The Automated Discovery of Hybrid Processes

  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
  • Tijs Slaats
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8659)

Abstract

The declarative-procedural dichotomy is highly relevant when choosing the most suitable process modeling language to represent a discovered process. Less-structured processes with a high level of variability can be described in a more compact way using a declarative language. By contrast, procedural process modeling languages seem more suitable to describe structured and stable processes. However, in various cases, a process may incorporate parts that are better captured in a declarative fashion, while other parts are more suitable to be described procedurally. In this paper, we present a technique for discovering from an event log a so-called hybrid process model. A hybrid process model is hierarchical, where each of its sub-processes may be specified in a declarative or procedural fashion. We have implemented the proposed approach as a plug-in of the ProM platform. To evaluate the approach, we used our plug-in to mine a real-life log from a financial context.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chesani, F., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Montali, M., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Exploiting inductive logic programming techniques for declarative process mining. ToPNoC (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Ciccio, C., Mecella, M.: A two-step fast algorithm for the automated discovery of declarative workflows. In: CIDM (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debois, S., Hildebrandt, T., Slaats, T.: Hierarchical declarative modelling with refinement and sub-processes. In: BPM (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Ciccio, C., Mecella, M.: Mining constraints for artful processes. In: BIS (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lamma, E., Mello, P., Riguzzi, F., Storari, S.: Applying inductive logic programming to process mining. In: Blockeel, H., Ramon, J., Shavlik, J., Tadepalli, P. (eds.) ILP 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4894, pp. 132–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maggi, F.M., Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Efficient discovery of understandable declarative process models from event logs. In: Ralyté, J., Franch, X., Brinkkemper, S., Wrycza, S. (eds.) CAiSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7328, pp. 270–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maggi, F.M., Dumas, M., García-Bañuelos, L., Montali, M.: Discovering data-aware declarative process models from event logs. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 81–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maggi, F.M., Mooij, A.J., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: User-guided discovery of declarative process models. In: CIDM, pp. 192–199 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes. In: EDOC 2007, pp. 287–298 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reijers, H.A., Slaats, T., Stahl, C.: Declarative modeling–an academic dream or the future for BPM? In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 307–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sadiq, S.W., Orlowska, M.E., Sadiq, W.: Specification and validation of process constraints for flexible workflows. Information Systems 30(5), 349–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vaculín, R., Hull, R., Heath, T., Cochran, C., Nigam, A., Sukaviriya, P.: Declarative business artifact centric modeling of decision and knowledge intensive business processes. In: EDOC, pp. 151–160 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes, pp. 1–352. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Adams, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Pesic, M., Schonenberg, H.: Flexibility as a service. In: Chen, L., Liu, C., Liu, Q., Deng, K. (eds.) DASFAA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5667, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westergaard, M., Slaats, T.: Mixing paradigms for more comprehensible models. In: Daniel, F., Wang, J., Weber, B. (eds.) BPM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8094, pp. 283–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Maria Maggi
    • 1
  • Tijs Slaats
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.University of TartuEstonia
  2. 2.IT University of CopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Exformatics A/SCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Perceptive SoftwareThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations