4.8 Article

An Efficient Recommendation Method for Improving Business Process Modeling

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 502-513

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TII.2013.2258677

关键词

Business process modeling; enterprise systems; industrial informatics; string edit distance; workflow; workflow recommendation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61272129, 71132008]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2013AA01A213]
  3. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program by Ministry of Education of China [20110101110066]
  4. New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-12-0491]
  5. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LY12F02029]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In modern commerce, both frequent changes of custom demands and the specialization of the business process require the capacity of modeling business processes for enterprises effectively and efficiently. Traditional methods for improving business process modeling, such as workflow mining and process retrieval, still requires much manual work. To address this, based on the structure of a business process, a method called workflow recommendation technique is proposed in this paper to provide process designers with support for automatically constructing the new business process that is under consideration. In this paper, with the help of the minimum depth-first search (DFS) codes of business process graphs, we propose an efficient method for calculating the distance between process fragments and select candidate node sets for recommendation purpose. In addition, a recommendation system for improving the modeling efficiency and accuracy was implemented and its implementation details are discussed. At last, based on both synthetic and real-world datasets, we have conducted experiments to compare the proposed method with other methods and the experiment results proved its effectiveness for practical applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据