) deﬁne a concept of the customer ex-

perience and (3.) model the business processes (Nass

et al., 2018). Nass Bauer and Trapp emphasize the

need to design end-to-end services, which ﬁt to the

customer requirements, in context of the digital trans-

formation (Nass Bauer and Trapp, 2019), p. 1. On

the basis of their ﬁndings in (Nass et al., 2018), Nass

Bauer and Trapp describe course within they taught

stakeholders to create new digital services by using

3D models (Nass Bauer and Trapp, 2019), p. 3. To

do so, Nass Bauer and Trapp (1.) explained the con-

cept and then focus (2.) on the modelling of digital

services, (3.) on the modelling of business ﬂows and

(4.) on the elaboration of the beneﬁts (Nass Bauer and

Trapp, 2019), p. 3 f.. Within the academic literature,

much research can be found about using LEGO® SE-

RIOUS PLAY® (The LEGO Group, 2007) in order to

enhance the requirements engineering. Robert Ras-

mussen, who was director of research and develop-

ment for the educational division of the LEGO Com-

pany in 1999, describes the collaborative effect of us-

ing LSP (Rasmussen, 2006).

With the help of LSP, teams build 3D models con-

sisting of LEGO® bricks (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 59.

The use of LSP should inspire the team to describe

stories and ﬁnd metaphors (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 59.

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

216

Rasmussen explains ”Once the model is built, mem-

bers share its meaning and story with the rest of the

team” (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 58. By using LSP

the team beneﬁts from an increased motivation (Ras-

mussen, 2006). Furthermore, the technique of build-

ing 3D models helps to integrate team members in the

process of model construction who struggle with ver-

bal conversations (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 60. The gen-

eral process, how to use LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®

is described by (The LEGO Group 2007, p. 7 -

21). The process consists of the steps of (1.) model

construction, (2.) describing the metaphors and (3.)

telling a story (The LEGO Group 2007, p. 7 - 21)

(Cantoni et al., 2009), p. 847. Cantoni et al. used

the LSP method to create an own method which sup-

ports requirements elicitation for web development

projects (Cantoni et al., 2009). Their process con-

sists of 8 activities (Cantoni et al., 2009): (1.) in-

troduction and set-up goals (2.) stakeholders model

their own role (3.) stakeholders deﬁne the users of

the web application (4.) the team models the land-

scape (5.) each stakeholder models the content of

the web application (6.) each stakeholder models the

functions of the web application (7.) the team con-

structs the model of the complete landscape and (8.)

users, functions and content are connected (Cantoni

et al., 2009), p. 848. As an advantage, the method

of Cantoni et al. facilitates all stakeholders to think

out-of-the-box (Cantoni et al., 2009), p. 849. Also,

the LSP methodology, which consists of seven tech-

niques combines individual- and collaborative mod-

elling steps: (1.) stakeholder build individual models

(2.) the team builds shared models, (3.) a landscape

of the application will be built (4.) different models

will be connected (5.) the system will be built (6.)

scenarios are tested on the basis of the system (7.)

guiding principles are derived (Kristiansen and Ras-

mussen, 2014). As LSP offers the potential to en-

hance the understanding, the methodology could also

be used in order to enhance teaching of software engi-

neering practices (Kurkovsky, 2015). Kurkovsky de-

scribes an experiment, in which he used detect, that

using LSP helps students to remember the theoretical

concepts because they practiced it (Kurkovsky, 2015).

Furthermore, (Kurkovsky, 2015) emphasize the ef-

fect of LSP on the motivation (Kurkovsky, 2015), p.

218. Also, Gama describes an experiment of using

LEGO® in courses to teach requirements engineer-

ing and scrum (Gama, 2019). As part of the exper-

iment, students simulate the implementation of soft-

ware by using LEGO® (Gama, 2019). Among oth-

ers, the experiment compares the effect of knowing

all requirements before implementation with effect

of requirements to be determined during the project

(Gama, 2019) , p. 291. This helps students to un-

derstand the concepts of requirements engineering as

far as the risk of change-requests (Gama, 2019), p.

294 ff.. Furthermore, Gama notices positive effects,

the LEGO® activity has for the teamwork of the stu-

dents (Gama, 2019) , p. 294. Kurkovsky et al. used

LEGO® in courses too, to teach requirements engi-

neering practices (Kurkovsky et al., 2019). By us-

ing LEGO® the abilities of students to solve prob-

lems and the skills for interpersonal communication

are trained (Kurkovsky et al., 2019), p. 223. Using

LEGO® facilitates students to move ”their thinking

beyond concrete conceptualizations to abstract”, as

Kurkovsky et al. described (Kurkovsky et al., 2019),

p. 223. Furthermore, in order to teach students, the

challenges of requirements engineering, related to the

communication of requirements details between mul-

tiple stakeholders, Scialdone and Connolly describe a

teaching method on the basis of LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY® (Scialdone and Connolly, 2021). The use of

3D models in requirements engineering decreases the

importance of verbal communication (Scialdone and

Connolly, 2021), p. 7.

3 ANALYSIS AND METHOD

In order to create a reference model to use 3D mod-

elling techniques in requirements engineering, it has

to be analyzed, why, how and when to use 3D mod-

elling techniques. These questions are directly re-

lated to the three research questions RQ1 (=why),

RQ2 (=how), RQ3 (=when). The analysis of re-

lated work in section 2 shows requirements engineer-

ing to be a well-deﬁned procedure. The activities

of requirements engineering are widely documented.

Also, procedures, how to use 3D modelling tech-

niques are described within the literature. Further-

more, the objectives that could be fulﬁlled by using

3D modelling techniques are discussed in the state of

research. However, business needs a holistic plan for

the integration of such concepts. In order to ﬁnd such

a holistic plan, the project manager needs to know the

strengths and weaknesses of different concepts, for

the integration of 3D modelling in requirements en-

gineering. Mainly, the project manager has to decide

for what purpose 3D modelling techniques should be

used (RQ1), if the use of 3D modelling techniques

should be prepared (RQ2) and which activities ben-

eﬁt from 3D modelling techniques (RQ3). Premise

of this work is the assumption, that ﬁndings from our

use of LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® in our experiment

are applicable for 3D modelling in general. The ac-

tivities, to be supported by 3D modelling techniques,

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

217

can be collected on the basis of ﬁndings from re-

search. Therefore, RQ3 will be answered conceptu-

ally deductive (Wilde and Hess, 2006), p. 7 - 14.

Wilde and Hess describe the use of conceptually de-

ductive analyses to be design orientated (Wilde and

Hess, 2006), p. 7 - 14. A reference model will be

designed, that simpliﬁes the reality (Wilde and Hess,

2006), p. 7. The reference model should be a the-

oretical construct that facilitates the formulation of

statements (Fettke and Loos, 2004), p. 10. Follow-

ing (Chmielewicz, 1994), Fettke and Loos explain the

way to describe reference models as a terminologi-

cal instrument, which helps to classify a set of terms

within a speciﬁc spatio-temporal system (Fettke and

Loos, 2004), p. 10.

Figure 1: 3D print and models of brick elements represent-

ing transportation, compatible to LEGO®, own design cre-

ated by using AutoCAD 2023 for MAC OS, a product of

the Autodesk Inc.

In order to answer RQ1 and RQ2, a combination of

an experiment and a survey will be performed. Within

this experiment, a subset of methods and ﬁndings

from research (see section 2) will be tested, in order to

answer the research questions. Therefore, the answer

to RQ1 and RQ2 will be derived by using behavioral

science (Wilde and Hess, 2006), p. 3. The qualitative

results from the experiment and the survey will be an-

alyzed quantitatively, by using statistical tests (Wilde

and Hess, 2006), p. 8. The experiment was performed

within a lecture in the requirements engineering mod-

ule of study, at IU International University of Applied

Sciences in Hamburg. The lecture was visited by 18

bachelor students, being in their 3rd semester. The

group of students consists of 5 students, studying in-

formatics and 13 students studying business informat-

ics.

All students are parallel employed in companies,

to collect practical experiences as part of their study.

The students already know methods of requirements

elicitation, requirements speciﬁcation and the con-

struction of system models by using UML before the

experiment is performed. Furthermore, all students

are already trained in the implementation of soft-

ware applications, using the object-oriented program-

ming language JAVA. The class was separated in two

groups, one group being the subject team (ST, Group

1), the other being the control group (CG, Group

2). Separating a course into two groups can lead to

difﬁculties of communication between these groups,

which impacts on the results (Kurkovsky et al., 2019),

p. 223. To decrease this risk, the control group has

a special room. The study group and the control

group both become divided into 3 sub teams. The

students form teams on their own preferences. This

should ensure a good collaboration. Each team gets

a set of three requirements, described in text form,

having different levels of difﬁculty. Approximately,

the ﬁrst requirement takes 30 minutes to be analyzed,

the second requirement takes 40 minutes to be ana-

lyzed and the third requirement takes 20 minutes for

its analysis. Therefore, the experiment takes 90 min-

utes in total. Furthermore, each team gets a bag of

bricks, being part of a LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®

Window Exploration Bag. Each bag has more than 50

LEGO® bricks. All teams had the possibility to get

some more bricks if they wanted. Before the experi-

ment started and after the experiment was performed,

some questions were asked using the web service of

(Mentimeter, 2023). The students were asked if they

had experience with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® and

if they think that 3D modelling will facilitate require-

ments engineering. Just one student already had ex-

perience with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. After the

experiment, all students were asked to evaluate the

technique of 3D modelling as being part of require-

ments engineering. The lecture ended with a discus-

sion, comparing the ﬁndings from literature with the

experiences from using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®

in practice in the lecture. Before the practical part

of the experiment started, all students were intro-

duced to the state of research, regarding to 3D mod-

elling of requirements by using LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY®, see section 2. Especially, the basic steps of

modelling, building metaphors and storytelling (The

LEGO Group 2007, p. 7 - 21)(Cantoni et al., 2009),

p. 847 were thought and illustrated. Within the ex-

periment, all teams have to use LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY® in this way to analyze the requirements. Af-

ter the requirements are analyzed, all students should

design an UML class diagram and an UML activity

diagram to describe a valid solution, fulﬁlling the re-

quirement. The three sub teams of students, being

in the subject group, have to do a short pre-analysis,

additionally. This pre-analysis forces the students to

collect some notes, regarding to the objective, the pro-

cedure, the pre- and postconditions and the problems

and preventions. After the experiment was ﬁnished,

the results of each of the 6 sub-teams were collected.

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

218

These results are qualitative, showing different de-

signs to fulﬁl the requirement. In comparison with a

sample solution, which fulﬁls the given requirement,

all answers were evaluated. For each diagram it was

analyzed how much the design of the student team

matches to the sample solution. The achieved per-

centages of the different groups are analyzed statisti-

cally, in the next section. Also, the accuracy of the

pre-analyses of the subject teams was analyzed and

evaluated in percent, subjectively. The statistical anal-

ysis was done by using (Microsoft® Excel® 2019).

Especially the functions in the Analysis ToolPak be-

ing part of (Microsoft® Excel® 2019) were used. The

web service of (Mentimeter, 2023) offers a function to

obtain the results of the survey in a .xlsx ﬁle, compat-

ible for (Microsoft® Excel® 2019).

4 RESULTS

The experiment and the survey were conducted on

January, 16th 2023. First, the students were asked

three questions via the web service of (Mentimeter,

2023):

• Q1: Did you play with LEGO® when you were a

child? (Possible answers: Yes, No and NULL)

• Q2: Have you already used LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY®? (Possible answers: Yes, No and NULL).

• Q3: Do you think, 3D modelling will facilitate re-

quirements engineering? (Possible answers: Yes,

No, Unsure, NULL)

Each student answered the questions anonymously.

The value NULL means, a participant has not given

an answer. The total number of collected answers

shown in the classroom and the concept of LEGO®

SERIOUS PLAY® was explained. As described in

the previous section, all students were divided into 6

sub teams, 3 in subject group and 3 in control group.

Each team gets three ﬁctitious requirements to be an-

alyzed:

• Req.1: a system that can be used by medical prac-

tices, to register recipes at the health insurance, to

prevent fraud with counterfeit receipts.

• Req.2: a system that can be used by a manufac-

turer of furniture, who has a forest and wood man-

agement on his own, to plan the production of in-

dividual ordered furniture.

• Req.3: a system that can be used by the coach of

a football team, to plan tournaments (travel, strat-

egy) and to document them.

The requirements were shortly described in German

language: Req.1 in 60 words, Req.2 in 58 words and

Figure 2: Impressions of the experiment, partially photos

edited with (GIMP 2.10.24).

Req.3 in 43 words. After the experiment was con-

ducted, the students were asked to answer again 5

questions by using (Mentimeter, 2023):

• Q4: Which group do you belong to? (Possible

answers: Group 1, Group 2 and NULL)

• Q5: Did you have fun, using the technique? (Pos-

sible answers: -5 to +5 points, -5 = Absolutely

not! and +5 = Yes, deﬁnitively!)

• Q6: Could you imagine to use the technique in

practice? (Possible answers: -5 to +5 points, -5 =

Absolutely not! and +5 = Yes, deﬁnitively!)

• Q7: Did the technique facilitate the development

of a solution model? (Possible answers: -5 to +5

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

219

points, -5 = Absolutely not! and +5 = Yes, deﬁni-

tively!)

• Q8: Do you have any comments? (all textual an-

swers are possible)

Requirements

Average

Preparation

Req.1

16,67%

Req.2

11,67%

Req.3

6,67%

Average Result (mean)

Requirements

UML class

model

ML activity diagram

Req.1

65,00%

81,67%

Req.2

50,00%

Req.3

52,50%

23,33%

Average Result (mean)

Requirements

UML class

model

UML activity

diagram

Req.1

56,67%

80,00%

Req.2

36,67%

56,67%

Req.3

46,67%

36,67%

Average Result (mean)

Requirements

UML class

model

UML activity

diagram

Req.1

73,33%

83,33%

Req.2

63,33%

16,67%

Req.3

58,33%

63,33%

Figure 3: Average results, describing the experiment.

All questions were asked in German language.

Furthermore, the meaning of the questions was ex-

plained in the lecture. Asking Q4 was necessary, be-

cause the survey via (Mentimeter, 2023) is anony-

mous. In order to assign the results to the subject

group (=Group 1) or the control group (=Group 2),

the participants were asked to enter their group num-

ber in the survey. All 18 students accessed the survey

within Mentimeter. Due to the webservice of (Men-

timeter, 2023), a unique number was assigned to each

participant (ID 1 to ID 18). The survey came the fol-

lowing results:

• Q1: 16x Yes; 1x No; 1x NULL

• Q2: 1x Yes; 16x No; 1x NULL

• Q3: 12x Yes; 0x No; 4x Undecided; 2x NULL

• Q4: 9x Group 1; 7x Group2; 2x NULL

• Q5: 16 answers, 2x NULL; Overall: mean=3,937

& median=4,000 ; within group 1: mean=3,777 ;

within group 2: mean=4,142

• Q6: 16 answers, 2x NULL; Overall: mean=0,375

& median=0,500 ; within group 1: mean=0,000 &

median=-0,500 ; within group 2: mean=0,857 &

median=2,000

• Q7: 16 answers, 2x NULL ; Overall:

mean=0,688 & median=1,000 ; within group 1:

mean=0,777 & median=0,500 ; within group 2:

mean=0,444 & median=1,000

• Q8: 11 answers, 7x NULL; 4x positive comments

without further explanation; 1x comment tends to

be negative; 1x comment was not interpretable ;

1x comment explains the technique has enhanced

the creativity; 4x comments make proposals for

the application of the method (use more LEGO®

bricks; use for large teams ; helpful to build class

models ; use to stimulate communication).

The analysis of the experiment compared the UML

class diagram and the UML activity diagram for each

requirement with a sample solution. The result of

each team was scored with a percentage value. For the

subject teams, the accuracy of the pre-analysis was

alse scored with a percentage value.

Team Group Shortcut of

requirement

Effort Difficulty Quality of

preparation

Quality of

class

diagram

Quality of

activity

diagram

TID

REQ

REQE

QPA

QCD

QAD

ST1 1 Req.1 30 3 20,00% 90,00% 60,00%

ST1 1 Req.2 40 5 10,00% 60,00% 80,00%

ST1 1 Req.3 20 2 30,00% 50,00% 50,00%

ST2 1 Req.1 30 3 10,00% 30,00% 80,00%

ST2 1 Req.2 40 5 0,00% 20,00% 60,00%

ST2 1 Req.3 20 2 0,00% 20,00% 20,00%

ST3 1 Req.1 30 3 70,00% 50,00% 100,00%

ST3 1 Req.2 40 5 60,00% 30,00% 30,00%

ST3 1 Req.3 20 2 10,00% 70,00% 40,00%

CG1 2 Req.1 30 3 0,00% 90,00% 100,00%

CG1 2 Req.2 40 5 0,00% 80,00% 40,00%

CG1 2 Req.3 20 2 0,00% 85,00% 60,00%

CG2 2 Req.1 30 3 0,00% 70,00% 50,00%

CG2 2 Req.2 40 5 0,00% 80,00% 0,00%

CG2 2 Req.3 20 2 0,00% 30,00% 30,00%

CG3 2 Req.1 30 3 0,00% 60,00% 100,00%

CG3 2 Req.2 40 5 0,00% 30,00% 10,00%

CG3 2 Req.3 20 2 0,00% 60,00% 100,00%

Grading

Requirement

Team

Figure 4: Experiment data.

4.1 Answer to RQ1

The objective, why to use 3D modelling in require-

ments engineering, could ﬁrst be answered on the

basis of the ﬁndings from literature. 3D modelling

techniques like LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® offer-

ing a playful environment, to analyse requirements

{citeCantoniBotturiFareBolchiniDavide2009, p. 847.

Using 3D models within requirements engineering

could improve communication (Teyseyre, 2003), p.

45. (Scialdone and Connolly, 2021) and the creativ-

ity (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 61, (Cantoni et al., 2009),

p. 847, (Kurkovsky et al., 2019), p. 218. Rasmussen

explains the use of LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® re-

duces costs and increases the quality of products

(Rasmussen, 2006), p. 58. Using techniques, like

LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® is fun, helps us to think

out-of-the-box (Kurkovsky, 2015), p. 218, (Scialdone

and Connolly, 2021), p. 6. The results from the sur-

vey and the experiment shows, that participants had

fun, using the technique LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

220

(93,75%, see Q5). Most of the participants think, us-

ing 3D modelling will facilitate requirements engi-

neering (85%, see Q3). However, about 43,75% of

the participants could not imagine to use the tech-

nique in practice (see negative records in Q6). 50%

of the participants could imagine to use 3D modelling

techniques in practice (see Q6). With regard to the

outcome, in Q7 the participants answered on an aver-

age that using 3D modelling has just a slight positive

effect on the development of solution models. 56,25%

of the participants see the development of a solution

model to be facilitated by the use of 3D modelling

techniques. 31,25% of the participants do not see the

use of 3D modelling to facilitate the creation of UML

solution models. Two participants (21,5%) scored the

effect 3D modelling has on the solution model to be 0,

means anywhere between positive and negative. On

the basis of this ﬁndings, we recommend to use 3D

models mainly in order to facilitate the communica-

tion and the collaboration. Furthermore, the ﬁndings

show 3D modelling to have a positive impact on the

motivation.

4.2 Answer to RQ2

The use of LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® is already

guided by different principles / processes, which are

described, e.g. by (Rasmussen, 2006), (Cantoni et al.,

2009). The experiment examines the effect, an ad-

ditional pre-analysis has on the quality of the solu-

tion design. In order to guide the pre-analysis, a sim-

ple meta-process is designed, called O4P. O4P re-

quests the modeler to deﬁne the (O) objective, the

(P) procedure for the solution, (PP) pre- and post-

conditions of the procedure and (PP) problems and

preventions. Within the experiment, students which

belong to the subject group had to perform this O4P

before using LEGEO® SERIOUS PLAY® as usual,

see (Rasmussen, 2006) (Cantoni et al., 2009). In or-

der to answer the question RQ2, a regression analysis

will be performed. The regression analyzes the ef-

fect, the quality of preparation (QPA) has on the qual-

ity of the UML models, describing the solution (QCD

+ QAD). The regression analysis revealed the covari-

ance to be 0,00106, the correlation coefﬁcient to be

0,01196 and the adjusted coefﬁcient of determination

to be -0,13317. The t-Test shows the residual variance

to be 0,2097 and the standard error to be 0,45793.

The value of the t-Statistic is 0,4512. Compared with

T being 2,11991, there is no statistic signiﬁcant im-

pact, QPA has on QCD+QAD. A project manager,

who wants to know how to use 3D modelling in re-

quirements engineering, should focus on the standard

principles / guidelines which are already established.

An additional pre-analysis, which goes beyond these

standard procedures, has no signiﬁcant positive effect.

4.3 Answer to RQ3

The literature review shows requirements engineering

to be a well-deﬁned phase within the software en-

gineering discipline. Harman et al. explained that

elicitation of processes is a collaborative task which

requires communication between multiple stakehold-

ers, normally (Harman et al., 2016), p. 4. Brown

concludes 3D models to facilitate the communica-

tion between different stakeholders on process models

(Brown, 2010), p. 31. Stakeholders IT-competence

is an important success factor, to realize software

projects (Nurova, 2020). (Nurova, 2020). Also(Nass

et al., 2018) mentioning the consumers experience

has to be considered. Regarding to the visualiza-

tion of business processes, Oberhauser and Pogolski

show the beneﬁt of using layers within cubic struc-

tures (Oberhauser and Pogolski, 2019), p. 4 - 8).

Pandey et al. explain requirements management to

be a continuous activity (Pandey et al., 2010, p. 290).

A procedure, that supports the use of 3D models in

requirements engineering has to be ﬂexible, ﬁtting to

different needs in different companies. As require-

ments engineering is a collaborative activity which

strongly depends on the communication with cus-

tomers, the experience of the customer should be con-

sidered by the method. Furthermore, a valid refer-

ence model has to support the basic activities, re-

quirements engineering consists of. As described in

sections 2, all activities of requirements engineering

are described within the literature, e.g. by (Balzert,

2009) (Hruschka, 2014) (Pohl and Rupp, 2015) (Som-

merville, 2016). The basic activities of requirements

elicitation, solution design and documentation (Balz-

ert, 2009) (Hruschka, 2014) (Pohl and Rupp, 2015)

(Sommerville, 2016) could be deﬁned as main steps.

Furthermore, a setup activity should be added as ba-

sic step within requirements engineering to initialize

the business analysis. Within a literature, often the

communication and management of requirements are

seen to be separate activities (see section 2). How-

ever, in practice, each activity requires an amount of

management and also of communication. E.g. writ-

ing a documentation needs a plan and control, as it is

the task of the management. Furthermore, the docu-

mentation has to be communicated, e.g. to ﬁnd mis-

takes in the documentation or to reconcile it. Conse-

quently, the four activities (I) preparation, (II) require-

ments elicitation, (III) solution design and (IV) doc-

umentation have a (1.) management dimension, they

have a (2.) communicative dimension and (3.) they

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

221

have a constructive dimension. Within the construc-

tive dimension, all activities have to realize a practical

output, that has to be constructed, e.g. like the writ-

ten speciﬁcation document or the list of collected re-

quirements. This model of requirements engineering

has to complement with facilities, to create or use 3D

models. Different types of customers, distinguished

on the basis of the experience of the customers, re-

quire different proceedings. For each activity in each

dimension and for each type of the customer, compa-

nies are able to choose between different procedures.

Next to basic procedures that belong to requirements

engineering, e.g. like brainstorming, companies are

able to use procedures which base on 3D models.

Such 3D-Modelling-Procedures (3DMPs) are creative

steps, having a high degree of communication. They

risk to lose the focus on the objective of requirements

engineering.

5 DISCUSSION

After the experiment and the survey were ﬁnished, the

results were discussed with the students. The students

were asked about their evaluation of ﬁndings from lit-

erature. Within the discussion, the students agreed to

the following statements from literature, regarding to

LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® (LSP):

• Using LSP is fun, helps us to think out-of-the-box

(Kurkovsky, 2015), p. 218, (Scialdone and Con-

nolly, 2021), p. 6.

• Using LSP enhances the creativity (Cantoni et al.,

2009), p. 847

• LSP offers a playful environment, to analyse re-

quirements (Cantoni et al., 2009), p. 847

• LSP facilitates the learning (Kurkovsky, 2015), p.

217, (Gama, 2019), p. 296.

• The insights obtained by using LSP are sustain-

able, because of the haptic nature of the technique

(Kurkovsky, 2015), p. 217, (Gama, 2019), p. 296.

• The teamwork and the communication were en-

hanced by using LSP (Kurkovsky, 2015), p. 214,

(Gama, 2019), p. 294, (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 60.

One student especially emphasizes the effect, de-

scribed by (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 60, that LEGO®

SERIOUS PLAY® helps to integrate those students,

”who don´t normally share what they are thinking”,

as explained by Rasmussen (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 60.

However, in the discussion, the students explained

LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® to be not suitable in all

situations at their valuation. In communication with

hanseatic clients, being very conservative, the use of

techniques like LSP could be seen to be ”too hip”, as

the students explained. However, in total the students

think that LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® is a valuable

technique which could be helpful in practice.

Currently, 3D models are not used everywhere

in requirements engineering. A reference procedure,

which helps to integrate the usage of 3D models in re-

quirements engineering, could guide the usage of 3D

methods. However, the ﬁndings from the experiment

suggest a reference model to be valuable if it does

not limit the freedom of 3D modelling approaches too

much. The given answers to Q5 show that students in

group 2 had more fun with using LSP (mean 3.78 in

group 1 compared to 4.14 in group 2, see section 4).

Also the answers to Q6 show that students in group 2

have a higher agreement to use LSP in practice (mean

0.86 in group 2 compared to 0.00 in group 1, see sec-

tion 4). A reference model which guides the methods

application, without increasing the effort to use the

method, could be valid to support the practice of 3D

modelling techniques in requirements engineering.

6 CONCLUSION

Requirements Engineering could be improved, by us-

ing 3D objects. By printing 3D objects for individual

software functionalities, customers could better plan

how to integrate these modules to build a new sys-

tem. However, currently, requirements engineering

is mostly based on 2D textual descriptions. In or-

der to use 3D objects, the procedures in requirements

engineering has to be adapted. This paper presents

a reference model for new requirements engineering

processes which integrate 3D printing technologies.

The state of research shows 3D modelling to be a rea-

sonable technique, supporting requirements engineer-

ing. Experiences with playful methods (Knauss et al.,

2008), using LEGO® (Cantoni et al., 2009) or Play-

mobil® (Nass Bauer and Trapp, 2019), (Nass et al.,

2018) show how to use 3D modelling in requirements

engineering. Using 3D modelling promises to facil-

itate the communication (Teyseyre, 2003). (Scial-

done and Connolly, 2021), increases fun and creativ-

ity (Kurkovsky, 2015), p. 218, (Scialdone and Con-

nolly, 2021), p. 6, (Cantoni et al., 2009), p. 847

and helps to integrate all team members in the con-

struction of a solution for complex ideas (Rasmussen,

2006) (Kurkovsky, 2015). Furthermore, LSP as an

3D modelling technique, has the potential to improve

the quality and speed of decision making and leads to

faster and better implementations, as Rasmussen ex-

plains (Rasmussen, 2006), p. 58. Using LEGO® as

a technique to teach concepts of requirements engi-

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

222

Layer 1: Management

I) set-up

II) requirements elicitation

III) solution design

IV) documentation

Level 0: Basic

-define phases

-project planning

-set up workspace

-define priority categories

- organize 3D modelling

workshops

- handle change requests

-demonstrate business case

solution

-measure the fulfillment of the

objectives

-define release process

Level 1: Business User

-determine vision

-multiple playing-workshops

-define objective

-plan high-adjustable platform

design

-step-by-step cooperation

Level 2: Key User

-determine objectives

-focused discussion-meetings

-plan cooperative software-

design-process

-solution-based cooperation

Level 3: Experts

-set up acceptance criteria

-little number of coordination-

meetings

-plan test-cases

-cooperative-collaboration

Layer 2: Communication/Agreement

I) set-up

II) requirements elicitation

III) solution design

IV) documentation

Level 0: Basic

-contract formulation

-set up release procedure

-define glossary

-define 3D objects

-agreement on the results of

the construction

-agree on documentation

format

Level 1: Business User

-understand customers

language

-taking customer´s perspective

-business to 3D transformation

-agreement on possibilities of

further changes

- documentation of decisions

and their emergence

Level 2: Key User

-define degree of assistance

-functionality-discussion

-process to 3D transformation

-agreement on processes

- documentation of the agreed

service

Level 3: Experts

-define formal language

-technical objective

formulation

-service to 3D transformation

-agreement on core-

functionalities

- description of the solution

Layer 3: Construction

I) set-up

II) requirements elicitation

III) solution design

IV) documentation

Level 0: Basic

-set up concept document

-set up backlog

-3D model construction

-model quality assurance

-define document structure

-documentation of the 3D

model

Level 1: Business User

-define business symbols

-role playing games

-experience customers job

-business models

-3D business game

-story telling

Level 2: Key User

-collect experience reports

-model-discussion-cycle

BPMN process model

-3D process model

-business design

Level 3: Experts

-request for CRS (Lastenheft)

-create FDS (Pflichtenheft)

UML system models

-3D service integration model

-functional documentation

█ Critical step █ Normal step █ Simple step █ Using 3D models

Figure 5: Layered reference model, created with (Microsoft® Word 2019).

neering, shows its potential to improve students’ per-

ception of abstract concepts (Kurkovsky, 2015), p.

223. In order to use 3D modelling in requirements

engineering, project managers have to ﬁnd answers

regarding to the organization of the methods used.

The research questions aim to describe why to use

3D modelling (RQ1), how to practice 3D modelling

(RQ2) and when to do 3D modelling in requirements

engineering (RQ3). A reference model, that facili-

tates the use of 3D modelling in requirements engi-

neering has to answer these questions. In order to an-

swer RQ1 and RQ2 an experiment was performed in

combination with a survey and a discussion of ﬁnd-

ings from literature. During the experiment, differ-

ent groups had to use 3D modelling to analyze re-

quirements. The work of the groups differs in the

amount of pre-analysis, done before the use of 3D

modelling. The analysis of the effect, the pre-analysis

has on the outcome of the groups, helps to answer

RQ2. The survey and the discussion aim to iden-

tify beneﬁts, that can be realized by using 3D mod-

eling. This helps to answer RQ1. The analysis of the

results from the survey and the experiment conﬁrm,

3D modelling to be a valuable technique, facilitating

the motivation and collaboration. By using a regres-

sion analysis, the data obtained from the experiment

shows a pre-analysis to not have a signiﬁcant effect

on the outcome. The usage of 3D modelling tech-

niques can be recommended, in order to facilitate the

communication and motivation, mainly in the activ-

ities of requirements elicitation and the solution de-

sign. Further investigations may be focused on the

extended integration of 3D printing in order to cre-

ate specialized 3D model elements, to be used in re-

quirements engineering. If companies print their own

3D models, representing specialized services of the

companies business (like a speciﬁc way of transporta-

tion as depicted in ﬁgure 1), the creation of metaphors

(Cantoni et al., 2009) could be enhanced. However, as

LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® is well-known, it has to

be analyzed, how to combine individual created 3D

models and LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. By doing

so, the beneﬁts of both approaches might be realized.

REFERENCES

Aysolmaz, B., Brown, R., Bruza, P., and Reijers, H. (2016).

A 3D Visualization Approach for Process Training in

Ofﬁce Environments. In Debruyne, C., Panetto, H.,

Meersman, R., Dillon, T., K

uhn, e., O’Sullivan, D.,

and Ardagna, C. A., editors, On the Move to Meaning-

ful Internet Systems: OTM 2016 Conferences. Con-

federated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC,

and ODBASE 2016, pages 418–436. Cham, Switzer-

land: Springer LNCS 10033. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-

319-48472-3 24 .

Badakhshan, P., Geyer-Klingeberg, J., El-Halaby, M.,

Lutzeyer, T., Lembo, A., and Gabriela, V. (2020).

Celonis Process Repository: A Bridge between Busi-

ness Process Management and Process Mining. In

van der Aalst, W. M. P., vom Brocke, J., Comuzzi,

M., Di Ciccio, C., Garc

ıa, F., Kumar, A., Mendling, J.,

Pentland, B., Pufahl, L., Reichert, M., and Weske, M.,

editors, BPM-D 2020. BPM 2020 Best Dissertation

Award, Doctoral Consortium, and Demonstration &

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

223

Resources Track. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. Vol.

