Advertisement

Structuring Behavior or Not, That is the Question

  • Wil van der AalstEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Process models aim to structure behavior for a variety of reasons: discussion, analysis, improvement, implementation, and automation. Traditionally, process models were obtained through modeling and structure could be enforced, e.g., by streamlining or simplifying processes. However, process discovery techniques that start from the actual behavior shed new light on this. These techniques return process models that are either formal (precisely describing the possible behaviors) or informal (merely a “picture” not allowing for any form of formal reasoning). Both types of model aim to structure reality. However, reality is often very different and much more variable than expected by stakeholders. Process mining often reveals an “inconvenient truth” which provides the valuable insights needed to improve a wide variety of processes. This contribution, devoted to Jörg Becker’s 60th birthday, reflects on the notion of “structure” in a world where event data are omnipresent.

Keywords

Process mining Business process management Vagueness in models Process discovery 

References

  1. Becker, J., Beverungen, D. F., & Knackstedt, R. (2010). The challenge of conceptual modeling for product-service systems: Status-quo and perspectives for reference models and modeling languages. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 8(1), 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of business process modeling. In W. van der Aalst, J. Desel, & A. Oberweis (Eds.), Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1806, pp. 30–49). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., & Becker, J. (2012). Maturity models in business process management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. van der Aalst, W. (2016). Process mining—Data science in action (2nd ed.). Berlin, Heildelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. van der Aalst, W., De Masellis, R., Di Francescomarino, C., & Ghidini, C. (2017). Learning Hybrid process models from events—Process discovery without faking confidence. In J. Carmona, G. Engels, & A. Kumar (Eds.), Business Process Management. BPM 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10445, pp. 59–76). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations