Declarative and Hybrid Process Discovery: Recent Advances and Open Challenges

Knowledge-intensive processes, such as those encountered in health care, finance and government, tend to allow a large degree of flexibility: there are many possible solutions towards a goal, and it is left to the expertise of knowledge workers to find the one most suitable for the particular case at hand. As a result, such processes usually exhibit more varied behaviour than traditional production processes. This poses a challenge for process discovery algorithms that return imperative, flow-based, models. The models tend to become highly complex when representing many alternative paths, and therefore, the miners need to either sacrifice on simplicity, fitness, or precision. It has been proposed that one should discover the constraints of the process instead, based on the assumption that such a constraint-based, declarative process model can describe highly varied behaviour more concisely. More recently, it has been observed that many processes do not neatly fall in one category or the other; instead, they contain both flexible and rigid parts. In such cases, it may be helpful to identify these parts and mine constraints for some and flow for others, resulting in a hybrid model. In this paper, we provide an overview of recent advances in both declarative and hybrid process discovery, discuss a number of open challenges that still remain, and propose directions for future research.

[1]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  The Resultmaker Online Consultant: From Declarative Workflow Management in Practice to LTL , 2008, 2008 12th Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops.

[2]  Jörg Becker,et al.  Guidelines of Business Process Modeling , 2000, Business Process Management.

[3]  Søren Debois,et al.  Towards an Empirical Evaluation of Imperative and Declarative Process Mining , 2018, ER Workshops.

[4]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Efficient discovery of Target-Branched Declare constraints , 2016, Inf. Syst..

[5]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Exploring the Understandability of a Hybrid Process Design Artifact Based on DCR Graphs , 2019, BPMDS/EMMSAD@CAiSE.

[6]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Imperative versus Declarative Process Modeling Languages: An Empirical Investigation , 2011, Business Process Management Workshops.

[7]  Maria E. Orlowska,et al.  Pockets of Flexibility in Workflow Specification , 2001, ER.

[8]  Sander J. J. Leemans,et al.  Discovering Block-Structured Process Models from Event Logs - A Constructive Approach , 2013, Petri Nets.

[9]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  User-guided discovery of declarative process models , 2011, 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM).

[10]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  Declarative Event-Based Workflow as Distributed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs , 2011, PLACES.

[11]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  From Paper Based Clinical Practice Guidelines to Declarative Workflow Management , 2008, Business Process Management Workshops.

[12]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Declarative Modeling-An Academic Dream or the Future for BPM? , 2013, BPM.

[13]  Bart Baesens,et al.  Robust Process Discovery with Artificial Negative Events , 2009, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[14]  M Maja Pesic,et al.  Constraint-based workflow management systems : shifting control to users , 2008 .

[15]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  DecSerFlow: Towards a Truly Declarative Service Flow Language , 2006, WS-FM.

[16]  Marco Montali,et al.  Declarative Process Modeling in BPMN , 2015, CAiSE.

[17]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures , 2007 .

[18]  Marco Montali,et al.  Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models - A Logic-Based Approach , 2010, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.

[19]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases , 1994, VLDB.

[20]  J. van Leeuwen,et al.  Advanced Information Systems Engineering , 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[21]  Tijs Slaats,et al.  Discovering Responsibilities with Dynamic Condition Response Graphs , 2019, CAiSE.

[22]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Efficient Discovery of Understandable Declarative Process Models from Event Logs , 2012, CAiSE.

[23]  Ekkart Kindler,et al.  On the declarative paradigm in hybrid business process representations: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature study , 2020, Inf. Syst..

[24]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Investigating expressiveness and understandability of hierarchy in declarative business process models , 2015, Software & Systems Modeling.

[25]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  The Automated Discovery of Hybrid Processes , 2014, BPM.

[26]  Søren Debois,et al.  Hierarchical Declarative Modelling with Refinement and Sub-processes , 2014, BPM.

[27]  Giorgio Bruno,et al.  Combining Flexibility and Data Handling in Business Process Models , 2014, Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof..

[28]  Matthias Kurz,et al.  Leveraging CMMN for ACM: examining the applicability of a new OMG standard for adaptive case management , 2015, S-BPM ONE.

[29]  Søren Debois,et al.  Declarative process mining for DCR graphs , 2017, SAC.

[30]  Michael Westergaard,et al.  Mixing Paradigms for More Comprehensible Models , 2013, BPM.

[31]  Marco Montali,et al.  Monitoring data-aware business constraints with finite state automata , 2014, ICSSP 2014.

[32]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Efficient Compliance Checking Using BPMN-Q and Temporal Logic , 2008, BPM.

[33]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Workflow mining: discovering process models from event logs , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[34]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Verification of Workflow Nets , 1997, ICATPN.

[35]  Glynn Winskel,et al.  Petri Nets, Event Structures and Domains , 1979, Semantics of Concurrent Computation.

[36]  Barbara Weber,et al.  The Impact of Testcases on the Maintainability of Declarative Process Models , 2011, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[37]  Jan Mendling,et al.  A Framework for Efficiently Mining the Organisational Perspective of Business Processes (Extended Abstract) , 2016, EMISA.

[38]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process Mining - Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes , 2011 .

[39]  Muhammad Shahzad,et al.  Web-Based Modelling and Collaborative Simulation of Declarative Processes , 2015, BPM.

[40]  Johannes De Smedt,et al.  A Full R/I-Net Construct Lexicon for Declare Constraints , 2015 .

[41]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  The Semantics of Hybrid Process Models , 2016, OTM Conferences.

[42]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  DECLARE: Full Support for Loosely-Structured Processes , 2007, 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007).

[43]  João Costa Seco,et al.  RESEDA: Declaring Live Event-Driven Computations as REactive SEmi-Structured DAta , 2018, 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC).

[44]  Johannes De Smedt,et al.  Fusion Miner: Process discovery for mixed-paradigm models , 2015, Decis. Support Syst..

[45]  Viara Popova,et al.  Artifact Lifecycle Discovery , 2013, Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst..

[46]  Erik Johansson,et al.  A Tool for Enterprise Architecture Analysis , 2007, 11th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2007).

[47]  Richard Hull,et al.  Introducing the Guard-Stage-Milestone Approach for Specifying Business Entity Lifecycles , 2010, WS-FM.

[48]  Stefan Jablonski,et al.  Towards a common platform for the support of routine and agile business processes , 2014, 10th IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing.

[49]  Marco Montali,et al.  Resolving inconsistencies and redundancies in declarative process models , 2017, Inf. Syst..

[50]  Marco Montali,et al.  On the relevance of a business constraint to an event log , 2018, Inf. Syst..

[51]  Tijs Slaats,et al.  Flexible Process Notations for Cross-organizational Case Management Systems , 2016 .

[52]  Paola Mello,et al.  Declarative specification and verification of service choreographiess , 2010, TWEB.

[53]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Declarative versus imperative process modeling languages : the issue of understandability , 2009, BPMDS 2009.

[54]  Jan Vanthienen,et al.  Rule-based business process modelling and enactment , 2008, Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manag..

[55]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Expressiveness and Understandability Considerations of Hierarchy in Declarative Business Process Models , 2015, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[56]  Jianwen Su,et al.  Towards Formal Analysis of Artifact-Centric Business Process Models , 2007, BPM.

[57]  Shehroz S. Khan,et al.  A Survey of Recent Trends in One Class Classification , 2009, AICS.

[58]  Flávia Maria Santoro,et al.  KIPO: the knowledge-intensive process ontology , 2014, Software & Systems Modeling.

[59]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  Contracts for cross-organizational workflows as timed Dynamic Condition Response Graphs , 2013, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[60]  Søren Debois,et al.  On Purpose and by Necessity: Compliance Under the GDPR , 2018, Financial Cryptography.

[61]  Thomas Neumuth,et al.  Application fields for the new Object Management Group (OMG) Standards Case Management Model and Notation (CMMN) and Decision Management Notation (DMN) in the perioperative field , 2017, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[62]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  The Declare Service , 2010, Modern Business Process Automation.

[63]  Remco M. Dijkman,et al.  Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[64]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Modeling and Monitoring Variability in Hospital Treatments: A Scenario Using CMMN , 2014, Business Process Management Workshops.

[65]  Stefan Schönig,et al.  The DPIL Framework: Tool Support for Agile and Resource-Aware Business Processes , 2015, BPM.

[66]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  Designing a Cross-Organizational Case Management System Using Dynamic Condition Response Graphs , 2011, 2011 IEEE 15th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference.

[67]  Søren Debois,et al.  Hybrid Process Technologies in the Financial Sector: The Case of BRFkredit , 2018, Business Process Management Cases.

[68]  Jens O. Riis,et al.  Looking into the Future , 1998, Games in Operations Management.

[69]  Claudio Di Ciccio,et al.  Knowledge-Intensive Processes: Characteristics, Requirements and Analysis of Contemporary Approaches , 2015, Journal on Data Semantics.

[70]  Dirk Fahland,et al.  The Imprecisions of Precision Measures in Process Mining , 2017, Inf. Process. Lett..

[71]  Peter Dadam,et al.  Monitoring Business Process Compliance Using Compliance Rule Graphs , 2011, OTM Conferences.

[72]  Jan Mendling,et al.  Declarative versus Imperative Process Modeling Languages: The Issue of Understandability , 2009, BMMDS/EMMSAD.

[73]  Kees M. van Hee,et al.  Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems , 2002, Cooperative information systems.

[74]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  UnconstrainedMiner: Efficient Discovery of Generalized Declarative Process Models , 2013 .

[75]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  Nested Dynamic Condition Response Graphs , 2011, FSEN.

[76]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Evaluating the Understandability of Hybrid Process Model Representations Using Eye Tracking: First Insights , 2018, Business Process Management Workshops.

[77]  Marco Montali,et al.  Monitoring Business Constraints with Linear Temporal Logic: An Approach Based on Colored Automata , 2011, BPM.

[78]  Alessandro Sperduti,et al.  Conformance checking based on multi-perspective declarative process models , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[79]  Søren Debois,et al.  A Case for Declarative Process Modelling: Agile Development of a Grant Application System , 2014, 2014 IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops and Demonstrations.

[80]  Fabrizio Maria Maggi,et al.  Parallel algorithms for the automated discovery of declarative process models , 2018, Inf. Syst..

[81]  Michael Westergaard,et al.  CPN Tools 4: A Process Modeling Tool Combining Declarative and Imperative Paradigms , 2013, BPM.

[82]  Peter Gyngell,et al.  Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology , 1994 .

[83]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Exploring the Modeling of Declarative Processes Using a Hybrid Approach , 2019, ER.

[84]  Søren Debois,et al.  Open to Change: A Theory for Iterative Test-Driven Modelling , 2018, BPM.

[85]  Raghava Rao Mukkamala,et al.  Exformatics Declarative Case Management Workflows as DCR Graphs , 2013, BPM.

[86]  Hajo A. Reijers,et al.  Mining Hybrid Business Process Models: A Quest for Better Precision , 2018, BIS.

[87]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Flexibility as a Service , 2009, DASFAA Workshops.

[88]  Stefan Jablonski,et al.  Towards an Implementation of Data and Resource Patterns in Constraint-based Process Models , 2018, MODELSWARD.

[89]  Geert Poels,et al.  Mixed-Paradigm Process Modeling with Intertwined State Spaces , 2016, Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..

[90]  Massimo Mecella,et al.  On the Discovery of Declarative Control Flows for Artful Processes , 2015, ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[91]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  On the Role of Fitness, Precision, Generalization and Simplicity in Process Discovery , 2012, OTM Conferences.

[92]  Wil M.P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process mining with the HeuristicsMiner algorithm , 2006 .

[93]  George S. Avrunin,et al.  Patterns in property specifications for finite-state verification , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).