2673. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2673/paperDR01.pdf.

Balzert, H. (2008). Lehrbuch der Softwaretechnik. Soft-

waremanagement. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademis-

cher Verlag, ein Imprint von Springer, 2nd edition.

Balzert, H. (2009). Lehrbuch der Softwaretechnik. Ba-

siskonzepte und Requirements Engineering. Heidel-

berg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, ein Imprint

von Springer, 3rd edition.

Bosch, J. (2009). From Software Product Lines to Software

Ecosystems. In McGreger, J. and Muthig, D., edi-

tors, Proceedings of the 13th International Software

Product Line Conference (SPLC2009), pages 111–

119. Carnegie Mellon University, The Software En-

gineering Institute.

Brown, R., Recker, J., and West, S. (2011). Using Vir-

tual Worlds for Collaborative Business Process Mod-

eling. Business Process Management Journal, Emer-

ald Group Publishing Limited, 17(3):546–564. DOI:

10.1108/14637151111136414, ﬁle = F.

Brown, R. A. (2010). Conceptual Modelling in 3D Virtual

Worlds for Process Communication. In Link, S., edi-

tor, The proceedings of the Seventh Asia-Paciﬁc Con-

ference on Conceptual Modelling (APCCM 2010),

volume 110, pages 26–32. CRPIT.

Cantoni, L., Botturi, L., Far

e, M., and Bolchini, D. (2009).

Playful Holistic Support to HCI Requirements Using

LEGO Bricks. In Kurosu, M., editor, Human Cen-

tered Design, HCD 2009, volume 5619, pages 844–

853. Berlin, Heidelberg, DE: Springer, LNCS DOI:

10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9 97.

Chmielewicz, K. (1994). Forschungskonzeptionen der

Wirtschaftswissenschaft. Sch

affer-Poeschel, Stuttgart,

3rd edition.

Digilina, O. B., Teslenko, I. B., and Abdullaev, N. V.

(2020). Prospects and Problems of Digitalization

of the Labor Market in Russia. In Proceedings of

the 2nd International Scientiﬁc and Practical Con-

ference ”Modern Management Trends and the Digi-

tal Economy: from Regional Development to Global

Economic Growth” (MTDE 2020), volume 138, pages

1237–1240. Atlantis Press SARL (Advances in Eco-

nomics, Business and Management Research). DOI:

10.2991/aebmr.k.200502.205.

Fettke, P. and Loos, P. (2004). Referenzmodellierungs-

forschung - Langfassung eines Aufsatzes. In

Loos, P., editor, Working Papers of the Research

Group Information Systems & Management.

ISYM - Information Systems & Management.

Johannes Gutenberg Universit

at Mainz. Paper 16.

https://www.econbiz.de/archiv/mz/umz/winformatik/

referenzmodellierungsforschung.pdf.

Gama, K. (2019). An Experience Report on Using LEGO-

based Activities in a Software Engineering Course.

In SBES’19: Proceedings of the XXXIII Brazilian

Symposium on Software Engineering, pages 289–298,

New York, USA. Association for Computing Machin-

ery (ACM). DOI: 10.1145/3350768.3353817.

Harman, J., Brown, R., Johnson, D., Rinderle-Ma, S., and

Kannengiesser, U. (2016). Augmenting Process Elici-

tation with Visual Priming: An Empirical Exploration

of User Behaviour and Modelling Outcomes. Infor-

mation Systems, Elsevier Ltd., 62:242–255. DOI:

10.1016/j.is.2016.01.005.

Hruschka, P. (2014). Business Analysis und Require-

ments Engineering. Produkte und Prozesse nachhaltig

verbessern. Carl Hanser Verlag, M

unchen.

Jagenow, A., Speck, A., Windrich, M.,

Oks

uz, E., and

Pulverm

uller, E. (2022). Business Process Model-

ing in a Virtual 3D World. In Fujita, H., Watanobe,

Y., and Azumi, T., editors, New Trends in Intelligent

Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques. Pro-

ceedings of the 21st International Conference on New

Trends in Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools

and Techniques (SoMeT 22), pages 450–459. IOS

Press (=Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelligence and Appli-

cations). Vol. 355. DOI: 10.3233/FAIA220274.

Kimball, S. and Mattis, P. and the GIMP develom-

pent team (2021). GIMP 2.10.24, Version 2.10.24,

Revision 3, GNU Image Manipulation Programm.

https://www.gimp.org/downloads/.

Knauss, E., Schneider, K., and Stapel, K. (2008). A

Game for Taking Requirements Engineering More Se-

riously. In Third International Workshop on Mul-

timedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering -

Beyond Mere Descriptions and with More Fun and

Games (MERE’08), pages 22–26. IEEE Computer So-

ciety. DOI: 10.1109/MERE.2008.1.

Kristiansen, P. and Rasmussen, R. (2014). BUILDING A

BETTER BUSINESS USING THE LEGO® SERIOUS

PLAY® METHOD. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hobo-

ken, New Jersey.

Kurkovsky, S. (2015). Teaching Software Engineering with

LEGO Serious Play. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM

Conference on Innovation and Technology in Com-

puter Science Education, ITiCSE’15, pages 213–218.

New York, USA: Association for Computing Machin-

ery (ACM). DOI: 10.1145/2729094.2742604.

Kurkovsky, S., Ludi, S., and Clark, L. (2019). Ac-

tive Learning with LEGO for Software Require-

ments. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Tech-

nical Symposium on Computer Science Education.

SIGCSE’19, pages 218–224. New York, USA: As-

sociation for Computing Machinery (ACM). DOI:

10.1145/3287324.3287444.

Marougkas, A., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., and

Sgouropoulou, C. (2022). Virtual Reality in

Education: Reviewing Different Technological Ap-

proaches and Their Implementations. In Krouska, A.,

Troussas, C., and Caro, J., editors, Novel & Intelligent

Digital Systems: Proceedings of the 2nd International

Conference (NiDS 2022), volume 556, pages 77–83.

Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG

(=Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems). DOI:

10.1007/978-3-031-17601-2 8.

Mentimeter (2023). Mentimeter AB. Tulegatan 11, SE-113

86 Stockholm Sweden. https://www.mentimeter.com.

Microsoft Corporation (2019a). Microsoft® Excel®. Ofﬁce

Home & Business 2019. Version 2212.

Microsoft Corporation (2019b). Microsoft® Word. Ofﬁce

Home & Business 2019. Version 2212.

ENASE 2023 - 18th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

224

Nass, C., Trapp, M., and Villela, K. (2018). Tangible De-

sign for Software Ecosystem with Playmobil®. In Re-

visiting the Life Cycle. Proceedings of the 10th Nordic

Conference on Human-Computer Interation. New

York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

(ACM). DOI: 10.1145/3240167.3240278.

Nass Bauer, C. and Trapp, M. (2019). Tangible Ecosys-

tem Design – Developing Disruptive Services for Dig-

ital Ecosystems. In CHI’19 Extended Abstracts. Ex-

tended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Hu-

man Factors in Computing Systems. New York, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) (=Ad-

vancing Computing as a Science & Profession). DOI:

10.1145/3290607.3298819.

Nurova, O. (2020). Actual Problems of Digitalization in

the Field of Industrial Safety Management. In Pro-

ceedings of the 1st International Scientiﬁc Conference

”Legal Regulation of the Digital Economy and Digital

Relations: Problems and Prospects of Development”

(LARDER 2020), volume 171. Atlantis Press (=Ad-

vances in Economics, Business and Management Re-

search). DOI: 10.2991/aebmr.k.210318.036.

Oberhauser, R. and Pogolski, C. (2019). VR-EA: Vir-

tual Reality Visualization of Enterprise Architecture

Models with ArchiMate and BPMN. In Shishkov,

B., editor, Business Modeling and Software Design.

9th International Symposium, BMSD 2019, volume

356. Cham, Switzerland: Springer (=Lecture Notes in

Business Information Processing). DOI: 10.1007/978-

3-030-24854-3 11.

Pandey, D., Suman, U., and Ramani, A. (2010). An Ef-

fective Requirement Engineering Process Model for

Software Development and Requirements Manage-

ment. In Proceedings. Second International Confer-

ence on Advances in Recent Technologies in Commu-

nication and Computing. ARTCom 2010, pages 287

– 291. IEEE Computer Society. DOI: 10.1109/ART-

Com.2010.24.

Pohl, K. and Rupp, C. (2015). Basiswissen Require-

ments Engineering. Aus- und Weiterbildung nach

IREB-Standard zum Certiﬁed Professional for Re-

quirements Engineering Foundation Level. Heidel-

berg: dpunkt.verlag GmbH, 4th edition.

Rasmussen, R. (2006). When You Build in the

World, You Build in Your Mind. Design Man-

agement Review (dmi:review). Oxford, UK: Wiley-

Blackwell, 17(3):56–63. Reprint #06173RAS56. DOI:

10.1111/j.1948-7169.2006.tb00053.x.

Rosenthal, K., Ternes, B., and Strecker, S. (2021). Business

Process Simulation on Procedural Graphical Process

Models. Business & Information Systems Engineer-

ing. Springer, 63(5):569 – 602. DOI: 10.1007/s12599-

021-00690-3.

Sankar, J., Connacher, H. I., and Lyons, K. W. (1997).

Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques.

Computer-Aided Design. ELSEVIER Ltd., 29(8):575–

584. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-4485(96)00094-2.

Scialdone, M. and Connolly, A. J. (2021). The Build-

tivity for Introducing Requirements Engineering and

the System Development Lifecycle. In Proceedings of

the EDSIG Conference, volume 7. Washington DC,

USA: ISCAP (Information Systems and Computing

Academic Professionals). No. 5582.

Sommerville, I. (2016). Software Engineering. Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited, 10th edition.

Sundberg, L. (2019). If Digitalization is the Solution, What

is the Problem? In Kaya, T., editor, Proceedings of

the 19th European Conference on Digital Government

ECDG 2019, pages 136–143. Reading, UK: Aca-

demic Conferences and Publishing International Lim-

ited.

Teyseyre, A. R. (2003). 3D Requirements Visualization.

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TECH-

NOLOGY (JCS&T), 3(2):45–51. Postgraduate Ofﬁce,

School of Computer Science, Universidad Nacional

de La Plata.

The LEGO Group (2007). LEGO SERIOUSPLAY™.

Imaginopedia for Skills Building. Brochure. LEGO

Company. published on the website of Serious-

PlayPro.com is a non-proﬁt community at URL: https:

//seriousplaypro.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/I

maginopedia\ LSP\ Brochure.pdf. accessed 2023-

01-14.

Wilde, T. and Hess, T. (2006). Methodenspek-

trum der Wirtschaftsinformatik:

Uberblick und

Portfoliobildung. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 2/2006, In-

stitut f

ur Wirtschaftsinformatik und Neue Me-

dien der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit

at M

unchen

(LMU). Hess, T. (Hrsg.). https://www.wim.bwl.uni-

muenchen.de/download/epub/ab 2006 02.pdf, access

2021-08-30.

Improved Business Analysis by Using 3D Models

225