Page 262 -

244 9 Operational Support

already used the metaphor of a “process view” to argue that a discovered process
model views reality from a particular “angle”, is “framed”, and shown using a par-
ticular “resolution”. Metaphors such as “maps” and “views” help in understanding
the role of process models in BPM.
Figure 9.1 shows that three activities are grouped under cartography: discover,
enhance, and diagnose.
• Discover. This activity is concerned with the extraction of (process) models as
discussed in Chaps. 5 and 6.
• Enhance. When existing process models (either discovered or hand-made) can
be related to events logs, it is possible to enhance these models. The connection
can be used to repair models or to extend them. In Sect. 7.4.1, we showed that
models can be made more faithful using the diagnostics provided by conformance
checking techniques. Chapter 8 illustrated how attributes in event logs can be used
to add additional perspectives to a model.
• Diagnose. This activity does not directly use event logs and focuses on classical
model-based process analysis as discussed in Sect. 2.3, e.g., process models can
be checked for the absence of deadlocks or alternative models can be simulated
to estimate the effect of various redesigns on average cycle times.

9.1.2 Auditing

In Sect. 7.1, we defined auditing as the set of activities used to check whether
business processes are executed within certain boundaries set by managers, gov-
ernments, and other stakeholders [112]. In Fig. 9.1, the auditing category groups
all activities that are concerned with the comparison of behaviors, e.g., two process
models or a process model and an event log are put side by side.
• Detect. This activity compares de jure models with current “pre mortem” data
(events of running process instances) with the goal to detect deviations at run-
time. The moment a predefined rule is violated, an alert is generated.
• Check. As demonstrated in Chap. 7, historic “post mortem” data can be cross-
checked with de jure models. The goal of this activity is to pinpoint deviations
and quantify the level of compliance.
• Compare. De facto models can be compared with de jure models to see in what
way reality deviates from what was planned or expected. Unlike for the previous
two activities, no event log is used directly. However, the de facto model may
have been discovered using historic data; this way event data are used indirectly
for the comparison. In Sect. 7.3, we showed that footprints can be used for model-
to-model (and log-to-model) comparisons.
• Promote. Based on an analysis of the differences between a de facto model and
a de jure model, it is possible to promote parts of the de facto model to a new de
jure model. By promoting proven “best practices” to the de jure model, existing
processes can be improved.