Are Similar Cases Treated Similarly? A Comparison Between Process Workers

  • Mark PijnenburgEmail author
  • Wojtek Kowalczyk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 354)


In processes involving human professional judgment (e.g., in Knowledge Intensive processes) it is not easy to verify if similar cases receive similar treatment. In these processes there is a risk of dissimilar treatment as human process workers may develop their individual experiences and convictions or change their behavior due to changes in workload or season. Awareness of dissimilar treatment of similar cases may prevent disputes, inefficiencies, or non-compliance with regulations that require similar treatment of similar cases. In this article two procedures are presented for testing in an objective (statistical) way if different groups of process workers treat similar cases in a similar way. The testing is based on splitting the event log of a process in parts corresponding to the different (groups of) process workers and analyzing the sequences of events in each part. The two procedures are demonstrated on an example using synthetic data and on a real life event log.


Process mining Knowledge intensive processes Case management Statistical auditing Statistical testing 


  1. 1.
    Bakeman, R., Gottman, J.M.: Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolt, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., de Leoni, M.: Finding process variants in event logs. In: Panetto, H., et al. (eds.) OTM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10573, pp. 45–52. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bose, R.J.C., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Zliobaite, I., Pechenizkiy, M.: Dealing with concept drifts in process mining. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn.Syst. 25(1), 154–171 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Dongen, B.F.; Borchert, F.: BPI challenge 2018 (2018).
  5. 5.
    Hald, A.: Statistical theory with engineering applications. In: Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications. Wiley (1952)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanji, G.K.: 100 Statistical Tests, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipton, Z.C., Berkowitz, J., Elkan, C.: A critical review of recurrent neural networks for sequence learning (2015). arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.00019
  8. 8.
    Maaradji, A., Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Ostovar, A.: Fast and accurate business process drift detection. In: Motahari-Nezhad, H.R., Recker, J., Weidlich, M. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9253, pp. 406–422. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marin, M.A., Hauder, M., Matthes, F.: Case management: an evaluation of existing approaches for knowledge-intensive processes. In: Reichert, M., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) BPM 2015. LNBIP, vol. 256, pp. 5–16. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ostovar, A., Leemans, S.J., La Rosa, M.: Robust drift characterization from event streams of business processes. Internal Report (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pauwels, S., Calders, T.: Detecting and explaining drifts in yearly grant applications (2018). arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.05650
  12. 12.
    Yates, D., Moore, D., McCabe, G.: The Practice of Statistics, 1st edn. W.H. Freeman, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zaki, M.J.: Spade: an efficient algorithm for mining frequent sequences. Mach. Learn. 42(1–2), 31–60 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Netherlands Tax and Customs AdministrationUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations