skip to main content
10.1145/3084100.3084110acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

White-box prediction of process performance indicators via flow analysis

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Predictive business process monitoring methods exploit historical process execution logs to provide predictions about running instances of a process, which enable process workers and managers to preempt performance issues or compliance violations. A number of approaches have been proposed to predict quantitative process performance indicators, such as remaining cycle time, cost, or probability of deadline violation. However, these approaches adopt a black-box approach, insofar as they predict a single scalar value without decomposing this prediction into more elementary components. In this paper, we propose a white-box approach to predict performance indicators of running process instances. The key idea is to first predict the performance indicator at the level of activities, and then to aggregate these predictions at the level of a process instance by means of flow analysis techniques. The paper specifically develops this idea in the context of predicting the remaining cycle time of ongoing process instances. The proposed approach has been evaluated on four real-life event logs and compared against several baselines.

References

  1. Robert Andrews, Suriadi Suriadi, Moe Wynn, Arthur ter Hofstede, Nguyen Hoang Pika, Anastasiia, and Marcello la Rosa. 2016. Comparing static and dynamic aspects of patient flows via process model visualisations. Preprint available at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/102848/ (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriano Augusto, Raffaele Conforti, Marlon Dumas, Marcello La Rosa, and Giorgio Bruno. 2016. Automated Discovery of Structured Process Models: Discover Structured vs. Discover and Structure. In Conceptual Modeling - 35th International Conference, ER 2016. 313–329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dominic Breuker, Martin Matzner, Patrick Delfmann, and Jörg Becker. 2016. Comprehensible predictive models for business processes. MIS Quarterly 40, 4 (2016), 1009–1034.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Raffaele Conforti, Massimiliano de Leoni, Marcello La Rosa, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede. 2015. A recommendation system for predicting risks across multiple business process instances. Decision Support Systems 69 (2015), 1–19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Massimiliano de Leoni, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Marcus Dees. 2014. A General Framework for Correlating Business Process Characteristics. In BPM. 250–266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Massimiliano de Leoni, Wil M. P. van der Aalst, and Marcus Dees. 2016. A general process mining framework for correlating, predicting and clustering dynamic behavior based on event logs. Information Systems 56 (2016), 235–257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Marlon Dumas, Marcello La Rosa, Jan Mendling, and Hajo A. Reijers. 2013. Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Joerg Evermann, Jana-Rebecca Rehse, and Peter Fettke. 2016. A Deep Learning Approach for Predicting Process Behaviour at Runtime. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Runtime Analysis of Process-Aware Information Systems. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rob J Hyndman and Anne B Koehler. 2006. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting 22, 4 (2006), 679–688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Riivo Kikas, Marlon Dumas, and Dietmar Pfahl. 2016. Using dynamic and contextual features to predict issue lifetime in GitHub projects. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR. 291–302. DOI: http://dx. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Meelis Kull and Peter A. Flach. 2014. Reliability Maps: A Tool to Enhance Probability Estimates and Improve Classification Accuracy. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases - European Conference, ECML PKDD 2014. 18–33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Geetika T Lakshmanan, Davood Shamsi, Yurdaer N Doganata, Merve Unuvar, and Rania Khalaf. 2015. A Markov prediction model for data-driven semi-structured business processes. Knowledge and Information Systems 42, 1 (2015), 97–126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Anna Leontjeva, Raffaele Conforti, Chiara Di Francescomarino, Marlon Dumas, and Fabrizio Maria Maggi. 2015. Complex Symbolic Sequence Encodings for Predictive Monitoring of Business Processes. In BPM. 297–313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fabrizio Maria Maggi, Chiara Di Francescomarino, Marlon Dumas, and Chiara Ghidini. 2014. Predictive monitoring of business processes. In CAiSE. Springer, 457–472.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andreas Metzger, Rod Franklin, and Yagil Engel. 2012. Predictive monitoring of heterogeneous service-oriented business networks: The transport and logistics case. In 2012 Annual SRII Global Conference. IEEE, 313–322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Anastasiia Pika, Wil M P van der Aalst, Colin J Fidge, Arthur H M ter Hofstede, and Moe T Wynn. 2012. Predicting deadline transgressions using event logs. In BPM. Springer, 211–216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirko Polato, Alessandro Sperduti, Andrea Burattin, and Massimiliano de Leoni. 2014. Data-aware remaining time prediction of business process instances. In 2014 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, IJCNN 2014. 816–823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andreas Rogge-Solti and Mathias Weske. 2013. Prediction of remaining service execution time using stochastic Petri nets with arbitrary firing delays. In ICSOC. Springer, 389–403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Andreas Rogge-Solti and Mathias Weske. 2015. Prediction of business process durations using non-Markovian stochastic Petri nets. Information Systems 54 (2015), 1–14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Arik Senderovich, Matthias Weidlich, Avigdor Gal, and Avishai Mandelbaum. 2014. Queue Mining - Predicting Delays in Service Processes. In CAiSE. 42–57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Niek Tax, Ilya Verenich, Marcello La Rosa, and Marlon Dumas. 2017. Predictive business process monitoring with LSTM neural networks. In CAiSE. Springer, To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Wil M P van der Aalst, M Helen Schonenberg, and Minseok Song. 2011. Time prediction based on process mining. Information Systems 36, 2 (2011), 450–475. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sjoerd van der Spoel, Maurice van Keulen, and Chintan Amrit. 2012. Process prediction in noisy data sets: a case study in a dutch hospital. In International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. Springer, 60–83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Boudewijn F van Dongen, Ronald A Crooy, and Wil M P van der Aalst. 2008. Cycle time prediction: when will this case finally be finished?. In CoopIS. Springer, 319–336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ilya Verenich, Marlon Dumas, Marcello La Rosa, Fabrizio Maria Maggi, and Chiara Di Francescomarino. 2016. Minimizing Overprocessing Waste in Business Processes via Predictive Activity Ordering. In CAiSE. 186–202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yong Yang, Marlon Dumas, Luciano Garc´ıa-Ba˜nuelos, Artem Polyvyanyy, and Liang Zhang. 2012. Generalized aggregate Quality of Service computation for composite services. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 8 (2012), 1818–1830. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. White-box prediction of process performance indicators via flow analysis

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICSSP 2017: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process
      July 2017
      146 pages
      ISBN:9781450352703
      DOI:10.1145/3084100

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 July 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader