A Method to Improve the Early Stages of the Robotic Process Automation Lifecycle

  • Andres Jimenez-RamirezEmail author
  • Hajo A. Reijers
  • Irene Barba
  • Carmelo Del Valle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11483)


The robotic automation of processes is of much interest to organizations. A common use case is to automate the repetitive manual tasks (or processes) that are currently done by back-office staff through some information system (IS). The lifecycle of any Robotic Process Automation (RPA) project starts with the analysis of the process to automate. This is a very time-consuming phase, which in practical settings often relies on the study of process documentation. Such documentation is typically incomplete or inaccurate, e.g., some documented cases never occur, occurring cases are not documented, or documented cases differ from reality. To deploy robots in a production environment that are designed on such a shaky basis entails a high risk. This paper describes and evaluates a new proposal for the early stages of an RPA project: the analysis of a process and its subsequent design. The idea is to leverage the knowledge of back-office staff, which starts by monitoring them in a non-invasive manner. This is done through a screen-mouse-key-logger, i.e., a sequence of images, mouse actions, and key actions are stored along with their timestamps. The log which is obtained in this way is transformed into a UI log through image-analysis techniques (e.g., fingerprinting or OCR) and then transformed into a process model by the use of process discovery algorithms. We evaluated this method for two real-life, industrial cases. The evaluation shows clear and substantial benefits in terms of accuracy and speed. This paper presents the method, along with a number of limitations that need to be addressed such that it can be applied in wider contexts.


Robotic process automation Process discovery Business process outsourcing 



This research has been supported by the Pololas project (TIN2016-76956-C3-2-R) of the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Special thanks to Rafael Cabello from Serviform S.A. for providing his invaluable support and access to the case data.


  1. 1.
    IEEE standard for extensible event stream (XES) for achieving interoperability in event logs and event streams. IEEE Std 1849–2016, pp. 1–50 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Process Mining: Data Science in Action. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Scholar
  3. 3.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Bichler, M., Heinzl, A.: Robotic process automation. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 60(4), 269–272 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Aalst, W.: Formalization and verification of event-driven process chains. Inf. Softw. Technol. 41(10), 639–650 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aguirre, S., Rodriguez, A.: Automation of a business process using robotic process automation (RPA): a case study. In: Figueroa-García, J.C., López-Santana, E.R., Villa-Ramírez, J.L., Ferro-Escobar, R. (eds.) WEA 2017. CCIS, vol. 742, pp. 65–71. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asatiani, A., Penttinen, E.: Turning robotic process automation into commercial success - case opuscapita. J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases 6(2), 67–74 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Autoit (2018). Accessed 1 Mar 2019
  8. 8.
    Cheng, H.J., Kumar, A.: Process mining on noisy logs - can log sanitization help to improve performance? Decis. Support. Syst. 79, 138–149 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conforti, R., La Rosa, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.: Noise filtering of process execution logs based on outliers detection (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dev, H., Liu, Z.: Identifying frequent user tasks from application logs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 263–273 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumais, S., Jeffries, R., Russell, D.M., Tang, D., Teevan, J.: Understanding user behavior through log data and analysis. In: Olson, J.S., Kellogg, W.A. (eds.) Ways of Knowing in HCI, pp. 349–372. Springer, New York (2014). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fung, H.P.: Criteria, use cases and effects of information technology process automation (ITPA). Adv. Robot. Autom. 3(3), 1–10 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geyer-Klingeberg, J., Nakladal, J., Baldauf, F., Veit, F.: Process mining and robotic process automation: a perfect match. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 1–8 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gusfield, D.: Algorithms on Strings, Trees, and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le Clair, C.: Digitization Leaders Share Robotic Process Automation Best Practices. Forrester Research Inc., Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leno, V., Dumas, M., Maggi, F.M., La Rosa, M.: Multi-perspective process model discovery for robotic process automation. CEUR Work. Proc. 2114, 37–45 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leopold, H., van der Aa, H., Reijers, H.A.: Identifying candidate tasks for robotic process automation in textual process descriptions. In: Gulden, J., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R., Guerreiro, S., Guédria, W., Bera, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2018. LNBIP, vol. 318, pp. 67–81. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linn, C., Zimmermann, P., Werth, D.: Desktop activity mining - a new level of detail in mining business processes. In: Workshops der INFORMATIK 2018 - Architekturen, Prozesse, Sicherheit und Nachhaltigkeit, pp. 245–258 (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marrella, A., Catarci, T.: Measuring the learnability of interactive systems using a petri net based approach. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 1309–1319. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Măruşter, L., Weijters, A.T., Van Der Aalst, W.M., Van Den Bosch, A.: A rule-based approach for process discovery: dealing with noise and imbalance in process logs. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 13(1), 67–87 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosa, M.L., Dumas, M., Uba, R., Dijkman, R.M.: Business process model merging: an approach to business process consolidation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 22, 11 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slaby, J.R.: Robotic automation emerges as a threat to traditional low-cost outsourcing. Horses for Sources (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spring cloud (2018). Accessed 1 Mar 2019
  24. 24.
    Suriadi, S., Andrews, R., ter Hofstede, A.H., Wynn, M.T.: Event log imperfection patterns for process mining: towards a systematic approach to cleaning event logs. Inf. Syst. 64, 132–150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Uipath (2018). Accessed 1 Mar 2019
  26. 26.
    Wang, G., Zhang, X., Tang, S., Zheng, H., Zhao, B.Y.: Unsupervised clickstream clustering for user behavior analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 225–236. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willcocks, L., Lacity, M., Craig, A.: Robotic process automation: strategic transformation lever for global business services? J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Cases 7(1), 17–28 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wong, C., Bern, M.W., Goldberg, D.: An image signature for any kind of image. In: International Conference on Image Processing, pp. 409–412 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Workfusion (2018). Accessed 1 Mar 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andres Jimenez-Ramirez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 2
  • Irene Barba
    • 1
  • Carmelo Del Valle
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas InformáticosUniversity of SevilleSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations