Abstract
Effectively evaluating the impact of process interventions on business outcomes is crucial for assessing the effectiveness and return on investment of process improvement initiatives. However, this task is challenging due to the complex interplay of factors influencing process execution and performance. This paper presents a comprehensive and versatile tool that combines propensity score weighting and event logs to enhance causal inference in business processes. Propensity score weighting balances the treatment and control groups based on their observed characteristics, mitigating bias and improving the precision of causal estimates. Event logs are the input source of process mining methods, which enable the analysis and understanding of how a process works. Our tool assists practitioners in selecting the most suitable weighting method, assessing treatment-control group balance, and evaluating covariate balance before and after adjustments. We apply the approach and tool to a synthetic dataset, demonstrating their effectiveness and illustrating key insights gleaned from the analysis. We discuss the implications and benefits of this approach for advancing causal inference in business processes, alongside limitations and potential future developments for the tool.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
van der Aalst, W.: Process Mining. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4
Austin, P.C.: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar. Behav. Res. 46(3), 399–424 (2011)
Cannas, M., Arpino, B.: A comparison of machine learning algorithms and covariate balance measures for propensity score matching and weighting. Biom. J. 61(4), 1049–1072 (2019)
Delias, P.: Simulation data for Doubly Robust Estimation of Business Process Intervention (2023). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.7971636
Delias, P., Grigori, D.: Formulating the potentials of clustering of event data over multiple entities for decision support: a network embeddings approach. J. Decision Syst. 1–23 (2023)
Delias, P., Mittas, N., Florou, G.: A doubly robust approach for impact evaluation of interventions for business process improvement based on event logs. Decision Analytics J. 8, 100291 (2023)
Delias, P., Nguyen, G.T.: Prototyping a business process improvement plan an evidence-based approach. Inform. Syst. 101, 101812 (2021)
Desai, R.J., Franklin, J.M.: Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ l5657 (2019)
Desai, R.J., Rothman, K.J., Bateman, B.T., Hernandez-Diaz, S., Huybrechts, K.F.: A propensity-score-based fine stratification approach for confounding adjustment when exposure is infrequent. Epidemiology 28(2), 249–257 (2017)
Ferri-García, R., Rueda, M.D.M.: Propensity score adjustment using machine learning classification algorithms to control selection bias in online surveys. PLoS ONE 15(4), e0231500 (2020)
Fuentes, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A.: Causal inference with multilevel data: a comparison of different propensity score weighting approaches. Multivar. Behav. Res. 57(6), 916–939 (2022)
Govindarajulu, U.: Commentary on Rubin and Rosenbaum Seminal 1983 paper on propensity scores: from then to now. Observat. Stud. 9(1), 19–22 (2023)
Greifer, N., Stuart, E.A.: Choosing the Causal Estimand for Propensity Score Analysis of Observational Studies (2021). publisher: arXiv Version Number: 2
Grimes, D.A., Schulz, K.F.: Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359(9302), 248–252 (2002)
Johnson, S.R., Tomlinson, G.A., Hawker, G.A., Granton, J.T., Feldman, B.M.: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in observational studies of treatment effect. Rheumatic Disease Clin. North America 44(2), 203–213 (2018)
Li, F., Morgan, K.L., Zaslavsky, A.M.: Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113(521), 390–400 (2018)
Li, F., Thomas, L.E.: Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights. Am. J. Epidemiol. (2018)
Lok, P., Hung, R.Y., Walsh, P., Wang, P., Crawford, J.: An integrative framework for measuring the extent to which organizational variables influence the success of process improvement programmes. J. Manage. Stud. 42(7), 1357–1381 (2005)
Lunceford, J.K., Davidian, M.: Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study. Stat. Med. 23(19), 2937–2960 (2004)
Markoulidakis, A., et al.: A tutorial comparing different covariate balancing methods with an application evaluating the causal effects of substance use treatment programs for adolescents. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Method. 23(2), 115–148 (2023)
Pirracchio, R., Carone, M., Rigon, M.R., Caruana, E., Mebazaa, A., Chevret, S.: Propensity score estimators for the average treatment effect and the average treatment effect on the treated may yield very different estimates. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 25(5), 1938–1954 (2016)
Reinkemeyer, L. (ed.): Process Mining in Action: Principles. Use Cases and Outlook. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40172-6
Robins, J.: A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period-application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math. Model. 7(9–12), 1393–1512 (1986)
Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B.: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1), 41–55 (1983)
Stürmer, T., et al.: Propensity score weighting and trimming strategies for reducing variance and bias of treatment effect estimates: a simulation study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 190(8), 1659–1670 (2021)
Syed Ibrahim, M., Hanif, A., Jamal, F.Q., Ahsan, A.: Towards successful business process improvement - an extension of change acceleration process model. PLoS ONE 14(11), e0225669 (2019)
Trkman, P.: The critical success factors of business process management. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30(2), 125–134 (2010)
Webster-Clark, M., et al.: Using propensity scores to estimate effects of treatment initiation decisions: State of the science. Stat. Med. 40(7), 1718–1735 (2021)
Xu, S., Ross, C., Raebel, M.A., Shetterly, S., Blanchette, C., Smith, D.: Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health 13(2), 273–277 (2010)
Yoshida, K., et al.: Matching weights to simultaneously compare three treatment groups: comparison to three-way matching. Epidemiology 28(3), 387–395 (2017)
Zimmermann, L., Zerbato, F., Weber, B.: Process mining challenges perceived by analysts: an interview study. In: Augusto, A., Gill, A., Bork, D., Nurcan, S., Reinhartz-Berger, I., Schmidt, R. (eds.) Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling, vol. 450, pp. 3–17. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07475-2_1
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Delias, P., Trygoniaris, D., Mittas, N. (2024). A Tool to Support Propensity Score Weighting for Enhanced Causal Inference in Business Processes. In: Duarte, S.P., Lobo, A., Delibašić, B., Kamissoko, D. (eds) Decision Support Systems XIV. Human-Centric Group Decision, Negotiation and Decision Support Systems for Societal Transitions. ICDSST 2024. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 506. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59376-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59376-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-59375-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-59376-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)