Kannan et al.

Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Journal of Big Data

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-022-00644-w

RESEARCH Open Access

Machine learning approach for predicting

production delays: a quarry company case study
Rathimala Kannan1*, Haq’ul Aqif Abdul Halim2, Kannan Ramakrishnan3, Shahrinaz Ismail4 and
Dedy Rahman Wijaya5

*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
1
Department of Information Predictive maintenance employing machine learning techniques and big data analytics
Technology, Faculty is a benefit to the industrial business in the Industry 4.0 era. Companies, on the other
of Management, Multimedia hand, have difficulties as they move from reactive to predictive manufacturing pro-
University, 63100 Cyberjaya,
Selangor, Malaysia cesses. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how data analytics and machine
2
Business Development learning approaches may be utilized to predict production delays in a quarry firm as a
Manager, PETROPRO (Malaysia) case study. The dataset contains production records for six months, with a total of 20
Sdn Bhd, 43650 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia columns for each production record for two machines. Cross Industry Standard Process
3
Faculty of Computing for Data Mining approach is followed to build the machine learning models. Five pre-
and Informatics, Multimedia dictive models were created using machine learning algorithms such as Decision Tree,
University, 63100 Cyberjaya,
Selangor, Malaysia Neural Network, Random Forest, Nave Bayes and Logistic Regression. The results show
4
School of Computing that Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network and Logistic Regression outperform other
& Informatics, Albukhary techniques and accurately predicts production delays with a F-measure score of 0.973.
International University,
05200 Alor Setar, Malaysia The quarry company’s improved decision-making reducing potential production line
5
School of Applied Science, delays demonstrates the value of this study.
Telkom University, Bandung,
West Java 40257, Indonesia Keywords: Machine Learning, Production delay, Prediction models, Quarry Industry

Introduction
The mining and quarrying industry is regarded as a potentially substantial contributor
to Malaysia’s economy [1]. Perceiving knowledge and learning from data is a major dif-
ficulty in industrial organizations, especially those in the quarry and mining industries.
Real-time data analytics faces numerous challenges in real-world settings, while a sig-
nificant amount of legacy, enterprise, and operational data stays untapped [2]. In this
research, the case study company has been operating for more than 40 years, providing a
firm foundation of quality stones and rocks to all construction works in Malaysia, rang-
ing from road stones, housing constructions, bituminous products, railways, and airport
runways. The case company’s bestselling products are high quality aggregate as well
as premix products. The success of the company is largely related to their professional
expertise and the ability to provide rapid and efficient services to their customers, espe-
cially in providing quality granite products at a very competitive price. Consequently,
the company is recognised as a progressive and viable business entity, contributing
effectively towards the nation’s economic development in general and in the states of

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​
creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 2 of 12

Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, and the Federal Capital, Kuala Lumpur in particular. In this
company, prediction of potential production delays including identification of the causa-
tive factors is very important so that it can immediately mitigate and improve company
performance.
The goal of this research is to discover potential delays in the quarry company’s pro-
duction so that they can increase operational efficiency by lowering the causal and
important elements that affect production time and output. A predictive model was
developed to assist and aid the company identify the potential and causation of the delay,
therefore offering data-driven decision making in decreasing the prospective delay,
based on a research opportunity in the area of machine leaning for prediction of pro-
duction efficiency. The dataset consists of six (6) months period of production records,
which include a total of 20 columns for each production record for two machines,
namely Machine 1 (C1008) and Machine 2 (C125). Cross Industry Standard Process for
Data Mining (CRISP-DM) approach is followed to build the machine learning models
[3]. Five predictive models were built by applying machine learning techniques i.e. Deci-
sion Tree [4, 5], Neural Network [6, 7], Random Forest [4, 6], Naïve Bayes and Logistic
Regression. The results of the potential production line delay provide insight into opera-
tional efficiency.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The related works section contains the
works of literature related to technological trend for business processes and operations
improvement including applications of machine learning techniques for prediction
tasks. The research methodology section discusses the CRISP-DM approach to solve
this problem. The findings are explained in the Result and discussion section. Finally, we
draw the conclusion in the conclusion section.

Related works
“Data mining and analytics have played an important role in knowledge discovery and
decision making in the process industry over the past several decades” [8]. Machine
learning serves as a computational engine to data mining and analytics, in which it is
used for information extraction, data pattern recognition and predictions. Machine
learning techniques have been successfully reported for prediction such as rain-
fall amount [9], poverty level prediction [10–12], income of campus alumni [13], and
COVID-19 related cases [14, 15], etc. Predictive modelling approaches in business pro-
cess management provide a way to streamline operational business processes [16]. Pro-
cess mining can discover the process workflows in the company, activity actions, and the
mechanism of machines [17], as well as allowing the identification or diagnosis of fact-
based problems [18]. Process mining explores the discrepancy between data of events,
i.e. observed behavior, and models of processes to detect anomalies, compliance checks,
predicts delays, facilitates decision-making, and suggest process redesigns [17]. Never-
theless, machine learning algorithms could be adopted into the process mining tech-
niques, in producing predictive analysis and models.
Industry revolution 4.0 emphasizes the use of technology to improve production
operations in the manufacturing industry. This drive attracted many academic research-
ers and experts to focus on applications of machine learning in production operations
for fault diagnosis and machine maintenance [19]. Various types of machine learning

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 3 of 12

techniques have been used in prediction of production delay by the existing literature
and this study have used four machine learning techniques; Decision Tree, Neural Net-
work, Random Forest and Naïve Bayes which performed better than other supervised
learning algorithms. Decision tree and random forest algorithms are commonly used
in fault diagnosis and are considered as classification techniques. While decision tree
algorithm builds one optimal decision tree model for predicting the target, random for-
est algorithm builds a number of decision trees and the final prediction is based on the
voting of outcome from each decision tree [20]. Depending on the dataset and variables
used, the performance of these two techniques vary where decision tree outperforms
random forest and the vice versa [4, 21]. Artificial neural network (ANN) technique, on
the other hand, is popularly known for their noise tolerance and is capable of diagnos-
ing a predetermined fault type. ANN has been used for fault detection in die-casting
industry [22], to predict faults in a blade pitch system [18] and many more in manufac-
turing industry. Naïve Bayes algorithm is one of the popular machine learning technique
used in predictive models because of its efficiency and it can perform well with a small
training dataset [23]. In this paper, these four machine learning techniques have been
applied to build predictive models to determine the production delays in the case study
company.

Research methodology
This study adopts CRISP-DM approach to analyze the problem and apply data analyt-
ics using machine learning techniques to build predictive model that could be imple-
mented to improve operational efficiency of the production line [24]. Figure 1 shows the
phases in CRISP-DM, followed by the details of the research process undertaken in this
research.

Business understanding
The CRISP-DM starts with the Business Understanding phase, which consists of iden-
tifying business goal and data mining goal. As mentioned in above, the dataset used for

Fig. 1 Research methodology based on CRISP-DM

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 4 of 12

this research came from case study Company that has been operating for more than
40 years. As part of their initiative to improve their overall performance especially in the
production and operation sector, the case company is executing a project that requires
them to explore on data analytics and machine learning. The source of delay, which
can affect the ultimate output and production in days, is a common issue that occurs
throughout the manufacturing process. As a result, the business goal is to identify signif-
icant delay reasons, which will aid in making manufacturing more efficient and remov-
ing the potential and cause of delays.
The purpose of data mining is to use the details of production operations to predict
the cause of the delay. To achieve the data mining purpose, four machine learning algo-
rithms are used to develop prediction models: Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Deci-
sion Tree, Neural Network, and Random Forest. Stratified sampling is utilized in dealing
with imbalanced data. To evaluate the performance of the various predictive models,
standard metrics such as sensitivity, precision and accuracy are used. KNIME analytics
platform, open source data science software was used to carryout data mining process.

Data understanding
The target dataset was obtained from the Operation Department of the case company
containing 180 rows and 24 columns such as Job Start, Job End, Total Operation Time,
Operation Start, Maintenance Plan, Maintenance Unplanned, Insurance Briefing, Full
Stockpile, Blasting, Pump Cleaning, Out of Stone, Rain, Stone Stocked, Late Lorry,
Quarry-Top Full Water, Road Expansion Quarry-Top, Real-Time Operation Hour, Lorry
Trip, Total Output and Total Tonnes per Hour. The outcome variable is column “Delay”,
which has True / False values indicating whether the production has occurred delay or
not in the current production period. Figure 2 below shows the screenshot of the dataset
for a few samples before data pre-processing.

Data preparation
Primarily in Data Preparation phase, this research explored the dataset to see whether
the input dataset is standardized and any missing values are observed. In the prelimi-
nary process, we observed that the data for each month had different format and was
not standardized. Therefore, major preparations were made to standardize all param-
eters in the data for each month. On the other hand, the dataset has many missing values

Fig. 2 Preview of the production dataset—the raw data

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 5 of 12

that were represented by “-” in most delay predictors, in which later was changed to “0”
to signify that there is not delay value within the predictor. Besides that, the dataset is
segregated into Machine 1 and Machine 2 to different spreadsheets, which later was
restructured with added columns labelled “Machine” and “Delay”. Furthermore, the row
where the Date falls on a holiday and no production were produced is removed as there
is no data input in the dataset. As a result, there are 151 rows and 23 columns of data
merged for both machines into one spreadsheet.
Most of the pre-processing work was mainly on formatting the parameters, in which
most data input was not in the same category. Prior discussion suggested that the pre-
dictor operation time data input was labelled in the unit of hours. However, the input
was not standardized as some data was in time format and few in number format.
Besides that, the time format is changed to 24 h formatting. The column “operation” was
removed as it was observed redundant and overlapping the category of real-time opera-
tion. Therefore, it was not used in the prediction model since most of the data under the
“operation” column is empty. Apart from that, all the variables were combined into one
spreadsheet to ensure that it is readable by the software.
Observing the distribution of number of delays, it is found that 19 occurrences of
the production days are delayed due to Maintenance Unplanned and 67 occurrences
are delayed caused by Late Lorry. Hence the delay was labeled as two categories where
“True” means the production are delayed and “False” means that there is no delay in the
production. All the columns were normalized using min–max normalization method as
part of the pre-processing to apply neural network technique.

Modelling
In this step, various machine learning techniques were used to develop predictive models.
Logistic Regression, Neural Network, Naive Bayes, Random Forest and Decision Tree are
used in predicting the cause of delays in the production days. Naïve Bayes models can pro-
duce robust predictions if the predictors have small correlations, even with a simple archi-
tecture [8]. Decision Trees are easy to interpret and are capable of giving insights about the
important features. Random Forest is an improved version of decision tree, which can pro-
duce really good and robust predictions [20]. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) allow com-
plex nonlinear relationships between the target variable and its predictors [18].
Stratified sampling method was used with k-fold cross validation to handle imbalance
dataset. Ten numbers of validations are set for training and validation of data [25]. K-fold
cross-validation is a resampling method in which the entire data set is partitioned into k
sets of almost similar size. The model is trained on the remaining k-1 sets once the first set
is chosen as the validation set. After fitting the model to the test data, the test error rate is
computed. K-fold cross validation produces a superior model when the data set is small;
but, when the data set is huge, it produces no change. This finding is supported by a recent
study [25]. Besides that, cross validation helps us to evaluate the quality of the model, facili-
tating us in selecting the model that will perform the best on unseen data and help avoid
overfitting and under fitting of the dataset. Lastly, for the performance evaluation metrics:
precision, sensitivity, accuracy and F-measure are calculated to determine which model
of the machine learning would give the best results. Figure 3 shows the overall KNIME
workflow in predicting the production delay within a manufacturing company. The overall

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 6 of 12

workflow consists of four major parts, which is the descriptive analysis, the unsupervised
clustering and developing supervised learning classification models and evaluation.

Evaluation
In this phase of CRISP-DM, all the machine learning models will be evaluated and com-
pared to select the best model to predict potential delay in the case company production
operations. Most commonly used performance evaluation metrics such as accuracy, sensi-
tivity and precision are calculated and compared for all the four machine learning models.
Sensitivity and precision are used to make sure the performance of machine learning algo-
rithms, especially to deal with imbalanced data. They can formulate as follows:

tp + tn
accuracy =
tp + tn + fp + fn
, (1)

tp
sensitivity =
tp + fn
, (2)

tp
precision =
tp + fp
(3)

where, tp, tn, fp, fn refer to true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative,
respectively.
F-measure, also known as F1 Score, is a balance of both precision and sensitivity. Hence,
this study used F-Score to evaluate the machine learning models.

2 ∗ Recall ∗ Precision
F −measure = (4)
Recall + Precision

Deployment
The best model is recommended for deployment with the insights found from the
dataset for data-driven decision making after analyzing the performance of multiple
machine learning models using standard metrics; accuracy, sensitivity and precision.

Fig. 3 The overall KNIME workflow for the prediction of production delay analysis

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 7 of 12

Fig. 4 Pie chart on the machine operation occurrences

Fig. 5 Correlation coefficients of variables

Results and discussion

Descriptive analytics
The dataset consists of 63% of delayed operations and 37% of regular operations. It is
observed that Machine 1 was underutilized and Machine 2 was over utilized as shown
by Fig. 4. Thus, there are more delay occurred in Machine 2 operation line compared
to Machine 1 operation line. In addition to that, the other descriptive analysis con-
ducted is the box plot analysis where the outcome shows the average of total ton per
hour is 187.7 whereby the company has to achieve more than the average number
as this value is considered as a benchmark value for the company to sustain a good
productivity.
Besides that, the correlation analysis depicted in Fig. 5 shows that the main fac-
tor causing the delay is late lorry, which has a positive correlation to the delay. On the
other hand, maintenance unplanned has a significant negative correlation to the real-
time operation. These two factors are significant enough for the company to investigate
the cause and predict future occurrence as well as prepare a mitigation plan in order to

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 8 of 12

reduce the number of occurrences. Figure 6 boxplot illustrates basic statistics and outlier
of the production dataset.

Segmentation using K‑means clustering

It is noticed that the dataset has no obvious segregation of groups, therefore, clustering
is required to cluster all data sets in which is deemed fit. For this study, K-mean clus-
tering technique was applied to cluster our dataset [8]. Based on the Silhouette coef-
ficient score, the optimal number for k = 3 was selected. The three clusters are labelled
as Low Performance, Medium Performance and High Performance. From the clustering
process, the data is segmented into high performance and low performance production
which can be viewed through its productivity. Through observation, it is found that the
high-performance operation has a higher number of delays compared to the low per-
formance operation, whereby high performance has 67.5% of the occurrence delayed
production whereas the low performance only has 50% of the occurrence labelled as
delayed production. Therefore, the company would have to prepare themselves should
they receive a job that requires a high number of productions.

Evaluation of machine learning models

The final dataset consists of 151 rows with 18 columns which is further partitioned into
80% training dataset and 20% test dataset. As the data set is small, k-fold cross validation
method is used to build the predictive models, in which the number of validations is set
to ten (10). K-fold cross validation allows the machine learning process to increase the
accuracy of the prediction by learning the concepts from all type of data. In the cross-
validation process, the training data is normalized before applying the machine learning
algorithm, leaving out the validation dataset. This step ensures that there is no data leak-
age in the model training. Five supervised machine learning algorithms are selected to

Fig. 6 Boxplot illustrating basic statistics and outlier of the production dataset

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 9 of 12

predict the production delay which are Decision Tree, Neural Network, Random Forest,
Naive Bayes and Logistic Regression. During this phase, the hyperparameters of each
algorithm are tuned to identify the optimal models.
The performance evaluation of all machine learning models and the hyper-parameters
employed are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Based on F-measure value, Random For-
est exhibited the best performance during the training phase as illustrated in Table 1.
However, when all of these models were evaluated with test data, the Neural Network
(MLP) and Logistic Regression models emerged as the best prediction models based
on F-measure, as shown in Table 2. Both of these models have the same accuracy sta-
tistics for predicting the delay: Accuracy = 0.968, Sensitivity = 0.947, Precision = 1 and
F-measure = 0.973. Likewise, Decision Tree and Random Forest algorithms produce the
second-best models. The Nave Bayes model, on the other hand, is the least accurate.
In this paper, we compared several algorithms such as Decision Tree, Random For-
est, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, And Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) As Neural
Network algorithm. In this study, Neural Network (MLP) and Logistic Regression
surpassed other algorithms with 96.8% classification accuracy. Even though Deep
Learning is “state of the art technique” and it has been reported in many case stud-
ies [26], in this case study, MLP has shown favorable performance with simpler and
faster training processes than the deep learning approach. Hence, we argue that MLP

Table 1 Identification of optimal machine learning models from each algorithm

Machine Learning Technique Accuracy StdDev Delay Sensitivity Precision F-measure

Decision Tree (Gain Ratio) 0.963 0.014 False 0.98 0.926 0.952
True 0.952 0.988 0.957
Decision Tree (Gini Index) 0.956 0.008 False 0.961 0.925 0.942
True 0.952 0.976 0.964
Neural Network—Multilayer perceptron 0.904 0.015 False 0.784 0.867 0.86
(Min–Max normalization) True 0.976 0.952 0.927
Neural Network—Multilayer perceptron 0.919 0.015 False 0.941 0.857 0.897
(Z-score normalization) True 0.905 0.962 0.933
Random Forest (Min–Max normalization, 0.911 0.021 False 0.824 0.933 0.875
Gini Index) True 0.964 0.9 0.931
Random Forest (Z-score normalization, Gini 0.948 0.013 False 0.941 0.923 0.932
Index) True 0.952 0.964 0.958
Random Forest (Min–Max normalization, 0.881 0.008 False 0.745 0.927 0.826
Information Gain Ratio) True 0.964 0.862 0.91
Random Forest (Z-score normalization, 0963 0.008 False 0.961 0.942 0.951
Information Gain Ratio) True 0.964 0.976 0.97
Naïve Bayes (Z-score normalization) 0.622 0.0 False 0 – –
True 1 0.622 0.767
Naïve Bayes (Min–max normalization) 0.378 0.005 False 1 0.378 0.548
True 0 – –
Logistic Regression (Min–max normaliza- 0.889 0.025 False 0.745 0.95 0.835
tion) True 0.976 0.863 0.916
Logistic Regression (Z-score normalization) 0.956 0.019 False 0.961 0.925 0.942
True 0.952 0.976 0.964
Optimal model is denoted with the bold font

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 10 of 12

Table 2 Performance evaluation of optimal Machine Learning models

Machine Learning Technique Accuracy Delay status Sensitivity precision F-measure

Decision Tree (Gini Index) 0.935 False 0.917 0.917 0.917

True 0.947 0.947 0.947
Neural Network—Multilayer perceptron 0.968 False 1 0.923 0.96
(Z-score normalization) True 0.947 1 0.973
Random Forest 0.935 False 0.917 0.917 0.917
(Z-score normalization, Information Gain True 0.947 0.947 0.947
Ratio)
Naïve Bayes 0.613 False 0 – –
(Z-score normalization) True 1 0.613 0.76
Logistic Regression 0.968 False 1 0.923 0.96
(Z-score normalization) True 0.947 1 0.973
Optimal model is denoted with the bold font

Table 3 Hyper-parameters used in the Machine learning models

Machine learning model Hyper-parameters

Decision tree Quality measure/split criterion: gain ratio

Pruning method: no pruning
Neural network—multilayer perceptron Number of hidden layers: 1
Number of hidden neurons per layer: 10
Maximum number of iterations: 100
Random forest Quality measure / split criterion: Information Gain Ratio
Number of models: 100 (static random seed)
Naïve Bayes Default Probability: 0.0001
Minimum standard deviation: 0.0001
Threshold standard deviation: 0.0
Logistic regression Solver: Stochastic average gradient

is enough to solve this problem. Moreover, to deal with imbalanced data Stratified
sampling method was used with k-fold cross validation. Also, recall (sensitivity) pre-
cision, and F-measure were used for evaluation metrics to make sure the performance
of machine learning algorithms, especially to deal with imbalanced data. Further-
more, they show satisfactory performance with more than 97% of F-measure values.
It means that MLP model has excellent ability to detect each class (delay or no delay)
and deal with imbalanced data.
Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed to the com-
pany: To avoid overusing one machine and causing production delays, the company
should use both machines equally and efficiently. The important factors that contrib-
ute to low Real Time Operation and Delay include unplanned maintenance and late
lorries. This study proposes Neural Network (MLP) and Logistic Regression models
to predict the production delay.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 11 of 12

Conclusion
The goal of this research was to use data analytics and machine learning approaches to
create prediction models that would help a quarry company’s production line run more
efficiently. The results were created in the form of descriptive analysis, clustering, and
predictive models using five machine learning techniques: Decision Tree, Neural Net-
work, Random Forest, Naive Bayes and Logistic Regression. In a nutshell, this research
compares the efficiency of the production line that goes through two main machines,
Machine 1 and Machine 2, to identify the potential delay in the production. Consider-
ing various factors made available in the dataset, it is found that Neural Network and
Logistic Regression, give the best performance of machine learning models in predicting
operation delay, with a high score of 0.968 accuracy and F-measure score of 0.973. Thus,
Neural Network and Logistic Regression prediction models are recommended for this
case study, in which a quarry company could use to provide further decision-making
analysis and to strategize an improvement plan to reduce potential delays in production
line. The limited dataset, with only 6 months of production data and a small number of
attributes, is a limitation of this work. More features, such as the number of workers,
downtime, and other relevant data, should be included in future studies to improve the
model.

Abbreviations
CRISP-DM Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining
ANN Artificial Neural Network

Acknowledgements
Not Applicable

Author contributions
RK Conceptualization, Writing-original draft preparation. HAbAH Data curation. KR Writing-Review & Editing. SI Writing-
Review & Editing. DRW Validation.

Funding
No funding received.

Availability of data and materials

The data was collected from the case company and is not available to the general public. The authors’ data are, however,
available upon reasonable request and with the permission of the case study company.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any authors.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or
involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non‑financial interest in the subject matter or
materials discussed in this manuscript.

Received: 1 February 2022 Accepted: 27 June 2022

References
1. ‘New economic powerhouse’ for Malaysia | The Star [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 1]. https://​www.​thest​ar.​com.​my/​
busin​ess/​busin​ess-​news/​2019/​12/​07/​new-​econo​mic-​power​house-​for-​malay​sia

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Kannan et al. Journal of Big Data (2022) 9:94 Page 12 of 12

2. Lepenioti K, Pertselakis M, Bousdekis A, Louca A, Lampathaki F, Apostolou D, et al. Machine learning for predictive
and prescriptive analytics of operational data in smart manufacturing. Lecture notes business information process
[Internet]. Springer; 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 26]. p. 5–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​49165-9_1
3. Saltz J, Hotz NJ. CRISP-DM data science project management. https://​www.​datas​cience-​pm.​com/​crisp-​dm-2/. 2020.
4. Zhang C, Hu C, Xie S, Cao S. Research on the application of Decision Tree and Random Forest Algorithm in the main
transformer fault evaluation. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1732:012086. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1742-​6596/​1732/1/​012086.
5. Tangirala S. Evaluating the impact of GINI index and information gain on classification using decision tree classifier
algorithm. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl. 2020;11:612–9.
6. Roccetti M, Delnevo G, Casini L, Cappiello G. Is bigger always better? A controversial journey to the center of
machine learning design, with uses and misuses of big data for predicting water meter failures. J Big Data. 2019;6:1–
23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40537-​019-​0235-y.
7. Qin Z, Yan L, Zhuang H, Tay Y, Pasumarthi RK, Wang X, et al. Are neural rankers still outperformed by gradient
boosted decision trees?. 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 23]. https://​resea​rch.​google/​pubs/​pub50​030/
8. Dogan A, Birant D. Machine learning and data mining in manufacturing. Expert Syst Appl. 2021;166:114060.
9. Liyew CM, Melese HA. Machine learning techniques to predict daily rainfall amount. J Big Data. 2021;8(1):1–11.
10. Wijaya DR, Paramita NLPSP, Uluwiyah A, Rheza M, Zahara A, Puspita DR. Estimating city-level poverty rate based on
e-commerce data with machine learning. Electron Commer Res. 2020;
11. Pangestu A, Wijaya DR, Hernawati E, Hidayat W. Wrapper feature selection for poverty level prediction based on
E-commerce dataset. 2020 International conference on data science and its applications ICoDSA 2020. Bandung:
IEEE; 2020.
12. Aulia TF, Wijaya DR, Hernawati E, Hidayat W. Poverty level prediction based on E-commerce data using K-nearest
neighbor and information-theoretical-based feature selection. 2020 3rd international conference on information
communication and technology ICOIACT 2020. 2020. p. 28–33.
13. Gomez-Cravioto DA, Diaz-Ramos RE, Hernandez-Gress N, Preciado JL, Ceballos HG. Supervised machine learning
predictive analytics for alumni income. J Big Data. 2022;9(1):1–31.
14. Budiharto W. Data science approach to stock prices forecasting in Indonesia during Covid-19 using Long Short-Term
Memory (LSTM). J Big Data. 2021;8(1):1–9.
15. Hssayeni MD, Chala A, Dev R, Xu L, Shaw J, Furht B, et al. The forecast of COVID-19 spread risk at the county level. J
Big Data. 2021;8:1–16.
16. Breuker D, Matzner M, Delfmann P, Becker J. Comprehensible predictive models for business processes. Manag Inf
Syst Q [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2021 Apr 29]; 40. https://​aisel.​aisnet.​org/​misq/​vol40/​iss4/​12
17. Faizan M, Zuhairi MF, Ismail SB, Ahmed R. Challenges and use cases of process discovery in process mining. Int J Adv
Trends Comput Sci Eng. 2020;9:5164–71.
18. Cho S, Choi M, Gao Z, Moan T. Fault detection and diagnosis of a blade pitch system in a floating wind turbine
based on Kalman filters and artificial neural networks. Renew Energy. 2021;169:1–13.
19. Dalzochio J, Kunst R, Pignaton E, Binotto A, Sanyal S, Favilla J, et al. Machine learning and reasoning for predictive
maintenance in Industry 4.0: current status and challenges. Comput Ind. 2020;123:103298.
20. Gong S, Wu X, Zhang Z. Research on Fault Diagnosis Method of Photovoltaic Array Based on Random Forest Algo-
rithm. Chinese Control Conference CCC [Internet]. IEEE; 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 20];2020-July:4249–54. https://​ieeex​
plore.​ieee.​org/​docum​ent/​93625​59/
21. Tsai MF, Chu YC, Li MH, Chen LW. Smart machinery monitoring system with reduced information transmission and
fault prediction methods using industrial internet of things. Mathematics [Internet]. MDPI AG; 2021 [cited 2021 Mar
20];9:1–14. https://​www.​mdpi.​com/​2227-​7390/9/​1/3
22. Lee J, Lee YC, Kim JT. Migration from the traditional to the smart factory in the die-casting industry: novel process
data acquisition and fault detection based on artificial neural network. J Mater Process Technol. 2021;290:116972.
23. Truong D. Using causal machine learning for predicting the risk of flight delays in air transportation. J Air Transp
Manag. 2021;91:101993.
24. Schröer C, Kruse F, Gómez JM. A systematic literature review on applying CRISP-DM process model. Proc Comput Sci
[Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 28];181:526–34. https://​linki​nghub.​elsev​ier.​com/​retri​eve/​pii/​S1877​05092​10024​16
25. Marcot BG, Hanea AM. What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis?
Comput Stat. 2021;36:2009–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00180-​020-​00999-9.
26. Dong S, Wang P, Abbas K. A survey on deep learning and its applications. Comput Sci Rev. 2021;40:100379.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]