Deutsch
Bibtex
Cite as text
@Select Types{,
Journal = "Band-1",
Title= "From predictive to prescriptive process monitoring: Recommending the next best actions instead of calculating the next most likely events",
Author= "Sven Weinzierl, Sandra Zilker, Matthias Stierle, Gyunam Park, and Martin Matzner",
Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_c12-weinzierl",
Abstract= "Predictive business process monitoring (PBPM) deals with predicting a process’s future behavior based on historical event logs to support a process’s execution. Many of the recent techniques utilize a machine-learned model to predict which event type is the next most likely. Beyond PBPM, prescriptive BPM aims at finding optimal actions based on considering relevant key performance indicators. Existing techniques are geared towards the outcome prediction and deal with alarms for interventions or interventions that do not represent process events. In this paper, we argue that the next event prediction is insufficient for practitioners. Accordingly, this research-in-progress paper proposes a technique for determining next best actions that represent process events. We conducted an intermediate evaluation to test the usefulness and the quality of our technique compared to the most frequently cited technique for predicting next events. The results show a higher usefulness for process participants than a next most likely event.
",
Keywords= "Prescriptive business process monitoring, predictive business process monitoring, business process management, design science research.
",
}
Sven Weinzierl, Sandra Zilker, Matthias Stierle, Gyunam Park, and Martin Matzner: From predictive to prescriptive process monitoring: Recommending the next best actions instead of calculating the next most likely events. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_c12-weinzierl (Abgerufen 19.04.24)
Open Access
Abstract
Abstract
Predictive business process monitoring (PBPM) deals with predicting a process’s future behavior based on historical event logs to support a process’s execution. Many of the recent techniques utilize a machine-learned model to predict which event type is the next most likely. Beyond PBPM, prescriptive BPM aims at finding optimal actions based on considering relevant key performance indicators. Existing techniques are geared towards the outcome prediction and deal with alarms for interventions or interventions that do not represent process events. In this paper, we argue that the next event prediction is insufficient for practitioners. Accordingly, this research-in-progress paper proposes a technique for determining next best actions that represent process events. We conducted an intermediate evaluation to test the usefulness and the quality of our technique compared to the most frequently cited technique for predicting next events. The results show a higher usefulness for process participants than a next most likely event.
Keywords
Schlüsselwörter
Prescriptive business process monitoring, predictive business process monitoring, business process management, design science research.
References
Referenzen
1. Márquez-Chamorro, A. E., Resinas, & M., Ruiz-Cortés, A.: Predictive monitoring of business processes: a survey. In: IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 11, pp. 962– 977 (2017)
2. Di Francescomarino, C., Ghidini, C., Maggi, F. M., & Milani, F.: Predictive Process Monitoring Methods: Which One Suits Me Best? In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 462–479. Springer, Cham (2018)
3. Teinemaa, I., Tax, N., de Leoni, M., Dumas, M., & Maggi, F. M.: Alarm-based prescriptive process monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 91-107. Springer, Cham (2018)
4. Dees, M., de Leoni, M., van der Aalst, W. M., & Reijers, H. A.: What if Process Predictions are not followed by Good Recommendations?. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10173 (2019)
5. Teinemaa, I., Dumas, M., Rosa, M. L., & Maggi, F. M.: Outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring: In: ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 13 (2019)
6. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Research. In: MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 75–105 (2004)
7. Breuker, D., Matzner, M., Delfmann, P., & Becker, J.: Comprehensible Predictive Models for Business Processes. In: MIS Quarterly, vol. 40, pp. 1009-1034 (2016)
8. Tax, N., Verenich, I., La Rosa, M., & Dumas, M.: Predictive Business Process Monitoring with LSTM Neural Networks. In: Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 477-492. Springer, Cham (2017)
9. Fahrenkrog-Petersen, S. A., Tax, N., Teinemaa, I., Dumas, M., de Leoni, M., Maggi, F. M., & Weidlich, M.: Fire Now, Fire Later: Alarm-Based Systems for Prescriptive Process Monitoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09568 (2019)
10. Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J.: Long Short-Term Memory. In: Neural Computation, vol. 9, pp. 1735-1780 (1997)
11. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G.: Deep learning. In: Nature, vol. 521, pp. 436-444 (2015)
12. Greff, K., Srivastava R. K., Koutník, J., Steunebrink, B. R., & Schmidhuber, J.: LSTM: A Search Space Odyssey, In: IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 28, pp. 2222-2232 (2016)
13. Omohundro, S. M.: Five Balltree Construction Algorithms. Technical Report, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley (1989)
14. van Dongen, B.F.: Dataset BPI Challenge 2019. 4TU. Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.4121/uuid:d06aff4b-79f0-45e6-8ec8-e19730c248f1
15. Tama, B. A., & Comuzzi, M.: An empirical comparison of classification techniques for next event prediction using business process event logs. In: Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 129, pp. 233–245 (2019)
16. Yujian, L., & Bo, L.: A Normalized Levenshtein Distance Metric. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 29, pp. 1091-1095 (2007)