Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) automation is usually built from procedural workflows that prescribe a fixed path, although real sales processes are highly variable. This study proposes and empirically evaluates a framework for declarative automation in CRM that mines constraint-based (Declare) rules from event data, refines them, validates them on held-out cases, and separates hard rules suitable for enforcement from soft rules suitable only for monitoring. The framework is evaluated on a real-life sales-funnel event log (BPI Challenge 2012) comprising 12,688 closed cases, 4,040 process variants and 68 employees, using a temporal train/test split. Discovery produced 1,310 constraints. Four logic-based refinement steps reduced them by 67.3% to 429 rules, of which 380 hard rules held in 100% of unseen test cases and map directly onto CRM flows and validation rules. In a discrimination test against Inductive Miner and Heuristics Miner models, the hard declarative rules achieved the highest balanced accuracy (0.856 versus 0.70–0.73), accepting all legitimate cases while rejecting 71% of invalid variants. Multi-perspective analysis showed that following up 1–7 days after a proposal was associated with substantially higher win rates (about 60% versus 39% after more than seven days; p < 0.001), whereas speed-to-lead was not associated with conversion. Cases that deviated from soft rules were won more often than compliant cases (29.4% versus 14.8%), which indicates that soft rules should guide rather than constrain salespeople. The study contributes a reproducible method and empirical evidence for combining enforced and monitored declarative rules in CRM automation. This is a preprint that has not been peer reviewed. It has been submitted to Process Science (Springer).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaik Imran Basha (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: