Advertisement

Process Discovery

  • Marlon Dumas
  • Marcello La Rosa
  • Jan Mendling
  • Hajo A. Reijers
Chapter

Abstract

Various methods can be used to create a process model from information inferred within the organization, e.g., by interviewing process participants or by observing how these operate in practice. Meanwhile, it is important to ensure that a model is not only syntactically correct, but that it also accurately reflects the actual business process being modeled. In this chapter, we first present the challenges faced by the stakeholders involved in the lead-up to a process model. Then, we discuss methods to facilitate effective communication and information gathering about business processes. We then show step-by-step how to construct a process model based on the gathered information, and what quality criteria should be checked before the model can be accepted as an authoritative representation of a business process.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 2.
    W.M.P. van der Aalst, Verification of Workflow Nets, in Application and Theory of Petri Nets 1997, ed. by P. Azéma, G. Balbo. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1248 (Springer, Berlin, 1997), pp. 407–426Google Scholar
  2. 18.
    J. Becker, M. Rosemann, C. von Uthmann, Guidelines of Business Process Modeling, in Business Process Management. Models, Techniques, and Empirical Studies, ed. by W.M.P. van der Aalst, J. Desel, A. Oberweis (Springer, Berlin, 2000), pp. 30–49Google Scholar
  3. 20.
    B.L. Berg, H. Lune, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (Pearson, Boston, 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 26.
    J.G. Clark, D.B. Walz, J.L. Wynekoop, Identifying exceptional application software developers: A comparison of students and professionals. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 11(1), 8 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 27.
    D. Cohn, R. Hull, Business artifacts: A data-centric approach to modeling business operations and processes. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 32(3), 3–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 36.
    J. Dick, E. Hull, K. Jackson, Requirements Engineering, 4th edn. (Springer, Berlin, 2017)Google Scholar
  7. 37.
    J.M. Digman, Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41(1), 417–440 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 40.
    M. Dumas, M. La Rosa, J. Mendling, R. Mäesalu, H.A. Reijers, N. Semenenko, Understanding business process models: the costs and benefits of structuredness, in International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 31–46Google Scholar
  9. 48.
    P.J.M. Frederiks, T.P. van der Weide, Information modeling: The process and the required competencies of its participants. Data Knowl. Eng. 58(1), 4–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 71.
    J. Jeston, J. Nelis, Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations, 3rd edn. (Routledge, New York, 2014)Google Scholar
  11. 83.
    J. Krogstie, Quality in Business Process Modeling (Springer, Berlin, 2016)Google Scholar
  12. 87.
    H. Leopold, R.-H. Eid-Sabbagh, J. Mendling, L.G. Azevedo, F.A. Baião, Detection of naming convention violations in process models for different languages. Decis. Support Syst. 56, 310–325 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 91.
    O.I. Lindland, G. Sindre, A. Sølvberg, Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Softw. 11(2), 42–49 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 108.
    J. Mendling, Metrics for Process Models: Empirical Foundations of Verification, Error Prediction, and Guidelines for Correctness. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 6 (Springer, Berlin, 2008)Google Scholar
  15. 109.
    J. Mendling, Empirical studies in process model verification, in Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency II, Special Issue on Concurrency in Process-Aware Information Systems, vol. 5460 (2009), 208–224Google Scholar
  16. 110.
    J. Mendling, H.A. Reijers, W.M.P. van der Aalst, Seven process modeling guidelines (7pmg). Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(2), 127–136 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 111.
    J. Mendling, L. Sánchez-González, F. García, M. La Rosa, Thresholds for error probability measures of business process models. J. Syst. Softw. 85(5), 1188–1197 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 112.
    J. Mendling, M. Strembeck, J. Recker, Factors of process model comprehension - findings from a series of experiments. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 195–206 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 123.
    A. Ottensooser, A. Fekete, H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, C. Menictas, Making sense of business process descriptions: An experimental comparison of graphical and textual notations. J. Syst. Softw. 85(3), 596–606 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 126.
    M. Petre, Why looking isn’t always seeing: Readership skills and graphical programming. Commun. ACM 38(6), 33–44 (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 127.
    K. Pohl, Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Techniques (Springer, Berlin, 2010)Google Scholar
  22. 129.
    G. Redding, M. Dumas, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, A. Iordachescu, A flexible, object-centric approach for business process modelling. SOCA 4(3), 191–201 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 133.
    H.A. Reijers, T. Freytag, J. Mendling, A. Eckleder, Syntax highlighting in business process models. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 339–349 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 136.
    H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, A study into the factors that influence the understandability of business process models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A 41(3), 449–462 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 143.
    M. La Rosa, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, P. Wohed, H.A. Reijers, J. Mendling, W.M.P. van der Aalst, Managing process model complexity via concrete syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(2), 255–265 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 144.
    M. La Rosa, P. Wohed, J. Mendling, A.H.M. ter Hofstede, H.A. Reijers, W.M.P. van der Aalst, Managing process model complexity via abstract syntax modifications. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 7(4), 614–629 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 145.
    M. Rosemann, Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part a. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(2), 249–254 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 146.
    M. Rosemann, Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part b. Bus. Process Manag. J. 12(3), 377–384 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 147.
    M. Rosemann, A. Hjalmarsson, M. Lind, J. Recker, Four facets of a process modeling facilitator, in Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Systems (Association for Information Systems, 2011)Google Scholar
  30. 157.
    K.D. Schenk, N.P. Vitalari, K.S. Davis, Differences between novice and expert systems analysts: What do we know and what do we do? J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 15(1), 9–50 (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 160.
    I. Seidman, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (Teachers College Press, New York, 2006)Google Scholar
  32. 161.
    A. Sharp, P. McDermott, Workflow Modeling: Tools for Process Improvement and Applications Development, 2nd edn. (Artech House, Norwood, 2008)Google Scholar
  33. 169.
    J. Stirna, A. Persson, K. Sandkuhl, Participative Enterprise Modeling: Experiences and Recommendations, in Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2007), ed. by J. Krogstie, A.L. Opdahl, G. Sindre. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4495, Trondheim, Norway, 2007 (Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 546–560Google Scholar
  34. 181.
    A. van Lamsweerde, Requirements Engineering: From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications (Wiley, New York, 2009)Google Scholar
  35. 185.
    L. Verner, The challenge of process discovery. BPTrends (May 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marlon Dumas
    • 1
  • Marcello La Rosa
    • 2
  • Jan Mendling
    • 3
  • Hajo A. Reijers
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  2. 2.School of Computing and Information SystemsThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Institute for Information BusinessVienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria
  4. 4.Department of Computer SciencesVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations