Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Definition 4.1 (Repair Recommendation)
Optimal Model Repair Recommendation
Searching Model Repair Recommendations
Algebra of Repair Recommendations
Summary and Discussion
Related Work
Conclusion
References

Impact-Driven Process Model Repair

Profile image of Wil van der AalstWil van der Aalst
https://doi.org/10.1145/2980764
visibility

…

description

53 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 25(4), Article No. 28. Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document.

Related papers

Process modelling to support dependability arguments
Sofia Guerra

Dependable Systems and Networks, …, 2002

This paper reports work to support dependability arguments about the future reliability of a product before there is direct empirical evidence. We develop a method for estimating the number of residual faults at the time of release from a "barrier model" of the development process, where in each phase faults are created or detected. These estimates can be used in a conservative theory in which a reliability bound can be obtained or can be used to support arguments of fault freeness. We present the work done to demonstrate that the model can be applied in practice. A company that develops safety-critical systems provided access to two projects as well as data over a wide range of past projects. The software development process as enacted was determined and we developed a number of probabilistic process models calibrated with generic data from the literature and from the company projects. The predictive power of the various models was compared.

View PDFchevron_right
Impact Analysis for Supporting the Co-Evolution of Business Processes and Supporting Software Systems
Maria Tortorella

The co-evolution of business processes and supporting software systems is needed for keeping them aligned and it requires managerial and technological effort for adequately planning it. In fact, any modification performed in the business process activities and/or supporting software systems may impact the process activities in terms of input/output and/or purpose of the software system and, therefore, cause misalignment. A coarse grained strategy is proposed for detecting misalignment between business processes and supporting software systems when changes are executed, and for identifying which objects should be considered by additional change for restoring the alignment. The strategy proposes the exploitation of quality parameters, for codifying the alignment concept, and impact analysis techniques, for propagating the change and identifying all the process objects impacted by the change and requiring new interventions.

View PDFchevron_right
Practical software process improvement - the IMPACT project
Lucila Carvalho

Proceedings 2001 Australian Software Engineering Conference, 2001

For many years now software process improvement (SPI) has been recognised as an effective way for companies to improve the quality of the software they produce and the productivity with which they work. Much work has gone into developing and selling improvement paradigms, assessment methods, modelling languages, tools and technologies. The challenge for small-tomedium software development companies (SMEs) now is to find a way to apply these SPI technologies to realise their company's improvement goals. For SMEs the most pressing requirements for improvement paradigms are that they are not only effective but that they realise tangible results quickly, can be implemented incrementally and utilise the many existing process improvement technologies. This paper presents a framework for SPI that realises these needs. The framework is designed to utilise a range of improvement technologies and supports continuous and highly focused improvement over many projects, thus producing timely, cost-effective and tangible improvements for SMEs. The effectiveness of the framework is illustrated in this paper with its application in a small, Sydney-based, webdevelopment company.

View PDFchevron_right
Tolerating deviations in process support systems via flexible enactment of process models
G. Cugola

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1998

Process Support Systems (PSSs) support business organizations in modeling, improving, and automating their business process. Thanks to their ability in enacting process models, they can be used to guide people in performing their daily work and to automate the repetitive tasks that do not require human intervention. Given these potential bene ts, it is surprising to observe that PSSs are not widely adopted. This is especially true in case of highly exible and human-intensive processes such as design processes in general and software processes in particular. This fact can be explained by observing that currently available PSSs do not ful ll some crucial needs of modern business organizations. One of their major drawbacks is that they do not o er adequate mechanisms to cope with unforeseen situations. They are good at supporting business processes if all proceeds as expected, but if an unexpected situation is met, which would require to deviate from the process model, they often become more an obstacle than a help. This paper deals with the problem of managing unforeseen situations that require deviations from the process model during enactment in the context of the PROSYT PSS. During process model enactment, PROSYT is capable of tolerating deviations from the process model by supporting users even when unexpected situations arise. Furthermore, it supports users in reconciling the process model with the process actually followed, if necessary.

View PDFchevron_right
Data Impact Analysis in Business Processes
Arava Tsoury

Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2019

Business processes and their outcomes rely on data whose values are changed during process execution. When unexpected changes occur, e.g., due to last minute changes of circumstances, human errors, or corrections of detected errors in data values, this may have consequences for various parts of the process. This challenges the process participants to understand the full impact of the changes and decide on responses or corrective actions. To tackle this challenge, the paper suggests a semi-automated approach for data impact analysis. The approach entails a transformation of business process models to a relational database representation, to which querying is applied, in order to retrieve process elements that are related to a given data change. Specifically, the proposed method receives a data item (an attribute or an object) and information about the current state of process execution (in the form of a trace upon which an unexpected change has occurred). It analyzes the impact of the change in terms of activities, other data items, and gateways that are affected. When evaluating the usefulness of the approach through a case study, it was found that it has the potential to assist experienced process participants, especially when the consequences of the change are extensive, and its locus is in the middle of the process. The approach contributes both to practice with tool-supported guidance on how to handle unexpected data changes, and to research with a set of impact analysis primitives and queries.

View PDFchevron_right
Dependent and conflicting change operations of process models
Christian Gerth

Model Driven Architecture-Foundations and …, 2009

Version management of models is common for structural diagrams such as class diagrams but still challenging for behavioral models such as process models. For process models, conflicts of change operations are difficult to resolve because often dependencies to other change operations exist. As a consequence, conflicts and dependencies between change operations must be computed and shown to the user who can then take them into account while creating a consolidated version. In this paper, we introduce the concepts of dependencies and conflicts of change operations for process models and provide a method how to compute them. We then discuss different possibilities for resolving conflicts. Using our approach it is possible to enable version management of process models with minimal manual intervention of the user.

View PDFchevron_right
PERE: Evaluation and Improvement of Dependable Processes
Stephen Viller

1996

Abstract In the development of systems that have to be dependable, weaknesses in the requirements engineering (RE) process are highly undesirable. Such weaknesses may either introduce undetected system weaknesses, or otherwise significant costs may arise in their correction later in the development process. Typically, the RE process contains a number of individual and group activities and thus is particularly subject to weaknesses arising from human factors.

View PDFchevron_right
Analysing Process Models Quantitatively
Keith Phalp

1999

Over the years, there has been much interest in modelling processes. Processes include those associated with the development of software and those business processes that make use of software systems. Recent research in Systems Engineering for Business Process Change 1 highlights the importance of modelling business processes in order to evolve and maintain the legacy systems that support those processes.

View PDFchevron_right
Software process re‐engineering: a model and its application to an industrial case study
Jonathan Kim

2008

Many software organizations engage in software process improvement (SPI), but process descriptions may soon become outdated especially if the organization, for a while, has given low priority to SPI. As a result, software organizations may need to re-engineer process descriptions that are inconsistent with desired process practices. While the literature addresses how organizations can re-engineer business processes and legacy systems, no guidance exists on re-engineering legacy process descriptions. Software process re-engineering (SPR) is a transitional activity that helps organizations effectively re-engage in SPI by assessing legacy process descriptions; selecting process descriptions that need to be removed, innovated, or implemented; and defining a plan to align process descriptions with desired process practices. SPR results in a repository of managed process descriptions and a plan for disciplined software process management. In this article, we derive principles for SPR, use these principles to propose a model for re-engineering legacy process descriptions, and present an industrial case study to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model. In the presented case, SPR had several benefits: it leveraged earlier investments in SPI; it engaged key stakeholders in revitalizing improvement efforts; it created a shared understanding of the organization's desired process practices; and, it established a solid platform for continued SPI.

View PDFchevron_right
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007 Focused Identification of Process Model Changes
Martín Soto

2016

Abstract. Advanced software process management requires capabilities to sys-tematically analyze differences between versions of a process model. These ca-pabilities can be used, for instance, to support process compliance management, to learn from process evolution, or to identify and understand process variations in different development environments in order to develop generic process models such as process standards. Analyzing the differences between process models versions is a highly challenging task that needs to be based on appropri-ate methods and tools. Experience has shown that, beside global version com-parisons, local and focused difference analyses are often needed. Example goals of such focused analyses are the identification of all process changes that are relevant for a specific role, or the identification of those process changes that are relevant for a process reassessment. This article presents a technique based on pattern-matching for such focused analysis. The t...

View PDFchevron_right

References (59)

  1. Arya Adriansyah. 2014. Aligning Observed and Modeled Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. http://dx.doi.org/10.6100/IR770080
  2. Arya Adriansyah, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2011. Conformance Checking Using Cost- Based Fitness Analysis. In Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Comput- ing Conference, EDOC 2011, Helsinki, Finland, August 29-September 2, 2011. IEEE Computer Society, 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EDOC.2011.12
  3. Rumen Andonov, Vincent Poirriez, and Sanjay V. Rajopadhye. 2000. Unbounded knapsack problem: Dynamic programming revisited. European Journal of Operational Research (EOR) 123, 2 (2000), 394-407.
  4. Thomas Baier, Claudio Di Ciccio, Jan Mendling, and Mathias Weske. 2015a. Matching of Events and Activities-An Approach Using Declarative Modeling Constraints. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling- 16th International Conference, BPMDS 2015, 20th International Conference, EMMSAD 2015, Held at CAiSE 2015, Stockholm, Sweden, June 8-9, 2015, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Vol. 214. Springer, 119-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19237-6 8
  5. Thomas Baier, Andreas Rogge-Solti, Jan Mendling, and Mathias Weske. 2015b. Matching of events and activities: an approach based on behavioral constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Salamanca, Spain, April 13-17, 2015. ACM, 1225-1230.
  6. Joos C.A.M. Buijs, Marcello La Rosa, Hajo A. Reijers, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Improving business process models using observed behavior. In Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis. Springer, 44-59.
  7. Joos C.A.M. Buijs, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2012. On the Role of Fitness, Precision, Generalization and Simplicity in Process Discovery. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2012, Robert Meersman, Hervé Panetto, Tharam Dillon, Stefanie Rinderle-Ma, Peter Dadam, Xiaofang Zhou, Siani Pearson, Alois Ferscha, Sonia Bergamaschi, and IsabelF. Cruz (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7565. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 305-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33606-5 19
  8. Joos C.A.M. Buijs, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Discovering and Navigating a Collection of Process Models Using Multiple Quality Dimensions. In Business Process Management Workshops-BPM 2013 International Workshops, Beijing, China, August 26, 2013, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Vol. 171. Springer, 3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0 1
  9. George B. Dantzig. 1957. Discrete-Variable Extremum Problems. Operations Research 5, 2 (1957), 266-277.
  10. Luca de Alfaro, Marco Faella, and Mariëlle Stoelinga. 2009. Linear and Branching System Metrics. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 35, 2 (2009), 258-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2008.106
  11. Massimiliano de Leoni and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013a. Aligning Event Logs and Process Models for Multi-perspective Conformance Checking: An Approach Based on Integer Linear Programming. In Business Process Management-11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Beijing, China, August 26-30, 2013. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 8094. Springer, 113-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3 10
  12. Massimiliano de Leoni and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013b. Data-aware Process Mining: Discovering Decisions in Processes Using Alignments. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1454-1461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2480362.2480633
  13. Ana Karla Alves de Medeiros, Wil M.P. van der Aalst, and A.J.M.M. Weijters. 2008. Quantifying process equivalence based on observed behavior. Data & Knowledge Engineering (DKE) 64, 1 (2008), 55-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2007.06.010
  14. Ana Karla Alves de Medeiros, A.J.M.M. Weijters, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2007. Genetic process mining: an experimental evaluation. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 14, 2 (2007), 245-304.
  15. Josee Desharnais, Vineet Gupta, Radha Jagadeesan, and Prakash Panangaden. 2004. Metrics for labelled Markov processes. Theoretical Computer Science 318, 3 (2004), 323-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2003.09.013
  16. Johann Eder, Juergen Mangler, Enrico Mussi, and Barbara Pernici. 2009. Using Stateful Activities to Facilitate Monitoring and Repair in Workflow Choreographies. In 2009 IEEE Congress on Services, Part I, SERVICES I 2009, Los Angeles, CA, USA, July 6-10, 2009. IEEE Computer Society, 219-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SERVICES-I.2009.49
  17. Dirk Fahland and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2015. Model repair-aligning process models to reality. Information Systems (IS) 47 (2015), 220-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2013.12.007
  18. Didier Fayard and Gérard Plateau. 1975. Resolution of the 0-1 knapsack problem: Comparison of methods. Mathematical Programming (MP) 8, 1 (1975), 272-307.
  19. Gerhard Friedrich, Mariagrazia Fugini, Enrico Mussi, Barbara Pernici, and Gaston Tagni. 2010. Exception Handling for Repair in Service-Based Processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) 36, 2 (2010), 198-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2010.8
  20. Walid Gaaloul, Sami Bhiri, and Mohsen Rouached. 2010. Event-Based Design and Runtime Verification of Com- posite Service Transactional Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing (TSC) 3, 1 (2010), 32-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2010.1 1:51
  21. Walid Gaaloul, Khaled Gaaloul, Sami Bhiri, Armin Haller, and Manfred Hauswirth. 2009. Log-based transactional workflow mining. Distributed and Parallel Databases (DPD) 25, 3 (2009), 193-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10619-009-7040-0
  22. E.M. Goldratt, J. Cox, and D. Whitford. 2012. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. North River Press.
  23. Gianluigi Greco, Antonella Guzzo, Francesco Lupia, and Luigi Pontieri. 2015. Process Discovery under Precedence Constraints. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 9, 4 (2015), 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2710020
  24. Christian W. Günther and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2007. Fuzzy Mining-Adaptive Process Simplification Based on Multi- perspective Metrics. In Business Process Management, 5th International Conference, BPM 2007, Brisbane, Aus- tralia, September 24-28, 2007, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 4714. Springer, 328-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0 24
  25. Farhana Islam, Meherun Nesa Lucky, and Barbara Pernici. 2010. Business Analysis of Web Service Repairability. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, RCIS 2010, Nice, France, May 19-21, 2010. IEEE, 463-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2010.5507407
  26. Richard M. Karp. 1972. Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems. In Proceedings of a symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations, held March 20-22, 1972, at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York. (The IBM Research Symposia Series), Raymond E. Miller and James W. Thatcher (Eds.). Plenum Press, New York, 85-103. http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/ ∼ luca/cs172/karp.pdf
  27. Aline A. S. Leão, Luiz H. Cherri, and Marcos N. Arenales. 2014. Determining the K-best solutions of knapsack problems. Computers & OR 49 (2014), 71-82.
  28. Sander J.J. Leemans, Dirk Fahland, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Discovering Block-Structured Process Models from Event Logs Containing Infrequent Behaviour. In Business Process Management Workshops-BPM 2013 In- ternational Workshops, Beijing, China, August 26, 2013, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Niels Lohmann, Minseok Song, and Petia Wohed (Eds.), Vol. 171. Springer International Publishing, 66-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06257-0 6
  29. Sander J. J. Leemans, Dirk Fahland, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2015. Scalable Process Discovery with Guarantees. In Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS 2015) (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), K. Gaaloul, R. Schmidt, S. Nurcan, S. Guerreiro, and Q. Ma (Eds.), Vol. 214. Springer International Publishing, 85-101.
  30. Chen Li, Manfred Reichert, and Andreas Wombacher. 2009. Discovering Reference Models by Mining Process Vari- ants Using a Heuristic Approach. In Business Process Management, Umeshwar Dayal, Johann Eder, Jana Koehler, and Hajo A. Reijers (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5701. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 344-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8 23
  31. Chen Li, Manfred Reichert, and Andreas Wombacher. 2010. The Minadept Clustering Approach for Discovering Reference Process Models Out of Process Variants. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 19, 3-4 (2010), 159-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218843010002139
  32. Chen Li, Manfred Reichert, and Andreas Wombacher. 2011. Mining business process variants: Challenges, scenarios, algorithms. Data & Knowledge Engineering (DKE) 70, 5 (2011), 409-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2011.01.005
  33. Felix Mannhardt, Massimiliano de Leoni, Hajo A. Reijers, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2015. Balanced multi-perspective checking of process conformance. Computing (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00607-015-0441-1
  34. Silvano Martello, David Pisinger, and Paolo Toth. 2000. New trends in exact algorithms for the 0-1 knapsack problem. European Journal of Operational Research (EOR) 123, 2 (2000), 325-332.
  35. Thomas Molka, David Redlich, Marc Drobek, Artur Caetano, Xiao-Jun Zeng, and Wasif Gilani. 2014. Conformance Checking for BPMN-based Process Models. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1406-1413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2555061
  36. Jorge Munoz-Gama and Josep Carmona. 2011. Enhancing precision in Process Conformance: Stability, confidence and severity. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining, CIDM 2011, part of the IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence 2011, April 11-15, 2011, Paris, France. IEEE, 184-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CIDM.2011.5949451
  37. Jorge Munoz-Gama, Josep Carmona, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Conformance Checking in the Large: Par- titioning and Topology. In Business Process Management-11th International Conference, BPM 2013, Beijing, China, August 26-30, 2013. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 8094. Springer, 130-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40176-3 11
  38. Jorge Munoz-Gama, Josep Carmona, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Hierarchical conformance checking of process models based on event logs. In Application and Theory of Petri Nets and Concurrency. Springer, 291-310.
  39. Mike P. Papazoglou. 2003. Service-Oriented Computing: Concepts, Characteristics and Directions. In 4th International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, WISE 2003, Rome, Italy, December 10-12, 2003. IEEE Computer Society, 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WISE.2003.1254461
  40. Artem Polyvyanyy. 2012. Structuring Process Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Potsdam. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/ resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-59024
  41. 1:52 A. Polyvyanyy et al.
  42. Artem Polyvyanyy and Christoph Bussler. 2013. The Structured Phase of Concurrency. In Seminal Contributions to Information Systems Engineering, 25 Years of CAiSE, Janis A. Bubenko Jr., John Krogstie, Oscar Pastor, Barbara Pernici, Colette Rolland, and Arne Sølvberg (Eds.). Springer, 257-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36926-1 20
  43. Artem Polyvyanyy, Jussi Vanhatalo, and Hagen Völzer. 2011. Simplified Computation and Generalization of the Refined Process Structure Tree. In Web Services and Formal Methods-7th International Workshop, WS-FM 2010, Hoboken, NJ, USA, September 16-17, 2010. Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Mario Bravetti and Tevfik Bultan (Eds.), Vol. 6551. Springer, 25-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19589-1 2
  44. Artem Polyvyanyy, Matthias Weidlich, and Mathias Weske. 2012. Isotactics as a Foundation for Alignment and Abstraction of Behavioral Models. In Business Process Management-10th International Conference, BPM 2012, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3-6, 2012. Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Alistair Barros, Avigdor Gal, and Ekkart Kindler (Eds.), Vol. 7481. Springer, 335-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5 26
  45. Wolfgang Reisig. 1998. Elements of Distributed Algorithms: Modeling and Analysis with Petri Nets. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York. http://www.springer.com/computer/theoretical+computer+science/book/978-3-540-62752-4
  46. Anne Rozinat and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2008. Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Information Systems (IS) 33, 1 (2008), 64-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2007.07.001
  47. Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 1997. Verification of Workflow Nets. In Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997, 18th In- ternational Conference, ICATPN '97, Toulouse, France, June 23-27, 1997, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science), Pierre Azéma and Gianfranco Balbo (Eds.), Vol. 1248. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 407-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63139-9 48
  48. Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2011. Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes (1st ed.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783642193446
  49. Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2013. Decomposing Petri nets for process mining: A generic approach. Distributed and Parallel Databases 31, 4 (2013), 471-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10619-013-7127-5
  50. Wil M.P. van der Aalst, Arya Adriansyah, and Boudewijn F. van Dongen. 2012. Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (WIDM) 2, 2 (2012), 182-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/widm.1045
  51. Wil M.P. van der Aalst, Kees M. van Hee, Jan Martijn E.M. van der Werf, and Marc Verdonk. 2010. Auditing 2.0: Using Process Mining to Support Tomorrow's Auditor. IEEE Computer (COMPUTER) 43, 3 (2010), 90-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2010.61
  52. Wil M.P. van der Aalst, A.J.M.M. Weijters, and Laura Maruster. 2004. Workflow mining: discovering process mod- els from event logs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16, 9 (Sept 2004), 1128-1142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2004.47
  53. Boudewijn F. van Dongen, Ana Karla Alves de Medeiros, H.M.W. Verbeek, A.J.M.M. Weijters, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2005. The ProM Framework: A New Era in Process Mining Tool Support. In Applications and Theory of Petri Nets 2005, 26th International Conference, ICATPN 2005, Miami, USA, June 20-25, 2005, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Gianfranco Ciardo and Philippe Darondeau (Eds.), Vol. 3536. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 444-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11494744 25
  54. Rob J. van Glabbeek. 1990. The Linear Time-Branching Time Spectrum (Extended Abstract). In CONCUR'90, Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 27-30, 1990, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 458. Springer, 278-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0039066
  55. Pamela H. Vance. 1993. Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations. SIAM Rev. 35, 4 (1993), 684-685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1035174
  56. Jussi Vanhatalo, Hagen Völzer, and Jana Koehler. 2009. The refined process structure tree. Data & Knowledge Engineering (DKE) 68, 9 (2009), 793-818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2009.02.015
  57. H.M.W. Verbeek, Joos C.A.M. Buijs, Boudewijn F. van Dongen, and Wil M.P. van der Aalst. 2011. XES, XE- Same, and ProM 6. In Information Systems Evolution-CAiSE Forum 2010, Hammamet, Tunisia, June 7-9, 2010, Selected Extended Papers (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing), Vol. 72. Springer, 60-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17722-4 5
  58. A.J.M.M. Weijters, Wil M.P. van der Aalst, and Ana Karla Alves de Medeiros. 2006. Process mining with the heuristics miner-algorithm. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Tech. Rep. WP 166 (2006), 1-34.
  59. Franz Wotawa. 2001. A variant of Reiter's hitting-set algorithm. Information Processing Letters (IPL) 79, 1 (2001), 45-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0190(00)00166-6

Related papers

Automated Runtime Repair of Business Processes N.R.T.P. van Beest, E. Kaldeli, P.Bulanov
Eirini Kaldeli
View PDFchevron_right
Model Repair -Aligning Process Models to Reality
Wil van der Aalst

Process mining techniques relate observed behavior (i.e., event logs) to modeled behavior (e.g., a BPMN model or a Petri net). Process models can be discovered from event logs and conformance checking techniques can be used to detect and diagnose differences between observed and modeled behavior. Existing process mining techniques can only uncover these differences, but the actual repair of the model is left to the user and is not supported. In this paper we investigate the problem of repairing a process model w.r.t. a log such that the resulting model can replay the log (i.e., conforms to it) and is as similar as possible to the original model. To solve the problem, we use an existing conformance checker that aligns the runs of the given process model to the traces in the log. Based on this information, we decompose the log into several sublogs of non-fitting subtraces. For each sublog, either a loop is discovered that can replay the sublog or a subprocess is derived that is then added to the original model at the appropriate location. The approach is implemented in the process mining toolkit ProM and has been validated on logs and models from several Dutch municipalities.

View PDFchevron_right
Interactive and Incremental Business Process Model Repair
Abel Cervantes

On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2017 Conferences, 2017

It is common for the observed behavior of a business process to differ from the behavior captured in its corresponding model, as workers devise workarounds to handle special circumstances, which over time become part of the norm. Process model repair methods help modelers to realign their models with the observed behavior as recorded in an event log. Given a process model and an event log, these methods produce a new process model that more closely matches the log, while resembling the original model as close as possible. Existing repair methods identify points in the process where the log deviates from the model, and fix these deviations by adding behavior to the model locally. In their quest for automation, these methods often add too much behavior to the model, resulting in models that over-generalize the behavior in the log. This paper advocates for an interactive and incremental approach to process model repair, where differences between the model and the log are visually displayed to the user, and the user repairs each difference manually based on the provided visual guidance. An empirical evaluation shows that the proposed method leads to repaired models that avoid the over-generalization pitfall of state-of-the-art automated repair methods.

View PDFchevron_right
Repairing Business Process Models as Retrieved from Source Code
María Fernández-Ropero

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 2013

The static analysis of source code has become a feasible solution to obtain underlying business process models from existing information systems. Due to the fact that not all information can be automatically derived from source code (e.g., consider manual activities), such business process models may not entirely reflect the original behavior of the organization. This paper provides a technique to repair such business process models on the basis of event logs collected during the execution of information systems. The technique detects missing sequence flows regarding the event log and tidily adds these sequence flows to the target business process model. In order to enhance its applicability, this technique is tool-supported. Additionally, this paper provides a case study with a real-life system to demonstrate its feasibility.

View PDFchevron_right
Practical Software Process Improvement - The IMPACT Approach
Lucila Carvalho

For many years now software process improvement (SPI) has been recognised as an effective way for companies to improve the quality of the software they produce and the productivity with which they work. Much work has gone into developing and selling improvement paradigms, assessment methods, modelling languages, tools and technologies. The challenge for small-tomedium software development companies (SMEs) now is to find a way to apply these SPI technologies to realise their company's improvement goals. For SMEs the most pressing requirements for improvement paradigms are that they are not only effective but that they realise tangible results quickly, can be implemented incrementally and utilise the many existing process improvement technologies. This paper presents a framework for SPI that realises these needs. The framework is designed to utilise a range of improvement technologies and supports continuous and highly focused improvement over many projects, thus producing timely, cost-effective and tangible improvements for SMEs. The effectiveness of the framework is illustrated in this paper with its application in a small, Sydney-based, webdevelopment company.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Interactive and Incremental Business Process Model Repair
Abel Cervantes

On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2017 Conferences, 2017

It is common for the observed behavior of a business process to differ from the behavior captured in its corresponding model, as workers devise workarounds to handle special circumstances, which over time become part of the norm. Process model repair methods help modelers to realign their models with the observed behavior as recorded in an event log. Given a process model and an event log, these methods produce a new process model that more closely matches the log, while resembling the original model as close as possible. Existing repair methods identify points in the process where the log deviates from the model, and fix these deviations by adding behavior to the model locally. In their quest for automation, these methods often add too much behavior to the model, resulting in models that over-generalize the behavior in the log. This paper advocates for an interactive and incremental approach to process model repair, where differences between the model and the log are visually displayed to the user, and the user repairs each difference manually based on the provided visual guidance. An empirical evaluation shows that the proposed method leads to repaired models that avoid the over-generalization pitfall of state-of-the-art automated repair methods.

View PDFchevron_right
Scalable Conformance Checking of Business Processes
Marlon Dumas

Springer eBooks, 2017

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved