pp 1–26 | Cite as

Logs and enterprise networks for overcoming obstacles in business processes

  • Mohamed SellamiEmail author
  • Zakaria Maamar
  • Sylvain Lefebvre
  • Noura Faci


This paper discusses obstacle tackling in the context of business processes, in general, and social business processes, in particular. Obstacles are situations that could evolve into exceptions, if they are not efficiently and promptly (i.e., no preventive measures taken) tackled. Compared to obstacles, exceptions put a business process in a suspension mode until corrective measures are taken, which does not help ensure this process’s operation continuity. To address this lack of continuity, a two-stage approach for obstacle tackling using specialized enterprise networks is presented. The approach consists of (i) an early business-process obstacle detection technique based on logs and enterprise networks, and (ii) obstacle tackling technique based on solutions that result from network crawling. A system demonstrating the technical feasibility and efficiency of the approach through a real dataset, is presented in the paper as well.


Business process Enterprise network Exception Log Obstacle 

Mathematics Subject Classification

68U01 68U35 


  1. 1.
    Accorsi R, Stocker T (2012) On the exploitation of process mining for security audits: the conformance checking case. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC’2012), Riva del Garda, Trento, Italy, pp 1709–1716Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burégio VA, Maamar Z, Meira SL (2015) An architecture and guiding framework for the social enterprise. IEEE Internet Comput 19(1):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burégio VA, Kajan E, Sellami M, Faci N, Maamar Z, Benslimane D (2016) Revisiting software engineering in the social era. Int J Syst Serv Oriented Eng 6(4):36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conforti R, de Leoni M, La Rosa M, van der Aalst WMP (2013) Supporting risk-informed decisions during business process execution. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Valencia, Spain, pp 116–132Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dellarocas C, Klein M (2000) A knowledge-based approach for handling exceptions in business processes. Inf Technol Manag 1(3):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faci N, Maamar Z, Kajan E, Benslimane D (2014) Research roadmap for the enterprise 2.0-issues & solutions. Sci Publ State Univ Novi Pazar J Ser A Appl Math Inf Mech 6(2):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hacid H, Ugljanin E, Sellami M, Maamar Z (2017) Adapting selection strategies of executors of business processes based on profit and social qualities. Comput Electr Eng 63:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Japsen B (2012) U.S. Workforce Illness Costs \$576B annually from sick days to workers compensation. Accessed 16 Dec 2017
  9. 9.
    Kajan E, Faci N, Maamar Z, Loo A, Pljaskovic A, Sheng QZ (2014) The network-based business process. IEEE Internet Comput 18(2):63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang B, Kim D, Kang SH (2011) Periodic performance prediction for real-time business process monitoring. Ind Manag Data Syst 112(1):4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2):81–93CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim K, Choi I, Park C (2011) A rule-based approach to proactive exception handling in business processes. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):394–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu R, Sadiq S, Governatori G, Yang X (2009) Defining adaptation constraints for business process variants. In: Proceedings of the international conference on business information systems (BIS’2019), Poznan, Poland, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maamar Z, Burégio VA, Sellami M (2015a) Collaborative enterprise applications based on business and social artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 24th IEEE international conference on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, Larnaca, Cyprus, pp 150–155Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maamar Z, Faci N, Kajan E, Boukadi K, Sakr S, Boukhebouze M, Mostéfaoui SK, Burégio VA, Yahya F, Monfort V, Hennion R (2015b) Enterprise 2.0: research challenges and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on web information systems and technologies, revised selected papers, Barcelona, Spain, pp 16–30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maamar Z, Faci N, Sakr S, Boukhebouze M, Barnawi A (2016) Network-based social coordination of business processes. Inf Syst 58:56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maamar Z, Sellami M, Faci N, Lefebvre S (2017) Detecting and tackling run-time obstacles in social business processes. In: Proceedings of the 31st IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications, Taipei, Taiwan, pp 371–378Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Molnár F (2011) Link prediction analysis in the wikipedia collaboration graph. Accessed 3 Jan 2018
  19. 19.
    Mühlen M (2001) Workflow-based process controlling-or: what you can measure you can control. In: Workflow handbook 2001, workflow management coalition, pp 61–77Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Object Management Group (OMG) (2014) Business process model and notation. Accessed 5 May 2017
  21. 21.
    Pesic M, Schonenberg MH, Sidorova N, van der Aalst WMP (2007) Constraint-based workflow models: change made easy. In: Proceedings of the on the move to meaningful internet systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rozinat A, van der Aalst WMP (2008) Conformance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior. Inf Syst 33(1):64–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rozinat A, Wynn M, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM, Fidge C (2008) Workflow simulation for operational decision support using design, historic and state information. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference of business process management, Milan, Italy, pp 196–211Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russell N, van der Aalst W, ter Hofstede A (2006a) Workflow exception patterns. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on advanced information systems engineering, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, pp 288–302Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell N, van der Aalst WMP, ter Hofstede AHM (2006b) Exception handling patterns in process-aware information systems. Tech. Rep. BPM-06-04, BPM CenterGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thullner R, Rozsnyai S, Schiefer J, Obweger H, Suntinger M (2011) Proactive business process compliance monitoring with event-based systems. In: Proceedings of the workshops of the 15th IEEE international conference on enterprise distributed object computing, Helsinki, Finland, pp 429–437Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van der Aalst WMP (2016) Process mining: data science in action. Springer, Berlin, pp 325–352 (chap Process Mining Software)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Dongen BF (2017) BPI challenge 2017. Accessed 6 Nov 2017
  29. 29.
    Verbeek HMW, Buijs JCAM, van Dongen BF, van der Aalst WMP (2011) XES, XESame, and ProM 6. In: Proceedings of information systems evolution—CAiSE forum, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp 60–75Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verenich I, Mõškovski S, Raboczi S, Dumas M, La Rosa M, Maggi F (2018) Predictive process monitoring in apromore. In: Proceedings of the CAiSE forum’2018, Tallinn, Estonia, pp 244–253Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weijters AJMM, Alves De Medeiros AK (2006) Process mining with the heuristics miner algorithm. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Tech RepGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zsidisin GA, Melnyk SA, Ragatz GL (2005) An institutional theory perspective of business continuity planning for purchasing and supply management. Int J Prod Res 43(16):3401–3420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telecom SudParisÉvryFrance
  2. 2.Zayed UniversityDubaiUAE
  3. 3.Institut Supérieur d’Electronique de ParisParisFrance
  4. 4.Université Lyon 1LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations