• DocumentCode
    43782
  • Title

    Comparing and Combining Predictive Business Process Monitoring Techniques

  • Author

    Metzger, Andreas ; Leitner, Philipp ; Ivanovic, Dragan ; Schmieders, Eric ; Franklin, Rod ; Carro, Manuel ; Dustdar, Schahram ; Pohl, Klaus

  • Author_Institution
    paluno (The Ruhr Inst. for Software Technol.), Univ. of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Volume
    45
  • Issue
    2
  • fYear
    2015
  • fDate
    Feb. 2015
  • Firstpage
    276
  • Lastpage
    290
  • Abstract
    Predictive business process monitoring aims at forecasting potential problems during process execution before they occur so that these problems can be handled proactively. Several predictive monitoring techniques have been proposed in the past. However, so far those prediction techniques have been assessed only independently from each other, making it hard to reliably compare their applicability and accuracy. We empirically analyze and compare three main classes of predictive monitoring techniques, which are based on machine learning, constraint satisfaction, and Quality-of-Service (QoS) aggregation. Based on empirical evidence from an industrial case study in the area of transport and logistics, we assess those techniques with respect to five accuracy indicators. We further determine the dependency of accuracy on the point in time during process execution when a prediction is made in order to determine lead-times for accurate predictions. Our evidence suggests that, given a lead-time of half of the process duration, all predictive monitoring techniques consistently provide an accuracy of at least 70%. Yet, it also becomes evident that the techniques differ in terms of how accurately they may predict violations and nonviolations. To improve the prediction process, we thus exploit the characteristics of the individual techniques and propose their combination. Based on our case study data, evidence indicates that certain combinations of techniques may outperform individual techniques with respect to specific accuracy indicators. Combining constraint satisfaction with QoS aggregation, for instance, improves precision by 14%; combining machine learning with constraint satisfaction shows an improvement in recall by 23%.
  • Keywords
    business data processing; constraint satisfaction problems; learning (artificial intelligence); QoS aggregation; accuracy indicators; constraint satisfaction; machine learning; predictive business process monitoring techniques; process execution; quality-of-service aggregation; Accuracy; Business; Data models; Monitoring; Predictive models; Quality of service; Real-time systems; Business data processing; failure analysis; forecasting; neural network applications; transportation;
  • fLanguage
    English
  • Journal_Title
    Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, IEEE Transactions on
  • Publisher
    ieee
  • ISSN
    2168-2216
  • Type

    jour

  • DOI
    10.1109/TSMC.2014.2347265
  • Filename
    6882809