IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/binfse/v63y2021i3d10.1007_s12599-020-00645-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Kratsch

    (University of Bayreuth, Project Group Business and Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT)

  • Jonas Manderscheid

    (University of Augsburg)

  • Maximilian Röglinger

    (University of Bayreuth, Project Group Business and Information Systems Engineering of the Fraunhofer FIT)

  • Johannes Seyfried

    (University of Augsburg)

Abstract

Predictive process monitoring aims at forecasting the behavior, performance, and outcomes of business processes at runtime. It helps identify problems before they occur and re-allocate resources before they are wasted. Although deep learning (DL) has yielded breakthroughs, most existing approaches build on classical machine learning (ML) techniques, particularly when it comes to outcome-oriented predictive process monitoring. This circumstance reflects a lack of understanding about which event log properties facilitate the use of DL techniques. To address this gap, the authors compared the performance of DL (i.e., simple feedforward deep neural networks and long short term memory networks) and ML techniques (i.e., random forests and support vector machines) based on five publicly available event logs. It could be observed that DL generally outperforms classical ML techniques. Moreover, three specific propositions could be inferred from further observations: First, the outperformance of DL techniques is particularly strong for logs with a high variant-to-instance ratio (i.e., many non-standard cases). Second, DL techniques perform more stably in case of imbalanced target variables, especially for logs with a high event-to-activity ratio (i.e., many loops in the control flow). Third, logs with a high activity-to-instance payload ratio (i.e., input data is predominantly generated at runtime) call for the application of long short term memory networks. Due to the purposive sampling of event logs and techniques, these findings also hold for logs outside this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Kratsch & Jonas Manderscheid & Maximilian Röglinger & Johannes Seyfried, 2021. "Machine Learning in Business Process Monitoring: A Comparison of Deep Learning and Classical Approaches Used for Outcome Prediction," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(3), pages 261-276, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:63:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s12599-020-00645-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allen S. Lee & Richard L. Baskerville, 2003. "Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 221-243, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gunasekaran, Angappa & Irani, Zahir & Choy, King-Lun & Filippi, Lionel & Papadopoulos, Thanos, 2015. "Performance measures and metrics in outsourcing decisions: A review for research and applications," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 153-166.
    2. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    3. Michael Vössing & Niklas Kühl & Matteo Lind & Gerhard Satzger, 2022. "Designing Transparency for Effective Human-AI Collaboration," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 877-895, June.
    4. Zhewei Zhang & Youngjin Yoo & Kalle Lyytinen & Aron Lindberg, 2021. "The Unknowability of Autonomous Tools and the Liminal Experience of Their Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1192-1213, December.
    5. Dragos Vieru & Pierre-Emmanuel Arduin, 2016. "Sharing Knowledge in a Shared Services Center Context: An Explanatory Case Study of the Dialectics of Formal and Informal Practices," Post-Print hal-01458031, HAL.
    6. Delin Zeng & Xiangfei Fu & Taohua Ouyang, 2018. "Implementing Green IT Transformation for Sustainability: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    7. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    8. Krzeminska, Anna & Lundmark, Erik & Härtel, Charmine E.J., 2021. "Legitimation of a heterogeneous market category through covert prototype differentiation," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2).
    9. Möhlmann, Mareike, 2021. "Unjustified trust beliefs: Trust conflation on sharing economy platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    10. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2014. "If These Walls Could Talk: The Mutual Construction of Organizational Space and Legitimacy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 713-731, June.
    11. M. Lynne Markus & Frantz Rowe, 2018. "Is IT changing the world?," Post-Print hal-03716243, HAL.
    12. Michael Breward & Khaled Hassanein & Milena Head, 2017. "Understanding Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Controversial Information Technologies: A Contextualization Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-774, December.
    13. Silva, Leiser & Hsu, Carol & Backhouse, James & McDonnell, Aidan, 2016. "Resistance and power in a security certification scheme: the case of c:cure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68348, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Ted Saarikko, 2016. "Platform Provider by Accident," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 58(3), pages 177-191, May.
    15. Yuan Li & William J. Kettinger, 2022. "Testing the Relationship Between Information and Knowledge in Computer-Aided Decision-Making," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1827-1843, December.
    16. T. S. Ragu-Nathan & Monideepa Tarafdar & Bhanu S. Ragu-Nathan & Qiang Tu, 2008. "The Consequences of Technostress for End Users in Organizations: Conceptual Development and Empirical Validation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 417-433, December.
    17. Medaglia, Rony & Eaton, Ben & Hedman, Jonas & Whitley, Edgar A., 2022. "Mechanisms of power inscription into IT governance: lessons from two national digital identity systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108207, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Deborah Compeau & Barbara Marcolin & Helen Kelley & Chris Higgins, 2012. "Research Commentary ---Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects---A Reflection on Our Practices and Recommendations for Future Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1093-1109, December.
    19. Suwen Chen & Garima Sharma & Pablo Muñoz, 2023. "In Pursuit of Impact: From Research Questions to Problem Formulation in Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 232-264, March.
    20. Schaarschmidt, Mario & Kilian, Thomas, 2014. "Impediments to customer integration into the innovation process: A case study in the telecommunications industry," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 350-361.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:63:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s12599-020-00645-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.