Improving the Usability of Process Change Trees Based on Change Similarity Measures

  • Georg KaesEmail author
  • Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 318)


Flexible process management systems store information about conducted process change operations in change logs. Change log analysis can provide users who are responsible for planning and executing upcoming adaptations with valuable information. Change trees represent change logs emphasizing the temporal relation between change operations such that users can immediately see which change sequences have been applied in the past. Similar to most process mining approaches, change trees currently build upon label equivalence. However, labels only provide restricted information about a change operation. Hence this paper investigates how process change similarity can be employed to compare changes, i.e., similar change operations are aggregated in the tree as they appear in a change sequence. A user experiment shows the increased efficiency of the aggregated change sequences: users find relevant information faster than in a change tree based on label equivalence.


  1. 1.
    Reichert, M., Weber, B.: Enabling Flexibility in Process-Aware Information Systems - Challenges, Methods, Technologies. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Günther, C., Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., van der Aalst, W.: Using process mining to learn from process changes in evolutionary systems. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manage. 3, 61–78 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaes, G., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Mining and querying process change information based on change trees. In: Barros, A., Grigori, D., Narendra, N.C., Dam, H.K. (eds.) ICSOC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9435, pp. 269–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaes, G., Rinderle-Ma, S.: On the similarity of process change operations. In: Dubois, E., Pohl, K. (eds.) CAiSE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10253, pp. 348–363. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allen, F.E.: Control flow analysis. ACM Sigplan Not. 5, 1–19 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ingvaldsen, J.E., Gulla, J.A.: Industrial application of semantic process mining. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 6, 139–163 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rinderle-Ma, S., Reichert, M., Jurisch, M.: On utilizing web service equivalence for supporting the composition life cycle. Int. J. Web Serv. Res. 8, 41–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bron, C., Kerbosch, J.: Algorithm 457: finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Commun. ACM 16, 575–577 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker, M., Laue, R.: A comparative survey of business process similarity measures. Comput. Ind. 63, 148–167 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Dongen, B., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J.: Measuring similarity between business process models. In: Bellahsène, Z., Léonard, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5074, pp. 450–464. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pflug, J., Rinderle-Ma, S.: Process instance similarity: potentials, metrics, applications. In: Debruyne, C., et al. (eds.) OTM 2016. LNCS, vol. 10033, pp. 136–154. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bose, R.P.J.C., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Žliobaitė, I., Pechenizkiy, M.: Handling concept drift in process mining. In: Mouratidis, H., Rolland, C. (eds.) CAiSE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6741, pp. 391–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carmona, J., Gavaldà, R.: Online techniques for dealing with concept drift in process mining. In: Hollmén, J., Klawonn, F., Tucker, A. (eds.) IDA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7619, pp. 90–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations