Process Mining Insights
SkillDev toolsGenerate process mining insights to identify inefficiencies, bottlenecks, compliance deviations, and optimization opportunities from ServiceNow process data
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Process Mining Insights skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by happy-technologies-llc/happy-platform-skills in skills/genai/process-mining-insights/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Overview
This skill generates actionable insights from ServiceNow Process Mining data by analyzing process variants, identifying bottlenecks, detecting compliance deviations, and recommending optimization opportunities. It transforms raw process data into decision-ready intelligence.
- Retrieve and analyze process definitions, variants, and activity data
- Identify bottleneck activities where cases spend disproportionate time
- Detect compliance deviations: skipped steps, out-of-order activities, unauthorized actors
- Compare variant performance to identify the most efficient process paths
- Calculate process KPIs: throughput time, rework rate, automation potential
- Generate optimization recommendations with estimated impact
When to use: When analyzing business process efficiency, investigating process compliance, preparing process improvement proposals, or building executive dashboards for process performance.
Prerequisites
- Roles:
process_mining_admin,process_mining_analyst, oradmin - Plugins:
com.snc.process_mining(Process Mining) - Access: Read on
sn_process_mining_process,sn_process_mining_variant,sn_process_mining_activity,sn_process_mining_case - Knowledge: Understanding of process mining concepts (variants, activities, transitions, conformance)
- Data: At least one process mining project with imported event data
Procedure
Step 1: Retrieve Process Definitions
List available process mining projects and their metadata.
Using MCP (Claude Code/Desktop):
Tool: SN-Query-Table
Parameters:
table_name: sn_process_mining_process
query: active=true
fields: sys_id,name,description,source_table,total_cases,total_variants,total_activities,created_on,updated_on
limit: 20
Using REST API:
GET /api/now/table/sn_process_mining_process?sysparm_query=active=true&sysparm_fields=sys_id,name,description,source_table,total_cases,total_variants,total_activities,created_on,updated_on&sysparm_limit=20
Step 2: Analyze Process Variants
Retrieve variants sorted by frequency to understand the most common process paths.
Using MCP:
Tool: SN-Query-Table
Parameters:
table_name: sn_process_mining_variant
query: process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCcase_count
fields: sys_id,name,process,case_count,avg_duration,median_duration,activity_sequence,conformance_status
limit: 25
Using REST API:
GET /api/now/table/sn_process_mining_variant?sysparm_query=process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCcase_count&sysparm_fields=sys_id,name,process,case_count,avg_duration,median_duration,activity_sequence,conformance_status&sysparm_limit=25
Key variant analysis:
| Variant | Cases | Avg Duration | Conformance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Happy Path | 1,245 | 2.3 days | Compliant | Ideal process flow |
| With Rework | 389 | 6.1 days | Deviated | Loop between Review and Fix |
| Skipped Approval | 67 | 1.1 days | Non-compliant | Missing manager approval |
| Emergency Path | 42 | 0.4 days | Compliant | Expedited with justification |
Step 3: Identify Bottleneck Activities
Query activity-level data to find where cases spend the most time.
Using MCP:
Tool: SN-Query-Table
Parameters:
table_name: sn_process_mining_activity
query: process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCavg_duration
fields: sys_id,name,process,case_count,avg_duration,median_duration,min_duration,max_duration,avg_wait_time
limit: 20
Using REST API:
GET /api/now/table/sn_process_mining_activity?sysparm_query=process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCavg_duration&sysparm_fields=sys_id,name,process,case_count,avg_duration,median_duration,min_duration,max_duration,avg_wait_time&sysparm_limit=20
Bottleneck identification criteria:
- Duration bottleneck: Activity avg_duration > 2x the process average
- Wait bottleneck: Activity avg_wait_time > avg processing time (waiting, not working)
- Volume bottleneck: Activity case_count significantly higher than downstream (queue buildup)
- Variance bottleneck: max_duration / min_duration > 10x (inconsistent execution)
Step 4: Analyze Transitions Between Activities
Examine how cases flow between activities to detect rework loops and unusual paths.
Using MCP:
Tool: SN-Query-Table
Parameters:
table_name: sn_process_mining_transition
query: process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCcase_count
fields: sys_id,source_activity,target_activity,case_count,avg_duration,process
limit: 50
Using REST API:
GET /api/now/table/sn_process_mining_transition?sysparm_query=process=[process_sys_id]^ORDERBYDESCcase_count&sysparm_fields=sys_id,source_activity,target_activity,case_count,avg_duration,process&sysparm_limit=50
Look for:
- Rework loops: Transitions where target_activity appears earlier in the expected sequence
- Skip patterns: Expected transitions with zero or very low case counts
- Unusual paths: Transitions not present in the reference model
Step 5: Detect Compliance Deviations
Compare actual process execution against the reference (happy path) model.
Deviation categories:
| Type | Description | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Skipped activity | Required step was bypassed entirely | High |
| Out-of-order execution | Activities performed in wrong sequence | Medium |
| Unauthorized actor | Activity performed by someone without proper role | Critical |
| Excessive rework | Activity repeated more than threshold (e.g., 3 times) | Medium |
| SLA breach | Activity duration exceeded defined SLA | High |
| Missing documentation | Required notes or attachments not present | Low |
Using MCP:
Tool: SN-Query-Table
Parameters:
table_name: sn_process_mining_variant
query: process=[process_sys_id]^conformance_status=non_compliant
fields: sys_id,name,case_count,activity_sequence,conformance_status,deviation_details
limit: 20
Step 6: Calculate Process KPIs
Derive key performance indicators from the process data:
=== PROCESS MINING KPI DASHBOARD ===
Process: Incident Management
Period: Last 90 days
Throughput Metrics:
Total Cases: 1,743
Avg Cycle Time: 3.2 days
Median Cycle Time: 1.8 days
90th Percentile: 8.4 days
Efficiency Metrics:
Happy Path Rate: 71.4% (1,245/1,743)
Rework Rate: 22.3% (389 cases with loops)
First-Time-Right: 77.7%
Automation Rate: 34.2% (activities performed by system)
Compliance Metrics:
Conformance Rate: 96.2% (1,676/1,743 compliant)
Skipped Steps: 67 cases (3.8%)
SLA Compliance: 89.1%
Resource Metrics:
Avg Handoffs: 3.1 per case
Avg Wait vs Work: 62% wait / 38% work
Busiest Activity: "Approval" (avg 1.4 days wait)
Step 7: Generate Optimization Recommendations
Based on the analysis, produce prioritized recommendations:
=== OPTIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS ===
1. [HIGH IMPACT] Reduce Approval Wait Time
Finding: "Manager Approval" averages 1.4 days wait, 62% of total cycle time
Root Cause: Approvals queue in manager inbox without SLA enforcement
Recommendation: Implement auto-approval for low-risk items (<$500) and
add escalation after 4 hours for standard items
Estimated Impact: -0.8 days avg cycle time, 25% throughput improvement
2. [HIGH IMPACT] Eliminate Rework Loop: Review-Fix-Review
Finding: 389 cases (22.3%) cycle between Review and Fix steps
Root Cause: Incomplete initial submissions missing required fields
Recommendation: Add mandatory field validation at submission and
pre-review checklist
Estimated Impact: -2.8 days for affected cases, 15% rework reduction
3. [MEDIUM IMPACT] Address Skipped Approval Deviation
Finding: 67 cases bypassed mandatory approval step
Root Cause: Users with admin role can override state transitions
Recommendation: Add business rule to enforce approval regardless of role,
with emergency override requiring documented justification
Estimated Impact: 100% conformance on approval step
4. [MEDIUM IMPACT] Automate Assignment Activity
Finding: "Assignment" activity is manual, avg 2.1 hours
Root Cause: No auto-assignment rules configured for this category
Recommendation: Implement predictive assignment (see itsm/predict-assignment)
Estimated Impact: -2 hours per case, 95% auto-assignment rate
Step 8: Export and Report Findings
Compile findings into a structured report for stakeholders:
Using MCP:
Tool: SN-Add-Work-Notes
Parameters:
sys_id: [process_sys_id]
work_notes: |
=== PROCESS MINING ANALYSIS REPORT ===
Process: [process_name]
Analysis Date: [current_date]
Period: [date_range]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
[2-3 sentence summary of key findings]
TOP BOTTLENECKS:
[Ranked list with impact metrics]
COMPLIANCE STATUS:
[Conformance rate and critical deviations]
RECOMMENDATIONS:
[Prioritized list with estimated impact]
NEXT STEPS:
[Action items with owners and timelines]
Tool Usage
| Tool | Purpose | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
SN-Query-Table | Retrieve process, variant, activity, and transition data | Core analysis data gathering |
SN-Natural-Language-Search | Find processes or cases by natural language | Ad-hoc investigation |
SN-Update-Record | Update process records with analysis results | Persisting findings |
SN-Add-Work-Notes | Document analysis and recommendations | Reports and audit trail |
SN-Get-Table-Schema | Explore process mining table structures | Setup and field discovery |
Best Practices
- Start with the happy path -- understand the ideal process before analyzing deviations
- Focus on high-volume variants -- optimize the paths that affect the most cases first
- Distinguish wait from work -- most bottlenecks are wait time, not processing time
- Validate deviations contextually -- some "deviations" are legitimate exceptions (emergencies)
- Quantify impact -- always attach metrics (time saved, cost reduced) to recommendations
- Compare time periods -- trend analysis reveals whether processes are improving or degrading
- Involve process owners -- share findings with the people who can act on them
- Iterate regularly -- run analysis monthly to track improvement and catch regressions
- Correlate with outcomes -- link process variants to business outcomes (CSAT, resolution quality)
- Use conformance checking -- compare against BPMN reference models when available
Troubleshooting
"No process mining data found"
Cause: Process mining project has not been configured or data has not been imported
Solution: Verify that sn_process_mining_process has active records. Check that event log data has been imported from the source table.
"Variant count is extremely high"
Cause: Process is highly variable or event data includes noise (system events, duplicate timestamps) Solution: Apply filters to exclude system-generated activities. Focus on the top 20 variants which typically cover 80%+ of cases (Pareto principle).
"Activity durations seem incorrect"
Cause: Timestamps may reflect calendar time including weekends/holidays rather than business hours Solution: Check if the process mining project uses business calendar settings. Adjust duration calculations to exclude non-business hours.
"Conformance status is blank on variants"
Cause: No reference model has been defined for the process Solution: Create a reference model (happy path) in the process mining project settings. Without it, conformance checking cannot be performed.
Examples
Example 1: Incident Management Process Analysis
Process: Incident Management (1,743 cases over 90 days)
Key Findings:
- Happy path (Create > Assign > Investigate > Resolve > Close) covers 71% of cases
- Bottleneck: Assignment step averages 2.1 hours due to manual routing
- Rework: 22% of cases loop between Investigation and Reassignment
- Compliance: 3.8% of cases skip the required approval for P1 incidents
Top Recommendation: Implement auto-assignment to eliminate the 2.1-hour routing delay.
Example 2: Change Management Process Compliance
Process: Change Management (412 changes over 90 days)
Key Findings:
- 94% conformance rate overall
- 26 changes (6.3%) bypassed CAB review -- all were "Normal" changes incorrectly marked "Standard"
- Emergency changes (42 cases) had 98% post-implementation review completion
- Bottleneck: CAB scheduling averages 3.2 days wait time
Top Recommendation: Add validation to prevent Normal changes from using Standard change workflow.
Example 3: Service Catalog Fulfillment Efficiency
Process: Service Catalog Fulfillment (2,891 requests over 90 days)
Key Findings:
- 5 distinct fulfillment paths identified
- Fastest variant (auto-provisioned software) averages 0.3 days
- Slowest variant (hardware with procurement) averages 14.2 days
- 78% of total cycle time is wait time (approvals + procurement)
- 12% of requests are cancelled after approval due to incorrect item selection
Top Recommendation: Add guided item selection wizard to reduce 12% cancellation rate.
Related Skills
itsm/predict-assignment- Implement auto-assignment recommended by process analysisitsm/change-management- Change management process understandingreporting/trend-analysis- Complementary trend analysis on process datareporting/sla-analysis- SLA compliance analysisgenai/flow-generation- Automate process steps identified as optimization candidates
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 37
- Forks
- 13
- Last commit
- Jul 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
process-mining-insights- Source
- github.com/happy-technologies-llc/happy-platform-skills