Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
IDENTIFYING RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR AN ENTERPRISE
TECHNICAL FIELD
This disclosure relates to enterprise software, and more particularly to a
software aid
for finding information which is relevant to problems, opportunities, and/or
unexpected or
interesting events affecting processes conducted by the enterprise.
BACKGROUND OF THE DISCLOSURE
An enterprise (which may be any organization carrying on activities for some
purpose)
generally has goals and processes designed to achieve those goals. Problems in
the enterprise
will generally impact the success of one or more processes; these problems
must be identified
in a focused and efficient manner. Persons in the enterprise (users of an
enterprise system)
need to be alerted to problems that may cause a risk to processes for which
they are
responsible. A user needing to solve a problem will want to have information
at his disposal
which is relevant to the problem, particularly information about
contemporaneous and past
experiences in the enterprise that are relevant to the problem. The user will
also want to
collaborate with other users on solving the problem.
Accordingly, it is desirable to implement a system that identifies and
retrieves
information that is relevant to a problem associated with a process, and
directs that
information to users most concerned with the problem.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the disclosure, a system and method are provided for
finding and
retrieving information within an enterprise that is relevant to enterprise
problems, enterprise
opportunities, and unexpected or interesting events. As the system searches
for enterprise
information, it indexes current items (e.g. circulating e-mails) and past
items (e.g. archived
memos) to enrich the knowledge of the system relating to the problem,
opportunity, or event.
1
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
,
According to a first aspect of the disclosure, a system for finding
information relevant
to a process performed by an enterprise or to an enterprise stress point of
said process
includes a computing device configured to scan content related to a process
conducted by an
enterprise, where the process includes one or more process steps; identify a
problem,
opportunity or event (an enterprise stress point) associated with the process
step; index the
scanned content with respect to the enterprise stress point; determine whether
the scanned
content is information relevant to the problem, opportunity or event; and
provide relevant
information to a user. The relevant information includes a description or
discussion of a
previous experience of the enterprise (or related enterprises) regarding the
problem,
opportunity or event. The scanned content may include e-mail communication
within, to or
from the enterprise; documents produced by the enterprise; application data
related to the
process including business objects; and/or Web content accessible to the
enterprise. The
enterprise stress point is a problem, opportunity, or unexpected or
interesting event and relates
to other stress points further describing a risk, a cause, an effect, or a
remedy.
Determining whether information is relevant to the problem, opportunity or
event may
further include determining the impact of completion of a process step on
achievement of a
goal related to a process including that process step; this is termed the goal
proximity of the
process step. The goal proximity of a process step may also be used to
determine risk, which
is an important relevance criterion.
A determination of goal proximity may also be used to find similar processes
which,
through similarity in their generic aspects and similarity of proximity to a
goal, are considered
similar; experiences related to these similar processes are returned by the
system for the
attention of the users.
Determining relevance may be facilitated by identifying processes which are
characterized in the system by their generic process components, such that an
inference of
similarity or relevance between processes can be drawn through their generic
aspects. In
addition, endemic problems or opportunities embedded in processes can
establish further
similarity or relevance between processes.
2
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
'
,
The system may include a scanner for scanning content related to a process
conducted
by an enterprise; a language parser for identifying concepts within the
scanned content; and
an index engine for indexing the scanned content with respect to a process
node (the process
node having associated therewith a problem, opportunity or event), and for
determining
whether the scanned content is information relevant to the problem,
opportunity or event. The
language parser and the indexing engine together assign a stress point
relevance to concepts
within the scanned content, thereby generating a stress point index for items
of the scanned
content.
The system may further include a user interface utilizing the stress point
index to alert
a user to a problem associated with a related set of processes; enable
collaboration between
users addressing a problem or opportunity associated with a process by
restricting the returned
information to contemporaneous and historical information related to processes
for which the
users in the collaboration are stakeholders, and by enabling information
related to subordinate
processes to be returned if that information is likely to cause risk to the
processes for which
the collaborating parties are stakeholders; or retrieve information including
a description or
discussion of a previous experience relating to a problem associated with a
process. In an
embodiment, the indexing engine is a middleware service.
According to another aspect of the disclosure, a user may navigate a cognitive
structure retrieving past and current experiences which may be used for a
variety of uses
described herein.
It should be noted that, in accordance with the disclosure, when solving
enterprise
problems, exploiting enterprise opportunities, or explaining interesting or
unexpected events
occurring within the sphere of the enterprise, the relevance of an item of
content or data to the
enterprise may be determined entirely by relating that content or data to the
relevant
enterprise stress points (process nodes) and to the elements of the cognitive
structure most
closely related to those process nodes; similarities between processes may be
determined
entirely by referring to identification of the processes and their generic
process components,
the goal proximity of the respective processes to their dependent processes,
and the endemic
problems, opportunities or events associated with the processes; and when a
process node
3
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
within a step is determined to present a risk, the severity of that risk may
be determined
entirely by referring to (i) the goal proximity of that step to its direct
goal, (ii) the goal
proximity of that step and its effect on further dependent goals, (iii) the
estimated cost of
failed goals and remedial action, and (iv) the probability of the node in
question experiencing
a failure.
The foregoing has outlined, rather broadly, the preferred features of the
present
disclosure so that those skilled in the art may better understand the detailed
description of the
disclosure that follows. Additional features of the disclosure will be
described hereinafter that
form the subject of the claims of the disclosure. Those skilled in the art
should appreciate that
they can readily use the disclosed conception and specific embodiment as a
basis for
designing or modifying other structures for carrying out the same purposes of
the present
disclosure and that such other structures do not depart from the spirit and
scope of the
disclosure in its broadest form.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 schematically illustrates an enterprise having goals and processes,
with
software for finding relevant information linked to the enterprise, in
accordance with an
embodiment of the disclosure.
FIG. 2 schematically illustrates aspects of a process node for a process of
the
enterprise.
FIG. 3 schematically illustrates abstraction of activities underlying a
definition of a
process node.
FIG. 4 illustrates goals and associated processes for an enterprise.
FIG. 5 illustrates some details of two processes, and problems relating to
those
processes.
FIG. 6A illustrates goal proximity for various process steps.
4
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
FIG. 6B illustrates interaction between actors in an enterprise and a given
process step.
FIG. 7A schematically illustrates generic processes and more specific
processes.
FIG. 7B schematically illustrates processes including process nodes or
enterprise
stress points.
FIG. 8 schematically illustrates process nodes representing risks, causes,
effects and
remedies across a plurality of processes.
FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a procedure by which an expert user may
assign node
attributes at various context specific levels of abstraction.
FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating a procedure for identifying generic
processes and
processes similar to a given original process, according to an embodiment of
the disclosure.
FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a procedure by which an expert user may
populate a
system with cases or recounted stories, according to an embodiment of the
disclosure.
FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a method in which software builds and
utilizes a
framework of enterprise stress points, according to an embodiment of the
disclosure.
FIGS. 13A and 13B are connected flowcharts illustrating steps undertaken by a
user of
a system embodying the disclosure, in order to solve a problem or exploit an
opportunity.
FIG. 14 schematically illustrates a system for gathering information and
indexing
information against the enterprise stress points, according to an embodiment
of the disclosure.
FIG. 15 schematically illustrates goal convergence in accordance with an
embodiment
of the disclosure.
FIG. 16 schematically illustrates a system for use with a plurality of users
some of
whom have access to displays with limited viewing access.
5
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
FIG. 17 schematically illustrates an emergency management system as known from
the prior art.
FIG. 18 schematically illustrates an emergency management system in accordance
with an embodiment of the disclosure.
FIG. 19 is an enlarged view of a portion of the emergency management system of
FIG.
18 illustrating a display of select nodes.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Software embodying the present disclosure is referred to herein as "Overlay."
The
Overlay is an aid for finding information within the enterprise; sources of
this information are
thus typically enterprise internal content and enterprise data, including
communications
within the enterprise and communications between the enterprise and outside
parties. Another
source of information is external information related to the enterprise that
the enterprise
wishes to access regularly. One aspect of the Overlay is that it functions as
a relevance
engine, as opposed to a search engine; the Overlay retrieves only information
that is
considered relevant to enterprise problems and opportunities and unexpected or
interesting
events.
The Overlay software uses relevance between enterprise processes and relevance
between enterprise stress points in such processes (that is, focus points in
the business that
represent hazards, expectation failures, conflicts, risks, common causes and
related areas of
attention and knowledge), to present to the user only relevant returns from
underlying data
and content, so as to accomplish the following:
Provide a user of the Overlay with an overview of underlying changes in any
enterprise software/e-mails that may constitute an enterprise stress point for
which the user is
responsible. In a large organization it is impossible for senior personnel to
manually navigate
and monitor all applications in this way, or to have hard wired workflows of
every possible
issue that might potentially constitute a problem. Since enterprise stress
points are often
6
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
caused by a combination of multiple events, the Overlay helps to identify
those enterprise
stress points and avoids excessively granular notification when it is not
wanted;
Enable the user of the Overlay to access enterprise content and/or data
systems
(including email systems) from remote locations using a handheld device, and
to render a
filtered view of events affecting the enterprise stress points;
Enable the user of the Overlay to process events and co-ordinate warnings as
well as
enrich content with knowledge related metadata; and
Enable the Overlay user to manage undesired events assisted by relevant legacy
content.
Glossary
Cause: An occurrence or potential occurrence that is deemed to be a cause of
an
effect.
Root cause: An occurrence or potential occurrence that is deemed to be the
reason the
cause has occurred.
Effect: An occurrence or potential occurrence that is deemed to effect a
process or
plan goal or conditional goal.
Risk: A potential effect. This can be both positive when it corresponds to an
opportunity or negative when it corresponds to a problem.
Diagnosis: Finding the cause of problems and explaining interesting events or
causes
of opportunity.
Organize: To be an abstraction of, to generalize, to group.
Goal Proximity/proximity: The percentage effect of a process step on the goal
of the
process to which that step belongs.
7
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Goals or conditional goals: The goals and conditional goals for which an
enterprise
process has been designed.
Cognitive structure: A structure that indexes information in a way that fits
known
cognitive principles.
Primary means of understanding more about the problem or opportunity: The
methods by which the most appropriate relevance is determined about a problem
or
opportunity.
Cases/discussions/descriptions/experiences: These are cases of experiences
which
may describe all or part of cause, effect, risk, and remedy. They may include
generalized
explanations and models for describing how things behave in the processes
where they are
assigned.
Models: Generalized cases explaining cause and effect.
Explanations: Explanations of problems or opportunities or unexpected events.
Attributes: Characteristics of entities mentioned in this disclosure. Node
attributes are
used to determine similarity of nodes. That is, the characteristics of nodes
that determine
similarity. Node attributes are represented in a state model. That is, the
characteristics of
nodes are represented in a state model.
Responsible: A situation where an actor's attributes significantly affect the
outcome of
a process or process step.
Problems/failures: In the present disclosure, problems and failures are
considered
nodes within processes where highly experienced practitioners reasonably
expect problems
and/or failures or unexplained phenomena or phenomena of unexplained cause and
effect.
Opportunities/successes: In the present disclosure, opportunities and
successes are
considered nodes within processes where highly experienced practitioners
reasonably expect
opportunities and/or successes.
8
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Event/unexpected event/interesting event: In the present disclosure, an event
is an
occurrence that to a highly experienced practitioner is reasonably considered
important to the
enterprise and its goals.
Process nodes: Parts of processes where highly experienced practitioners
expect
problems and opportunities.
Highly experienced practitioners: People who have been participating and have
been
responsible for a process for which they are considered highly experienced for
most of their
careers and are aware of the particular process and its main characteristics,
and are also aware
of the processes dependent and subordinate to the process for which they are
considered
highly experienced.
Enterprise: Any organization or collection of organizations carrying on
activities for
one or more known purposes; generally characterized by predictability of goals
at any one
time, predictability of plans and processes to achieve those goals, and actors
with substantially
known values, skills, knowledge, information, endurance, and emotion with
respect to goals.
Enterprise activity structure: A framework of related relevance criteria that
are
recognized by practitioners in most domains.
Enterprise activity: Activities recognized by practitioners in each domain or
in more
than one domain.
External process: The external processes taking place outside the enterprise
upon
which some enterprise processes depend: e.g. design, construction, or
education, and
preparation activities that may be part of any process step; processes found
to occur in the
environment which are not designed to serve known goals but affect enterprise
processes and
goals, for example discretionary human behavior: or processes not directly
related to human
behavior, such as environmental phenomena.
Practitioners: People who have average experience in the enterprise.
Overlay: A system and/or method in accordance with the present disclosure.
9
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Endemic problems/opportunities/nodes: Problems, opportunities, or
unexplained/potential/ occasional occurrences, at various levels of
abstraction that are
considered by highly experienced practitioners to be repetitive in a variety
of related
processes. Endemic problems/opportunities are associated with goals since
problems and
opportunities cannot be defined without first defining goals.
Object: An object in the domain which is part of a process.
Context: An environment in the domain within which a process takes place.
Abstracted object: An object that may be abstracted and therefore may apply to
more
than one domain
Abstracted context: A context that may be abstracted and therefore may apply
to more
than one domain.
Domain: An industry, a department of a company, or any enterprise structure
where
process steps and terminology are specific and yet practitioners understand
them.
Ossified: A property of an entity within the enterprise activity model which
varies but
is considered constant, because practitioners expect the property to be fairly
constant and
predictable.
Relevance criteria: Any entity which helps to build the enterprise activity
model or
structure
Circumstance: Context, object time or similar.
Process: A series of actions serving a set of goals and conditional goals.
These can
range from ossified processes, to established processes, to newly established
processes, to
plans that are processes yet to be put in practice.
Script: A process that is performed consciously and subconsciously because it
has
been ossified.
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Plan: A plan is a less well defined process where the steps in the process are
ordered
in a way fitting the current circumstances. The goal hierarchy of plans is
often different from
the underlying processes they incorporate.
Inanimate process: A process that does not involve human intervention (such as
a
.. chemical process) and therefore may not have goals other than the goals of
the process within
which it has been designed by humans to be a part. For example, corrosion is
an inanimate
process that is predictable and well known, but nevertheless would not be
considered a goal
based process.
Non goal based animate processes: Processes that people experience but are not
clearly goal based such as appreciating a certain type of music or liking a
certain colour. A
common word for this is discretionary.
Condition: as defined in the English language and in AT.
Enterprise Goals and Processes
As shown schematically in FIG. 1, an enterprise 1 generally has goals 11 and
processes 12 designed to achieve those goals. Enterprises and enterprise
departments
generally have the following attributes with respect to goals: collective
values, collective
skills, collective knowledge, collective information, collective endurance,
and collective
emotion. One or more enterprises may belong to a domain, defined as an
industry, a
department of a company, or any enterprise structure where process steps and
terminology are
specific and yet practitioners understand them. Practitioners in a given
domain may thus be
said to have shared, specific knowledge.
The goals 11 may include enterprise goals (often expressed at a high level, so
that
specific processes are not associated therewith), main goals (achievement of
which directly
affects one or more enterprise goals), and conditional goals (that is, goals
that are not the
primary reason for designing a process, but if not met may prevent achievement
of the main
goal or else may allow achievement of the main goal but render that
achievement
undesirable). Processes may be goal-based (generally, carried out by actors in
the enterprise
11
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
in furtherance of a goal), non-goal based but enacted and not usually designed
by humans, or
non-goal based and not enacted or designed by humans. Processes include the
function of
machinery or any process designed by humans for human goals but not
necessarily enacted by
humans. In carrying out the various processes in an enterprise, risks are
encountered;
problems and opportunities arise; these problems have causes, effects, risk or
potential effects,
and remedies.
Those parts 13 of processes where experience has shown that risks, problems
and/or
opportunities may present themselves, or unexpected or interesting events may
occur, are
termed "enterprise stress points" or "process nodes." Process nodes are often
identified by
experienced actors 15 within the enterprise. The Overlay software 16, which in
an
embodiment is accessed by the enterprise as a service over the Web 100,
searches enterprise
internal content and data 14, and in some cases external data also, yielding
information which
is indexed against the identified stress points. The indexed information then
has a stress point
relevance assigned thereto. The Overlay searches are natural language
searches, based on the
process nodes in the enterprise and the wording used to describe them. The
Overlay also
searches for structured data known to be related to each process node.
More generally, a process may be either internal and external, or some
combination of
the two; the internal process being enacted in the enterprise, and the
external process taking
place outside the enterprise; e.g. design, construction, or education, and
preparation activities
.. that may be part of any process step, processes found to occur in the
environment which are
not designed to serve known goals but affect enterprise processes and goals,
for example
discretionary human behaviour, or processes not directly related to human
behaviour such as
environmental phenomena.
Process Nodes
As shown schematically in FIG. 2, a process node 21 is characterized by one or
more
problems, opportunities and/or unexpected/interesting events in a process or
in a process step
of a process. The wording 22 describing a process node is used in a natural
language search
23 of enterprise data and internal content (and other sources of information)
24.
12
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Process nodes for an enterprise represent components of a cognitive structure
(discussed further below). The process nodes as parts of a cognitive structure
contain
discussion or descriptions of problems and/or opportunities and/or events that
practitioners
find relevant to goals and/or processes in the enterprise, or sometimes
outside the direct
activities of the enterprise. Such activities outside the direct activities of
the enterprise can be,
but are not limited to, other enterprises; the business world; the political
environment; the
social environment; the physical environment; the biological environment; or
any
environment which significantly affects an enterprise process.
Process nodes may also include variances to the discussion and/or descriptions
of
potential problems or opportunities or events, as follows:
(a) Discussion and/or description or data about a problem or opportunity or
unexpected event in executing one or more of the goals or conditional goals in
a process that
(1) at the time of the discussion or description, or at a later time, was
considered an effected process;
(2) constitutes a dependent process to the process effected;
(3) contains a problem or opportunity that could become active should a
subordinate process fail;
(4) contains a problem or opportunity, and/or a potential problem or
opportunity, in a subordinate process to the process effected.
(b) Discussion and/or description or data regarding:
(1) An explanation of a problem, opportunity or unexpected event;
(2) A cause analysis of a problem or opportunity or unexpected event;
(3) A root cause (cause of a cause) analysis of a problem or opportunity or
unexpected event;
13
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
(4) A plan considered an action to remedy a problem or exploit an opportunity;
(5) A procedure describing how to avoid a problem or how to exploit an
opportunity.
Discussions or descriptions relating to a process node can be in text or in
figures, or
any combination that constitutes customary indication used in enterprise
software or content.
This could include but is not limited to spreadsheets, e-mails, documents,
meta-data, data in
databases, electronic messaging, voice communications, etc.
A cognitive structure, as discussed herein, is a structure having information
indexed in
a way that fits known cognitive principles, the cognitive principles being
structured so that
they relate to each other in a way that permits the relevance of the
information to be
determined.
As shown schematically in FIG. 3, a cognitive structure 33 is an abstraction
of day to
day activities and their related objects; these are activities and objects
familiar to the average
practitioner outside the domain of the enterprise because they are used in day
to day enterprise
activities throughout most domains. Such enterprise activities and objects 32
include but are
not limited to: users, user roles, tasks, contexts in which tasks and
processes take place,
enterprise objects, processes, goals, skills, values, actors in a process, or
any generalization of
these. A given process node represents components of the cognitive structure.
All nodes and
entities in the cognitive structure may have abstractions and/or be
abstractions of other
entities.
Accordingly, cognitive structure 33 may include:
Goals;
Goals and associated processes, and associated endemic nodes (discussed
below);
Enterprises, enterprise departments, and associated roles, actors, and
attributes
(e.g. skills, values etc.);
14
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Generalized process nodes;
Specific process nodes;
Lower level goals and associated process steps;
Tasks and the actors or roles that enact them;
Contexts and associated processes or tasks they affect;
Objects and the associated processes or tasks they affect;
Workflows; and
Users.
The Overlay software is also a finder of information relevant to any process
or process
node or any element of the cognitive structure. Information retrieval methods
used by the
Overlay software are applied to this relevant information. These retrieval
methods also apply
to most elements of the cognitive structure.
The term "relevant" includes, but is not limited to: related as a process at
risk, as an
additional process at risk, a cause process, an abstracted cause process,
additional cause
processes, remedial action processes, related as a similar process to any
other process, related
by common context or object or abstraction of these, related by common node or
abstraction,
related by a common goal or conditional goal, or combinations of these.
Information is irrelevant, for the purpose of the Overlay, if it is not the
primary means
for understanding more about a problem, opportunity, or unexpected/interesting
event.
The relevance of an item of content or data to the enterprise may be
determined
entirely by referring to the enterprise stress points (process nodes), as
explained more fully
below.
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Analyzing Processes; Process Similarity
FIG. 4 is a schematic illustration of some goals and processes for an
enterprise. In this
illustration, a set of goals 41 for the overall enterprise has numerous
processes designed to
achieve those goals; one process 42 has steps 43. The enterprise shown is
involved in the
transport of goods, including specifically transport of goods by sea;
accordingly, there is
another set of goals 44 in the domain of the enterprise dealing with
"Navigation." In this
example, a process 45 for navigating from one point to another has these steps
46: seeing
(e.g. finding navigational aids), moving (e.g. operating an engine), and
plotting a course to the
desired location. As shown in more detail in FIG. 5, the process step for
"seeing" involves the
need for eyeglasses; lost eyeglasses constitute a problem for that process
step.
An enterprise in a different domain (e.g. military training) with different
goals 47 (e.g.
firing a field gun) may nonetheless have some process steps similar to the
navigation process
45. The group of goals 47 includes main goals ("fire gun", "hit target") and
conditional goals
("avoid other objects," "avoid explosion"); the conditional goal "avoid
explosion" needs to be
met so that goal "fire gun" can be achieved in the manner desired. The process
48 for
achieving the goal "fire gun" includes a step 49 for "see the target." The
activity "seeing"
may be viewed as a generic activity relevant to both processes. In addition,
process 48
includes a step 50 for "adjust gun." The process step for "adjust gun"
involves the need for a
wrench, a lost wrench constitutes a problem for that process step. The lost
eyeglasses and lost
wrench may be viewed as examples of a generic problem (that is, a generic
node), namely
"lost tools."
Several nodes and processes are labelled in FIG. 5 as context-specific or
generic. It
can be seen that processes in different domains are nevertheless related by
generic processes
and generic nodes. More generally, once context-specific nodes are identified,
those context-
.. specific nodes define more generic nodes. These more generic nodes in turn
define generic
components of context/domain specific processes for a given domain. These
generic process
components and their generic nodes will exist in another domain at some level
of generality
and thus indicate specific nodes in this different context/domain.
16
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
One process node can be similar to another process node; this is determined by
process or process step similarity which is explained in more detail herein.
As shown in FIG.
5, process steps of different processes often have commonalities. When a
process step is
common to two processes, then the two processes are considered similar if the
process step is
similarly able to affect the main process goal to which it belongs. The effect
that a process
step has on the goal to which that step belongs is called the "goal proximity"
of that process
step.
The Overlay software finds cases similar to the problems and/or opportunities
of a
given process node by finding similar process nodes, and then indicating
similar cases where
the process and process node and goal proximity are similar. In this regard,
it should be noted
that the Overlay does not rely on a vast array of process conditions for case
similarity. The
Overlay evaluates process similarity from goal proximity and from similarity
of nodes and
abstracted nodes or endemic nodes. (Abstracted nodes or endemic nodes provide
an alternate
way of defining abstracted processes, because processes are devised to deal
with highly
abstracted endemic nodes at the most abstracted level.) In a given process,
process conditions
are contained within that process; finding a similar process will thus define
comparable
conditions. This is because the salient conditions are in fact incorporated in
process nodes
(problems and opportunities within the process). It follows that if the
process nodes are
defining criteria of a process, they are also sufficient to define the
conditions within that
process.
It should be noted that the Overlay searches for similarities in both
processes and the
nodes included therein. In general, processes are developed to enable problem
nodes to be
avoided and opportunity nodes to be exploited. A given process may have more
than one
node. It follows that node similarity is included in process similarity.
In addition, the hierarchy of the goals in a process affects a determination
of
similarity. Goal hierarchy of goals and conditional goals in a process
determine the goal
profile of a process; this is considered an additional defining characteristic
of process
similarity. Processes that have similar goal hierarchy are likely to be
similar. Process
17
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
similarity thus does not depend only on common process steps or common
generalization of
those process steps.
Goal Proximity; Success Probability
In general, not every process step is equally critical to achieving success of
the process
goal. As noted above, the term "goal proximity" refers to the effect that a
process step has on
the main process goal to which that step belongs. The goal proximity of a
process step may
be quantified in terms of how proximate the process step is to achieving
success or failure of
the process goal(s) or the conditional goals. For example, as shown in FIG.
6A, achieving the
goal "fire gun" is judged to be 50% dependent on completion of the process
step "adjust gun".
Achieving the goal "hit target" is judged to be 70% dependent on completion of
the process
step "see target". These relationships are shown schematically by 61 and 62 in
FIG. 6A. It
follows that problems in process steps with high goal proximity have an
increased impact on
the success of that process. Goal proximity provides an additional criterion
for process
similarity; processes with similar effect on goals of dependent processes, and
processes which
also have common generic or particular characteristics (for example, common
nodes), are
considered similar even if they occur in different domains.
The abundance of resources (or lack thereof) in a process is considered an
attribute of
the process steps within the process. Accordingly, a redundancy of resources
affects the goal
proximity of the process. Furthermore, a problem or opportunity in a process
step affects the
proximity of the process step to the goal in accordance with the abundance of
resources or
redundancy of processes.
Actors (persons performing or otherwise concerned about a process) also affect
the
success of a process. As shown schematically in FIG. 6B, actors affect the
process steps for
which they are primarily responsible. Actors generally have these attributes:
values, skills,
expertise, information, endurance, and emotion. Depending on the process
steps, other actor
attributes may be considered relevant. The attributes in turn affect the
probability of expected
problems or opportunities with respect to a process step, and thus affect the
goal of the
process. In the example shown in FIG. 6B, actors 63 responsible for the step
"see target"
18
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
have skills, values and knowledge 64 which they bring to bear on both the
object(s) 65
involved with the process step and the context 66 in which the step is
performed. If the object
used in the step "see target" is a viewing scope, and the context is fog, then
the actor's skill in
using the scope in fog to see the target will have a significant impact on
success. It can be
seen from this example that process steps themselves also have goals ("find
target using
scope"), and actor attributes affect these goals. In general, the process
steps which the actors
perform or influence significantly have goals and conditional goals, and it is
the goals and
conditional goals of these steps or their constituents that the attributes of
the actors influence.
Generic Processes and Nodes
Processes can be abstracted into generic process groups; processes may belong
to
generic groups and processes may have generic process steps. For example,
navigating a
vessel can belong to a general process of "travel in control of a vehicle or
vessel", and it can
have generic constituents such as seeing, steering, planning, etc. Generic
processes are
processes which are not specific to a domain, and which practitioners with
average expertise
in another domain would recognize. In general, processes have generic
components or belong
to larger generic processes.
Generic processes are less context-specific processes in a given domain. As
they
reach a higher level of abstraction, they contain less specific and more
generalized nodes. The
least context specific processes may be so general as to have no specific
steps and thus may
be difficult to identify other than through endemic nodes (discussed further
below).
Generic processes may be represented schematically as shown in FIG. 7A. A set
of
high-level goals 71 has a set of subsidiary goals 72, which in turn has sets
of subsidiary goals
73, 74. Processes 75 and 76 are designed to achieve goals 73, 74 respectively.
The solid
boundaries in the depiction of processes 75, 76 indicate that these processes
are domain-
specific processes; the dotted lines represent a generic process 77 and
generic process
substeps 78.
Generic processes may have nodes, contexts and objects that are generalized
from the
many domain processes they are found to be a part of by practitioners and the
general public.
19
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
They may be biased toward one or more particular domains when they have fewer
attributes
than if all domains are considered. This applies to (but is not limited to)
contexts, objects,
generalized nodes, etc.
Process nodes may be schematically represented as shown in FIG. 7B. A node
appears in each of three process steps of process 700, and in two process
steps of process 710.
Nodes 701-705 each may be a risk, cause, effect or remedy related to a
problem/opportunity/event occurring with respect to that process or some other
process.
In process 700 shown in FIG. 7B, each of the process steps 711-713 has a goal
proximity with respect to goal Gl. There is also, separately, a probability of
failure of the
process if the node represents a risk. These concepts are used to analyze the
risk associated
with the process. Unlike other risk analysis approaches, in the Overlay
software risk is
assigned by goal proximity, and separately assessing probability. As described
above, goal
proximity is a percentage assigned to the degree to which a goal or
conditional goal in a
process is affected by the success or failure of a subordinate process. Goal
proximity for
processes of equal level of subordination or dependence is additive to a total
of 1 or 100%.
Each dependent process is dependent on the next lower level of equally
subordinate level
processes. For example, directing a vessel in the navigation process is
dependent on
propulsion and steering 100%. Propulsion and steering is 100% dependent on
electrical
power. At the level of the vessel directing process, there are other process
steps of equal
subordination such as keeping watch, voyage planning and managing personnel.
Risk is assessed in terms of goal proximity. When a process node within a step
is
determined to present a risk, the severity of that risk may be determined
entirely by referring
to the goal proximity of that step with respect to its direct goal, the goal
proximity of that step
with respect to further dependent goals, the cumulative cost of goal failure
and the cumulative
cost of remedial action of the goal failure.
Goal proximity is useful in assessing the cost of a process and the cost of
software to
manage a process. Goal proximity of a cause and effect link combined with
probability and
the cost of failure or revenue from success of affected processes plus the
cost of the remedial
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
action process are quantitative indicators of risk or opportunity. It follows
then that the
processes designed to manage risk or exploit opportunity have a cost to the
company. It also
follows that selling overlay software to manage relevant information to
mitigate risk and
exploit opportunities has a value. The overlay sets up the right indicators
for valuing
processes and their node and thus valuing the software that helps manage these
processes by
mitigating risk and managing opportunity.
Risk, or potential opportunity, may be estimated determined more qualitatively
by
availability of relevant experiences within the processes likely to be
affected by a problem, as
determined by the goal proximity of dependent processes. Further quantitative
evaluation of
effect, risk or opportunity is achieved by multiplying the goal proximity with
the percentage
probability of failures and opportunities within subordinate processes.
Connected Processes
It should be noted that nodes representing risks, causes, effects or remedies
serve to
connect processes together. A simplified example of this is shown in FIG. 8.
An opportunity or unexpected event 80, as described in some content or
revealed by
some data pattern, has a risk, cause, effect and remedy associated therewith.
In general, that
risk, cause, effect and remedy will not all be found in one process. Process
81, associated
with goal set 82, is distinct from processes 801, 802 that are associated with
goal set 83 and
subsidiary goal sets 811, 812. These processes all have nodes associated with
the
problem/opportunity/event 80. In the example shown, nodes 85 indicate process
steps in
process 81 that present a risk. Node 86 at a step in process 801 indicates a
cause of the
problem/opportunity/event, while node 87 indicates an effect thereof on a step
in process 802.
Node 88, at another step in process 801, represents a remedy.
Endemic Problems and Themes
As noted above, generic processes are less context-specific domain processes;
as they
reach a higher level of abstraction they contain less specific and more
generalized nodes.
21
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Generic processes can be abstracted into types; a type of generic process may
be
associated with a process at the domain level, and would be recognized by an
experienced
practitioner in a similar domain. For example, travel is a different type of
generic process
than managing personnel. Certain problems or opportunities, at various levels
of abstraction,
.. are considered by experienced practitioners to be repetitive over a variety
of related processes.
Such problems/opportunities are referred to as endemic. Endemic
problems/opportunities are
associated with goals, since problems and opportunities cannot be defined
without first
defining goals.
A type of generic process is defined by its endemic problem/opportunity set.
In the
field of personnel management, for example, there are many personnel-related
endemic
problems and opportunities dating back to antiquity, and a whole domain of
processes has
grown to deal with those problems and opportunities. Furthermore, high level
generic
processes are defined by their endemic nodes. In the Overlay, generic
processes that contain
generalized nodes, and/or further generalizations, are also grouped under
endemic problems
or opportunities. This is done because when processes become very general
their process
steps also become very general, and the entire process becomes difficult to
define except by
referring to the endemic problems or opportunities (usually called themes). In
the Overlay,
generic processes are defined by the set of abstracted endemic problems or
opportunities that
they encompass.
In assessing process similarity, an additional similarity criterion is the
endemic
problem(s) found in generic processes or process steps. Two apparently
different process
steps with some very high level similarity can found to be similar if they
suffer from the same
expected problems or opportunities of an abstracted nature.
High level endemic problems or opportunities (themes) serve to organize lower
level
endemic problems more specific to a domain, which in turn serve to organize an
unrestricted
number of levels of endemic problems in an unrestricted number of domains.
Endemic
problems or opportunities (themes) also organize high level generic processes,
which in turn
organize an unrestricted number of lower level generic processes more specific
to domains.
22
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Words used to describe generic processes are often shorthand for a series of
goals and
associated endemic problems that would take too long to express in natural
language.
Therefore groups of endemic problems at various levels of abstraction can have
names
associated with generic processes at various levels of abstraction.
Objects and Contexts
As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6B, objects and contexts alter the
effect of
the nodes on the process completion and the satisfaction of a goal. The nodes
may become
more or less likely to affect the process and its goals as a result of the
context or object being
different. In some cases, the process nodes are different when the process is
very specific to a
domain and has very specific contexts and objects. Context and objects in turn
are affected by
the actors and their attributes (or enterprises or enterprise departments and
their attributes).
Accordingly, different actors will generally have a different effect on the
same process due to
differences in object or context. The context or object itself may introduce
more or less
probability of affecting the process goal(s) or dependent process goal(s).
Object and context changes have effects both on processes and on goal
proximity.
Goal proximity varies in accordance with processes. But processes involve
objects and
contexts that may be different in different domains while the process is
otherwise very
similar. Therefore, for ease of adaptation of the Overlay from domain to
domain, the Overlay
incorporates relationships between object contexts and their processes
according to the
domain, so that in a new domain the system will highlight those objects and
contexts that are
different and may require reassessment of the goal proximity of each process
step, especially
when such steps are affected by the object or context difference. For ease of
adaptation from
domain to domain or enterprise to enterprise, the Overlay may also include
relationships
between context and objects and actors, users, and other elements of the
cognitive structure.
Objects and contexts can be generalized or broken down into constituents, and
can
have relationships between them. Objects and context relevant to the
enterprise have
generalizations and constituents, as well as relationships between them, which
vary according
to the goals and associated processes or plans in which they play a part.
23
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
The degree to which the system requires all or part of the attributes to be
dynamically
related to each other is based on the experience and requirements of each
domain, and on the
client application of the system. When not all the attributes are dynamically
active, the default
status is to hold constant the dynamic interrelationship of attributes with
the entity they would
normally affect. For example, when actor attributes are considered average for
the sake of
convenience, then their effect on the probability of problems and
opportunities arising in a
process step is neutral. In another example, when the redundancy of a resource
used in a
process step is average, then the proximity of that process step in affecting
the goal is average.
The effect of attributes is average when experts in the processes involved
consider them
.. average for that domain.
Objects and/or contexts, as well as time-related designations of
contemporaneous
events, serve to determine whether two indications of a similar event are in
fact the same
event. This is important when the goal of the search for relevant information
is to find
content and data contemporaneous with that event.
Goal Hierarchy and Goal Conflicts
An investigation of the goal hierarchy and conflicts between goals in a
process is
required to determine which subordinate process step is more important in any
one
circumstance. The more consistently the process is applied, the more
consistent the goal
hierarchy, and the more attention is paid to designing the process to avoid
problems due to
goal conflicts. When a process is varied and becomes more like a plan of
action with new
process steps and new goal structure, then the goal hierarchy and goal
conflicts need to be re-
established, and new process steps applied to mitigate the negative effect of
the goal conflicts
and inappropriate results as a consequence of poorly maintained goal
hierarchy.
Overlay Relevance Model: Goals, Processes and Nodes
It is useful, but not essential, to have a consistent relationship between
goals,
processes, and nodes (referred to herein as a relevance convention). If the
relationships
between goals, processes, and nodes seem consistent for Overlay users but do
not follow a
convention, the relevance results (that is, cases of experience returned by
the relevance
24
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
engine) may still be highly satisfactory because current practices generally
do not group
goals, processes and nodes by any consistent convention. A relevance
convention used in
accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure is detailed below.
Node Attributes
Node attributes help define nodes so that nodes may be used to draw
similarities
between processes and similarities between cases of experience. This is
normally done only
by expert users of the system. Node attributes may be grouped as follows:
(1) Goals and actors: Goal conflicts may exist between actors that lie behind
the
nodes and the processes designed to overcome these conflicts. For example: A
legal contract
.. is designed as a process for agreeing on how conflicts can be avoided or
adjudicated; a
machinery design is a process that overcomes the conflict between profit and
cost of a
machinery product; a taximeter is a process automation that overcomes the
conflict between
the taxi service business and the client regarding prices.
Goal conflicts can exist between the goals of different actors and/or between
main
.. goals and conditional goals. A further type of goal conflict can exist
between a goal and
obstacles existing in the environment, while the goal is assisted by the
assets available in that
environment. Assets and obstacles are context specific and are affected by a
specific goal
conflict. For example, the conflict between quality and cost affects the
quality and efficiency
of manufactured products; each product has particular assets and obstacles
affected by this
goal conflict. The customary goal conflict of quality versus cost, within the
manufacturing
processes and manufacturing machinery functions encompassed by the product,
has nodes
associated therewith. The nodes associated most closely with this goal
conflict are the cause
nodes of any product malfunction. The goal conflicts therefore are closely
related to the
nodes in the cause processes.
(2) Assets and obstacles: Assets and obstacles are the context and process
specific
elements that are most closely associated with each node. They are elements
within processes
that change in accordance with the context, but also generalize into more
generic assets and
obstacles when grouped in the appropriate context generalisation. Referring
again to the
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
example of manufactured products and the inherent goal conflict between
quality and cost,
groups of similar products with design commonalities within the same context
(e.g. hydraulic
fluid pumps) will have similar problems characterized by the assets and
obstacles affected. In
addition, due to design variations between products in the same contextual
groups, there will
also be assets and obstacles associated with problem nodes that are different
between the
products. Where this is the case, the context structure needs to separate the
products further
into individual products, with individual specific problems and associated
assets and
obstacles. This means that the nodes of this very particular contextual
grouping do not
generalize across other contexts. However, all will be grouped under the goal
conflict of
.. quality and cost. Accordingly, context groups govern the assets and
obstacles that are active
in active problem or opportunity nodes. Some contexts involve more generic
nodes and
generalize more readily; some remain particular to very specific contexts.
The relevance of assets and obstacles to the node are governed by the context
structure. Nodes are the manifestation of the assets facing obstacles that may
cause a problem
or opportunity in a process. When the nodes are not the result of goal
conflicts between
actors, but instead between the goals of the process and the assets and
obstacles of the context
in which the process takes place, then the relevant assets and obstacles are
those that are
active when the problem or opportunity is active.
(3) Cause nodes and affected nodes: Cause nodes accompany the affected nodes,
and
describe why a given node is active as a problem or opportunity or event.
Nodes that may be
active in cause processes, as well as nodes that may be active in the affected
processes, are
used to identify node attributes.
(4) Relationship between goal conflicts and cause nodes: Goal conflicts that
belong
to the same abstracted group are caused by nodes with similar abstracted
attributes, while the
affected node attributes may be more varied and less easy to group without
specialized
domain knowledge. The cause and effect relationship between cause nodes and
affected
nodes is helpful in associating nodes from one context specific domain to
another context
specific domain.
26
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Expert User Process
Expert Overlay users, when populating the cognitive structure of the system,
assign
node attributes at various context specific levels of abstraction. The expert
Overlay users then
assign node attributes to higher level abstractions. Computerized methods may
also be used to
model node attributes to assist the expert users.
Identifying Nodes
The following procedure (illustrated in FIG. 9) may be followed by an expert
user 920
to identify nodes at various levels of abstraction, in accordance with the
disclosure.
(1) Identify nodes: The expert overlay users identify the nodes found in a
context
specific process whose similarity to other processes is sought (step 921);
(2) Identify context relating to each node at the various levels of
abstraction (step
922). This is achieved through the domain (context specific) process model
particular to the
enterprise in which the process in question and the processes which depend on
it are analyzed
for context specificity;
(3) Identify lower context level node attributes (step 923): The expert
overlay users
identify the node attributes as described above as node attributes 930:
Attributes 931 include
context specific process goals and conditional goals; goal conflicts; context
specific assets and
obstacles; and context specific cause and effect of the nodes for the process
whose similarity
with other processes is sought;
(4) Select from a set of abstracted lower context level node attributes (step
924): In
other words select from a pre-populated set of node attributes at a stage of
context abstraction
above the level in steps 1 to 3. The overlay system 940 shows the user a
selection of higher
level node attributes; the expert user selects higher level attributes 932 to
match the lower
level attributes of the nodes identified in step 3; and
27
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
(5) Select for a higher or highest context level set of node attributes (step
925): The
overlay shows a selection of higher or highest context level enterprise node
attributes. The
expert user selects the highest level attributes that match the attributes
identified in step 3.
The above series of steps can be applied to a selection of nodes so that
process
similarity can be identified, or it can be applied to a single node so that
nodes similarity can
be identified.
Processes and their Relationship to Nodes
Process similarities are identified by comparing the attributes of the nodes
of the
contextually specific process to higher level abstracted node attributes. For
example: A
context specific process, such as seeing a target in a military training
exercise, has several
nodes (e.g. inability to see due to physical obstructions, inability to see
due to bad light,
inability to see due to scope malfunction, etc.). These in turn can be
abstracted by an expert
Overlay user into higher level node abstractions (e.g. inability to see due to
obstacles, inability
to see due to atmosphere, inability to see due to loss of sight enhancing
equipment). The new
abstracted node cluster yields a higher level generic process which is an
abstraction of the
specific process of seeing a target.
The reverse of abstraction may be performed, to match higher level generic
processes
to lower level context specific processes via node attributes, but in reverse
order by taking
more generic nodes and their attributes and relating them to context specific
nodes in the other
domain. In this way two process in different domains or in similar domains but
different
contexts can be matched for similarity. This similarity in turn provides the
ability to draw on
experience in one context specific domain to predict problems or opportunities
in another
context specific domain.
Identifying a Similar Process
The following procedure (illustrated in FIG. 10) may be followed by an expert
user to
identify processes in other domains which are similar to an original, context
specific process
1070.
28
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
(1) According to this procedure, a generic process is first identified, as
follows: The
context specific process in an enterprise is taken with its context structure.
The context
structure is identified and matched to a new domain in which the process will
be compared
(step 1071). This means the context abstractions chosen need to match across
as many
domains as envisioned to be working in one overlay system. Then the context
specific nodes
are identified at the most specific level of context (step 1072). These
context specific nodes
have been assigned node attributes 1082 by expert users of the overlay using a
specific
method as shown above. The nodes and node attributes are abstracted to higher
context levels
by the expert Overlay user (step 1073), to obtain a new abstracted node
cluster (step 1074).
The new abstracted node cluster yields a higher level generic process (step
1075) which is an
abstraction of the original context specific process.
The process that involves the largest number of original nodes abstracted to
higher
contexts is the highest level generic process related to the original process.
The generic
process is identified iteratively (steps 1076, 1075): a) by expert users who
name that process
and assign it to a set of generic processes; b) by expert users who match the
nodes and node
attributes as described in the method above to verify that the process is
unique and does not
pre-exist in the set of generic processes by having the same nodes and node
attributes; c) by
expert users who may break down the prospective generic process into generic
process steps,
apply the above mentioned process regarding matching node attributes in these
smaller
constituent steps (with fewer nodes), and then assemble the process from its
constituent steps
to a larger generic process. However, assembling a larger generic process from
smaller ones
restricts the level of generality of the process since it will need to have
the same constituent
steps. The approach of assessing generality of smaller constituent steps is
more suitable when
the steps cannot be easily changed as in machinery functions and other more
rigid processes.
Starting with more complex processes with many constituent nodes is more
suitable for
planning where the process step have yet to be defined.
In other words, the level of process granularity (to which the above methods
regarding
node attributes and their abstraction into higher level processes are applied)
can vary
according to the expert user's choice or focus. If the methods are applied to
lower level
29
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
subordinate process steps (more granular) within larger processes, then the
process similarity
can be taken to higher level processes by goal proximity and matching the
number of
subordinate processes. If the methods applied are applied to higher level
processes (less
granularity) there can be process similarities drawn at higher levels with
less emphasis on
similarity of subordinate steps. Each method has different advantages. The
more granular
method is better for comparing processes with similar steps and similar goals,
the less
granular method is best for comparing processes of similar goals but different
methods.
(2) Finding a similar process in many different contextually specific domains:
After
the highest level generic process is identified (step 1077), the expert user
proceeds to find
more context specific processes of which it is an abstraction. In general, the
high level
process will be generic to context specific processes in different domains
1081.
To test which context specific processes fit closest, find which context
specific
processes contain the most nodes which have the closest set of node attributes
to those of the
generic process (step 1078). This is achieved by comparing node attributes at
the various
levels of abstraction, starting at the highest.
(3) Apply goal proximity to compare the importance of the common processes in
each
respective domain (step 1079): This step is more important than the following
step in
instances where the effect of the process on goals it serves is a more
important or more
revealing similarity criterion. This similarity tests whether the new
contextually specific
process has a similar goal proximity to its main goal and conditional goals as
does the original
process in another context. This includes dependent processes which are
potentially affected
by the nodes whose abstractions are common between the contextually specific
processes
being compared. This comes before context similarity when the importance of a
process needs
to be similar between the processes being compared.
(4) Apply a node attribute test (step 1080) to find the context/object cluster
that is
most susceptible to the nodes selected. This requires knowledge of the
workings of such
context and objects across domains (usually a much more narrow range of
domains) so as to
ascertain the susceptibility to the nodes selected. This step is more
important than the
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
preceding step in instances where the context specific obstacles and assets
are more important
as a relevance focal point, and also in cases where the similarities across
context of the nodes
of a particular case are more important than similarities of a process. In
other words, the
selection of nodes is narrower and does not fully satisfy the nodes of a broad
process but may
group a larger number of processes and contexts with the node of interest in
common. For
example, most machinery failures have case nodes that apply to particular
machines with
design, manufacturing and operating criteria that would be susceptible to the
same failure. To
find these other machines the nodes selected in the generic process selected
need to be fewer
and the expert user must make the match of node attributes based on knowledge
of these other
machines and their susceptibilities.
It should be noted that in practice finding similar single nodes across
contexts/domains
is just as important as finding clusters of similar nodes. In an embodiment,
this problem may
be dealt with by identifying first and second contexts for the node. The node
is specific to the
first context, so that the node is characterized as a first context-specific
node. The second
context is at a higher level of abstraction than the first context, so that
the node is not specific
to the second context. There will then be two sets of node attributes
associated with the node,
in accordance with the first and second contexts respectively. At least one
generic node may
then be identified, where the generic node has attributes in accordance with
high context level
enterprise node attributes.
Populating the System with Cases
FIG. 11 schematically illustrates a procedure 1180 for populating the system
with
cases (thereby facilitating solving problems or exploiting opportunities using
the Overlay, by
making available the collective experience of the enterprise). The user
populates the system
by entering process, nodes, goals and goal proximities (step 1181). These may
be entered
using the experience of industry practitioners. Cases 1186 are entered using
assistance from
an index engine 1187 to index stories 1185 recounted by experts and/or
recorded by the
enterprise. Nodes are the problems and opportunities manifested in discussions
about causes,
effects, remedies, and explanations as found in the cases (recounted stories).
In this exercise
31
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
context specific processes, contexts, goals, causes, effects and goal
proximities are
established.
Abstracting Processes: Cross-Contextual Similarity
In a second stage of populating the system, expert users of the Overlay apply
generalizations of processes and generalizations of nodes (step 1182) to
enable non-expert
users to find similar processes between domains and across contexts. Experts
using indexing
assistance from the Overlay may match nodes through their attributes to infer
process
generality and process similarity (step 1183).
Overlay Method Steps
FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating how the Overlay system finds problems in
the
enterprise, and provides users with relevant previous experiences; that is,
lessons learned from
prior risks, causes, effects, and remedies (also called stories).
The method performed by the Overlay is centered around building a framework of
enterprise stress points. The goals of the enterprise (enterprise goals and
main goals, as
mentioned above) are established in step 901. The various processes designed
to achieve
those goals are established in step 902. The effect of the processes (goal
proximity) is
established in step 903. In step 904, problems, opportunities and events
relating to the
processes are identified. In step 905, a framework of enterprise stress points
is built, in
accordance with: the process descriptions; problems, opportunities, and events
affecting the
processes; causes, effects, risks and remedies; and how the processes affect
each other.
It should be noted that building the framework includes identifying similar
processes.
As discussed above, this involves identifying common process steps and/or
applying other
criteria to the various processes.
The processes are analyzed in order to identify process generalizations and
thus to
identify generic processes (step 906). In step 907, generic nodes and endemic
themes are
identified from the processes. The enterprise internal content and enterprise
data are scanned,
32
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
and the scanned content is indexed against the enterprise stress points using
an indexing
engine (step 908). The system determines the impact of a given problem on a
given process,
and routes a description of the problem to the users most concerned with the
problem (steps
909-910). The system proceeds to structure collaborations in accordance with
the stress point
framework, focusing user collaborations on the key points affected by the
problem, the
problem's causes, and the problem's remedies (step 911). From the indexed
information, the
system retrieves relevant previous experience and returns those relevant
stories to the users
(step 912).
Problem Solving Using the Overlay
A method for solving a problem (alternatively, exploiting an opportunity,
making a
decision, or answering a question) using the Overlay system, from a user's
point of view, is
illustrated in the connected flowcharts shown in FIGS. 13A and 13B.
It should be noted that the method described herein is iterative, and the
order of steps
depends on how close the problem or opportunity is to a previous problem or
opportunity and
how well the problem or opportunity has been managed in a known process. If
the problem
or opportunity is not well known and the process with which it can be remedied
is not well
established, then the order of steps and emphasis is different from that
described herein.
A user dealing with a problem (or opportunity, decision or question) 1001
first
outlines a tentative plan in his or her mind around the problem to be solved
(step 1010); the
plan is devised outside the system. The corresponding system action (step
1020) is to let the
user select a few generic processes which the plan organizes. These processes
can be returned
in a variety of ways by including a set of minor word searches using
preconfigured searches
on generic processes or goals; in other words, to provide a rudimentary
concept search on the
cognitive structure. Usually a narrower scope of process selection, resulting
in more specific
processes, is required than that returned by a goal search, more narrow than
that returned by a
generic process search, and broader than that returned by a specific process
search.
In step 1011, the user selects a narrower set of processes and then the user
selects the
goals corresponding to the processes returned by the system, and the system
makes an initial
33
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
hierarchy of goals (step 1021). The hierarchy of goals is modified (step 1012;
system action
in step 1022), taking into account the actors involved in the processes and
how their goals
affect the hierarchy and how the goals selected conflict with each other. The
fewer processes
selected (which in turn depends on how well known and established the problem
or
opportunity is and how well known and established the remedial action process
is), the more
it is likely that the goal conflicts and hierarchy will be the same as in the
process selected.
In step 1013, the user retrieves the endemic nodes within the selected
processes (that
is, the processes selected in the outlined plan). The corresponding system
action (step 1023)
is to retrieve the endemic problems for the set of processes. The user
highlights related
processes, using the endemic problems; the system selects still more
processes, which are
known to relate to the identified endemic nodes (steps 1014-1024). The user
then selects
stories and experiences from the selected processes, which are organized by
process
problems/opportunities and endemic problems/opportunities. The stories are
retrieved by
finding a relevant group of processes, according to node commonality and goal
proximity to
related processes (steps 1015-1025).
As the user gathers past experience and is reminded of his or her own
experiences by
the stories (content and data related to problems, opportunities and
interesting/unexpected
events), the system assists the user to readjust his goals and goal hierarchy
and to highlight
goal conflicts, so as to enable retrieval of processes best fitting the
resultant goal hierarchy
and conflicts (steps 1016, 1026).
Using the returned stories, the user formulates and tests a tentative solution
(step
1017). The user then selects further processes, modifies the outlined plan,
and tests the
modified plan (steps 1018, 1019). The plan is not necessarily retained in the
system, other
than described in a discussion with colleagues on a common discussion document
managed
by the Overlay. The plan may be retained if it is advantageous to do so; for
example, if the
experience is considered useful for future reference, especially if the plan
has a goal hierarchy
that under certain circumstances is better than the standard process it
replaces. The retrieved
stories help the user to devise the best possible plan using the collective
experience of the
34
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
participants. The Overlay helps retrieve past experiences via stories, and
helps co-ordinate
the right stakeholders in the discussion.
Overlay System
A system for executing the Overlay includes an indexing structure (or indexing
engine) which defines methods of achieving relevance between nodes or
enterprise stress
points. The indexing structure contains word patterns and data patterns
including business
objects relevant to the nodes or enterprise stress points. The system also
includes a language
parser and scanners which are used to scan existing or new content and assign
that content to
process nodes. The indexing structure of the Overlay system helps users find
information
relevant to enterprise stress points, more effectively than using conventional
search engines.
It should be noted that relevance of content in the enterprise is determined
exclusively
by addressing process nodes. The user defines a cognitive structure to perform
indexing;
critical criteria for relevance are defined within the cognitive indexing
structure.
An implementation of the Overlay software, in accordance with an embodiment of
the
.. disclosure, is shown schematically in FIG. 14. The Overlay includes content
scanners 1101
for scanning enterprise content and enterprise data and related external data
as well including
business objects; a language parser 1120; and an indexing engine 1150. The
scanners obtain
content from a variety of sources; for example, e-mails 1102, documents 1103,
application
data including business objects 1104, and Web content 1105. The language
parser 1120
identifies concepts within the scanned content 1110, and cooperates with the
indexing engine
1150 to assign a stress point relevance to those concepts. In the case of
application data the
stress point relevance is preconfigured, so the Overlay looks for specific
data in specific
locations within the application. The resulting stress point index 1160
supports a range of user
interfaces 1170. The user interfaces utilize the stress point index to alert
users to problems,
enable collaboration between users, restrict the returned information to
processes for which
the users are stakeholders (even if the information is as yet only directly
related to subordinate
processes for which they are not stakeholders); and retrieve previous related
experiences. In
the embodiment shown, the user interfaces include a Web-based search interface
1171, a
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Web-based collaboration tool 1172, a portal-based interface 1173 for
application integration,
a mobile device interface 1174 for alerts, collaboration and searches relevant
to the problem,
and an interface 1175 to integrate the stress point index to one or more
desired office
applications.
The indexing engine indexes information against the enterprise stress points,
using
indexing model 1130. The indexing model is constructed using case histories
(stories of how
the enterprise dealt with stress points in the past) 1106 and current cases of
problem-solving
in the enterprise 1107. Both current and past cases are thus used to populate
the system.
Analysis of current cases creates the indexing for the case against the
cognitive structure.
.. Past cases can be entered as experiences as a separate process not directly
a part of enterprise
problem solving.
Furthermore, in populating the system the indexing engine performs cross
contextual
referencing; this enables the system to be populated with experiences and
content related
word concepts in new domains, by using the generic aspect of processes and
generic nodes
from previously populated domains. Context specific nodes define more generic
nodes.
These more generic nodes in turn define generic components of context/domain
specific
processes. These generic process components and their generic nodes, will
exist in the new
domain at some level of generality and thus indicate specific nodes in this
different
context/domain.
The indexing engine may provide indexing services to other software products,
including third-party products such as: content management systems; search
solution
products; ERP systems; or any other system that would benefit from the
addition of stress
point relevance software.
In an embodiment, the indexing engine 1150, which is the core of the Overlay,
is a
middleware service provided via Web services.
A system according to the disclosure may be used to:
identify content relevant to nodes;
36
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
understand the enterprise by relating nodes to each other in the cognitive
structure;
solve problems in the enterprise; and
find stray information in the enterprise.
Some benefits of using the Overlay system are as follows:
assess process similarity between two processes being compared;
describe processes and plans relevant to the enterprise;
find related information about problems and opportunities;
find stray information (unresolved notices) about problems and opportunities;
assess risk and consequences of problems and opportunities;
anticipate problems and opportunities;
diagnose problems and opportunities;
apply remedial action plans to problems and opportunities;
make strategic plans about problems and opportunities;
give users insight into causes and effects in an industry;
permit users to be creative in dealing with problems and opportunities;
aid users in explaining complex phenomena about the workings of an
enterprise or the environment in which the enterprise operates and which
significantly
affects the enterprise;
aid experts assisting companies in solving problems or taking advantage of
opportunities for that company; and
37
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
find relationships between elements of a cognitive structure based on
enterprise activities.
For example, on a factory floor users of the system will typically include
managers,
sales persons, administrative assistants, engineers and maintenance workers
all with defined
functions and individual goals and a generic goal of delivering product to
customers. Many
of these users access a model of the enterprise through a handheld device,
such as a cell
phone, tablet or other personal electronic device (PED). Frequently, these
handheld devices
have a user interface (viewing screen with touch screen capability) having a
limited area.
Were the entire node structure of the enterprise presented on the viewing
screen, the nodes
could be too small for the user to view or access via touching a node of
interest. Accordingly,
the system is designed to illustrate only nodes of interest to an individual
user and, optionally,
a few additional nodes on either side of the nodes of interest. As the goals
of a particular user
changes, the nodes of interest illustrated on that user's viewing screen will
also typically
change.
With reference to Figure 16, the system 1200 includes a facility 1202 that
adjusts a
plurality of user interfaces 1204a ¨ 1204e to reflect each user's relevant
current status of a
live event. This means presenting to each user only parts of the interrelated
set of nodes 1206
filtered by context associated with that user and that user's current status.
Each user interface
1204a ¨ 1204e has a display 1208a ¨ 1208e having a limited viewing area. Were
all nodes
1206 displayed in the limited viewing area 1208a ¨ 1208e, the nodes would be
too small for
viewing or interacting by the user. Also, the current status for a user may
change and the
system 1200 may be required change the display on that user's interface 1204
so as to allow
more space for viewing information relevant to the latest current status.
However since all
nodes 1206 are related by cause and effect and similarity, the user may revert
if required to
view any nodes assigned to his stake holding.
The facility 1202 adjusts the user interface to focus on nodes 1206 most
relevant to the
user/stakeholder and may alter the set of nodes most relevant to a
user/stakeholder according
to situational developments relevant to the user/stakeholder. The system may
change the user
interface 1024a ¨ 1204e view so as to allow more space for viewing information
relevant to
38
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
the latest status relevant to the user/stakeholder. However, at the discretion
of the user, all
nodes relevant to the user are accessible regardless of the current focus
shown on the screen.
The facility 1202 communicates with a number of external devices to make sure
the
information contained and accessible through nodes 1206 is current and the
situation of each
user is current. One external device may be a keyboard 1210. A second external
device may
be a remote sensor 1212, such as a temperature or light detector to recognize
a fire or a
moisture detector to recognize a leak or burst pipe. The facility 1202 may
also remain in
contact with remote sites 1214 via the Internet 1216. Such remote sites may
include, without
limitation, other divisions of the enterprise, external databases (for example
a government site
for access to building plans or wiring diagrams), public databases (for
example search
engines) and private databases (for example schematics for a ship or a piece
of equipment
available from the builder / manufacturer).
The facility 1202 includes a computing device 1218 having a computer-readable
medium with executable instructions encoded on non-transient digital storage
medium, the
non-transient digital storage medium also storing a model of the enterprise,
content of the
enterprise and data of the enterprise, wherein processes associated with the
model include
nodes, a computer readable description of relevance between different nodes,
and a computer
readable description of relevance between content and data and the different
nodes.
The facility 1202 is able to communicate with each user via transmitting
device 1220.
The transmitting device both sends and receives information from each user
through the user
interface 1204a ¨ 1204e. Any form of communication may be utilized, for
example a cellular
network 1222, a wireless local network or the internet 1216a. It is useful to
instantiate nodes
1206 not only from changes in underlying information in a database but also
via user direct
input to a user interface 1204a ¨ 1204e controlled by the Overlay. This will
still be treated as
information in a database or other computerised facility to be processed by
the scanners etc.,
but the information will be entered via a user interface controlled by the
Overlay. This
information may be a simple selection of a node 1206 rendered in the user
interface, or
selection of choices of user instantiated actions related to a node 1206
and/or content entered
by the user. Some information, such as pictures and videos, can be made
available by the
39
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
facility 1202 on the displays 1208a ¨ 1208e of the handheld devices or via the
handheld
devices. User instantiated action can be entered by the user into the facility
1202 via the
transmission facilities 1220, 1216 and the computing device 2018.
The user interface 1204, the interrelated node 1206 structure and the data in
the
database 1224 exist as one middleware service. This middleware service allows
the logic
/code to be modified and the database 1224 to be modified and the nodes 1206
to be modified
without requiring any programmatic change to the user interface 1204.
The Overlay incorporates a set of interrelated nodes which are connected by
cause and
effect and similarity. The cause and effect can be determined also by formulas
and
relationships between properties related to nodes. In conventional
programming, changes are
made to relationships and to data representing problems and opportunities.
After these
changes are made, new user interfaces need to be designed to present these new
relationships
to users. The present embodiment bypasses the second programming exercise.
Coded relationships 1226 between nodes 1206 can be explicit and if all nodes
are
connected to other nodes by programming code/logic which depicts cause and
effect and
derivatives of cause and effect, then changes in the nodes and their
connecting formulas,
programming code/logic can be made without also changing the relationships of
information
rendered on user interfaces 1204 in a separate exercise. The system 1200
builds a database
1224 where each increment of data is related to at least one node 1206 and the
relevance of
one node 1206 to another node 1206' is described by the code/logic that
relates one node to
another. The nodes are related to each other by application code/logic which
depicts cause
and effect and derivatives of cause and effect. Data from the database 1224
relevant to each
node 1206, 1206' can be displayed on the user interface 1204 limited area
display 1208 in
groups corresponding to nodes which are directly linked to each other. These
nodes are
related to each other by cause and effect and derivatives of cause and effect.
The user interface is a continuum that is not designed programmatically for
the use
case at hand. Prior art user interfaces are designed to fit fixed pre-
determined use cases. For
example there could be a user interface to determine the exit route in a
burning building by
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
providing a fixed choice of navigation options. A different user interface
would be needed for
exiting the building plus a nested emergency such as a broken leg. A different
user interface
would be needed for the co-ordinator who oversees the status of location of
the evacuees. The
overlay user interface fits all use cases including future unanticipated use
cases because the
user interface is derived from a continuous node structure that contains the
logic of the system
and accommodates the future logic. Furthermore since the logic of the system
and the state of
each attribute of the system are depicted by the cause and effect link between
nodes and the
nodes respectively, there are only two variables to describe; the node and the
link to another
node. This can be depicted graphically in a topographical map similar to a
vector map. But
allowing this topographical depiction due to only having two variables, node
plus link to
another node, plus the ability to expand or collapse child nodes under parent
nodes, then an
increasing and a decreasing number of nodes can be shown on the user interface
allowing
users to combine a zoom out situational awareness and a zoom in focus on a
particular node
and its related information. There is currently no user interface depicting
any group of
processes regardless of whether these processes are sequential or not and
regardless of how
they are related to each other and regardless of how many processes are
depicted, that is
graphical and that allows navigation from a choice of thousands of nodes to a
focus on any
one of the lowest nodes in subordination and any selection of nodes between
these extremes
and to do so in a continuous depiction.
Although the view that the users may want to see in the zoom in mode, may
become a
view of attributes of nodes and links rather than nodes and links between
nodes themselves,
these attributes are sill generated dynamically by the nodes and links upon
which focus has
been applied. There is no programmatic generation of attributes to be viewed.
The node
attributes in a detail interface are generated dynamically.
This is contrasted with prior art enterprise process depicting User Interface
software,
which requires each user interface detailed or otherwise to be predetermined
and then
programmatically generated. One of the examples in existing software systems
that are not
depicting enterprise processes but are continuous are electronic maps.
Electronic maps can
increase or decrease focus by zooming in and out. But there is no ability to
present processes
41
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
in this way because the view of the map is not used to depict processes and
relationships
between processes but is used to depict positions and distances in two
dimensions. In the
Overlay, by contrast, the space is used to depict cause and effect links and
processes. In other
words, the nodes depict problems and opportunities and the links depict the
cause and effect
.. that is linking the nodes and the space is used to indicate subordination
or dependency. The
salient feature that enables this is the fact that processes and
representative nodes converge,
that is child nodes collapse into parent nodes, thus fit within each other
when zooming out.
Flow charts and similar process diagrams are used to depict processes from
fine grained, to
large enterprise systems. But flow charts depict sequential processes and
decision points
.. which do not fit within each other so as to allow zooming out.
Process sequences are often too fine grained to define all process
relationships in a
practical manner. How, for example, do you define how an audit failure affects
corporate
reputation in sequential steps? And in so doing is the sequence important or
is the cause and
effect important. How does a misaligned ball bearing affect a machine's
structural integrity?
How does a flow chart with sequential steps help depict this? A link between
two processes
that are not linked sequentially can be linked in a flow chart but the link is
no longer a
depiction of process flow and cannot be depicted as a component of a flow
chart.
Other hybrid process depictions can be made on two dimensional UI format but
they
do not contain explicit cause and effect relationships between nodes that are
also computer
readable and process nodes that also converge and in the graphical depiction
fit within each
other to enable zooming out and also fully depict the relationship of one
process problem or
opportunity to another as required by the scope of the depiction system for
which they have
been designed.
In other words, prior art hybrid flow charts attempt to depict process
relationships and
not just process flow, but fail to provide nodes that converge so that detail
processes can be
converge into parent processes with explicit and full cause and effect
relevance between
nodes that is computer readable and thus able to be processed by computer.
Therefore when
depicting interrelated enterprise processes in a user interface, these prior
art hybrid flow
charts, can show processes but not the degree of relevance between processes
sufficient to
42
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
allow convergence. This is because the nodes do not converge and relevance is
often
undefined or in some cases statistically defined by user communities. By
contrast in the
Overlay the cause and effect relationships are either depicted empirically by
goal proximity or
by an algorithm in the cases of more quantitatively explicit relationships as
mentioned herein.
Both goal proximity and relevance algorithms depicting cause and effect are
computer
readable and are able to depict the importance of a relationship.
Statistically depicted
relationships are computer readable but they are not necessarily accurate
especially when the
results are aggregating cause and effect dependencies which could be
insufficiently
independent, the statistical samples are aggregating results with completely
different causes
thus obscuring cause and effect, or statistical samples are insufficient for a
meaningful
statistically derived relevance.
For example ships collisions statistically analysed and assigned to human
factors such
as human errors are insufficiently meaningful since every technical aspect of
marine
transportation that could also be the cause of a collision such as a steering
mechanism failure
is also involving human factors in for example, machinery design,
manufacturing,
maintenance, operational complexity, etc. With undefined relationships or
statistically related
nodes as in the prior art, the user interface would be cluttered with
undefined or statistically
derived relationships between nodes. In an emergency for example, these
relationships would
cause confusion and effectively defeat the purpose of the entire computerised
application for
.. emergency response which is to provide relevant information with minimal
distraction.
In another prior art method of graphical two dimensional depiction used for
formal
risk assessment commonly called "bow tie" diagrams, relevance between 'failure
modes or
hazards" and processes is depicted in statistical probability and "severity"
connections
between nodes. But since there are 'failure modes or hazards" and "processes"
and "goals"
and links between them but often also "conditions" and other variables, the
element do not
converge. A "risk" a "hazard" a "barrier" a "consequence" etc do not converge
as do process
nodes in the Overlay. In an emergency such a conventional "bow tie" depiction
would not for
example show the whole situation. It would represent failure nodes and hazards
but what if
the user wanted to see other processes that are affected by hazards depicted
in the bow tie
43
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
diagram, or other contributors to the consequences in the bow tie diagram or
other processes
to focus on. How would those be connected? A bow tie diagram only shows at
best a set of
affected processes and causal hazards plus logical derivatives related to one
process or hazard
that is in focus. There is no notion of how all processes in an enterprise are
connected. So in
an emergency, if the user needs to view another process in his or her stake
holding or if the
system helps focus to a latest event, it would not be possible without
rendering another
graphical depiction different from the previous one and not continuous.
Therefore the
graphical depiction will not be continuous and cannot be used to zoom in and
out. This in turn
makes it impossible to depict any process in the system and any future process
without prior
design of a user interface for each process or use case or user/system
interaction point.
Therefore the prior art system cannot dynamically generate user interface
depictions
for any process or group of processes emulated in the system, either a current
process or
group or a future process or group.
The above serves partly to explain the below:
Enhancing or replacing underlying enterprise applications using the Overlay
principals:
One of the ways of enhancing the understanding of the workings of an
enterprise is to
shorten the time it takes to enhance and occasionally replace underlying
enterprise systems in
their role as information sources for hosting event triggers regarding
problems and
opportunities and interesting or unexpected events, or missing important
monitoring elements,
and also the relevant information that enhances the decision making of the
user.
The reason for enhancing or replacing these underlying enterprise applications
is that
often these system are old and outdated, or poorly designed ergonomically so
are rarely
updated in time to provide the right triggers and relevant information for the
Overlay to work
effectively.
For the Overlay to replace these enterprise applications without vast efforts
in
application building such as understanding the legacy code or maintaining the
legacy code or
44
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
improving the legacy code, there is a need to use the core innovation of the
Overlay for legacy
system enhancement or replacement. In other words to facilitate the creation
of
supplementary enterprise information systems when required.
An important objective is to allow the supplementation or creation of these
systems
without having to resort to traditional software development methods, thus
allowing business
domain experts, that is to say stakeholders and experts in the domain, to
build with less of a
requirement for traditional application building methods. This significantly
improves the
likelihood that the resulting system will be effective and also increases the
speed at which
systems can be built and adapted to suit new and emerging requirements.
The behavior of Overlay based systems is in part driven by the node structure
and in
part driven by traditional data structures within underlying enterprise
applications. Those
aspects of the system that are driven by the node structure, which generally
relate to system
navigation and relationship between nodes, that is to say finding the
information of relevance
to the user in an enterprise, are highly flexible. Those aspects of the system
that are driven by
traditional code within the underlying applications, which generally require
creating and
interacting with business objects, remain difficult and expensive to change
and are unable to
readily exploit the evolving business model as defined by the domain experts.
This latter
situation means that Overlay systems remain vulnerable to the quality and
fitness of purpose
of the underlying legacy applications.
The following section discloses an embodiment of the Overlay concept, which is
the
elimination of the need for traditional code and thus seeing all system
behaviour being driven
by a newly extended node structure. Conceptually speaking, the business model
thus becomes
the code of the application. This will enable Overlay systems to meet the
objectives outlined
above.
In prior art and in legacy systems, the business object acts as the 'atomic
unit' that can
be manipulated by the business model ¨ i.e. moved between transaction tasks,
accessed via
navigational filters, and so on. These business objects generally represent
convenient
packages of data ¨ sets of related attributes that model a real world object
or concept, such as
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
person or document. It is these business objects that are currently
implemented using
traditional code. These business objects contain attributes and relationships
to other objects
derived from many use cases. Rather like a home improvement tool with
accessories to fit
many home improvement jobs. However because of the multiplicity of uses of
business
objects, which are orders of magnitude more numerous than with home
improvement tools,
and almost as many as the variety if uses of modern smart phones and
computers, describing
the attributes and relationships to other business objects is cumbersome and
difficult for
designers to envisage and manage.
For example, packaging up attributes into business objects is the fact that
these
attributes and their values tend to be determined by complex underlying
processes and are
subject to rules and constraints that span out across the enterprise (and
indeed into other
enterprises) that software engineers are generally not aware of while the
system is under
development.
For example, take a simple line item of a spares purchase order:
The part number: how the part is described stems from a complex process that
probably traces its roots back to the original manufacturing process.
The quantity required: this could be determined by a complex set of
conditions,
including the state of the machinery for which the item is for, forthcoming
maintenance, the availability of time, labour, money and other resources.
The required by date ¨ again, this could relate to the availability of
resources,
accessibility of the equipment, how and when the equipment will be used.
The planned delivery date ¨ this could relate to the availability of
supplier's
personnel to prepare the item for delivery, which it turn is related to the
personal and
professional requirements of the personnel in question.
In short, the simple business object of a purchase order line item would
traditionally
only capture a fraction of the above ¨ yet the mapping of the above into the
complex cause-
46
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
and-effect node structure is essential to deliver an effective business
process support system ¨
one that will aid effective decision making and be easily extensible by
extending the nodes
structure.
The challenge is particularly acute when the 'ideal' business process cannot
be
followed ¨ i.e. how exceptions are handled. For example, if the part cannot be
delivered on
time, the actions that need to be followed may depend on very complex
information such as
the predicted reliability of the equipment that would allow the risks to be
assessed and
mitigating actions taken.
In addition to this, there is the very common scenario of business object
implementations not readily meeting the requirements of different enterprises
that naturally
tend to have different interpretations and usage patterns with regard to them.
Business object
implementations effectively encapsulate business logic that should reside in
the model and not
in the code and are rarely developed in such a way that this logic is exposed
to the business
model in a way that the model can control how the business object behaves.
A central tenet is thus the removal of the notion of the business object as a
fixed
concept and instead the adoption of the attribute as a more finely grained
unit of atomicity.
This will in effect allow for a new and highly dynamic type of data view,
based on the node
structure of nodes interrelated by explicitly described computer readable
cause and effect or
derivatives or variations of cause and effect, manifested in computer readable
logic, which
.. will replace the business object concept, the separate transformation logic
and the separate
user interface logic that has become the hallmark of existing prior art
systems.
A further tenet of this evolution of the Overlay/TA system is the explicit
combination
of the process model, as manifest by the interrelated the node structure, with
the data model,
defined as attributes. It is this combining of data with interrelated nodes
connected by cause
and effect, that is to say explicitly showing what the data is for and how it
is transformed,
which is central to the ability of the system to host meaningful computer
readable
transformation logic and meaningful user interface attributes without special
programming
skills. This is in contrast to traditional data structures, such as relational
databases, that lack
47
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
an explicit representation of what the data is for (i.e. the goals that it
supports) and, as such,
lack the resolution required to derive a suitable user interface. It is
traditionally this
information that is embedded and thus hidden and fixed within the code and
which needs to
be made explicit within the model in order for experts in the real world
processes and
computerized transaction processes, to be able to understand all the
computerized processes
within the enterprise application and extend them when needed.
Unlike other no SQL node structured databases, the unique concept of the
Overlay in
building or extending enterprise applications is that all the transformation
logic lies within the
cause and effect links between nodes and no other logic is needed to effect
either the
application transformations or the user interface attributes. There may be
logic outside the
nodes structure needed for ancillary services but none of the enterprise
business logic or user
interface attribute representation needs to be outside the node structure.
Modern information systems can generally be seen as a number of tiers, each
fulfilling
a particular type of function and providing services to the adjacent tiers,
and the Overlay/TA
concept is no exception. The next generation Overlay/TA concept has three
tiers, outlined
below:
The user interface tier. This tier renders the interface to the users of the
system
and is wholly derived from the business model.
The business logic tier or 'middle' tier. This tier defines a representation
of
how the system should support the user and the organisation in their desire to
meet
their goals. It consists of a business model running within an implementation
framework that is the Overlay.
The data management tier. This tier facilitates the storage of state
information
and again is wholly derived from the business model.
48
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
The Business Logic Tier
As stated above, this tier consists of two principal elements: the business
model and
implementation framework within which that business model executes. The
business model
is created and managed by non-software engineers that is to say that knowledge
of traditional
programming languages and database systems will not be required. The business
model will
therefore define everything required to derive a meaningful information
system, i.e. one that
supports the organization in meeting its objectives. The key challenge
therefore becomes
supporting the definition of a model that is readily understandable to non-
technical people
while at the same time remaining unambiguous enough to be processed by the
underlying
implementation framework and still deliver a predictable, meaningful and
usable end result.
The heart of the Overlay business model is the node ¨ an enterprise stress
point where
a human operator, or alternatively a sensor or other system agent, needs to
make a decision
and provide input i.e. a change in state or where a user needs to be made
aware of something
by the system. At a high level, the collection of these nodes defines the
process model of the
organization, which when combined with an underlying state model, should
provide enough
information from which to derive the user interfaces required to support each
enterprise stress
point. Elements of the process model can be mapped to higher level generic
process
abstractions in the master process model. We will now describe each of the
components in
more detail.
Business Logic Tier: The Process Model
The process model is defined as an interconnected collection of nodes. Each
node has a
collection of attributes which are input into or output from the node. Nodes
are principally
related to other nodes as cause-and-effect, although other types of
relationships also exist and
are outlined below.
A cause-and-effect relationship between nodes implies that an action, either
explicitly or
implicitly as a result of the input or existence of data, can be invoked by
the user or other
agent as part of the causal node that will trigger a change in state that in
turn renders the
affected node as 'of interest'. The 'code' of the system, which is linked to
the action, which in
49
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
turn is linked to the cause-and-effect node relationship is thus focussed on
effecting changes
in state as a result of the invocation of actions.
A node is related to the collection of attributes that are linked to the nodes
within that node's
'node cluster'. A node cluster is a collection of related nodes, typically
related by process but
also for other reasons, and is defined explicitly by the domain expert
creating the model.
Within each node, attributes are designated as either input (read-only) or
output (read-write).
The collection of attributes for a node can be referred to as the 'predicative
pattern' for that
node.
Nodes are essentially stateless in that they consume and produce classes of
attributes. In other
words, there is no notion of node instantiation. Instead, nodes become of
interest as a result of
the state of input attributes to those nodes. For example, the node 'Evaluate
sourcing and
transportation options' becomes of interest when there is an outstanding need
from the vessel
that is to be fulfilled. This change in state is typically a result of the
invocation of an action
associated with a causal node.
Nodes can also be related to other nodes as belonging to the same area of
concern ¨ i.e. as
tasks within an organizational task grouping. These organisational
relationships do not
necessarily imply membership of the same node cluster by direct cause and
effect, but rather
are used to aid the user in navigating what can become complex node
structures. For example
the node "Procurement" which organises many procurement processes has no cause
and effect
link to the processes it organises or any other processes. This is because it
is unclear how such
an organisational node is affected by the nodes it organises or how it affects
other nodes.
That is, if one asked the question how does "procurement" fail or when is
"procurement" at
risk, the answer is imprecise. Likewise if we ask the question what process
fails when
'procurement" fails. However the finer grained nodes within this grouping such
as the
"inventory status of a ship" with respect to a spare part can have very
precise effects on the
ability to perform a repair on board. So these organizational nodes such as
"procurement"
exist for navigational purposes whereas the nodes organized by these nodes
have the normal
cause and effect links to other nodes.
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Business Logic Tier: The State Model
This is the place where data is stored to allow users to share information and
to allow
the system to 'remember' things between user sessions.
When an attribute is identified as part of the process model, the state model
is
automatically extended to facilitate the storage of values for that attribute.
State model attribute values may also contain a link in the model via a node
to a
further attribute value to indicate a relationship. For example, age and name
attributes may be
linked to an employee ID attribute to collectively represent an employee and
this may be
represented in a node cluster. At a class level, the types of relationships
that exist are derived
from the process model (node clusters), typically as a result of attributes
being part of the
same cluster serving a larger emulated process or parent node.
A key mechanism here is the context component of the Overlay interface.
Attributes
used for contextual filtering, that is system navigation using key
identifiers, become 'key'
attributes. A key attribute forms a primary navigational approach when many
similar
processes are differentiated in their cause and effect by a key identifier and
when many
related but different process steps use the same key identification. For
example, if an
employee name is defined as a key attribute, it becomes possible for the
system to link
employee age attributes to the name if each of these attributes form two nodes
in a larger
cluster identifying an employee. The key attribute and the use of the key
attribute for system
navigation helps make sure when processing employee details we are focusing on
the right
employee if there is more than one, while the process steps are the same for
all employees.
This approach to state management represents an important departure from
conventional systems in that by removing all domain specific knowledge from
the data model
and having it derived from the process model, we help to avoid the sub-
conscious transfer of
prevailing information system design assumptions into the new design which may
impact the
ability of the system to present precisely what is needed to complete the
process at hand.
51
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Business Logic Tier: The Master Process Model
Nodes, where possible, are related to node classes (abstracted node clusters
depicting
abstracted processes) as instantiations of those node classes (abstracted node
clusters), which
are defined by the master process model. Node classes capture the common
elements of
domain specific nodes as abstract versions of those nodes. For example, node
classes may
cover concepts such as plan, check, approve, warn and so on. It can be said
that abstracted
node classes represent concepts that would be familiar to 'a cave man' in that
they are among
the first abstractions that we as humans have come to realize.
Abstracted node classes serve two main purposes. First, they serve as guidance
to
business domain experts when considering how to model domain specific issues,
for example
by reminding them what issues need to be considered and by helping individuals
understand
the work of domain experts. Second, they accelerate the modelling process by
facilitating
reuse and enabling the rapid identification of similar processes across a
domain model. Reuse
however may not be direct copy paste of generic code components and more
likely involves
an adaptation of the node class (abstracted cluster) to all the instances/use
cases. This is
because an abstracted or class level cluster is not always easy to describe in
appropriate
coding language that can converted without adaptation to a domain/use case
level. However
the linking of the domain cluster to the node class (abstracted cluster) can
be very explicit
thus making it very clear where to cascade class level improvements in logic
to domain/use
case level.
The User Interface Tier
The user interface tier combines information contained within the business
model with
an encoding of best practice user interface design principles to render
graphical user interfaces
to the user.
The existing prior art uses business object as the principal division of
concept with the
UI. In other words, users create and open up views on business objects to view
their contents
and make changes as necessary. The Overlay sees a radical change in approach
here in that
the principal interaction UI concept becomes the node itself. Users open up
the node UI to
52
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
view information required to perform the process and capture information to
update the state
model.
Node UIs essentially present the input and output attributes of the node in
question
and the surrounding nodes i.e. the node cluster. Attributes identified as
input are read-only
while output attributes are read-write. Attribute values are grouped where
necessary and are
dictated by the process model as described above.
The number of attribute values in existence dictates the format of the
presentation and
the availability of supporting navigation tools (such as sort, filter and
search) ¨ if there is a lot
of data the UI will thus dynamically adapt to suit. Attributes may be
highlighted as key
attributes for the node which in turn may affect how they are presented in the
node view.
For nodes with large numbers of output attributes, the system may resort to a
two-step
UI model based upon an initial key attribute list and an attribute set editor,
but in both cases
the UIs must be dynamically generated. An example of this would be a purchase
order where
the first UI step would present a summary of the relevant key attributes
(date, supplier name,
order identification, recipient) and the second step would be a more complex
UI that would
cater for the full Purchase Order header and all the line items.
As well as determining which attributes are relevant, cause-and-effect
relationships
between nodes also have an impact on how those attributes are presented. For
example, visual
emphasis may be applied to attributes which are affected by cause-and-effect
relationships
which are directly related to the node in question or a node cluster view
which provides a
single UI that captures multiple cause-and-effect relationships. The platform
formulates a UI
approach that suits the decision or decisions or transactions to be made.
Attributes can also be determined as relevant if they are deemed necessary to
bring
context to attributes that are deemed relevant by the node structure. For
example, if machinery
component name is identified as an input attribute, the system may also deem
vessel name to
be relevant. These key attributes can be used to delimit the view into a data
structure suitable
for grid display. In this example, the name of the ship will accompany the
machinery
53
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
component as the sister node to the identification node in a transaction
titled "data population
master setup".
Data Management Tier
The data management tier translates the state model within the business model
into an
implementation framework provided by an off-the-shelf database management
system. The
need for scalability and the absence of a need for a formal relational
database structure, since
the underlying schema will by necessity be a meta-model to support on-the-fly
extensibility,
means that it is likely that data will be persisted as key-value pairs. In
turn this naturally lends
itself to the use of NoSQL database systems, such as CASSANDRA (The Apache
Software
Foundation, Los Angeles, CA). This approach reduces the likelihood of the
underlying data
management schema becoming a hindrance to system performance.
There are many other types of computational logic that go into information
systems
beyond simply presenting data and capturing inputs. We will now start to
briefly consider
how some further types of computations can be covered:
Attribute Creation and Deletion
As discussed in the state model, actions that lead to the creation of a new
attribute will
trigger the execution of constructor functions that may create and populate
the attributes and
other related attributes. Attribute deletion needs to be supported by a
special hard-coded
action type that takes an attribute as a parameter from the node UI. It should
also be possible
to define destructor functions that contain logic that check the validity of
the deletion.
Event Handling
As well as constructor and destructor events, it should be possible to define
action
code for system and custom events. For example, when a node view is opened,
viewed edited
and so on. Custom events related to action code initiate when a change in
state occurs. This
can be seen as similar to a database trigger but is represented in the node
structure as a
54
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
reusable abstracted process albeit at a very detailed level associated with
transaction type
processes.
Access Control and Security
Access control is inherently provided as part of the role-node-user-context
structure.
There should be no need to overlay this structure with an additional access
control layer.
Computed Attributes Computer Readable Cause and Effect
This is a central concept to providing computational support to users. Fields
that are
computed are defined as the product of a script, which may include but are not
limited to
programmatic constructs such as mathematical operators, logical operators,
condition/selection, loops etc. Computed fields are typically updated as a
result of the actions
that trigger the transition from causal nodes to effected nodes.
Systems Integration
The node structure concept at the heart of the overlay model provides a useful
framework with regard to the issue of the integration of disparate information
systems ¨ both
from process (or user) integration standpoint and from a simpler data
integration standpoint.
We can look at each of these in turn.
Process integration can be seen as the transitioning of information between
processes
that are not emulated by the same system but where effective execution of the
process
demands that they should be integrated. The problems associated with this type
of integration
become most acute when both systems to be integrated exhibit conflicting
representations of
the same underlying entity ¨ in other words, both systems provide an
implementation for the
same business object, neither of which is a suitable representation for all of
the scenarios in
which the attributes of those objects are relevant. Breaking business objects
down into their
underlying attributes and assigning them to a nodes and applying the logic to
the relationships
between nodes will allow the matching of attribute because the attributes will
be assigned to
nodes which depict the same business logic in both the systems eligible for
integration.
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
A methodology for process integration might look something akin to the
following
which is also the method by which conventional code using business objects can
be converted
to code hosted within the overlay node model structure:
Map the state model to the state models of the two systems to be integrated.
Abstract the problems and solutions offered by each application to be
integrated.
Create a cluster of abstracted nodes overlaying the processes to be
integrated.
Connect the abstracted nodes to the attributes in each application to be
integrated.
If done right, the two sets of attributes (i.e. the abstracted set and the set
from
the applications) will be the same. In other words, create predictive patterns
for each
node in each domain and locate the data in the tables mentioned above and
connect to
the abstracted nodes.
Eventually, the data in these predictive patterns will be equivalent despite
the
table relationships and groupings being different in each of the two
applications that
are being integrated. Any goal based relationships as implemented by the
applications
are thus replaced by the node structure.
The predictive patterns extract the exactly matching data from each data base
because the nodes describe the exact same data and provide the relationships
which in
the respective databases are different.
With regard to the simpler task of data integration, we can start to see
external systems
as actors that 'perform' nodes. As a result of this we can define the data
transformations
required to pass data out and accept data in (and process it) as part of the
node structure. In
other words, we can see external systems that want the data in a certain way
in exactly the
same way as people do. Of course systems tend to have a lower degree of
tolerance when it
comes to their ability to accept input that does not follow precise rules but
there is no reason
56
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
why this cannot be catered for. It will be however be required to build some
platform
elements to support different service types, platforms and so on allow for
security
considerations but this could be made entirely generic.
The foregoing may be illustrated with reference to Fig. 15. In an emergency
situation
requiring evacuation and lockdown of a school, the common goal 1500, is 100%
of the
students evacuated and 100% of the doors closed. As such, two processes to be
integrated are
door status and number of students in the school. Two state models to be
mapped are "door
status" (open or closed) and "number of students present" (count students
passing through an
open door, +1 for entering and -1 for exiting). The problem and solutions can
then be
abstracted to monitor door status and count how many students pass through a
door when
open.
Node A 1502, node B 1504, node C 1506 and node D 1508 then represent a cluster
of
nodes overlaying the processes to be integrated. The abstracted nodes 1502 ¨
1508 are then
connected to the attribute of door status and to the attribute of attendance.
Each node has a
cause and effect relationship with an intermediate goal. For example,
intermediate goal E
1510 is a count of how many doors are closed and intermediate goal F 1512 are
the number of
students at a muster point. These goals then converge on the common goal
determining the
percentage of students at the muster point and the percentage of doors closed.
When both are
equal to 100%, the common goal 1500 is achieved.
When an attribute is identified as part of the process model, the state model
is
automatically extended to facilitate the storage of values for that attribute.
In other words,
when an attribute is newly defined as part of the process model that is
represented by the
predictive pattern of a node, the state model is automatically extended to
facilitate the storage
of values for that attribute without any programmatic extension of aid state
model. In the Fig.
15 example, another attribute could be turn off the lights and the state model
may be extended
to include the status of the lights ("on" or "off').
Resource Allocation and Scheduling. These are two examples of common
programmatic challenges likely to be faced when attempting to build systems on
the platform.
57
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
It is envisaged that a set of services could be built that provide
computational support based
on established best practices. In other words, the platform could provide
generic resource
allocation and scheduling engines that could be used in a variety of
situations.
Advanced Data Visualisation. The platform could provide a set of services that
could take a data set and render it into a chart, graph or other
visualisation. Data output and
associated renderings follow the output of nodes. Data input inserted within
the above
mentioned advanced data renderings, in other words interactivity on top of
this visualisation,
is again achieved by basing all renderings on the interrelated node structure.
The node
structure anticipated the need for user interaction. So any rendering is a
manifestation of
either conventional output rendering resulting from the system's processing of
information, or
input dialogue to accommodate user reactions to the output of the renderings.
Emergency Response. Sometimes situations occur so that the priority of goals
of the
stakeholders and thus the input and output of the relevance connections
between nodes change
suddenly. If an emergency occurs, for example, a fire breaks out on the
factory floor, then the
goal hierarchy changes and a new emergency overlay node network applies.
Relationships
between processes to be followed and the individual stake holdings all change,
as does the
highest level goal to minimizing damage and enabling personnel to evacuate
safely as
compared to pre-emergency which emphasises normal enterprise goals. As one
example, the
function of an administrative assistant may change from data entry to
preservation of the data
contained in the company's database. As a second example, the function of a
maintenance
worker may change from maintaining equipment in good operating condition to
removing
electrical power from equipment. As a third example, the function of a sales
person may
change from contacting potential clients by telephone to notifying authorities
of the
emergency and then supervising the safe evacuation of the facility.
It is also recognized that during the course of an emergency, functions of
physical
objects and environments may change. For example, an evacuation route may be
blocked and
an alternative route determined or identified first responders are busy on
another call and an
alternative team must be identified and contacted.
58
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Emergency response requires non-enterprise participants who are first time
users to
enter information regarding the status for their viewpoint of an emergency
underway. This is
also required of the occasional user who will be working as enterprise
personnel responding
to the emergency.
Emergencies require co-ordinated management. With reference to Figure 17,
prior art
centrally co-ordinated emergency management has utilised non-enterprise
participant
information but has handled it via humans taking incoming calls. A member of
the
organization 1230, who is preferably a safety expert, but may not be due to
the scope and time
of the emergency, communicates with one or more non-enterprise participants,
such as a fire
department 1232, police department 1234, medical staff 1236 and environmental
protection
agency 1238. The member 1230 is then charged with distributing this
information to other
members 1240a ¨ 1240e of the organization.
The prior art model has many shortfalls. Most enterprises in an emergency do
not
have the luxury to have a stand-by call center to take calls or experienced
level people on
stand-by able to interpret the information and distribute it to enterprise
users who utilise it to
take action and decisions. The member 1230 is receiving a lot of information
from a plurality
of non-enterprise participants 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238, who may not be
communication with
each other and who may give contradictory advice. The member is charged with
disseminating the proper information to multiple members of the enterprise
1240a ¨ 1240e,
each of which may may have different concerns during the emergency and each of
which may
have changes in circumstances as a function of time. In addition, members of
the enterprise
1240d, 1240e, may be communicating 1242 with each other resulting in a loss of
attention to
instructions from member 1230. Still further, the member 1230, may need to
terminate
communication, due to the emergency or due to loss of power to a cell phone.
It is apparent
that the prior art system is not suitable for a severe emergency in a large
enterprise and a
system is needed to take information and interpret it and redistribute it to
decision makers and
participants needing that information.
Referring to Figure 18, the advent of handheld telephones with the ability for
bystanders or non-enterprise personnel 1232, 1234, 1236, 1238 as well as
enterprise
59
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
respondents 1204a, 1204b, 1204c, 1204d, 1204e to use handheld devices to
access the internet
1216 via local telecom networks or local wireless networks 1222 enables first
time users or
occasional users to participate in emergency response. They can enter
information from an
anticipated set of choices so that a computer processor can decide how to
automatically
distribute the information to interested parties. Emergencies are usually
situations requiring a
narrow set of remedial action so a vast set of choices is not necessary at any
one time.
Each non enterprise or enterprise participant in an emergency has a narrow set
of
experiences and actions which need to be communicated to others. Therefore
uninitiated
users have few choices of action through the systems so there is an easy
selection of system
actions. A handheld device combined with an inexperienced user cannot be
efficient if it
offers the user a large choice of information or responses. To offer a narrow
set of choices the
system must have some degree of situational awareness.
To design a system with limited choices there is a need to emulate the exact
situation
at hand. For example common emergency actions are evacuation, lockdown, with
various
.. hazards associated with these such as fire, storm, intruders, and various
types of physical
surroundings. For every enterprise more than one of these is covered in most
emergency
response plans.
To build emergency response applications for handhelds the following features
are
required:
A central application control facility.
The central control must designate the type of emergency.
The enterprise users must be given an appropriate interface for the emergency
at hand. Since enterprise users perform different activities in any one
emergency they
must have access to a different set of application interfaces for each
specialisation in
each emergency. When an emergency escalates or branches off or otherwise
changes,
they must be given yet more different but focussed application interfaces. As
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
enterprise users get substituted due to absence or incapacitation or situation
change,
other enterprise users must inherit their tasks and the appropriate user
interface.
Non-enterprise users must also be given an appropriate user interface in
accordance with their situation and usually their location.
When non-enterprise users or enterprise users must resort to responding with
text messages these must be centrally parsed and distributed to the right
stakeholders
for decision or action. The system will need to be able to assign SMS messages
to
emergency stress points.
To achieve the above, the application will need to anticipate all actions and
decisions
of participants in an emergency scenario, their combinations and their
variants. Preferably a
system suitable for emergency response can be configured appropriately
regardless of the type
or nature of the emergency, the type of information, or the type of decision
made from the
information.
There is a need for user profiling of the user interface so that each user
gets the
appropriate user interface throughout the emergency.
The situation variances that change user interfaces must allow changes to be
made
during the emergency as soon as the situation branches off or the users
change. The situation
changes may be automated or instigated by designated users.
With reference to Figure 19, a portion of facility 1202 is illustrated. Node
1206 is a
stress point for an emergency and is linked to nodes identifying different
types of emergencies
such as fire 1252, flood 1254 and intruder 1256. These different types of
emergencies have
nodes in common such as location of problem 1258, number of persons who have
reached a
safe location 1260, number of persons unaccounted for 1262, emergency
equipment on site
1264 and location of exits 1266. Some nodes may have sub-nodes, for example
number of
.. persons who have reached a safe location 1260 may have a sub-node of
medical condition of
each person, node 1268, and a corresponding sub-attribute in the state model
corresponding to
medical condition of each person.
61
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
=
The display screen 1208 of non-enterprise personnel, such as fire department
1230 and
medical 1236 display different information of use to that personnel. For
example, the fire
department may view the type of emergency (fire 1252) and attributes such as
location 1258
and number of persons not accounted for 1262. Other information is not
displayed so as to
.. enable the information relevant for the fire department to be large enough
to be usefully
visible on a small screen. The display may be scrolled, so that other
information, for
example, location or exits 1266, is centered in the display 1208. A limited
number of user
input nodes 1270, such as "is specialized equipment required"? is also
displayed. With
reference to figures 18 and 19. If the answer to the user input query is
"yes," the notation that
the fire is chemical in nature may be sent to the system which may then access
a database
inside the enterprise to determine what chemical are burning and a remote
database 1214 for
instructions how to extinguish the fire and promptly relay that information
back to the fire
personnel 1232.
Medical personnel 1236 may also see that the emergency is a fire 1252, but
location
1258 may be less relevant than number of persons in a safe location 1260 and
medical
condition of those persons 1268. Medical personnel may also scroll to other
nodes and
attributes, for example, knowing number of persons unaccounted for 1262 may
aid in
answering a query 1270' of whether additional medical equipment may be needed
on site.
Emergencies introduce user preoccupation and possibly limited dexterity.
Size of screen is very small, alphanumeric physical and touch screen keyboards
are
very small.
In emergencies there is a need for systems to communicate with users and users
to
communicate with a system and each other to accomplish situation specific
needs to transmit
information and receive information. The information to be received or to be
transmitted is
situation specific and/or specific to user perceived needs.
Situation specific nodes are related to user perceived needs in an emergency.
The
relationship is through cause and effect, and sequential processes. Cause and
effect
concentrates related nodes. Situation instantiation by other stakeholders or
by sensors allows
62
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
attention of users to be directed to new alerts in the unfolding situation.
Sequential nodes
enable transactions in other words user input to follow sequences when
necessary. Non-
transactional sequences may also be necessary, such as reporting of sequential
status
indications. For example counting students or, for another example, a
supervisor following a
sequence of approval to declare a situation escalated or de-escalated.
So the system must show A) new situation instantiated nodes relevant to the
user via
cause and effect and B) recent user chosen nodes and their related sequential
nodes and also
their related nodes by cause and effect, C) the nodes depicting the greatest
risk and severity to
the stakeholder.
In a restricted screen with each role associated with a fairly large number of
nodes. It
may not be possible to show all the nodes in one screen without rendering the
nodes too small
to see clearly and navigate especially in an emergency. Therefore the choice
of three focal
points A) with the latest situation related current node and B) the node the
user is currently
working on or may want to return to C) the nodes depicting the greatest risk
and severity to
the stakeholder.
The user can navigate further afield to other nodes in accordance with the
users
perceived need.
To take an aircraft control panel parallel, the control panel will show the
latest
potential emergency risk to the role/user and all the nodes that are related
by cause and effect
to latest potential emergency risk node, last node of attention of the
user/role, the node of
highest risk and severity to the stakeholder.
A similar paradigm to the handheld is a conversation during an emergency with
difficult acoustics. The listener will not engage in a conversation during the
panic of an
emergency unless the conversation is related to a current emergency or a new
conversation
about a new risk regarding the emergency or the most severe aspect of the
emergency and its
relevance to the specific participants.
63
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
Such a system in order to be flexible requires the use of elements described
above:
Enterprise stress-points;
Relationship between enterprise stress points;
Stakeholders of enterprise stress-points;
Input from users;
Scanning of enterprise systems to find information relevant to nodes;
Language parsing of enterprise systems to find information relevant to nodes;
and
Contexts that allow filtering of user choices for the context of their
predicament in the emergency.
Without the relationship between enterprise stress-points the system will need
to have
pre-designated role task relationships and pre-designated task trees. To
change to a branch of
the current scenario the central control will need to provide a variant task
tree to each profiled
user.
Alternatively object orientation is the remaining option with the associated
navigational challenges.
Without relationships between tasks there will be many task trees/user
interfaces
profiled for the user. Adding and subtracting tasks may be the only way to
have less of them.
But if there are no relationships between them, tasks may be difficult to
select and apply to
.. user interfaces during the emergency.
With the Overlay relationships between process stress points, the number of
user
interfaces is reduced to one large continuous one with the ability to focus on
any instantiated
stress point. So users see the nodes around the instantiated stress points and
filtered by
context applying to them. In other words the system reduces each user's
exposure to the
64
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
interface according to the status and context and user stakeholder profiling.
Status
instantiation can be selected by designated users, or automatically by the
system.
To take information for the field and distribute it to the right users for
action and
decisions, the system must anticipate the information and have a pre-planned
way of
presenting it to the user. This is possible using prior art software and
hardware applications.
The design obstacle is getting the right user interface to each user and
circumstance. In
the following paragraphs are described some alternatives in the prior art.
Physical Object Orientation for Input. Physical object orientation is for
example
navigating the system by initially choosing from a choice of physical location
or choice of
people needing to be evacuated. Physical Object orientation in User Interface
navigational is
possible when there are very few choices of physical object and the physical
object is a key
indicator of relevant information. But complex navigation will still be
required if there are
many objects to choose from by each user. For example if in a school
evacuation there are
five buildings and various locations within them. Evacuation information on
the basis of
buildings as an object orientation is possible because evacuation is location
and thus object
related. And there are other objects relevant to an emergency such as students
in a school. But
there are many different students per class dependent on the time of the day.
Navigating the
system to find information on a student basis or a building basis, will be
hard because much
of the information such as injury types and situation related such as weather
or respiratory
problems are not easily related to these two physical objects.
Business Object Orientation for Viewing Relevant Objects. Business object
navigation orientation would be via for example safety instructing documents.
Displaying a
depiction of a business object such as a relevant instruction document to the
user is a problem
because there will be too many choices per user because of the many process
stages.
Instructions in case of panic, in case of injury, personnel medical records,
alternative exit
routes based on location, etc. So business object orientation is difficult.
Instantiation of
current process plus some object filtering is needed to bring the right object
to the attention of
the user. This requires relating processes to objects. Doing this without a
model is very
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
intensive in software development and maintenance as well as inconsistent.
Each object must
have code written for it so that it appears at the right time for the right
user. Furthermore
emergency response application periodic enhancements will require new software
releases
while they will also increase the complexity of the system and its navigation.
Substituting Users Assigned Set of Nodes and Contexts. It is likely that
during an
emergency the available personnel may not be according to the system default
expectation as
in the case of users of a normal enterprise software system. So changes to
user's access both
at the start and during the emergency may be needed. Doing this on the fly as
the situation
unfolds is only possible with the herein disclosed Overlay model or many
programmatically
.. pre-designed interfaces. Programmatically predefined interfaces must be
assigned for the right
use and situation on the fly, since there will be many with some being
extensions. This will
be quite intensive work during the emergency as well as the vast resources
needed at the
design and implementation stage of a tasks oriented model for the emergency
response
application. And without programmatically predesigned interfaces for the
situation at hand
plus instantiation according to developments in the emergency, navigation to
the right object
will be very unfriendly to handheld devices.
SMS Messages Used to Co-ordinate an Emergency. If SMS messages are sent from
the field then they need to be interpreted and a central system for assigning
words to nodes
will be needed. Interpreting SMS messages requires the Overlay model to assign
linguistically
appropriate predictive pattern to nodes. The alternative is to have a team of
people co-
coordinating the channeling of SMS messages form source to decision making
points of need.
It is therefore desirable for emergency response application to utilize the
Overlay
continuous user interface enabled by the model of the enterprise manifested in
nodes
connected by cause and effect, and the ability to instantiate a portion of the
user interface for
new alerts and to enable users to return to previous nodes of focus or new
areas of focus
relevant to the user/stakeholder.
66
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
While the disclosure has been described in terms of specific embodiments, it
is evident
in view of the foregoing description that numerous alternatives, modifications
and variations
will be apparent to those skilled in the art.
67
CA 3021514 2018-10-18
