Advertisement

Why Are Process Variants Important in Process Monitoring? The Case of Zalando SE

  • Matthias SchrepferEmail author
  • Matthias Kunze
  • Gunnar Obst
  • Juliane Siegeris
Chapter
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)

Abstract

  1. (a)

    Situation faced: Business process models serve various purposes. As precise documentations of an implemented business processes, they provide inputs with which to configure process monitoring systems, enabling the specification of monitoring points and metrics. However, complex business processes have a quantity of variants that can impede the activation of process monitoring. To mitigate this issue, we seek to reduce the number of process variants by performing behavioral analyses.

     
  2. (b)

    Action taken: Variants of a business process originate from points in the process model where the control flow might diverge, such as at decision gateways and racing events. We systematically identify the underlying semantics to choose from a set of alternative paths and characterize the resulting variants. This effort offers the opportunity to reduce the variability in business processes that is due to modeling errors, inconsistent labeling, and duplicate or redundant configurations of these points.

     
  3. (c)

    Results achieved: For a sub-process of an order-to-cash process from the e-commerce industry, we discovered 59,244 variants, of which only 360 variants lead to a successful continuation of the process. The remaining variants cover exception handling and customer interaction. While these variants do not lead to a successful outcome and might not qualify for the “happy path” of this process, they are crucial in terms of customer satisfaction and must be monitored and controlled. Using a set of methods (actions taken), we reduced the number of variants to 11,000. These actions reduced overhead in the process and normalized decision labels, thereby significantly increasing the process model’s quality.

     
  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: We elaborate on the impact of variants on the configuration of a process monitoring system, and show how the number of model variants can be significantly reduced. Our analysis shows that the semantic quality of the process model increases as a result. This reduction effort involves a structured approach that considers all variants of a business process, rather than focusing only on the most frequent or most important cases.

     

References

  1. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. (2013). Fundamentals of business process management. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hallerbach, A., Bauer, T., & Reichert, M. (2010). Capturing variability in business process models: The provop approach. Journal of Software Maintenance, 22(6–7), 519–546.Google Scholar
  3. Hammer, M. (2010). What is business process management? In Handbook on business process management: Introduction, methods and information systems (Vol. 1, pp. 3–16). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Leopold, H. (2013). Natural language in business process models – Theoretical foundations, techniques, and applications. Lecture notes in business information processing (Vol. 168). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Li, C., Reichert, M., & Wombacher, A. (2011). Mining business process variants: Challenges, scenarios, algorithms. Data Knowledge Engineering, 70(5), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McCabe, T. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2(4), 308–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mendling, J., Recker, J., & Reijers, A. (2009). Process modeling quality: A framework and research agenda (BPM Center Report, BPM-09-02).Google Scholar
  8. Mendling, J., Reijers, H., & van der Aalst, W. (2010). Seven process modeling guidelines (7PMG). Information and Software Technology, 52(2), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myers, G. (1977). An extension to the cyclomatic measure of program complexity. SIGPLAN Notices, 12(10), 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reijers, H., Mendling, J., & Recker, J. (2010). Business process quality management. In Handbook on business process management (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 167–185). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Rosemann, M., & van der Aalst, W. (2007). A configurable reference modelling language. Information Systems, 32(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sadiq, W., & Orlowska, M. (2000). Analyzing process models using graph reduction techniques. Information Systems, 25(2), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sakr, S., Pascalau, E., Awad, A., & Weske, M. (2011). Partial process models to manage business process variants. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management (IJBPIM), 6(2), 20.Google Scholar
  14. Valmari, A. (1998). The state explosion problem. In Lectures on petri nets I: Basic models, advances in petri nets. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1491, pp. 429–528). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. van der Aalst, W. (2011). Process mining – Discovery, conformance and enhancement of business processes. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. van der Aalst, W., Hirnschall, A., & Verbeek, H. (2002). An alternative way to analyze workflow graphs. In Advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2348, pp. 535–552). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Weber, B., & Reichert, M. (2008). Refactoring process models in large process repositories. In Advanced information systems engineering. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5074, pp. 124–139). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Schrepfer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Kunze
    • 1
  • Gunnar Obst
    • 1
  • Juliane Siegeris
    • 2
  1. 1.Zalando SEBerlinGermany
  2. 2.HTW Berlin University of Applied SciencesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations