Balanced multi-perspective checking of process conformance

Organizations maintain process models that describe or prescribe how cases (e.g., orders) are handled. However, reality may not agree with what is modeled. Conformance checking techniques reveal and diagnose differences between the behavior that is modeled and what is observed. Existing conformance checking approaches tend to focus on the control-flow in a process, while abstracting from data dependencies, resource assignments, and time constraints. Even in those situations when other perspectives are considered, the control-flow is aligned first, i.e., priority is given to this perspective. Data dependencies, resource assignments, and time constraints are only considered as “second-class citizens”, which may lead to misleading conformance diagnostics. For example, a data attribute may provide strong evidence that the wrong activity was executed. Existing techniques will still diagnose the data-flow as deviating, whereas our approach will indeed point out that the control-flow is deviating. In this paper, a novel algorithm is proposed that balances the deviations with respect to all these perspectives based on a customizable cost function. Evaluations using both synthetic and real data sets show that a multi-perspective approach is indeed feasible and may help to circumvent misleading results as generated by classical single-perspective or staged approaches.

[1]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Process diagnostics using trace alignment: Opportunities, issues, and challenges , 2012, Inf. Syst..

[2]  van der Wmp Wil Aalst,et al.  Using hidden Markov models to evaluate the quality of discovered process models , 2008 .

[3]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior , 2008, Inf. Syst..

[4]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Specification, Verification and Explanation of Violation for Data Aware Compliance Rules , 2009, ICSOC/ServiceWave.

[5]  Marco Montali Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models: A Logic-Based Approach , 2010 .

[6]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Aligning Event Logs and Process Models for Multi-perspective Conformance Checking: An Approach Based on Integer Linear Programming , 2013, BPM.

[7]  Alessio Lomuscio,et al.  Verification of GSM-Based Artifact-Centric Systems through Finite Abstraction , 2012, ICSOC.

[8]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Decomposing Petri nets for process mining: A generic approach , 2013, Distributed and Parallel Databases.

[9]  Vojtech Huser,et al.  Process Mining: Discovery, Conformance and Enhancement of Business Processes , 2012, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[10]  Amin Vahdat,et al.  Pip: Detecting the Unexpected in Distributed Systems , 2006, NSDI.

[11]  Evelina Lamma,et al.  Specification and Verification of Agent Interaction using Social Integrity Constraints , 2004, LCMAS.

[12]  Ying Liu,et al.  A static compliance-checking framework for business process models , 2007, IBM Syst. J..

[13]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Data-aware process mining: discovering decisions in processes using alignments , 2013, SAC '13.

[14]  Wil M. P. van der Aalst,et al.  Genetic process mining: an experimental evaluation , 2007, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[15]  Mathias Weske,et al.  Process compliance analysis based on behavioural profiles , 2011, Inf. Syst..

[16]  Jörg Desel,et al.  Free choice Petri nets , 1995 .

[17]  van der Wmp Wil Aalst,et al.  Memory-efficient alignment of observed and modeled behavior , 2013 .

[18]  Shazia Wasim Sadiq,et al.  Compliance checking between business processes and business contracts , 2006, 2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC'06).

[19]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Data- and Resource-Aware Conformance Checking of Business Processes , 2012, BIS.

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

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

[22]  Dirk Fahland,et al.  Behavioral Conformance of Artifact-Centric Process Models , 2011, BIS.

[23]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Towards Robust Conformance Checking , 2010, Business Process Management Workshops.

[24]  Alexander L. Wolf,et al.  Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model , 1999, TSEM.

[25]  Guido Governatori,et al.  On compliance checking for clausal constraints in annotated process models , 2012, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[26]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Detecting large-scale system problems by mining console logs , 2009, SOSP '09.

[27]  Boudewijn F. van Dongen,et al.  Replaying history on process models for conformance checking and performance analysis , 2012, WIREs Data Mining Knowl. Discov..

[28]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Generalized best-first search strategies and the optimality of A* , 1985, JACM.