MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404416555 · doi:10.1108/bpmj-07-2024-0555

A review of AI and machine learning contribution in business process management (process enhancement and process improvement approaches)

2024· review· en· W4404416555 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Abbasi, Rahnuma Islam Nishat, Corey Bond, John Brandon Graham-Knight, Patricia Lasserre, Yves Lucet, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Process Management Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalOkanagan CollegeBrock UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Business process managementProcess managementBusiness processComputer scienceProcess miningBusiness process discoveryBusiness process modelingProcess engineeringWork in processBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The significance of business processes has fostered a close collaboration between academia and industry. Moreover, the business landscape has witnessed continuous transformation, closely intertwined with technological advancements. Our main goal is to offer researchers and process analysts insights into the latest developments concerning artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to optimize their processes in an organization and identify research gaps and future directions in the field. Design/methodology/approach In this study, we perform a systematic review of academic literature to investigate the integration of AI/ML in business process management (BPM). We categorize the literature according to the BPM life-cycle and employ bibliometric and objective-oriented methodology to analyze related papers. Findings In business process management and process map, AI/ML has made significant improvements using operational data on process metrics. These developments involve two distinct stages: (1) process enhancement, which emphasizes analyzing process information and adding descriptions to process models and (2) process improvement, which focuses on redesigning processes based on insights derived from analysis. Research limitations/implications While this review paper serves to provide an overview of different approaches for addressing process-related challenges, it does not delve deeply into the intricacies of fine-grained technical details of each method. This work focuses on recent papers conducted between 2010 and 2024. Originality/value This work addresses a significant gap by employing a pioneering approach to introduce challenges in BPM alongside AI/ML techniques and integrated tools. Hence, it offers comprehensive guidelines that elucidate the alignment between ML methods and solutions to current challenges across the BPM life-cycle, including process enhancement and process improvement. Additionally, by detailing various aspects of the life-cycle phases and highlighting ML technique characteristics, this research demonstrates potential approaches for future exploration, thereby enhancing applicability for both process analysts and researchers in this context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness Process Management JournalSame topicBusiness Process Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207