Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement:

A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamification

Caroline Tavares Picanço

and Simone C. dos Santos

Instituto Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

Centro de Informática, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

Keywords: Business Process Improvement, Design Thinking, Gamification, Process Stakeholders.

Abstract: Business Process Management (BPM) enables companies to track their end-to-end activities, establish

objectives and drive their business processes to achieve better results, reduce errors, cut costs, and deliver

customer value. On the other hand, for a BPM initiative to be successful, it is necessary to align the continuous

improvement of business processes, available technologies, and, above all, the involvement of key

stakeholders. Commonly associated with users, managers, process owners, and analysts, business process

stakeholders are key players in effecting organizational change. However, they are not always involved in

improving business processes, and when they are, not always contribute. In this context, the following

question motivates this study: “How to promote collaboration and creativity among stakeholders in improving

business processes?”. To answer this question, we propose a method based on the Design Thinking process,

called Boomerang, including a creative game to involve people while generating insights and ideas. To

evaluate this approach, we carried out a case study, collecting the perceptions of professionals engaged in

improving a business process in a public education institution. From the results, it was possible to conclude

that Boomerang contributes to the business processes improvement in BPM, maximizing the empathy,

interaction, and creativity of its stakeholders.

1 INTRODUCTION

Organizations typically face challenges when trying

to implement initiatives to change their business. The

market scenario is continuously changing, and it is

highly competitive. So, companies should be up-to-

date in all business areas, considering that

Information Technology (IT) is not enough to

leverage their business if they do not invest in

innovation (Trkman, 2010). For public organizations,

the main objective is to provide services to the

population, aiming at efficiency in attendance with

the least possible resource, transparency in the

institution's business, and better use of the

technologies involved in the processes. The main

concern for private organizations is to generate profit,

increase the market, and consolidate the brand

(Santos, 2015) (Rusa and Rusub, 2015).

Independently of public or private institutions,

one of the situations that organizations face daily is

the difficulty in engaging part of the collaborators

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9942-5196

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-9981

(users and managers) in the process improvement

stages. Often, these collaborators do not have enough

time and dedication to propose improvements, which

require an in-depth understanding of business

processes. As a result, incomplete, incorrect, or

unfeasible process models for the company's reality

can be generated, almost always designed by a

process analyst without the users' and managers'

evaluation (Picanço, 2017).

From a practical point of view, Rosemann (2015)

states that BPM, as a management discipline, appears

insufficient to exploit innovative opportunities in an

organizational environment. One reason is that

current BPM methodologies and techniques usually

follow an inside-out pattern, also called analytical

thinking. Process improvement approaches like Total

Quality Management (TQM), Six-sigma, and Lean

have tools and techniques for analyzing

organizational problems in this standard. In contrast,

Kohlborn (2014) pointed out that a compliment to the

BPM approach is necessary with the outside-in

418

Picanço, C. and Santos, S.

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation.

DOI: 10.5220/0011031500003179

In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2022) - Volume 2, pages 418-429

ISBN: 978-989-758-569-2; ISSN: 2184-4992

paradigm. In this way, external opportunities will

become more relevant, being evaluated and

implemented quickly (Martin, 2009). In general,

these opportunities come from users' and clients'

demands that need to be translated into process

improvements. Regardless of the BPM approach,

process improvement involves a certain amount of

collaborations, creativity, and reflection, and that soft

skills usually need to be stimulated among the

participants in the process, their stakeholders

(Gregor, 2013).

Thus, with focus on human soft skills of process

improvements, this study proposes investigating the

following research question (RQ): How to promote

collaboration and creativity among stakeholders in

improving business processes? To answer that

question, we discuss a method based on Design

Thinking (DT), called Boomerang. This method

proposes structuring the improvement process

aligned to the five stages of the design process

described in (D.School, 2017): empathize, define,

ideate, prototype, and test. Boomerang intends to

systematize this activity and stimulate the

engagement and collaboration of the business process

stakeholders (users, owners, analyst). The method

also includes an interactive game for the ideation

stage to promote creativity and interactivity among

participants. Notably, this research focuses on the

human aspect in business process improvement

activities, regardless of the type of improvement

(processes redesign or process innovation). We used

the DSR (Design Science Research) method

(Hevner, 2004) to conduct this research in three

design cycles, and a case study to evaluate the

applicability of this method.

This paper is organized into seven sections. After

this brief introduction, Section 2 and 3 describes this

study's theoretical basis and discusses some related

studies, respectively. Section 4 presents the research

method. Sections 5 and 6 describe the proposed

method and a case study, respectively. Finally,

Section 7 discusses the conclusions and future work.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

In a competitive and ever-changing world where

customers dictate the rules, organizations need to

continuously seek new solutions to their business

problems (Harmon 2016). These solutions have been

reached in many successful organizations around the

world through Business Process Improvement (BPI)

(Gregor, 2013), (Dülgerler, 2015).

Traditionally, business process professionals

focus on designing robust business processes that can

stand today's world's rapid changes. Besides,

technological innovation through mobile

technologies and social networks forces teams to

rethink business and processes from an external

perspective (Richardson et al., 2013). In this context,

two main ways of thinking when analyzing business

processes can make a difference in your

improvements' effectiveness. On the one hand, we

have analytical thinkers predominantly focused on

the business world. These thinkers aim to achieve the

expected results in the planned timeframe and

minimize risks. In this context, techniques based on

workshops involving the main stakeholders of the

process, supported or not by technologies, can be

used and combined in favor of collaboration (Muras

and Hovell, 2014). On the other hand, we see the

artistic thinkers who aspire to do something new,

different, making an impact by surprising the people

involved (Dülgerler 2015). But, how to stimulate the

creativity and engagement of these same

stakeholders?

Considering these two ways of thinking, the

Design Thinking (DT) approaches bring integrative

and original thinking that principles, processes, and

tools can work innovatively and effectively (Brown

2008; Brooks, 2010). From a general point of view,

DT's purpose is to get professionals from diverse

areas to use the designers' thinking model when

creating solutions and identifying innovation

opportunities (Volkova and Jokobsone, 2016). Brown

(2009) emphasizes, "Design thinking converts need

into demand. It is a human centered approach to

problem solving that helps people and organizations

become more innovative and more creative."

Considering the analytics perspective, DT has

identified a new paradigm to deal with problems in

many professions, most notably in Information

Technology (Brooks 2010). Regarding this aspect,

the Boomerang method includes a five-stage model

proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at

Stanford (D.School, 2017). The five stages of the DT,

according to D.School, are as follows: Empathize,

Define (problem), Ideate, Prototype, and Test. The

first stage seeks an empathic understanding of the

problem and the target audience (end-users and

clients) (Dam, 2017). The definition stage analyses

the observations and synthesizes them to define the

main problems. The potential solutions are proposed

and discussed in the ideate stage (Sampaio et al.,

2014). The chosen solution is prototyped in simple

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

419

versions such as sketches or mockups, and finally,

evaluated in the test stage (Chasanidou et al., 2015).

Moreover, the Design Thinking approach stages are

not linear but iterative and dynamic, supporting

creativity and innovation (Chasanidou, 2015).

From an artistic perspective, the DT approach

aims to inspire the essential element of creativity, get

an abstract idea, and create something with it

(Liedtka, 2011). In particular, the ideate stage of the

DT process can use different strategies to promote

creativity among process stakeholders, among them,

the gamification strategy (Medina, 2013; Busarello,

2014).

During a workshop at D.School (2017), it has

carried out a series of RPG (Role-Playing Game)

activities where diverse characters developed through

joint brainstorming sessions. These role-playing

games allowed rapid ideation (idea generation) to

visualize and adapt the results near-real-time (Cohen

2014). Dicheva et al. (2015) verified that games have

remarkable motivational power in this context. Also,

gamification uses several gaming mechanisms to

encourage people to engage with them, often without

any reward, just for the joy of playing and the

possibility of winning, creating a highly engaging

environment (Gartner, 2014).

So, the Boomerang method combined

gamification with the DT approach to stimulate

member engagement by promoting more ideas for

solving companies' problems with focus on process

improvements.

3 RELATED WORKS

Despite the DT's potential in the improvement of

processes initiatives, engaging stakeholders is not

always an easy task.

According to Rosemann (2015), the biggest

challenge today is to get teams to adopt emerging

strategies and practices to integrate the principles of

DT into their BPM initiatives. Rosemann, also exalt

this approach, proposing future research and

development orientations in BPM. The author states

that DT-oriented BPM focuses on desired outcomes,

inspired by design on external stakeholders'

experiences rather than on the available BPM

methods.

Another study discusses the use of DT in the

improvement of processes context. Cereja et al.

(2018) describe the application of the DT approach in

a security company in Brazil. After correlating the DT

approach with the BPM stages, the company

promoted various workshops to apply various DT

tools. It was led by representatives of all company

departments that handle the procurement process and

a team of information technology professionals. From

this experience, Cereja et al. (2018) stated that the DT

approach facilitated: the formalization of employees'

perceptions of the existing procurement process; the

modeling of a process for the purchase of material

that all interested parties have approved; and the

formalization of requirements for the new

information system to manage the material purchase

process. The case study demonstrated the DT

approach's value to the redesign and improvement

process, adding useful BPM analysis tools.

According to the authors, the BPM cycle stages

correspond to the steps of DT as the DT techniques

combine with the point of view of the social

construction of BPM.

Santos et al. (2016) propose the A2PN (Business

Process Ambidextrous Analysis) method, which

systematizes the business process analysis stage and

allows incremental improvements and process

innovations. As a scientific contribution, this research

presents conceptual models identified in the

literature, the relationship between the principles of

Organizational Ambidexterity and DT practices in the

analysis stage of Business Process Management.

Concerning the practical contribution, the researcher

developed the previously mentioned method (A2PN),

proposing that organizations can continuously

improve their business processes through an analysis

that considers analytical and creative thinking. The

method has been evaluated by specialists through a

semi-structured questionnaire and applied in an

organization. The evaluation demonstrated that the

method had been considered easy to use and suitable

to foster the balance between rational and intuitive

thoughts. The researcher showed that even the

organization was conservative and accustomed to

analytical techniques, it was possible to apply

creative techniques and identify opportunities outside

its frontier generating specific results for clients.

These studies discussed experiences of using DT

to improve processes with very positive results.

However, no details are presented about the difficulty

of engaging process stakeholders in these analyses, as

mentioned by Rosemann (2015), justifying the

proposition of a study with this objective.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To develop research with high methodological rigor,

some procedures and methods were used to ensure the

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

420

reliability of the scientific research process. Figure 1

shows the methodological scheme.

The research was initiated with the awareness of

the problem. The main motivation originated from

the first author of this paper in her work environment.

A non-systematic review of the literature was carried

out to understand the problem better, searching for

existing concepts, approaches, and tools on people's

engagement and process improvement.

Figure 1: Methodology schema.

This review was supported by electronic reference

databases, resulting in journals, scientific articles,

dissertations, and academic thesis, which helped to

elucidate the subject and validate the research topics

like Design Thinking (DT) and Business Process

Improvement, as discussed in Section 2. In addition

to the bibliographical research, informal interviews

were conducted with 10 coworkers to investigate

behaviours related to their activities: motivation,

understanding of the processes performed by them,

commitment, and time available for innovation. The

interviewees' profiles were strategic management

experts, internal control assistant, IT governance

manager, process manager, process owners, and

process users. The interviews focused on business

process improvement and innovation within the

context of the respondents' expertise. The results of

the informal interviews (Figure 2) were used to

complement the literature review, supporting the

process of developing the proposed method.

From this preliminary study, it was possible to

obtain answers to initial questions about

characteristics, purpose, and initial planning for the

conception of the proposed method. Proposing the

construction of artifacts that would support the

business processes improvement, the DSR method

was adopted in this research (Hevner, 2004). In this

context, three design cycles were performed.

Figure 2: Interviews with stakeholders.

Regarding the first design cycle, after the

awareness of the problem and delimitation of the

research, the conception of the development of a

method was initiated, using activities and tools of the

DT approach directed to the improvement of business

processes. For this, we carried out new studies and

analysis of articles and journals from companies that

work with design for innovation and process

improvement (such as IDEO, Capital One, MJV) to

check which techniques are used for these

organizations and for which objectives. Among these

techniques, we highlight exploratory research, to

obtain an overview of the problem to be addressed

(IDEO.org, 2015); identification of insights, to

understand the desire of consumers (Newton, 2017);

gamestorming, to create commitment among

employees (MJV, 2020); 5W2H (what, why, who,

where, when, how, how much) technique, to

determine activities that need to be clearly developed

(Keathley and Owens, 2010). Despite these

references, the first method prototype created was

confusing, not very visual, and tied to a process

composed of mandatory sequential activities. To

evaluate this prototype, a focus group with two

process analysts and a BPM specialist was conducted.

With this feedback it was possible to work on a new

proposal that would highlight the interactivity among

the improvement process stages. That would give

them the freedom to correct errors from previous

steps until a better solution is found. With the updates

made, the proposal was called Boomerang Method,

alluding to the object created to return to the thrower's

hand when not reaching a target. This reference is

because the proposed method has an iterative

characteristic and should be restarted whenever a

target is not completed.

The second design cycle aimed at developing an

artifact to support the Boomerang method. The

purpose of the support artifact is to support the

concepts of Design Thinking, proposing greater

engagement between people and between people and

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

421

problems, transforming the method developed into

something fun and stimulating, and helping improve

processes by facilitating a change in behaviour of the

users of the process. Through exploratory research, it

was possible to study possible ways to engage people,

highlighting the gamification technique to use

elements of a game for an organizational reality to

solve real problems. From this study, research was

carried out on existing games dealing with idea

generation. Among them, a game was found that was

promoted and built by Bel Pesce (2015) together with

COPAG. However, our research group noted that this

game had many rules, increasing the level of learning

difficulty and "wasting" precious time that

organizations claim not to have. Therefore, this

research proposal included the creation of a new

game, based on this reference, promoting

modifications to facilitate the players' understanding

in a faster way, besides opening more space to

generate ideas. That game was called the “Creative

Thinking Planning" game. For the conception of this

game, a team composed of three members was

gathered. The participants were students of Design,

Computer Science, and the first author of this study.

The evaluation approach used for this artifact was

through the focus group technique through

brainstorming. This technique was used both to

support the development and evaluation of the

artifact. It is worth noting that the focus group

technique, in this case, ensured a deeper and more

collaborative discussion regarding the game created.

Comments about the Creative Thinking Planning

game and its dynamics are presented in the Case

Study section.

In the third and last design cycle, Boomerang was

evaluated under utility and usability aspects through

a case study in a real process improvement context at

an educational institution. Besides, it aimed to

evaluate the benefits of using the method to improve

business processes. Details of the last cycle are

discussed in the Case Study section.

5 BOOMERANG METHOD

Boomerang method aims to guide the process analyst

or any manager in activities to redesign business

processes. As specific objectives, the following stand

out: 1) Propose a sequence of appropriate activities;

2) Specify the expected result for each stage; 3) Guide

how each stage can be conducted and; 4) Suggest

artifacts and tools support the stages.

Boomerang was designed to be an engaging

method that would assist any manager in facilitating

the business process improvement team. For this, the

method has four primary characteristics:

 Innovation & creativity: aims to bring people

together to collaborate for problem-solving in

exchange for recognition, offering new

experiences to improve processes.

 Engagement: looks for mechanisms of

engagement, with particular use of gamification,

because it understands that business results are

closely linked to the involvement and

motivation of people.

 Agility: prioritize the user experience through

the five stages. It focuses on understanding

people's desires, experiencing new points of

view, and having agility in producing ideas,

learning from mistakes, and evolving rapidly.

 Adaptability: It can be applied and adapted to

different contexts and organizations.

As requirements to the method use, it is worth to

emphasize: the knowledge of the current process (As-

Is); availability of participants; correct application of

the game; understanding of BPM and DT concepts;

impartiality of the facilitator and to keep an open

mind among all participants and facilitator. The basic

Boomerang method structure is composed of 5 stages,

as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Boomerang activities.

Each stage has 3 activities, acting sequentially. By

the way, the name of the Boomerang method was

given by analogy to the toy where after being thrown,

it returns to the player's hand, in case it has not

reached the goal. At the end of each stage, an artifact

is generated.

The Empathize stage is concerned with ensuring

empathy, retrieving people's history and observations

about the community members being surveyed, and

beginning to understand the problem to be solved.

This stage has the following activities: build a team,

exploratory research, and conversation starters.

The Define stage expects a deep understanding of

the needs, barriers, and restraints of the challenges to

be addressed. This stage has the following activities:

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

422

view the current scenario, create insight statement,

and identify guiding rules.

The Ideate stage aims to create new opportunities

and solutions for the proposed challenge. This stage

has the following activities: gamestorming Session,

Combine best solutions, and View solutions. The

gamestorming activity is supported by the game

(Creative Thinking Planning) developed in the

second design cycle of the research methodology.

More details about this game will be presented in the

case study section.

The Prototype stage results in the realization of

the ideas generated in the previous stage, through a

new design of the suggested process (to be), in

addition to analyzing the feasibility of the proposed

solution. This stage has the following activities:

define prototype, draw draft (To-Be process), and

capabilities quick sheet.

The Test stage supports the feedback of those

involved more broadly, considering the sharing of

overlapping information boundaries. This stage has

the following activities: Evaluate Solutions, Get

Feedback, and Create a Pitch.

These proposed sub-activities have been based on

the Design literature and serve as a guide to get the

client to the expected result.

6 CASE STUDY

The case study was developed in university, a public

higher education organization. Three crucial factors

drove the case study's chosen organization: it is part

of the public sector, its complexity, and having a

process automation project in the initial phase. In the

organization studied, the level of maturity in BPM is

in stage 1 (initial state), according to Harmon's

concepts (2013). The institution uses various

methodological approaches, tools, and techniques not

consolidated and has a high level of manual

intervention and iron out problems. Besides, there are

a few documented processes, although BPM's

importance and increased involvement of managers

and top management are recognized.

The Boomerang method suggests that it is

necessary to understand the current problem and then

propose new solutions. For this, the monitor’s

enrollment process was analyzed, defining the current

situation of this process. The monitor’s enrollment

process consists of the enrollment and selection of

students to perform the role of assistant teachers in

specific subjects of a curriculum. The university

where the method was applied has published the rules

to standardize candidates' eligibility for monitoring

activity. However, in practice, many standards have

disregarded. It has been observed that some courses

conduct the selection process using public notice;

others use the only interview between teacher and

student. The publication of the selection process also

happens in different ways: some use email to present

the results, others publish on the college website.

Some colleges prefer file-sharing software in the

cloud as a tool for publicizing the monitor’s

enrollment process. These questions have been

verified through informal interviews with process

managers and news published on the institution's

website. To better understand a part of this process,

the Boomerang method was used and suggestions for

improvements

6.1 Applying the Boomerang Method

The following subsections describe the activities

carried out in each of the five steps of the Boomerang

method, as shown in Figure 3.

6.1.1 Empathize Stage

The Empathize stage started with the "Build a Team"

activity. In the first activity, the facilitator defined the

design team, 28 participants with

qualification/expertise in subjects related to the

process studied. The objective was to obtain

information from many people about their feelings

regarding the current process model.

The activity "Exploratory Research" addressed

the intention of investigating the subject, exploring

the news, recent documents in the field of study. For

this, the facilitator interviewed these participants

through two questionnaires to know about the

challenge's context and their experience regarding the

challenge has solved. These questionnaires have been

sent to 28 respondents and two profiles process

owners and process users. These respondents have

been invited to participate freely in the semi-

structured, and previously scheduled interviews, been

carried out individually. The first questionnaire

gathered details about the monitor’s enrollment

process. The second questionnaire was sympathy

research, where it was intended to know the users'

perception of the process concerning the process

approached.

With more detailed information about the

monitoring process, the facilitator invited only six (6)

participants from the 28 previously classified: three

female participants and three male participants,

between 20 and 24. These participants were chosen

because they had already participated in the

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

423

monitoring program and were free to attend the

workshop. There were no specific criteria, however,

people were sought who had already experienced the

routine that should be improved within the university.

The objective was to participate in the workshop,

initiated through the “Conversation starters” activity,

where the facilitator introduced topics to the

participants.

Initially, concepts have presented about DT,

BPM, Process improvement, the Boomerang

method's objectives, and the main challenge related to

the monitor’s enrollment process. At the end of

explaining these concepts, the facilitator stimulates

reactions to the participants by asking several

questions related to the subject addressed, for

example: “what would be the ideal for you?" and

"what is the greatest difficulty today?”. During this

meeting, an interview has made through a

questionnaire to know the current monitor’s

enrollment process (As-Is). The researcher of this

study (as facilitator) provided the mapping of this

process, based on the information gathered.

Therefore, it was possible to start the application of

the Boomerang method. Besides, to assist in

developing the case study, the facilitator used the

5W2H technique to summarize, organize, and plan

the necessary actions for the case study, making the

implementation clearer and helping in the choice of

the team.

6.1.2 Define Stage

Starting the Define stage, the activity "View Current

Scenario" presented the participants with the current

process map. There was a greater discussion about the

process since its visualization was of extreme

importance, so that the participants became more

involved in the scenario studied. Figure 4 illustrates

part of that moment (left side).

Participants identified problems related to the

enrollment of monitors, such as the current process

was not computerized. Also, there was no efficient

control of scholarship holders' registration, with

duplicate payments to them. The next activities

performed, “Identifying insights" and “Identifying

guiding rules”, created declarations of participants'

intuitions through short phrases, where they gathered

reflections based on information from the exploratory

research. This information has turned into insight

cards to facilitate quick consultation in the following

stages. The activity to identify criteria was

indispensable to indicate the limits of the proposals

for improvements, concerning what the business rules

allow or limit.

Figure 4: Workshop dynamics and To-Be process

modeling.

6.1.3 Ideate Stage

Regarding the Ideate stage, the "Gamestorming

Session" activity has been carried out with the

application of the Creative Thinking Planning game.

It was intended to promote a storm of ideas among the

participants and propose improvements to the

addressed challenge. Figure 5 illustrates the dynamics

of the game.

Figure 5: Game dynamics.

The round starts with any player willing to be the

first, or the facilitator can choose by the lot. The

facilitator should read the challenge card and guiding

criteria card aloud. The player must think of an idea

that can solve the problem, choose a pre-existing

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

424

resource card, or create a resource card representing

the idea to complete the card on the table.

Other players must validate the idea through the

respective cards approved or disapproved. If the idea

is disapproved, it should be returned to the resource

card group. The facilitator should score the result on

the score sheet.

The game can finish from the third complete

round or when it reaches 15 valid ideas. There are two

types of winners through two criteria: contribution of

ideas and validity of ideas. It will return the biggest

idea generator and the best idea generator.

By the end of the game, participants had produced

a string of keywords linked to one of three themes

related to the core of Design Thinking, as shown in

Figure 6 (People, Business, and Technology). These

keywords highlight the solutions given by the

participants to the challenge studied.

Figure 6: Keywords from the gamestorming.

After the end of the gamestorming, the

participants were able to follow the activities "Bundle

ideas" and “Visualizing solutions”, where they were

able to gather the best solutions considering the

guiding criteria, and finally to visualize the best-

proposed solutions through the construction of a

menu of ideas.

6.1.4 Prototype Stage

In the Prototype stage, the participants defined how

the process has improved. It is essential to point out

that the proposed improvement was based on these

users' vision, participants of the workshop.

After the "Define Prototype" activity, the team

and the facilitator began designing an ideal monitor

enrolment process for the student community. The

"Draw Draft" activity generated a new design of the

improved process using cards with some BPMN easy

to understand notations.

It is worth highlighting that activity represents

Boomerang's main result/output: the sketch of the

improved process (Figure 4, right side), which has

been evaluated in the next stage of the Boomerang.

So, important problems were identified: the lack of

transparency related to the monitor's selection

process, the proposal of solutions for registration, and

publication of the monitor's selection process through

the university´s website.

The improvements identified were crucial in

making process information more accessible and

transparent to its users. It is important to note that the

workshop participants had little knowledge of BPMN

but did not have any difficulties in using the notation.

Also, the 5W2H technique has been used again for the

team to create a second visualization map of the

problem's solution proposals.

In the "Capabilities quick sheet" activity, the

participants debated the possibilities of

implementation, considering contributing to

innovative solutions and putting it into practice. This

moment was an exchange of experiences among the

participants. The result was enlightening, in the sense

that the team felt the need for senior management

people to understand better what was possible.

6.1.5 Test Stage

Finally, in the Test stage, the activities "Evaluate

Solutions”, "Get Feedback”, and "Create a Pitch"

has been carried out. These activities require more

time and involve the availability of high

management.

The "Evaluate Solutions" activity aimed to

investigate the impacts generated by the new design

of the improved process, as well as its feasibility of

implementation and capacity for improvement. The

objective was to verify the alignment of the proposed

solution with the needs of the users of the process. To

perform this activity, four people (process users) has

invited to evaluate the prototype generated in the case

study: one teacher assistant, one teacher, one

monitoring coordinator in the department, and one

monitoring manager participated. In this way, all one

knew the realities of the process from different

perspectives, stating if the proposed prototype met

their needs.

Table 1 presents the aspects and questions of this

evaluation by the process improvement team with 10

assertions.

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

425

Table 1: Evaluated aspects and assertive.

ects Assertive

Possibilities of

Implementation

Q1 - The suggested proposals have great

potential for implementation;

Q2 - Need for training to use the process;

Troubleshoot

Q3 - The suggested prototype can solve the

existing problems;

Q4 - The proposed solution should

optimize the current process;

Q5 - Compared to the current process, the

new solution will reduce delays;

Acceptance

Q6 - Top management will accept the

prototype as a possible solution;

Q7 - The process improvement is in line

with the objectives of the institution;

Q8 - The implementation of the improved

process will meet the current needs of

users;

Q9 - This research was timely for the

institution;

Automation

Q10 - The proposed solution has

automated.

The data collection has done with the aid of a

questionnaire, in which the invitees filled a form with

closed questions. Figure 7 shows the results obtained

with this evaluation. A Likert-based scale was used:

Totally disagree (TD), partially disagree (PD), neutral

(N), partially agree (PA) and totally agree (TA).

Figure 7: Results from prototype evaluation.

Regarding the “possibilities of implementation"

of the new ideas, 80% agreed that it would be possible

to implement. When we ask why not, the answer was

that top management has difficulty accepting

changes; concerning the solving-problem aspect,

100% of the interviewees said the new solutions

could solve them. The graph also shows information

about "acceptance," where 100% of the interviewees

think that there will be acceptance of the process's

changes. Ultimately, the bar chart illustrates the

automation aspect; 100% of the participants

recommended automation of the new business

process model.

6.2 Assessment & Analysis

To evaluate the Boomerang method, we conducted

interviews, where the participants filled a form with

open and objective questions, following a script

developed by the researchers.

To organize the collected data, we identified the

following evaluation criteria: proposed challenge;

facilitator (who conducted the case); information

provided to carry out the activities; team building for

the experiment; how the activity was performed;

activities adopted during the workshop; the method

adopted for the workshop and participant motivation.

These criteria had as reference the theoretical

background discussed in the second section of this

paper. Figure 8 shows the results.

Figure 8: General results.

Analyzing Figure 8, regarding the Proposed

Challenge, more than 90% of the interviewees were

enthusiastic in proposing solutions to the challenge

and stating that the challenge has a high potential for

impact on their community. Regarding the

experiment's conduct, 90% stated that the facilitator

conducted the activities well, demonstrated

knowledge, had mastery in applying the activities,

and chose an appropriate environment for the

workshop. 100% of the participants stated that the

"information provided" was clear, relevant, and

sufficient to carry out the activities. Respondents also

understood the reason for their participation (team

building), and more than 60% reported that the team

showed commitment and engagement during the

event. Regarding the "how it was done" aspect, 100%

of the interviewees stated that the activity helped

improve the current process and participate in the

activity again. More than 80% of the participants

reported that it was clear to use the gamestorming

technique, feeling confident in the performed

activities. Some participants stated that the support of

a specialist will always be necessary to use the

approach. Finally, the evaluation of the method's

phases showed that 80% of the interviewees

understood the proposed activities.

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

426

6.3 Discussion: Lessons Learned and

Limitations

Afterward identifying some problems in the current

model of the process, the participants were able to

propose improvements that emerged during the

Boomerang method application. Lack of control over

monitor’s enrollment process in university programs

was one of the problems encountered. During the

workshop, the participants proposed to automate the

new process, as the As-Is process was still manual.

Another problem identified in the As-Is model

was that each department or each teacher had their

own hiring way. After applying the Boomerang

method, there was a crucial need to standardize the

monitor enrolment process in all university

departments, following rules and guidelines proposed

by the top management. One of the points addressed

is that the significant majority (over 80%) of

respondents consider BPM a tool to improve business

processes according to the proposed assessments.

The case study demonstrated that the method

proposal serves as an analysis support tool to

managers while designing business processes. This

research design allows us to explore the key

characteristics, meanings, and implications of the

case. Outcomes can lead to an in-depth understanding

of behaviours, processes, practices, and relationships

in the context applied.

As the main lessons learned, it is possible to

emphasize:

 The empathy stage brought the people involved

in the process closer, making everyone feel

process owner and responsible for its

improvement.

 The users' experience of the process and the

focus on the desired results attended to improve

the business process addressed.

 Immersion and investigation of the process

stakeholders were crucial for understanding the

problem and the vision of the outsiders.

 The use of gamification techniques allowed us

to engage the team and to make the environment

more appropriate to the exchange of

experiences.

 The gamification activity provided some

expected benefits: generated innovative ideas;

obtained insights from participants without

being tedious; encouraged debate in an

organized way; enabled people to produce ideas

with few resources.

 Institutional collaboration is essential. So, the

organization must release its collaborators for

the improvements meeting, besides providing an

appropriate environment for applying the game.

 Special care is needed with the game's duration,

timing each stage, thus maintaining control over

the results and preventing the game from

extending beyond the planned time.

 As a game is usually fun, some people can be

resistant initially, especially those in managerial

positions, thinking that it will not have serious

results. It is essential to clarify the objectives of

the expected results from the beginning,

highlighting the benefits of this collaboration

model.

 It is essential that the facilitator has a good

knowledge of BPM to guide the workshop

participants in the design of the process

improvement sketch.

About research limitations and threats, it is

important to emphasize that the participants of this

experiment were not very heterogeneous. In the face

of this, there were widespread thoughts and feelings

about the problems addressed.

Concerning the applicability characteristics and

limits of the method in the external environment, it

was not possible a general conclusion about this

criterion since the research was applied in a single

organization. However, it has noted that the

knowledge generated in the development stage has

been used for the design and construction of new

artifacts or the redesign of the artifact, in case the

environmental contingencies change, since the

Boomerang method has characteristics of

adaptability. Although the organization of the case

study is part of the public sector, we did not see any

limitation in using this method in the private sector.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The DT approach enabled the creation of the method

called Boomerang, which proposes to define a

sequence of activities to improve business processes,

to ensure that the user experience of the process has

been considered. Besides, Boomerang method was

also concerned with using game mechanics to ensure

the team's engagement during insight generation and

new ideas for process improvements. Thus, we built

a "Creative Thinking Planning" game to support the

ideate stage of the method that can also be used in

different contexts as a brainstorming tool.

Evaluations and the case study in real context

showed that the work's objective was achieved,

highlighting the importance of involving process

stakeholders, bridging the gap between analyst and

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

427

user, and following a structured roadmap of possible

activities to improve business processes.

Although this work has contributed to business

process improvement and can serve as a reference for

organizations in organizational innovation, the study

researchers conclude that we need much more. This

work is just beginning, and based on these results, the

following steps would be to build a more robust

overall evidence base. Another future step could be

automating the method as a guideline, remotely

running sessions, and promoting broad brainstorming

to solve many problems.

REFERENCES

Brocke, J. V., Rosemann, M. 2015. “Business Process

Management”.

Brooks, F. P. 2010. “The design of design: Essays from a

computer scientist”. 1. ed. [S.l]: Addison-Wesley

Professional. ISBN 978-0201362985.

Brown, T. 2008. “Design thinking”. In Harvard Business

Review, v. 86, n. 6, p. 84-95.

Brown, T. 2009. “Change by design: how design thinking

transforms organizations and inspires innovation”. New

York: Harper Business.

Brown, T. 2010. “Design Thinking: Uma metodologia

poderosa para decretar o fim das velhas ideias”.

Elsevier Editora.

Busarello, R. I. 2016. “Gamification: princípios e

estratégias”(Gamification: Principles and Strategies).

[S.l.]: Pimenta Cultural, 126g. São Paulo.

Cereja J.R., Santoro F.M., Gorbacheva E., Matzner M.

2018. “Application of the Design Thinking Approach

to Process Redesign at an Insurance Company in

Brazil”. In: vom Brocke J., Mendling J. (eds) Business

Process Management Cases. Management for

Professionals. Springer, Cham.

Chasanidou, D. et al. 2015. “Design Thinking Methods and

Tools for Innovation”. In: HCI International [s.n.].

Cohen, R. 2014. “Design Thinking: A Unified Framework

for Innovation”. Forbes.

D.School. 2017. “A Virtual Crash Course in Design

Thinking”. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at

Stanford University.

Dam, R. F., Siang, T. Y. 2017. “5 Stages in the Design

Thinking Process. The Interaction Design Foundation”.

Darejeh, Ali & Salim, Siti Salwah. (2016). “Gamification

Solutions to Enhance Software User Engagement”. A

Systematic Review. International Journal of Human-

Computer Interaction. 10.1080/10447318.

Dicheva, D., Dichev C., Agre G., & Angelova G. 2015.

“Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping

Study”. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 75–

88.

Dülgerler, M. 2015. “Making better, more responsive

organizations”. Paper presented at PMI Global

Congress 2015—EMEA, London, England. Newtown

Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Gartner. 2014. “Gamify: how gamification motivates

people to do extraordinary things”.1. ed. Brookline:

Bibliomotion.

Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E. J. 2016.

“Design thinking to enhance the sustainable business

modelling process. A workshop based on a value

mapping process, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Volume 135, 2016, Pages 1218-1232,

Gregor Z. 2013. Towards a framework for identifying

business process redesign patterns. Business Process

Management Journal, v. 19, n. 4, p. 600 – 623.

Hall, J. M., Johnson, E. M. 2009. When Shoud a Process Be

Art, Not Science? Harvard Business Review. March

2009 Issue.

Harmon, P., Wolf, C. 2016. “The State of Business Process

Management”. A BPTrends Report.

Harrison, Helena; Birks, Melanie; Franklin, Richard &

Mills, Jane. 2017. Case Study Research: Foundations

and Methodological Orientations [34 paragraphs].

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 18(1), Art. 19,

Hevner, A. R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S. 2004. Design

Science In Information Systems Research., MIS

Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 75-105.

IDEO.org. 2015. The Field Guide to Human-Centered

Design. 1st Edition. ISBN: 978-0-9914063-1-9.

K. Macedo, M. Marinho and S. Santos, S. 2019.

Uncertainty Management in Software Projects: A Case

Study in a Public Company. “Journal of Convergence

Information Technology”. Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 61- 67.

Kathrin, F., Jan R. 2016. “Process innovation as creative

problem solving: An experimental study of textual

descriptions and diagrams, Information &

Management”, Volume 53, Issue 6, p. 767-786.

Keathley, J. and Owens, T., 2010. Putting Quality Tools to

Work for Innovation. URL: https://inlac.org.ve/wp-

content/uploads/2020/08/putting-quality-tools-to-

work-for-innovation.pdf

Kohlborn, T., Mueller, O., Poeppelbuss, J. and Roeglinger,

M. 2014. “Interview with Michael Rosemann on

Ambidextrous business process management”. In

Business Process Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 4,

p. 634-638.

Liedtka, J. 2011 “Learning to use design thinking tools for

successful innovation. Strategy & Leadership”, v. 39, n.

5, p. 13 – 19. ISSN 1087-8572.

Luebbe A., Weske M. 2011. “Bringing Design Thinking to

Business Process Modeling”. In: Meinel C., Leifer L.,

Plattner H. (eds) Design Thinking. Understanding

Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

March, S.T., Smith, G.F. 1995. Design and natural science

research on information technology. Decision Support

Systems, vol. 15, pp. 251-266.

Martin, R. 2009. “The design of business: Why design

thinking is the next competitive advantage”, 3rd

edition, Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Martin, R. 2012. “Design Thinking: An Interview with

Roger Martin: Roger Martin Talks with Jim Euchner

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

428

about the Need to Include Intuitive Thinking in the

Innovation Process”. Research Techonolgy

Management, p. 11 – 14.

Medina, B. 2013. “Gamificação aplicada ao contexto de

negócios”. Rio de Janeiro: [s.n.].

Merriam, S. B., Tisdell, E. J. 2015. “Qualitative research: A

guide to design and implementation”. John Wiley &

Sons.

MJV, Team. 2020. “Gamificação gera engajamento em

treinamentos corporativos. Gamification generates

engagement in corporate training”.

https://www.mjvinnovation.com/pt-br/blog.

Muras, A. and Hovell, J. 2014. “Continuous Improvement

Through Collaboration, Social Learning, and

Knowledge Management”. The Journal of Corporate

Accounting and Finance, Vol. 25, Issue 3, Pages 51-59.

Newton, J. 2017. “Capital One: Embracing Design

Thinking And Putting Customers First.” Forbes.com.

Picanço, C. T. 2017. Uma Metodologia para Melhoria de

Processos Baseada em Design Thinking (A

Methodology for Process Improvement Based on

Design Thinking). Master Dissertation, Centro de

Informática, UFPE, Brazil.

Richardson, C., Leaver, S., Cullen, A., Keenan, J. 2013.

“Design for Disruption: Take an Outside-In Approach

to BPM”. Cambridge: Forrester Research.

Rosemann, M. 2015. “Proposals for future BPM research

directions”. 2nd Asia Pacific Business Process

Management Conference, Brisbane, p. 1-15.

Runeson, P. and Host, M. 2009. “Guidelines for conducting

and reporting case study research in software

engineering,” Empirical software engineering, vol. 14,

no. 2, p. 131.

Rusa, M. and Rusub, D. O. 2015. The Organizational

Culture in Public and Private Institutions. Procedia -

Social and Behavioral Sciences 187, 565 – 569.

Sampaio, I. C. B. Santanna, J.F. Pimenta, R.B. Soriano-

Sierra, E. 2014. “Design Thinking como ferramenta

para melhoria em processos de negócios”. Espacios, v.

35, n. 6, p. 19.

Santos, H. R. M.; Alves, C.F. 2016. “Explorando a

Ambidestria Organizacional e Design Thinking na

Análise de Processos de Negócio iSys”. Revista

Brasileira de Sistema de Informação, Rio de Janeiro,

vol. 9, No. 4, p. 101-138.

Santos, H., Valença, G., Alvez, 2015. Strategies for

managing critical success factors of BPM initiatives in

Brazilian Public Organizations: A qualitative empirical

study. In iSys – Revista Brasileira de Sistemas de

Informação, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, vol. 8, No. 1, p. 42-

64.

Schuetzenmeister, F. 2010. “University research

management: An exploratory literature review”.

Seethamraju, r.; Marjanovic, O. 2009. “Role of process

knowledge in business process improvement

methodology: a case study”. Business Process

Management Journal, v. 15, n. 6, p. 920 – 936. ISSN

1463-7154.

Trkman, P. 2010. “The critical success factors of business

process management”. In International Journal of

Information Management, vol. 30, no. 2, 125-134.

Venable, John, Pries-Heje, Jan, & Baskerville, Richard.

(2012). A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation in

Design Science Research. In K. Peffers, M.

Rothenberger & B. Kuechler (Eds.), Design Science

Research in Information Systems. Advances in Theory

and Practice (Vol. 7286, pp. 423-438). Berlin /

Heidelberg: Springer.

Volkova, T., Jākobsone, I. 2016. “Design thinking as a

business tool to ensure continuous value generation”

Intellectual Economics, Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 63-

69, ISSN 1822-8011.

Welbers, Kasper & Konijn, Elly & Burgers, Christian & Bij

de Vaate, Nadia & Eden, Allison & Brugman, Britta.

(2019). Gamification as a tool for engaging student

learning: A field experiment with a gamified app. E-

Learning and Digital Media. 16. 92-109.

10.1177/2042753018818342.

Yin, Robert K. (2014). Case study research: Design and

methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Promoting Collaboration and Creativity in Process Improvement: A Proposal based on Design Thinking and Gamiﬁcation

429