US20070106520A1 - System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components - Google Patents
System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20070106520A1 US20070106520A1 US11/247,028 US24702805A US2007106520A1 US 20070106520 A1 US20070106520 A1 US 20070106520A1 US 24702805 A US24702805 A US 24702805A US 2007106520 A1 US2007106520 A1 US 2007106520A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- business
- model
- semantic
- component
- components
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 119
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 title claims description 64
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 77
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 64
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 claims description 12
- 230000000644 propagated effect Effects 0.000 claims description 4
- 208000018910 keratinopathic ichthyosis Diseases 0.000 claims 4
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 description 11
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 9
- 238000007726 management method Methods 0.000 description 8
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 8
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 6
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 5
- 230000000295 complement effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000006872 improvement Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000000638 solvent extraction Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000002085 persistent effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000013439 planning Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000009877 rendering Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000003936 working memory Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000027455 binding Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000009739 binding Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000002372 labelling Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000001902 propagating effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000013519 translation Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012384 transportation and delivery Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012800 visualization Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012356 Product development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000470 constituent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000010276 construction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000007547 defect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000018109 developmental process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004141 dimensional analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005538 encapsulation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000006870 function Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003993 interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000002955 isolation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012544 monitoring process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003012 network analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005457 optimization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008520 organization Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005192 partition Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004451 qualitative analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008439 repair process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000033772 system development Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009897 systematic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002123 temporal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000009466 transformation Effects 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0637—Strategic management or analysis, e.g. setting a goal or target of an organisation; Planning actions based on goals; Analysis or evaluation of effectiveness of goals
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/067—Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/06—Buying, selling or leasing transactions
Definitions
- the present invention generally relates to model-driven business analysis and transformation, and more particularly to a system and method for ontological representation of the meta-models of businesses and their processes, activities, and components so as to infer previously unknown or unclear relationships of business entities.
- Business component models can be used in many ways, almost all of which require an understanding of what the business wants to achieve. Component business models do not introduce any new or special meaning for “business process”. The term is important but it is not used in any special way.
- KPIs Key Performance Indicators
- business consultants applying component business models need to determine which components are associated with, and influence, a given KPI. They also need to associate KPIs with components, when it is more natural to associate KPIs with activities. Furthermore, to identify dependency among business components (by process or by KPI), consultants need to determine how components depend on each other based on the control flow defined by processes. A systematic and automated framework for linking KPIs, activities and components would better enable a deep analysis of the relationship between components.
- Another object of the invention is to create a semantic model that associates KPIs with activities, and activities with components.
- a further object of the invention is to automatically infer the dependencies between components.
- the invention uses the Component Business Model (CBM) described in related patent application Ser. No. 11/176,371 for “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALIGNMENT OF AN ENTERPRISE TO A COMPONENT BUSINESS MODEL” (hereafter termed “the above referenced foundation patent application”).
- CBM provides a logical and comprehensive view of the enterprise, in terms that cut across commercial enterprises in general and industries in particular.
- the component business model as described in the above referenced foundation patent application is based upon a logical partitioning of business activities into non-overlapping managing concepts, each managing concept being active at the three levels of management accountability: providing direction to the business, controlling how the business operates, and executing the operations of the business.
- managing concept is specially defined as described in the above referenced foundation patent application, and is not literally a “managing concept” as that phrase would be understood in the art.
- “managing concept” is the term associated with the following aspects of the partitioning methodology.
- the methodology is a partitioning methodology. The idea is to begin with a whole and partition the whole into necessarily non-overlapping parts.
- the managing concept must include mechanisms for doing something commercially useful with the asset. For a sensibly defined managing concept these mechanisms must cover the full range of management accountability levels (i.e. direct, control and execute).
- Managing concepts are further partitioned into components, which are cohesive groups of activities. The boundaries of a component usually fall within a single management accountability level. It is important to emphasize that the boundaries between managing concepts (and between components within managing concepts) are logical rather than physical.
- CBM Component Business Modeling
- CBM is a technique for modeling an enterprise as non-overlapping components in order to identify opportunities for innovation and improvement.
- the modeling is of the business itself, not of applications or technology.
- CBM is an analytical tool; some call it a lens through which they can examine and analyze a business.
- CBM is complementary to process modeling techniques.
- a business process can be interpreted in CBM as collaboration among a network of business components.
- a business component is a closely related group of sub-processes.
- CBM models a business as a set of business components.
- a business component is a part of an enterprise that has the potential to operate independently, in the extreme case as a separate company, or as part of another company.
- a business component is a logical view of part of an enterprise that includes the resources, people, technology and know-how necessary to deliver some value.
- a business offers goods or services in exchange for money or for other goods or services. So must a business component if it is to operate independently. In turn, a business component uses goods and services provided by other components and external suppliers.
- the single term “business service” is used to mean some goods or service that a business component offers to other business components and/or to external parties.
- the key characteristic of a business component is that a user of its services doesn't have to be aware of how the component works. A user therefore doesn't need to know what people, processes and technology are being used, nor what other supplier services are contributing to the result. The user of a service only knows about the service itself, along with whatever associated properties are relevant, for example: the price, agreed service levels, terms and conditions. If a business component improves its technology, reengineers its internal processes or subcontracts some internal operations, its users need not know.
- Business components are only potentially independent. They may be identified as “target” components, even when they are still entangled with the rest of the business and when the services they offer are not fully defined, as described more fully in the above referenced foundation patent application.
- a business component can also be characterized by associating it with a set of business activities. A business activity is simply something the enterprise does, specified at a level that the enterprise considers to be appropriate.
- This definition of a business component is consistent with the standard usage of system component and software component, and in particular with the use of component in the ADS (Architecture Description Standard) and in the Component Model work product description in IBM Global Services Method. Each is characterized by encapsulation: the user of a component's services does not (need to) know about the inside of the component. The obvious difference is that a software component offers software services, whereas a business component offers business services.
- NFR non-functional requirement
- Heat map analysis creates multidimensional views (strategic, financial, and transformational views) of components to identify strategic components that carry high costs or have high potential for business improvement.
- the practice of creating heat maps using manual labeling of values results in inconsistent and incomplete maps, and lack of scalability.
- a manual methodology limits heat maps to a relatively flat analysis, because it is difficult to go deeper or broader (drill-down, roll-up).
- Manually developed heat maps are limited to only a small set of KPIs (e.g., cost, revenue).
- the present invention creates a semantic model of components and views, such that heat maps can be automatically generated by using simple semantic queries. It derives values of a component from the values of entities associated with the component, and so enables root-cause and impact analysis. It extends the analysis to a larger set of KPIs.
- this invention captures the relationships among these maps. It provides a controlled vocabulary for common understanding of terms. It provides better, consistent definition of terms. It provides automatic translation of terms. It propagates (interactively) the modifications to these maps.
- semantic query will not replace visual CBM; it will complement visual examination.
- the present invention provides a system and method for business analysis using reasoning on semantic models.
- the present invention provides a system and method for business components and their dependency visualization.
- the present invention provides a system and method for semantic model as the meta-model of is business components.
- the present invention provides a system and method for creation of business models by using existing patterns and templates.
- the present invention provides a system and method for creation of business models by using a simple mouse operation.
- the present invention provides a system and method for multiple layers of business component models for the universal enterprise map, industry maps, and maps for particular enterprises within an industry.
- the present invention provides a system and method for saving and reusing business maps.
- the present invention provides a system and method for propagation of changes in a map across maps in multiple layers.
- the present invention provides a system and method for the notion of an ontology providing a controlled vocabulary for specific domains such as industry sectors.
- the present invention provides a system and method for business performance analysis: automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis of business components based on business metrics.
- the present invention provides a system and method for automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis (impact analysis) of business components based on business processes.
- the present invention provides a system and method for automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis of business components based on messages sent and received among them.
- the present invention provides a system and method for automatic generation of heatmap analysis of business components: multi-dimensional analysis using various attributes of business components.
- the present invention provides a system and method for automatic generations of shortfall assessments.
- the present invention provides a system and method for business reasoning system allowing both canned queries and ad hoc queries.
- the present invention provides a system and method for dependency analysis based on temporal relationships of business metrics.
- the present invention provides a system and method for benchmark analysis using an industry standard frameworks and taxonomies.
- the present invention provides a system and method for identification of redundant and/or overlapping business components.
- the present invention provides a system and method for value network analysis using semantic models.
- the method of the invention analyzes dependencies of components in a component model of a business.
- the method begins by generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business.
- a component business model of the business is presented to the user, and then an analytical query of the component business model is received from the user.
- the query is then executed through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, and dependencies among components of the component business model are inferred from this execution.
- the response and the inferred dependencies are then returned to the user.
- the semantic business model is a meta-model of business components created by capturing semantics of business information and representing the semantics in a semantic markup language.
- the semantic markup language can be the Resource Description Framework (RDF) or the Web Ontology Language (OWL), among others.
- RDF Resource Description Framework
- OWL Web Ontology Language
- the semantic business model can be generated by reusing an existing business semantic model, the reuse being accomplished using a computer pointing device operation.
- the computer pointing device operation makes available to the generated business model business information associated with one or more of business processes, business activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs.
- the semantic business model includes business model layers for the particular enterprise or business, the industry within which the particular enterprise exists, and the overall enterprise model which serves as a source of, and a repository for, maps for industries and particular enterprises. Updates to the component business model are propagated across these layers.
- the dependencies can be inferred in a number of ways. They can be inferred by using KPI associations represented in the semantic business model. They can also be inferred by using business process associations represented in the semantic business model. Or they can be inferred based on messages sent and received among components as represented in the semantic business model.
- FIG. 1 is schematic showing a system architecture for the invention.
- FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing operation of the invention.
- FIG. 3 is a diagram of a business meta-model supporting the invention.
- FIG. 4 is a diagram of a semantic business model supporting the invention.
- FIG. 5 is a diagram of a component business model view displayed on a business analysis workbench.
- FIG. 6 is a conceptual diagram of a semantic engine.
- FIG. 7 is a conceptual diagram of a semantic business model for performance analysis.
- FIG. 8 is a diagram of a performance analysis result view on a business analysis workbench overlaid on a component business model view.
- the system comprises semantic business models 400 which are an ontological representation of businesses and their processes, activities, and components in one or more semantic web markup languages.
- the semantic business models 400 enable reasoning and analyzing of instances of enterprise business models to infer relationships of business entities (e.g. key performance indicators and business components) which are previously unknown or not clear from the original business description 110 .
- the system also comprises a business model generator 120 which generates the ontological representation of the semantic business models 400 by interpreting descriptions of business 110 from various sources in various forms based on the formalism described in the business meta-model 300 representing structure and semantics of business information comprising one or more business entities including, but not limited to, business components, processes, activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators).
- a business model generator 120 which generates the ontological representation of the semantic business models 400 by interpreting descriptions of business 110 from various sources in various forms based on the formalism described in the business meta-model 300 representing structure and semantics of business information comprising one or more business entities including, but not limited to, business components, processes, activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators).
- the business model generator 120 stores the model to the business model repository 130 .
- the business model repository 130 is a database of semantic business models 400 . It categorizes the models and stores them in a persistent storage medium for use by the semantic engine 600 and business analysis workbench 150 .
- the semantic engine 600 processes one or more semantic business models 400 retrieved from the business model repository 130 for rendering in the business analysis workbench 150 , and also answers queries for inferring dependencies among one or more represented in one or more semantic business models.
- the business analysis workbench 150 uses respective component business model (CBM) views to render one or more semantic business model 400 views on one or more computer screens. It also accepts one or more analysis queries from one or more users (i.e. business analysts 140 ), and also renders one or more query results in one or more business model visualizations to one or more users 140 .
- CBM component business model
- the process of the system of the present invention consists of two parts: the build-time process where one or more semantic business models 400 are created by using the business model generator 120 , and the run-time process where one or more business analysts 140 use the created semantic business models 400 for business analysis through a business analysis workbench 150 .
- the build-time process starts 205 with the generation 210 of a semantic business model 400 by the business model generator 120 .
- the business model generator 120 receives business description input 110 and interprets the information by using the business meta-model 300 which formally describes structure and semantics of business information comprising one or more business entities including, but not limited to, business components, processes, activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators).
- the business model generator 120 creates one or more semantic business model 400 .
- the business model generator 120 stores 215 the generated semantic business model 400 in the business model repository 130 .
- the business model repository 130 categorizes 220 the semantic business model 400 , storing it with other semantic business models 400 in a persistent storage medium.
- the run-time process starts at block 225 when one or more business analysts 140 open up the business analysis workbench 150 for an analysis of the business of one or more enterprises.
- the business analyst 140 opens one or more target business meta-model views 500 for analysis.
- the semantic engine 600 retrieves one or more semantic business models 400 form the business model repository 130 .
- the semantic engine 600 filters and processes the loaded semantic business models 400 for the visual rendering of the model 500 in the business analysis workbench 150 .
- the semantic engine 600 sends out the processed business model to the workbench 150 .
- the business analysis workbench 150 renders the business model view 500 , which is also known as the component business model (CBM) view 500 .
- CBM component business model
- the business analyst 140 is able to submit analysis queries to the CBM views 500 on the business analysis workbench 150 .
- the query is passed 255 to the semantic engine 600 .
- the semantic engine 600 with its inference/query processing capability finds 260 one or more answers to the query about the target semantic business model 500 rendered on the workbench 150 .
- the answers are passed back 265 to the workbench 150 from the semantic engine 600 .
- the workbench 150 renders the query result on top of the target CBM view 500 , thereby updating 270 the CBM view 500 .
- This cycle from block 250 to block 270 is then repeated so long as the business analyst 140 continues to submit analysis queries to the CBM views 500 on the business analysis workbench 150 .
- the present invention provides a number of dependency analyses on semantic business models 400 including performance analysis, processed-based analysis, heat map analysis, shortfall assessment analysis, and enforcing consistency among universal business models, industry-specific business models, and enterprise-specific business models.
- the business analyst 140 can iteratively conduct one or more of these analyses on one or more of business models 500 using the system of the present invention.
- the system When the business analyst 140 completes his/her analysis on business models 500 , the system generates 275 one or more reports on the analysis results.
- FIG. 3 is a formal description of concepts (or classes) in a domain of discourse, i.e., business analysis, properties of each class describing its attributes, and relations with other classes. Furthermore, the meta-model shown in FIG. 3 can also describe logical properties of relations such as transitive, symmetric, and inverse, as well describing constraints on properties such as cardinality.
- the business meta-model 300 shows classes such as KPI 330 , business components 320 , business activities 310 , business services 340 , resource 350 , service specification 360 , and agreement 370 , and the relations among them.
- This meta-model 300 can be represented in one or more semantic markup languages such as OWL (Web Ontology Language) and RDF (Resource Description Framework) whose specification is provided by the WWW (World Wide Web) Consortium.
- OWL Web Ontology Language
- RDF Resource Description Framework
- the ontological representation of the meta-model allows rich expression of meaning of concepts and their relations in the domain, and query with automated reasoning.
- the business activity class 310 has relationships with five classes in the meta-model 300 . It has the owned activity relation 311 with the business component class 320 , the using activity relation 312 with the resource class 350 , the requiring activity relation 313 with the service specification class 360 , and the hasMetric relation 315 with the KPI class 330 .
- the business component class 320 also has a number of relationships with other classes in the meta-model 300 . It has the sub-component and super-component relations 321 to itself. It has the hasMetric 322 relation with the KPI class 330 , the owning component relation 323 with the business activity class 310 , also the owning component relation 324 with the resource class 350 , and the providingComponent relation 325 with the service class 340 .
- the KPI (Key Performance Indicator) class 330 also has a number of relations with classes in the business meta-model 300 . It has the dependentOn relations 331 to itself. It also has the hasMetric relation 322 with the business component class 320 , the hasMetric relation 315 with the activity class 310 , the hasMetric relation 353 with the resource class 350 , and the hasMetric relation 341 with the service class 340 .
- the service class 340 also has a number of relations with classes defined in the business meta-model 300 . It has the hasMetric relation 341 with the KPI class 330 , the providingService relation 342 with the business component class 320 , and the implementation relation 343 with the service specification class 360 .
- the resource class 350 has a number of relations with the classes defined in the business meta-model 300 . It has the ownedResource relation 351 with the business component class 320 , the usedResource relation 352 with the business activity class 310 , and the hasMetric relation 353 with the KPI class 330 .
- the service specification class 360 has a number of relations with the classes defined in the business meta-model 300 . It has the requiredSpecification relation 361 with the business activity class 310 , the specification relation 362 with the service class 340 , and the restrictService relation 363 with the agreement class 370 .
- the restrictService relation 363 is the only relation which the agreement class 370 has.
- a semantic business model 400 as shown in FIG. 4 is an instance of the business meta-model 300 .
- the semantic business model 400 has a number of instances of the classes defined in the business meta-model 300 .
- the relations among the instances are ones defined in the business meta-model 300 , which are inherited by the semantic business model 400 .
- This FIG. 4 shows a version 300 ′ of the business meta-model 300 described in the previous FIG. 3 .
- the meta-model 300 ′ has a number of classes including Accountability Level 410 , Business Competency 420 , Business Component 320 , Business Process 430 , Business Activity 310 , and KPI 330 .
- the meta-model defines a number of relations among these classes, including the accountabilityLevel relation 415 between the Accountability Level class 410 and the Business Component class 320 , the businessCompetency relation 416 between the Business Competency Class 420 and the Business Component 320 , the businessProcess relation 417 between the Business Component class 320 and the Business Process class 430 , the activity relation 418 between the Business Process class 430 and the Business Activity class 310 , and, finally, the metric relation 419 between the Business Activity class 310 and the KPI class 330 .
- FIG. 4 displays a semantic business model 400 showing some example instances of the classes in the meta-model 300 .
- the model 400 shows one instance, Executive Level 411 , of the Accountability Level class 410 . It shows two instances, Customer Relationship 421 and Supply Chain 422 , of the Business Competency class 420 . It shows three instances of the Business Component class 320 , that is, Equipment Maintenance and Management 327 , Customer Management 328 , and the Inventory Management and Tracking 329 .
- the arrows from the instance 411 of the Accountability Level class 410 reach the instances ( 327 , 328 , 329 ) of the Business Component class 320 .
- Those arrows represent the accountabilityLevel relation 415 among the instances as defined in the meta-model 300 ′.
- the arrows from the instances ( 421 , 422 ) of the Business Competency class 420 also reach the instances of the Business Component class 320 .
- Those arrows represent the businessCompetency relation 416 among the instances as defined in the meta-model 300 ′.
- the semantic business model 400 shows one instance of the Business Process class 430 , which is Manage Customer Relationship 431 .
- the model 400 also shows arrows connecting Manage Customer Relationship 431 to the four instances of the Business Activity class 310 , that is, receive and Process Repair Requests 316 , maintain an Efficient Customer Service Call Center 317 , Maintain Product Sales History 318 , and Keep Track of Warranty Life Cycles 319 . These arrows represent the activity relationship 418 between business process 430 and business activity 310 .
- the instances 327 , 328 , and 329 of the Business Components 320 are connected by arrows to the instances 316 , 317 , 318 , and 319 of the Business Activity class 310 .
- These arrows represent the hasMetric relation 315 between business activity 310 and KPI 330 , as defined in the meta-model 300 ′.
- the instance 431 of the Business Process class 430 has the activity relation to the instances 316 , 317 , 318 , and 319 of the Business Activity class 310 , as defined in the meta-model 300 ′.
- the instances 316 , 317 , 318 , and 319 of the Business Activity class 310 have the metric relation 419 to the instances Customer Satisfaction 335 , Total Warranty Costs 336 , and Customer Service Cycle Time 337 of the KPI class 330 , as defined in the meta-model 300 ′.
- Business process 430 is a group of business activities 310 undertaken by an organization in pursuit of a common goal. Typical business processes 430 include receiving orders, marketing services, selling products, delivering services, distributing products, invoicing for services, and accounting for money received. A business process usually depends upon several business functions for support, e.g. IT, personnel, accounting. A business process rarely operates in isolation, i.e., other business processes will depend on it and it will depend on other processes.
- CBM Component Business Modeling
- the modeling is of the business itself, not of applications or technology.
- CBM is an analytical tool; some call it a lens through which they can examine and analyze a business.
- CBM is complementary to process modeling techniques. A business process can be interpreted in CBM as collaboration among a network of business components. Conversely, from a process perspective, a business component is a closely related group of sub-processes.
- CBM models a business as a set of business components (e.g. 530 ).
- a business component (item 320 in FIG. 3 ) is a part of an enterprise that has the potential to operate independently. In an extreme case a business component could operate as a separate company, or as part of another company.
- a business component 320 is a logical view of part of an enterprise that includes the resources, people, technology and know-how necessary to deliver some value.
- a business offers goods or services in exchange for money or for other goods or services. So must a business component 320 if it is to operate independently. In turn, a business component 320 uses goods and services provided by other components and external suppliers.
- the single term business service 340 is used to mean some goods or service that a business component 320 offers to other business components and/or to external parties.
- An enterprise can be viewed as a network of semi-independent business components 320 each of which uses business services which the others provide. Value to an external customer is provided by networks of cooperating business components 320 .
- the key characteristic of a business component 320 is that a user of its services doesn't have to be aware of how the component works. A user therefore doesn't need to know what people, processes and technology are being used, nor what other supplier services are contributing to the result. The user of a service only knows about the service itself, along with whatever associated properties are relevant, for example: the price, agreed service levels, terms and conditions. If a business component (e.g. 530 ) improves its technology, reengineers its internal processes or subcontracts some internal operations, its users need not know.
- a business component (e.g. 530 ) can also be characterized by associating it with a set of business activities 310 .
- a business activity 310 is simply something the enterprise does, specified at a level that the enterprise considers to be appropriate.
- a business component map 500 is a tabular view of the business components 320 (e.g. 530 ) in the scope of interest.
- the columns 520 of the table represent business competencies 420 and the rows 510 represent accountability levels 410 .
- the business components 320 are rectangles within the table. Normally each component is within only one cell of the table, although a cell may have more than one component.
- a business competency 520 is a large business area with characteristic skills and capabilities, for example, product development or supply chain.
- An accountability level 510 characterizes the scope and intent of activity and decision making. The three levels used in CBM are directing, controlling and executing.
- Directing is about strategy, overall direction and policy, and may be associated with words like define policy, guidelines, assess performance, establish plans and targets, decide on strategy.
- Controlling is about monitoring, managing exceptions and tactical decision making, and may be associated with words like troubleshoot, define, maintain, rules and approach, qualify, categorize, track against plan, manage, manage exceptions, monitor.
- Executing is about doing the work, and is associated with words like operate, produce, maintain.
- Activities 310 can also be mapped into this table. Indeed this is one of the ways of identifying components 320 (e.g. 530 ): take a set of activities 310 from a process model or from a set of executive interviews; choose a set of business competencies (e.g. 520 ) to form the columns of the table; allocate each activity into a row and column; group the activities 310 in each cell of business component map 500 into business components (e.g. 530 ).
- semantic engine 600 is a management system for ontologies that provides mechanisms for loading ontologies or semantic business models 400 from files and via the Internet and for locally creating and modifying ontologies.
- the semantic engine 600 provides an API 615 that provides a programming interface for interacting with ontologies (or semantic models 400 ).
- An ontology base for ontologies is equivalent to a database for data.
- a database allows an application to externalize the storing and processing of data, via a standard interface, and relieves the program 610 from the burden of deciding how to store the data in files, how to index the data, or how to optimized queries.
- an ontology base allows an application 610 to externalize the storing and processing of ontologies, via a standard interface 615 for driver 620 , and to manipulate and query an ontology without worrying about how the ontology is stored and retrieved, how queries are processed, etc.
- a semantic model (or an ontology) is a description of things that exist, their properties and their relationships to each other. It is one way of encoding a model and has been adopted as one layer in the W3C's semantic Web. One use of an ontology is to externalize a model and make it easier to customize an application, without having to modify code.
- SnoBase programmers can write applications that understand ontologies written in standard semantic Web markup languages such as RDF, DAML+OIL and OWL. Applications can query against the created semantic models 400 and the inference engine deduces the answers and returns result sets similar to JDBC (Java Data Base Connector) result sets.
- JDBC Java Data Base Connector
- the semantic engine 600 provides an API 615 .
- the API follows the design patterns of JDBC.
- the API 615 provides a connection-based interaction between applications and ontology sources.
- the API 615 provides cursor-based result sets for representing query results.
- the API 615 allows connections to be made without reference to a particular base ontology. Such connections provide an access to default ontologies of the top-level definitions of XML-based ontology languages such as OWL, RDF, RDF Schema and XML Schema. These definitions are required in order to process the semantic business models 400 .
- the application programs 610 interact with the API 615 that provides high-level access to ontology resources and the semantic engine kernel 625 .
- the application program 610 interacts with the API 615 that provides an access to an implementation of the API via an ontology base driver 620 .
- the driver 620 consists of software classes that will provide an implementation of the API 615 , and contains of a number of components: a local ontology directory 630 , an inference engine 635 , a working memory 645 , a query optimizer 640 and a set of connectors 655 , and other infrastructure needed to support ontology management.
- the Ontology Directory 630 provides the meta-level information about ontologies that are available to the driver 620 .
- the ontology directory 630 contains the references to the top-level definitions of OWL, RDF, RDF Schema, XML Schema, and similar definitions for the set of XML-based ontology languages supported.
- the ontology directory 630 provides metadata such as deployment information and additional sources of ontology information.
- the directory 630 will need to store the Universal Resource Identifier or URI, which is an Internet protocol element consisting of a short string of characters that conform to a certain syntax. The string comprises a name or address that can be used to refer to a resource.
- URI Universal Resource Identifier
- URI is an Internet protocol element consisting of a short string of characters that conform to a certain syntax. The string comprises a name or address that can be used to refer to a resource.
- a “URL” is a URI scheme beginning with “http:”.
- a URI may store information
- the Inference Engine 635 provides a mechanism for interpreting the semantics of an ontology language, represented as a set of language specific rules.
- the rules are used to answer queries, when the requested fact is not immediately available, but must be inferred from available facts. For example, if the application requests the childrenOf an individual, but the working memory 645 only contains parentOf relations, the inference engine can use the inverse property statements about childrenOf and parentOf to identify the correct response.
- the driver 620 will query the ontology source for appropriate information as it is needed.
- the task of the query optimizer 640 is not only to optimize the retrieval of information from ontology sources, but also coordinate queries that span multiple sources.
- the Ontology Source Connectors 655 provides a mechanism for reading, querying, and writing ontology information to persistent storage.
- the simplest connector is the file connector used to store information to the local file system.
- the connectors are used to implement caching of remote information to cache the definitions of the top-level ontology definitions OWL, RDF, RDF Schema, and XML Schema to allow the system to work if the W3C Web site were inaccessible.
- OWL-QL OWL Query Language
- OWL-QL is a language and protocol supporting agent-to-agent query-answering dialogues using knowledge represented in OWL. It precisely specifies the semantic relations among a query, a query answer, and the ontology base(s) used to produce the answer. It also supports query-answering dialogues in which the answering agent may use automated reasoning methods to derive answers to queries.
- An OWL-QL query contains a query pattern that is a collection of OWL sentences in which some literals and/or URIs have been replaced by variables.
- a query answer provides bindings of terms to some of these variables such that the conjunction of the answer sentences—produced by applying the bindings to the query pattern and considering the remaining variables in the query pattern to be existentially quantified—is entailed by a knowledge base (KB) called the answer KB.
- KB knowledge base
- the semantic engine 600 can also support another ontology query language such as RDQL, whose specification was submitted to W3C for a possible recommendation.
- RDQL is similar to OWL-QL in its underlying query mechanism.
- FIG. 7 shows another version of the semantic business model 400 .
- This semantic business model 700 shows three classes from the business meta-model 300 , that is, the KPI class 330 (instantiated by customer satisfaction 335 ), the Business Activity class 310 , and the Business Component class 320 .
- the model 700 shows several instances of the classes and the relations among them. Particularly, note that this semantic model shows a business performance metrics tree which consist of a KPI of customer satisfaction 335 and a tree of operational metrics 720 which have impact on it.
- the tree has multiple levels; at the top, there is the KPI Customer Satisfaction Rate 335 ; at the second level, there are Perfect Order Delivery 721 and the Warranty claims 722 which directly impact on the Customer Satisfaction Rate KPI; at the next level, there are operational metrics 723 , 724 that directly have impact on the metrics at the second level; and there is another lower level of operational metrics 725 . Note that there is a dependsOn relationship 331 between the various operational metric levels.
- Each of these metrics is associated with one or more business activities 310 , as shown by arrows the business activities 310 and the operational metrics 720 , because the operational metrics 720 are used to measure the performance and efficiency of the business activities.
- These arrows represent the hasMetric relation 315 between business activities 310 and Key Performance Indicator 330 .
- Each of the Business Activities 310 is associated with a Business component 320 , as a Business Component 320 is defined as a collection of Business Activities 310 . This association is shown by an arrow between a Business Component 320 and a constituent Business Activity 310 , the arrows representing the ownedActivity relationship 311 between the Business Component class 320 and the Business Activity class 310 .
- business components 320 are indirectly associated with KPIs 330 and/or operational metrics 720 .
- the associations among the KPIs, operational metrics, business activities, and business components are represented in a semantic business model 400 and 700 in one or more semantic markup languages such as RDF and OWL, and will be used in the inference of dependencies among business components 320 based on KPIs 330 and metrics 720 .
- the dependency information among business components 320 is useful in various contexts of business analysis, for example, to understand the impact of a certain business activity 310 of a business component 320 to one or more other business components 320 , to understand the root cause of a certain phenomenon in a business component 320 affected by one or more other business components 320 , to understand the flow of certain data or messages across multiple business components 320 , and to understand the control flow of a certain business process across multiple business components 320 .
- FIG. 8 illustrates use of the business analysis workbench 150 .
- consultants need to determine which business components 320 are associated with and influence a given KPI 330 (such as customer satisfaction 335 ).
- the problem is that consultants associate KPIs 330 with business components 320 , when it is more natural to associate KPIs 330 with business activities 310 .
- the entire process of identifying the association is currently done manually; thus it is difficult to perform a deep analysis of the relationship between business components 320 .
- the present invention provides a solution to this problem by creating a semantic business model 400 and 700 that associates KPIs 330 with business activities 310 , and business activities 310 with business components 320 , capturing the relationship between KPIs 330 in the semantic business model 400 and 700 , and providing a mechanism to automatically infer the dependencies among business components 320 .
- FIG. 8 shows the dependencies of business components 320 based on their association with KPIs 330 and operational metrics 720 , in a component business model view 500 on the Business Analysis Workbench 150 by using an overlay 800 on the component business map of FIG. 5 .
- the degree of the dependency may be indicated by different styles of texture painted in business component boxes in the component business map.
- the Business Unit Tracking component 810 is directly dependent on two business components, that is, the Sales Planning component 820 and the Sales component 830 .
- the Sales Planning component 820 depends on the Customer Dialogue component 840 .
- the Business Unit Tracking component 810 is indirectly dependent on the Customer Dialogue component 840 .
- This indirect dependency is uncovered by the present invention, which represents in a semantic model the relationships among business related data such as business components, processes, activities, operational metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) of an enterprise and queries the semantic model to discover non-obvious dependencies among the business entity data for business insights.
- FIG. 7 provides a use scenario or example showing how the invention works by using the business meta-model 300 and a semantic business model 400 , and executing queries on them.
- the user is using an embodiment of this invention for a client engagement.
- the client has a business pain point in their customer satisfaction rate 335 . Let's say this client's rate is constantly lagging behind that of their competitors. The client wants to get help from their consultants, who are using an embodiment of this invention.
- the user consultants With the client, the first thing the user consultants would do is to construct the semantic business model 400 of this client by using the business meta-model 300 as the base structure.
- the user consultants first identify one or more operational metrics on which the customer satisfaction 335 depends. They can do this task by using several means, e.g., by using industry standard framework on metrics, performance indicators, and value drivers, and/or by interviewing the staff members and line of managers of the client company.
- the consultants discover that the customer satisfaction rate depends largely on two factors, i.e., perfect order delivery 721 and warranty claims 722 , each of which in turn depends on lower-level metrics as shown in the figure, i.e., rate of missing the right order 723 , rate of sending wrong quantity and rate of sending wrong item 725 , number of products with defect.
- the consultants represent them in a formal model (i.e., in a formal semantic markup language such as RDF or OWL).
- the dependency relationship is represented by using “dependsOn” relationship 331 in FIG. 3 .
- they use the Business Model Generator 120 to create this formal representation of dependency relationships.
- semantic business model 400 For the construction of a complete semantic business model 400 , user consultants then discover business activities 310 that are associated with the identified performance indicators and operational metrics. Again, this task can be done by using knowledge of the industry standard framework and/or by interviewing domain expert from the client company. In FIG. 7 , for an illustrative purpose, one business activity was identified for each performance indicator or operational metric. Now the relationships between metrics and business activities can also be added to the formal model, i.e., the semantic business model 400 . A relationship defined in the Business Meta-model 300 , i.e., “hasMetric” 315 can be used to represent those between metrics and business activities 310 . Also, the Business Model Generator 120 will be used for actual editing of the Semantic Business Model 400 .
- the consultants can add the Business Components 320 that are associated with the Business Activities 310 to the Semantic Business Model 400 .
- the association can be represented by using the “ownedActivity” relationship 311 defined in the Business Meta-model 310 .
- the Semantic Business Model 400 can be loaded up to the Semantic Engine 600 and used to answer queries from the business analysts 140 .
- An example of such queries in relation to the scenario described above (the client wants to pinpoint business components that affects the comparatively low performance of the company's customer satisfaction rate 335 ), would be “Find me all the Business Components 320 that are associated with a particular performance indicator (e.g., customer satisfaction rate 335 ).” Another example would be “Find the dependency relationship among the Business Components 320 associated with a performance indicator.”
- the identified Business Components are referred to as “hot” components.
- the Semantic Engine 600 can answer these queries by following the links represented in the formal model, the Semantic Business Model 400 . It follows the “dependsOn” 331 links from the customer satisfaction rate 335 , then (reversely) follows the “hasMetrics” 315 links from operational metrics to Business Activities 310 , and finally (reversely) follows the “ownedActivity” 311 links from Business Activities 310 to Business Components 320 . The final destination of following this sequence of links will be the “hot” Business Components. The following of these links in the formal model, the Semantic Business Model 400 , is the basic idea of the inference capability provided by the Semantic Engine 600 .
- the identified “hot” business components in this example are shown in FIG. 8 . They are Business Unit Tracking 810 , Sales Planning 820 , Sales 830 , and Customer Dialogue 840 . Their relationship are also inferred from the dependency represented by the “dependsOn” relationships among operational metrics. So they are the visual representation of the answers to the example queries given above. The visual display of the CBM view 500 with the answers are shown in the Business Analysis Workbench 150 .
- the present invention enables other types of business analyses. We will describe a few concepts here.
- consultants need to determine how components depend on each other based on the control flow defined by processes. The problem is that the entire process is done manually; thus it is difficult to perform a deep analysis of the relationship between components.
- the present invention provides a solution to this problem by creating a semantic model that associates processes with activities, and activities with components, and providing a mechanism for automatically inferring the dependencies between components.
- Business activities are associated with one or more business processes, because a business process is an ordered collection of business activities. Also, business activities are associated with one or more business components, as a business component is a collection of business activities, as defined earlier. Through the associations with business activities, business components are related to business processes. The relationship can be used in the dependency analysis of business components based on business processes.
- heat map analysis business consultants intend to create multidimensional views (strategic, financial, and transformational view) of components (with color coding) to identify strategic components that indicate high potential for business improvement or carry high costs.
- the problem is that the current practice of creating heat maps requires manual labeling of values, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete maps, and lack of scalability. Also, the current heat maps provide a flat level analysis, and do not go deeper or broader.
- manual techniques limit heat maps to a small set of KPIs (e.g., cost, revenue).
- the present invention provides a solution to these problems by creating a semantic model of components and views, such that heat maps can be automatically generated by using simple semantic queries, deriving values for a component from the values of entities associated with the component, and so enable root-cause and impact analysis, and also extending the analysis to a larger set of KPIs.
- the present invention also provides an improved methodology for overlaying IT systems or applications on a CBM map in order to make shortfall assessments.
- Systems are a kind of business assets.
- the overlay shows which components own which system. That is, current systems are mapped against the components to identify shortfalls in systems coverage.
- Three generic issues tend to arise in the shortfall assessment:
- the present invention may also be used in the creation of component business maps.
- Industry maps can be generated from the universal enterprise map.
- maps for particular enterprises are created from industry maps.
- the problem with existing methods is that the process of creating CBM maps is manual. Also, modifications brought to a CBM are not propagated (up- and down-stream). Furthermore, consultants find it difficult to reuse the knowledge accumulated in previous engagements.
- the current practice of defining components with name and short description in maps allows ambiguity and inconsistency, and different interpretations.
- This present invention provides a solution to these problems by capturing the relationships among the universal enterprise map, industry maps, and maps for particular enterprises, providing a controlled vocabulary for common understanding of terms, providing better, consistent definition of terms, providing automatic translation of terms, and propagating the modifications interactively.
Abstract
A system and method is provided for the ontological representation of the meta-models of businesses and their processes, activities, and components in one or more semantic web markup languages to enable reasoning and analyzing of instances of enterprise business models to infer relationships of business entities which are previously unknown or not clear from the original business model instance.
Description
- This invention is related to commonly owned patent application Ser. No. 11/176,371 for “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALIGNMENT OF AN ENTERPRISE TO A COMPONENT BUSINESS MODEL” which is incorporated by reference herein.
- 1. Field of the Invention
- The present invention generally relates to model-driven business analysis and transformation, and more particularly to a system and method for ontological representation of the meta-models of businesses and their processes, activities, and components so as to infer previously unknown or unclear relationships of business entities.
- 2. Background Description
- Business component models can be used in many ways, almost all of which require an understanding of what the business wants to achieve. Component business models do not introduce any new or special meaning for “business process”. The term is important but it is not used in any special way. We speak of the sub-processes within a component. We speak of an end-to-end process that provides an external service. We can and do analyze the network of collaborating components (including external components) that make up a process or a sub-process.
- However, for the association of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with business components, business consultants applying component business models need to determine which components are associated with, and influence, a given KPI. They also need to associate KPIs with components, when it is more natural to associate KPIs with activities. Furthermore, to identify dependency among business components (by process or by KPI), consultants need to determine how components depend on each other based on the control flow defined by processes. A systematic and automated framework for linking KPIs, activities and components would better enable a deep analysis of the relationship between components.
- In order to address these problems of the prior art, it is an object of the present invention to capture the relationship between KPIs in a semantic model.
- Another object of the invention is to create a semantic model that associates KPIs with activities, and activities with components.
- It is also an object of the invention to create a semantic model that associates processes with activities, and activities with components.
- A further object of the invention is to automatically infer the dependencies between components.
- The invention uses the Component Business Model (CBM) described in related patent application Ser. No. 11/176,371 for “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALIGNMENT OF AN ENTERPRISE TO A COMPONENT BUSINESS MODEL” (hereafter termed “the above referenced foundation patent application”). CBM provides a logical and comprehensive view of the enterprise, in terms that cut across commercial enterprises in general and industries in particular. The component business model as described in the above referenced foundation patent application is based upon a logical partitioning of business activities into non-overlapping managing concepts, each managing concept being active at the three levels of management accountability: providing direction to the business, controlling how the business operates, and executing the operations of the business. The term “managing concept” is specially defined as described in the above referenced foundation patent application, and is not literally a “managing concept” as that phrase would be understood in the art. For the purpose of the present invention, as for the related invention, “managing concept” is the term associated with the following aspects of the partitioning methodology. First, the methodology is a partitioning methodology. The idea is to begin with a whole and partition the whole into necessarily non-overlapping parts. Second, experience has shown that the partitioning process works best when addressed to an asset of the business. The asset can be further described by attributes. Third, the managing concept must include mechanisms for doing something commercially useful with the asset. For a sensibly defined managing concept these mechanisms must cover the full range of management accountability levels (i.e. direct, control and execute). Managing concepts are further partitioned into components, which are cohesive groups of activities. The boundaries of a component usually fall within a single management accountability level. It is important to emphasize that the boundaries between managing concepts (and between components within managing concepts) are logical rather than physical.
- Component Business Modeling (CBM) is a technique for modeling an enterprise as non-overlapping components in order to identify opportunities for innovation and improvement. The modeling is of the business itself, not of applications or technology. CBM is an analytical tool; some call it a lens through which they can examine and analyze a business. CBM is complementary to process modeling techniques. A business process can be interpreted in CBM as collaboration among a network of business components. Conversely, from a process perspective, a business component is a closely related group of sub-processes.
- CBM models a business as a set of business components. A business component is a part of an enterprise that has the potential to operate independently, in the extreme case as a separate company, or as part of another company. A business component is a logical view of part of an enterprise that includes the resources, people, technology and know-how necessary to deliver some value.
- A business offers goods or services in exchange for money or for other goods or services. So must a business component if it is to operate independently. In turn, a business component uses goods and services provided by other components and external suppliers. The single term “business service” is used to mean some goods or service that a business component offers to other business components and/or to external parties.
- The key characteristic of a business component is that a user of its services doesn't have to be aware of how the component works. A user therefore doesn't need to know what people, processes and technology are being used, nor what other supplier services are contributing to the result. The user of a service only knows about the service itself, along with whatever associated properties are relevant, for example: the price, agreed service levels, terms and conditions. If a business component improves its technology, reengineers its internal processes or subcontracts some internal operations, its users need not know.
- Business components are only potentially independent. They may be identified as “target” components, even when they are still entangled with the rest of the business and when the services they offer are not fully defined, as described more fully in the above referenced foundation patent application. A business component can also be characterized by associating it with a set of business activities. A business activity is simply something the enterprise does, specified at a level that the enterprise considers to be appropriate.
- This definition of a business component is consistent with the standard usage of system component and software component, and in particular with the use of component in the ADS (Architecture Description Standard) and in the Component Model work product description in IBM Global Services Method. Each is characterized by encapsulation: the user of a component's services does not (need to) know about the inside of the component. The obvious difference is that a software component offers software services, whereas a business component offers business services.
- There is some similarity between a strategic capability in CBM and a system quality or non-functional requirement (NFR) in system development. For example, “sub-second response on customer transactions” is a typical NFR on a system. It is a desired or necessary property of the whole system. As a result of analysis, the requirement may be restated in terms of services offered by relatively few components. These components use other components, which in turn use yet others. To meet the requirement, a large number of components may have to contribute.
- Heat map analysis, as described in the above referenced foundation patent application, creates multidimensional views (strategic, financial, and transformational views) of components to identify strategic components that carry high costs or have high potential for business improvement. The practice of creating heat maps using manual labeling of values results in inconsistent and incomplete maps, and lack of scalability. Furthermore, a manual methodology limits heat maps to a relatively flat analysis, because it is difficult to go deeper or broader (drill-down, roll-up). Manually developed heat maps are limited to only a small set of KPIs (e.g., cost, revenue).
- Industry maps are created from the universal enterprise map, and maps for particular enterprises are created from industry maps. What is needed is an automated method of propagating modifications of these maps up-stream and down-stream within the chain going from the universal map to industry maps to maps for particular enterprises within an industry. An automated system would allow consultants to reuse the knowledge accumulated in previous engagements.
- Defining components with name and short description in maps introduces ambiguity and inconsistency, and different interpretations. Similarly, shortfall assessment by visual examination can become tedious and inaccurate, if not impossible, as the number of applications increases. For example, in a single enterprise there may be a thousand or more applications for an accounting division.
- For the heat map analysis described in the above referenced foundation patent application, the present invention creates a semantic model of components and views, such that heat maps can be automatically generated by using simple semantic queries. It derives values of a component from the values of entities associated with the component, and so enables root-cause and impact analysis. It extends the analysis to a larger set of KPIs.
- For providing consistency across the universal enterprise map, industry maps, and maps for particular enterprises within an industry, this invention captures the relationships among these maps. It provides a controlled vocabulary for common understanding of terms. It provides better, consistent definition of terms. It provides automatic translation of terms. It propagates (interactively) the modifications to these maps.
- For the shortfall assessment, given a semantic model, gaps, duplication, and over-extension of IT systems can be discovered by semantic queries. The present invention alleviates the need for visual examination. Semantic query will not replace visual CBM; it will complement visual examination.
- The present invention provides a system and method for business analysis using reasoning on semantic models.
- The present invention provides a system and method for business components and their dependency visualization.
- The present invention provides a system and method for semantic model as the meta-model of is business components.
- The present invention provides a system and method for creation of business models by using existing patterns and templates.
- The present invention provides a system and method for creation of business models by using a simple mouse operation.
- The present invention provides a system and method for multiple layers of business component models for the universal enterprise map, industry maps, and maps for particular enterprises within an industry.
- The present invention provides a system and method for saving and reusing business maps.
- The present invention provides a system and method for propagation of changes in a map across maps in multiple layers.
- The present invention provides a system and method for the notion of an ontology providing a controlled vocabulary for specific domains such as industry sectors.
- The present invention provides a system and method for business performance analysis: automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis of business components based on business metrics.
- The present invention provides a system and method for automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis (impact analysis) of business components based on business processes.
- The present invention provides a system and method for automatic reasoning enabling dependency analysis of business components based on messages sent and received among them.
- The present invention provides a system and method for automatic generation of heatmap analysis of business components: multi-dimensional analysis using various attributes of business components.
- The present invention provides a system and method for automatic generations of shortfall assessments.
- The present invention provides a system and method for business reasoning system allowing both canned queries and ad hoc queries.
- The present invention provides a system and method for dependency analysis based on temporal relationships of business metrics.
- The present invention provides a system and method for benchmark analysis using an industry standard frameworks and taxonomies.
- The present invention provides a system and method for identification of redundant and/or overlapping business components.
- The present invention provides a system and method for value network analysis using semantic models.
- The method of the invention analyzes dependencies of components in a component model of a business. The method begins by generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business. A component business model of the business is presented to the user, and then an analytical query of the component business model is received from the user. The query is then executed through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, and dependencies among components of the component business model are inferred from this execution. The response and the inferred dependencies are then returned to the user.
- The semantic business model is a meta-model of business components created by capturing semantics of business information and representing the semantics in a semantic markup language. The semantic markup language can be the Resource Description Framework (RDF) or the Web Ontology Language (OWL), among others. The semantic business model can be generated by reusing an existing business semantic model, the reuse being accomplished using a computer pointing device operation. The computer pointing device operation makes available to the generated business model business information associated with one or more of business processes, business activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs.
- The semantic business model includes business model layers for the particular enterprise or business, the industry within which the particular enterprise exists, and the overall enterprise model which serves as a source of, and a repository for, maps for industries and particular enterprises. Updates to the component business model are propagated across these layers. The dependencies can be inferred in a number of ways. They can be inferred by using KPI associations represented in the semantic business model. They can also be inferred by using business process associations represented in the semantic business model. Or they can be inferred based on messages sent and received among components as represented in the semantic business model.
- The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages will be better understood from the following detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:
-
FIG. 1 is schematic showing a system architecture for the invention. -
FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing operation of the invention. -
FIG. 3 is a diagram of a business meta-model supporting the invention. -
FIG. 4 is a diagram of a semantic business model supporting the invention. -
FIG. 5 is a diagram of a component business model view displayed on a business analysis workbench. -
FIG. 6 is a conceptual diagram of a semantic engine. -
FIG. 7 is a conceptual diagram of a semantic business model for performance analysis. -
FIG. 8 is a diagram of a performance analysis result view on a business analysis workbench overlaid on a component business model view. - Referring now to the drawings, and more particularly to
FIG. 1 , there is shown a system architecture for conducting dependency analysis of business information. The system comprisessemantic business models 400 which are an ontological representation of businesses and their processes, activities, and components in one or more semantic web markup languages. Thesemantic business models 400 enable reasoning and analyzing of instances of enterprise business models to infer relationships of business entities (e.g. key performance indicators and business components) which are previously unknown or not clear from theoriginal business description 110. - The system also comprises a
business model generator 120 which generates the ontological representation of thesemantic business models 400 by interpreting descriptions ofbusiness 110 from various sources in various forms based on the formalism described in the business meta-model 300 representing structure and semantics of business information comprising one or more business entities including, but not limited to, business components, processes, activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). - Once a
semantic business model 400 has been generated, thebusiness model generator 120 stores the model to thebusiness model repository 130. Thebusiness model repository 130 is a database ofsemantic business models 400. It categorizes the models and stores them in a persistent storage medium for use by thesemantic engine 600 andbusiness analysis workbench 150. - The
semantic engine 600 processes one or moresemantic business models 400 retrieved from thebusiness model repository 130 for rendering in thebusiness analysis workbench 150, and also answers queries for inferring dependencies among one or more represented in one or more semantic business models. - The
business analysis workbench 150 uses respective component business model (CBM) views to render one or moresemantic business model 400 views on one or more computer screens. It also accepts one or more analysis queries from one or more users (i.e. business analysts 140), and also renders one or more query results in one or more business model visualizations to one ormore users 140. - The process of the system of the present invention consists of two parts: the build-time process where one or more
semantic business models 400 are created by using thebusiness model generator 120, and the run-time process where one ormore business analysts 140 use the createdsemantic business models 400 for business analysis through abusiness analysis workbench 150. - This two part process is shown in
FIG. 2 . The build-time process starts 205 with thegeneration 210 of asemantic business model 400 by thebusiness model generator 120. Thebusiness model generator 120 receivesbusiness description input 110 and interprets the information by using the business meta-model 300 which formally describes structure and semantics of business information comprising one or more business entities including, but not limited to, business components, processes, activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). As output, thebusiness model generator 120 creates one or moresemantic business model 400. Then thebusiness model generator 120stores 215 the generatedsemantic business model 400 in thebusiness model repository 130. Then thebusiness model repository 130 categorizes 220 thesemantic business model 400, storing it with othersemantic business models 400 in a persistent storage medium. - The run-time process starts at
block 225 when one ormore business analysts 140 open up thebusiness analysis workbench 150 for an analysis of the business of one or more enterprises. Within thebusiness analysis workbench 150, atblock 230 thebusiness analyst 140 opens one or more target business meta-model views 500 for analysis. For the rendering of the business model views 500 on thebusiness analysis workbench 150, atblock 235 thesemantic engine 600 retrieves one or moresemantic business models 400 form thebusiness model repository 130. Then atblock 240 thesemantic engine 600 filters and processes the loadedsemantic business models 400 for the visual rendering of themodel 500 in thebusiness analysis workbench 150. Thesemantic engine 600 sends out the processed business model to theworkbench 150. Then atblock 245 thebusiness analysis workbench 150 renders thebusiness model view 500, which is also known as the component business model (CBM)view 500. - Now, at
block 250, thebusiness analyst 140 is able to submit analysis queries to the CBM views 500 on thebusiness analysis workbench 150. When the user submits aquery 250 to theworkbench 150, the query is passed 255 to thesemantic engine 600. Thesemantic engine 600 with its inference/query processing capability finds 260 one or more answers to the query about the targetsemantic business model 500 rendered on theworkbench 150. The answers are passed back 265 to theworkbench 150 from thesemantic engine 600. And theworkbench 150 renders the query result on top of thetarget CBM view 500, thereby updating 270 theCBM view 500. This cycle fromblock 250 to block 270 is then repeated so long as thebusiness analyst 140 continues to submit analysis queries to the CBM views 500 on thebusiness analysis workbench 150. - When the
business analyst 140 completes the analysis atblock 275, the present invention provides a number of dependency analyses onsemantic business models 400 including performance analysis, processed-based analysis, heat map analysis, shortfall assessment analysis, and enforcing consistency among universal business models, industry-specific business models, and enterprise-specific business models. Thebusiness analyst 140 can iteratively conduct one or more of these analyses on one or more ofbusiness models 500 using the system of the present invention. When thebusiness analyst 140 completes his/her analysis onbusiness models 500, the system generates 275 one or more reports on the analysis results. -
FIG. 3 is a formal description of concepts (or classes) in a domain of discourse, i.e., business analysis, properties of each class describing its attributes, and relations with other classes. Furthermore, the meta-model shown inFIG. 3 can also describe logical properties of relations such as transitive, symmetric, and inverse, as well describing constraints on properties such as cardinality. The business meta-model 300 shows classes such asKPI 330,business components 320,business activities 310,business services 340,resource 350,service specification 360, andagreement 370, and the relations among them. - This meta-
model 300 can be represented in one or more semantic markup languages such as OWL (Web Ontology Language) and RDF (Resource Description Framework) whose specification is provided by the WWW (World Wide Web) Consortium. The ontological representation of the meta-model allows rich expression of meaning of concepts and their relations in the domain, and query with automated reasoning. - The
business activity class 310 has relationships with five classes in the meta-model 300. It has the ownedactivity relation 311 with thebusiness component class 320, the usingactivity relation 312 with theresource class 350, the requiringactivity relation 313 with theservice specification class 360, and thehasMetric relation 315 with theKPI class 330. - The
business component class 320 also has a number of relationships with other classes in the meta-model 300. It has the sub-component andsuper-component relations 321 to itself. It has thehasMetric 322 relation with theKPI class 330, the owningcomponent relation 323 with thebusiness activity class 310, also the owningcomponent relation 324 with theresource class 350, and theprovidingComponent relation 325 with theservice class 340. - The KPI (Key Performance Indicator)
class 330 also has a number of relations with classes in the business meta-model 300. It has thedependentOn relations 331 to itself. It also has thehasMetric relation 322 with thebusiness component class 320, thehasMetric relation 315 with theactivity class 310, thehasMetric relation 353 with theresource class 350, and thehasMetric relation 341 with theservice class 340. - The
service class 340 also has a number of relations with classes defined in the business meta-model 300. It has thehasMetric relation 341 with theKPI class 330, theprovidingService relation 342 with thebusiness component class 320, and theimplementation relation 343 with theservice specification class 360. - The
resource class 350 has a number of relations with the classes defined in the business meta-model 300. It has theownedResource relation 351 with thebusiness component class 320, theusedResource relation 352 with thebusiness activity class 310, and thehasMetric relation 353 with theKPI class 330. - The
service specification class 360 has a number of relations with the classes defined in the business meta-model 300. It has therequiredSpecification relation 361 with thebusiness activity class 310, thespecification relation 362 with theservice class 340, and therestrictService relation 363 with theagreement class 370. TherestrictService relation 363 is the only relation which theagreement class 370 has. - A
semantic business model 400 as shown inFIG. 4 is an instance of the business meta-model 300. Thesemantic business model 400 has a number of instances of the classes defined in the business meta-model 300. The relations among the instances are ones defined in the business meta-model 300, which are inherited by thesemantic business model 400. ThisFIG. 4 shows aversion 300′ of the business meta-model 300 described in the previousFIG. 3 . The meta-model 300′ has a number of classes includingAccountability Level 410,Business Competency 420,Business Component 320,Business Process 430,Business Activity 310, andKPI 330. The meta-model defines a number of relations among these classes, including theaccountabilityLevel relation 415 between theAccountability Level class 410 and theBusiness Component class 320, the businessCompetency relation 416 between theBusiness Competency Class 420 and theBusiness Component 320, thebusinessProcess relation 417 between theBusiness Component class 320 and theBusiness Process class 430, theactivity relation 418 between theBusiness Process class 430 and theBusiness Activity class 310, and, finally, the metric relation 419 between theBusiness Activity class 310 and theKPI class 330. - The classes in the business meta-
model 300 or ontology can have one or more individual instances to represent actual business maps.FIG. 4 displays asemantic business model 400 showing some example instances of the classes in the meta-model 300. Themodel 400 shows one instance,Executive Level 411, of theAccountability Level class 410. It shows two instances,Customer Relationship 421 andSupply Chain 422, of theBusiness Competency class 420. It shows three instances of theBusiness Component class 320, that is, Equipment Maintenance andManagement 327,Customer Management 328, and the Inventory Management andTracking 329. - Note that the arrows from the
instance 411 of theAccountability Level class 410 reach the instances (327, 328, 329) of theBusiness Component class 320. Those arrows represent theaccountabilityLevel relation 415 among the instances as defined in the meta-model 300′. In a similar way, the arrows from the instances (421, 422) of theBusiness Competency class 420 also reach the instances of theBusiness Component class 320. Those arrows represent the businessCompetency relation 416 among the instances as defined in the meta-model 300′. - The
semantic business model 400 shows one instance of theBusiness Process class 430, which is Manage Customer Relationship 431. There are arrows from instances (327, 328, 329) of theBusiness Component class 320 to Manage Customer Relationship 431, representing thebusinessProcess relationship 417 betweenBusiness Component class 320 and theBusiness Process class 430, as defined in the meta-model 300′. Themodel 400 also shows arrows connecting Manage Customer Relationship 431 to the four instances of theBusiness Activity class 310, that is, receive and Process Repair Requests 316, maintain an Efficient CustomerService Call Center 317, MaintainProduct Sales History 318, and Keep Track ofWarranty Life Cycles 319. These arrows represent theactivity relationship 418 betweenbusiness process 430 andbusiness activity 310. - Also note that the
instances Business Components 320 are connected by arrows to theinstances Business Activity class 310. These arrows represent thehasMetric relation 315 betweenbusiness activity 310 andKPI 330, as defined in the meta-model 300′. The instance 431 of theBusiness Process class 430 has the activity relation to theinstances Business Activity class 310, as defined in the meta-model 300′. Finally, theinstances Business Activity class 310 have the metric relation 419 to theinstances Customer Satisfaction 335, Total Warranty Costs 336, and Customer Service Cycle Time 337of theKPI class 330, as defined in the meta-model 300′. -
Business process 430 is a group ofbusiness activities 310 undertaken by an organization in pursuit of a common goal. Typical business processes 430 include receiving orders, marketing services, selling products, delivering services, distributing products, invoicing for services, and accounting for money received. A business process usually depends upon several business functions for support, e.g. IT, personnel, accounting. A business process rarely operates in isolation, i.e., other business processes will depend on it and it will depend on other processes. - Component Business Modeling (CBM) is a technique for modeling an enterprise as
non-overlapping components 320 in order to identify opportunities for innovation and improvement. The modeling is of the business itself, not of applications or technology. CBM is an analytical tool; some call it a lens through which they can examine and analyze a business. CBM is complementary to process modeling techniques. A business process can be interpreted in CBM as collaboration among a network of business components. Conversely, from a process perspective, a business component is a closely related group of sub-processes. - As shown in
FIG. 5 , CBM models a business as a set of business components (e.g. 530). A business component (item 320 inFIG. 3 ) is a part of an enterprise that has the potential to operate independently. In an extreme case a business component could operate as a separate company, or as part of another company. Abusiness component 320 is a logical view of part of an enterprise that includes the resources, people, technology and know-how necessary to deliver some value. - A business offers goods or services in exchange for money or for other goods or services. So must a
business component 320 if it is to operate independently. In turn, abusiness component 320 uses goods and services provided by other components and external suppliers. The singleterm business service 340 is used to mean some goods or service that abusiness component 320 offers to other business components and/or to external parties. - An enterprise can be viewed as a network of
semi-independent business components 320 each of which uses business services which the others provide. Value to an external customer is provided by networks of cooperatingbusiness components 320. - The key characteristic of a
business component 320 is that a user of its services doesn't have to be aware of how the component works. A user therefore doesn't need to know what people, processes and technology are being used, nor what other supplier services are contributing to the result. The user of a service only knows about the service itself, along with whatever associated properties are relevant, for example: the price, agreed service levels, terms and conditions. If a business component (e.g. 530) improves its technology, reengineers its internal processes or subcontracts some internal operations, its users need not know. - Business components are only potentially independent. They may be identified even when they are still entangled with the rest of the business and when the services they offer are not, or are only partly defined. A business component (e.g. 530) can also be characterized by associating it with a set of
business activities 310. Abusiness activity 310 is simply something the enterprise does, specified at a level that the enterprise considers to be appropriate. - A
business component map 500 is a tabular view of the business components 320 (e.g. 530) in the scope of interest. Thecolumns 520 of the table representbusiness competencies 420 and therows 510 representaccountability levels 410. The business components 320 (e.g. 530) are rectangles within the table. Normally each component is within only one cell of the table, although a cell may have more than one component. - A
business competency 520 is a large business area with characteristic skills and capabilities, for example, product development or supply chain. Anaccountability level 510 characterizes the scope and intent of activity and decision making. The three levels used in CBM are directing, controlling and executing. - Directing is about strategy, overall direction and policy, and may be associated with words like define policy, guidelines, assess performance, establish plans and targets, decide on strategy. Controlling is about monitoring, managing exceptions and tactical decision making, and may be associated with words like troubleshoot, define, maintain, rules and approach, qualify, categorize, track against plan, manage, manage exceptions, monitor. Executing is about doing the work, and is associated with words like operate, produce, maintain.
-
Activities 310 can also be mapped into this table. Indeed this is one of the ways of identifying components 320 (e.g. 530): take a set ofactivities 310 from a process model or from a set of executive interviews; choose a set of business competencies (e.g. 520) to form the columns of the table; allocate each activity into a row and column; group theactivities 310 in each cell ofbusiness component map 500 into business components (e.g. 530). - As shown in
FIG. 6 ,semantic engine 600 is a management system for ontologies that provides mechanisms for loading ontologies orsemantic business models 400 from files and via the Internet and for locally creating and modifying ontologies. Thesemantic engine 600 provides anAPI 615 that provides a programming interface for interacting with ontologies (or semantic models 400). An ontology base for ontologies is equivalent to a database for data. A database allows an application to externalize the storing and processing of data, via a standard interface, and relieves theprogram 610 from the burden of deciding how to store the data in files, how to index the data, or how to optimized queries. - In the same way, an ontology base allows an
application 610 to externalize the storing and processing of ontologies, via astandard interface 615 fordriver 620, and to manipulate and query an ontology without worrying about how the ontology is stored and retrieved, how queries are processed, etc. A semantic model (or an ontology) is a description of things that exist, their properties and their relationships to each other. It is one way of encoding a model and has been adopted as one layer in the W3C's semantic Web. One use of an ontology is to externalize a model and make it easier to customize an application, without having to modify code. For example, by using SnoBase, programmers can write applications that understand ontologies written in standard semantic Web markup languages such as RDF, DAML+OIL and OWL. Applications can query against the createdsemantic models 400 and the inference engine deduces the answers and returns result sets similar to JDBC (Java Data Base Connector) result sets. - The
semantic engine 600 provides anAPI 615. The API follows the design patterns of JDBC. Just like JDBC, theAPI 615 provides a connection-based interaction between applications and ontology sources. Also, theAPI 615 provides cursor-based result sets for representing query results. TheAPI 615 allows connections to be made without reference to a particular base ontology. Such connections provide an access to default ontologies of the top-level definitions of XML-based ontology languages such as OWL, RDF, RDF Schema and XML Schema. These definitions are required in order to process thesemantic business models 400. - Conceptually, the
application programs 610 interact with theAPI 615 that provides high-level access to ontology resources and thesemantic engine kernel 625. Theapplication program 610 interacts with theAPI 615 that provides an access to an implementation of the API via anontology base driver 620. - The
driver 620 consists of software classes that will provide an implementation of theAPI 615, and contains of a number of components: alocal ontology directory 630, aninference engine 635, a workingmemory 645, aquery optimizer 640 and a set ofconnectors 655, and other infrastructure needed to support ontology management. - The
Ontology Directory 630 provides the meta-level information about ontologies that are available to thedriver 620. By default, theontology directory 630 contains the references to the top-level definitions of OWL, RDF, RDF Schema, XML Schema, and similar definitions for the set of XML-based ontology languages supported. In addition, theontology directory 630 provides metadata such as deployment information and additional sources of ontology information. For each ontology source, thedirectory 630 will need to store the Universal Resource Identifier or URI, which is an Internet protocol element consisting of a short string of characters that conform to a certain syntax. The string comprises a name or address that can be used to refer to a resource. For example, a “URL” is a URI scheme beginning with “http:”. Additionally, a URI may store information about the contents of the ontology source to aid in query optimization. - The
Inference Engine 635 provides a mechanism for interpreting the semantics of an ontology language, represented as a set of language specific rules. The rules are used to answer queries, when the requested fact is not immediately available, but must be inferred from available facts. For example, if the application requests the childrenOf an individual, but the workingmemory 645 only contains parentOf relations, the inference engine can use the inverse property statements about childrenOf and parentOf to identify the correct response. - For applications that connect to large databases and/or ontologies, it will not be feasible to load the entire set of available information into working
memory 645. Instead, thedriver 620 will query the ontology source for appropriate information as it is needed. In addition, the task of thequery optimizer 640 is not only to optimize the retrieval of information from ontology sources, but also coordinate queries that span multiple sources. - The
Ontology Source Connectors 655 provides a mechanism for reading, querying, and writing ontology information to persistent storage. The simplest connector is the file connector used to store information to the local file system. In addition, there will be connectors for storing ontological information in remote servers. Also, the connectors are used to implement caching of remote information to cache the definitions of the top-level ontology definitions OWL, RDF, RDF Schema, and XML Schema to allow the system to work if the W3C Web site were inaccessible. - The
semantic engine 600 should also support query languages such as OWL Query Language (OWL-QL). OWL-QL is a language and protocol supporting agent-to-agent query-answering dialogues using knowledge represented in OWL. It precisely specifies the semantic relations among a query, a query answer, and the ontology base(s) used to produce the answer. It also supports query-answering dialogues in which the answering agent may use automated reasoning methods to derive answers to queries. An OWL-QL query contains a query pattern that is a collection of OWL sentences in which some literals and/or URIs have been replaced by variables. A query answer provides bindings of terms to some of these variables such that the conjunction of the answer sentences—produced by applying the bindings to the query pattern and considering the remaining variables in the query pattern to be existentially quantified—is entailed by a knowledge base (KB) called the answer KB. In addition to OWL-QL, thesemantic engine 600 can also support another ontology query language such as RDQL, whose specification was submitted to W3C for a possible recommendation. RDQL is similar to OWL-QL in its underlying query mechanism. -
FIG. 7 shows another version of thesemantic business model 400. This semantic business model 700 shows three classes from the business meta-model 300, that is, the KPI class 330 (instantiated by customer satisfaction 335), theBusiness Activity class 310, and theBusiness Component class 320. The model 700 shows several instances of the classes and the relations among them. Particularly, note that this semantic model shows a business performance metrics tree which consist of a KPI ofcustomer satisfaction 335 and a tree ofoperational metrics 720 which have impact on it. The tree has multiple levels; at the top, there is the KPICustomer Satisfaction Rate 335; at the second level, there arePerfect Order Delivery 721 and the Warranty claims 722 which directly impact on the Customer Satisfaction Rate KPI; at the next level, there areoperational metrics operational metrics 725. Note that there is adependsOn relationship 331 between the various operational metric levels. - Each of these metrics is associated with one or
more business activities 310, as shown by arrows thebusiness activities 310 and theoperational metrics 720, because theoperational metrics 720 are used to measure the performance and efficiency of the business activities. These arrows represent thehasMetric relation 315 betweenbusiness activities 310 andKey Performance Indicator 330. - Each of the
Business Activities 310 is associated with aBusiness component 320, as aBusiness Component 320 is defined as a collection ofBusiness Activities 310. This association is shown by an arrow between aBusiness Component 320 and aconstituent Business Activity 310, the arrows representing theownedActivity relationship 311 between theBusiness Component class 320 and theBusiness Activity class 310. Through the association ofbusiness activities 310 andoperational metrics 720,business components 320 are indirectly associated withKPIs 330 and/oroperational metrics 720. The associations among the KPIs, operational metrics, business activities, and business components are represented in asemantic business model 400 and 700 in one or more semantic markup languages such as RDF and OWL, and will be used in the inference of dependencies amongbusiness components 320 based onKPIs 330 andmetrics 720. - The dependency information among
business components 320 is useful in various contexts of business analysis, for example, to understand the impact of acertain business activity 310 of abusiness component 320 to one or moreother business components 320, to understand the root cause of a certain phenomenon in abusiness component 320 affected by one or moreother business components 320, to understand the flow of certain data or messages acrossmultiple business components 320, and to understand the control flow of a certain business process acrossmultiple business components 320. -
FIG. 8 illustrates use of thebusiness analysis workbench 150. In order to better analyze the performance of the business, consultants need to determine whichbusiness components 320 are associated with and influence a given KPI 330 (such as customer satisfaction 335). The problem is that consultantsassociate KPIs 330 withbusiness components 320, when it is more natural toassociate KPIs 330 withbusiness activities 310. Also, the entire process of identifying the association is currently done manually; thus it is difficult to perform a deep analysis of the relationship betweenbusiness components 320. The present invention provides a solution to this problem by creating asemantic business model 400 and 700 that associatesKPIs 330 withbusiness activities 310, andbusiness activities 310 withbusiness components 320, capturing the relationship betweenKPIs 330 in thesemantic business model 400 and 700, and providing a mechanism to automatically infer the dependencies amongbusiness components 320. -
FIG. 8 shows the dependencies ofbusiness components 320 based on their association withKPIs 330 andoperational metrics 720, in a componentbusiness model view 500 on theBusiness Analysis Workbench 150 by using an overlay 800 on the component business map ofFIG. 5 . The degree of the dependency may be indicated by different styles of texture painted in business component boxes in the component business map. - In the overlay, the Business
Unit Tracking component 810 is directly dependent on two business components, that is, theSales Planning component 820 and theSales component 830. In addition, theSales Planning component 820 depends on theCustomer Dialogue component 840. Hence the BusinessUnit Tracking component 810 is indirectly dependent on theCustomer Dialogue component 840. This indirect dependency is uncovered by the present invention, which represents in a semantic model the relationships among business related data such as business components, processes, activities, operational metrics, and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) of an enterprise and queries the semantic model to discover non-obvious dependencies among the business entity data for business insights. - We will now review
FIGS. 3, 4 , 7 and 8 to illustrate use of the invention.FIG. 7 provides a use scenario or example showing how the invention works by using the business meta-model 300 and asemantic business model 400, and executing queries on them. Suppose the user is using an embodiment of this invention for a client engagement. Also suppose the client has a business pain point in theircustomer satisfaction rate 335. Let's say this client's rate is constantly lagging behind that of their competitors. The client wants to get help from their consultants, who are using an embodiment of this invention. - With the client, the first thing the user consultants would do is to construct the
semantic business model 400 of this client by using the business meta-model 300 as the base structure. The user consultants first identify one or more operational metrics on which thecustomer satisfaction 335 depends. They can do this task by using several means, e.g., by using industry standard framework on metrics, performance indicators, and value drivers, and/or by interviewing the staff members and line of managers of the client company. - In this particular example in
FIG. 7 , the consultants discover that the customer satisfaction rate depends largely on two factors, i.e.,perfect order delivery 721 and warranty claims 722, each of which in turn depends on lower-level metrics as shown in the figure, i.e., rate of missing theright order 723, rate of sending wrong quantity and rate of sendingwrong item 725, number of products with defect. After identifying the dependency relationship among performance indicators and operational metrics, the consultants represent them in a formal model (i.e., in a formal semantic markup language such as RDF or OWL). In the formal model, the dependency relationship is represented by using “dependsOn”relationship 331 inFIG. 3 . In an embodiment of the invention, they use theBusiness Model Generator 120 to create this formal representation of dependency relationships. - For the construction of a complete
semantic business model 400, user consultants then discoverbusiness activities 310 that are associated with the identified performance indicators and operational metrics. Again, this task can be done by using knowledge of the industry standard framework and/or by interviewing domain expert from the client company. InFIG. 7 , for an illustrative purpose, one business activity was identified for each performance indicator or operational metric. Now the relationships between metrics and business activities can also be added to the formal model, i.e., thesemantic business model 400. A relationship defined in the Business Meta-model 300, i.e., “hasMetric” 315 can be used to represent those between metrics andbusiness activities 310. Also, theBusiness Model Generator 120 will be used for actual editing of theSemantic Business Model 400. - Finally, the consultants can add the
Business Components 320 that are associated with theBusiness Activities 310 to theSemantic Business Model 400. The association can be represented by using the “ownedActivity”relationship 311 defined in the Business Meta-model 310. - Once the
Semantic Business Model 400 is constructed and represented in a formal semantic markup language, then it can be loaded up to theSemantic Engine 600 and used to answer queries from thebusiness analysts 140. An example of such queries, in relation to the scenario described above (the client wants to pinpoint business components that affects the comparatively low performance of the company's customer satisfaction rate 335), would be “Find me all theBusiness Components 320 that are associated with a particular performance indicator (e.g., customer satisfaction rate 335).” Another example would be “Find the dependency relationship among theBusiness Components 320 associated with a performance indicator.” The identified Business Components are referred to as “hot” components. - The
Semantic Engine 600 can answer these queries by following the links represented in the formal model, theSemantic Business Model 400. It follows the “dependsOn” 331 links from thecustomer satisfaction rate 335, then (reversely) follows the “hasMetrics” 315 links from operational metrics toBusiness Activities 310, and finally (reversely) follows the “ownedActivity” 311 links fromBusiness Activities 310 toBusiness Components 320. The final destination of following this sequence of links will be the “hot” Business Components. The following of these links in the formal model, theSemantic Business Model 400, is the basic idea of the inference capability provided by theSemantic Engine 600. - The identified “hot” business components in this example are shown in
FIG. 8 . They areBusiness Unit Tracking 810,Sales Planning 820,Sales 830, andCustomer Dialogue 840. Their relationship are also inferred from the dependency represented by the “dependsOn” relationships among operational metrics. So they are the visual representation of the answers to the example queries given above. The visual display of theCBM view 500 with the answers are shown in theBusiness Analysis Workbench 150. - Again, this is a simple example illustrating the concept. You can do a lot more qualitative analysis by applying the ideas of this invention to different scenarios and larger scale examples.
- In addition to the performance analysis presented in
FIG. 8 , the present invention enables other types of business analyses. We will describe a few concepts here. In order to better analyze the business performance, consultants need to determine how components depend on each other based on the control flow defined by processes. The problem is that the entire process is done manually; thus it is difficult to perform a deep analysis of the relationship between components. The present invention provides a solution to this problem by creating a semantic model that associates processes with activities, and activities with components, and providing a mechanism for automatically inferring the dependencies between components. - Business activities are associated with one or more business processes, because a business process is an ordered collection of business activities. Also, business activities are associated with one or more business components, as a business component is a collection of business activities, as defined earlier. Through the associations with business activities, business components are related to business processes. The relationship can be used in the dependency analysis of business components based on business processes.
- With heat map analysis, business consultants intend to create multidimensional views (strategic, financial, and transformational view) of components (with color coding) to identify strategic components that indicate high potential for business improvement or carry high costs. The problem is that the current practice of creating heat maps requires manual labeling of values, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete maps, and lack of scalability. Also, the current heat maps provide a flat level analysis, and do not go deeper or broader. In addition, manual techniques limit heat maps to a small set of KPIs (e.g., cost, revenue). The present invention provides a solution to these problems by creating a semantic model of components and views, such that heat maps can be automatically generated by using simple semantic queries, deriving values for a component from the values of entities associated with the component, and so enable root-cause and impact analysis, and also extending the analysis to a larger set of KPIs.
- The present invention also provides an improved methodology for overlaying IT systems or applications on a CBM map in order to make shortfall assessments. Systems are a kind of business assets. The overlay shows which components own which system. That is, current systems are mapped against the components to identify shortfalls in systems coverage. Three generic issues tend to arise in the shortfall assessment:
- Gaps: no system exists, the system lacks key functionality, or is poorly designed/uses the wrong technology for a specific component
- Duplication: multiple systems compete for the same component, typically adding unnecessary complexity/cost to development, maintenance and production
- Over-Extension: a system designed to support one component is extended to help support others, for which it may not have appropriate capabilities. Furthermore, as a system gets more diverse or extensive the cost/complexity of its operation increases exponentially
- As the number of applications increase, visual examination would become tedious and inaccurate, if not impossible. For example: a large enterprise may use over a thousand applications simply in the accounting division. The present invention provides a solution to this problem. Given a semantic model, gaps, duplication, and over-extension of IT systems can be discovered by semantic queries, thereby extending the capabilities of visual examination. Note that semantic query will not replace visual CBM; it will complement visual examination.
- The present invention may also be used in the creation of component business maps. Industry maps can be generated from the universal enterprise map. Also, maps for particular enterprises are created from industry maps. The problem with existing methods is that the process of creating CBM maps is manual. Also, modifications brought to a CBM are not propagated (up- and down-stream). Furthermore, consultants find it difficult to reuse the knowledge accumulated in previous engagements. The current practice of defining components with name and short description in maps allows ambiguity and inconsistency, and different interpretations.
- This present invention provides a solution to these problems by capturing the relationships among the universal enterprise map, industry maps, and maps for particular enterprises, providing a controlled vocabulary for common understanding of terms, providing better, consistent definition of terms, providing automatic translation of terms, and propagating the modifications interactively.
- While the invention has been described in terms of a single preferred embodiment, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Claims (22)
1. A method of analyzing dependencies of components in a component model of a business, comprising:
generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business;
presenting to a user a component business model of the business, and receiving from the user an analytical query of the component business model;
executing the query through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, said executing inferring dependencies among components of the component business model; and
returning the response and said inferred dependencies to the user.
2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the semantic business model is a meta-model of business components created by capturing semantics of business information and representing the semantics in a semantic markup language.
3. The method of claim 2 , wherein the semantic markup language is drawn from the group consisting of Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL).
4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the semantic business model is generated by reusing an existing business semantic model, the reuse being accomplished using a computer pointing device operation.
5. The method of claim 4 , wherein the computer pointing device operation makes available to the generated business model business information associated with one or more of business processes, business activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs.
6. The method of claim 1 , wherein the semantic business model includes a universal enterprise layer, an industry layer, and a particular enterprise layer.
7. The method of claim 6 , wherein updates to the component business model are propagated across said layers.
8. The method of claim 1 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred by using KPI associations represented in the semantic business model.
9. The method of claim 1 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred by using business process associations represented in the semantic business model.
10. The method of claim 1 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred based on messages sent and received among components as represented in the semantic business model.
11. A system for analyzing dependencies of components in a component model of a business, comprising:
a business model generator for generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business;
a business analysis workbench for presenting to a user a component business model of the business, and receiving from the user an analytical query of the component business model;
a semantic engine for executing the query through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, said executing inferring dependencies among components of the component business model; and
means for returning the response and said inferred dependencies to the user via said workbench.
12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the semantic business model is a meta-model of business components created by capturing semantics of business information and representing the semantics in a semantic markup language.
13. The system of claim 12 , wherein the semantic markup language is drawn from the group consisting of Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL).
14. The system of claim 11 , wherein the semantic business model is generated by reusing an existing business semantic model, the reuse being accomplished using a computer pointing device operation.
15. The system of claim 14 , wherein the computer pointing device operation makes available to the generated business model business information associated with one or more of business processes, business activities, resources, services, metrics, and KPIs.
16. The system of claim 11 , wherein the semantic business model includes a universal enterprise layer, an industry layer, and a particular enterprise layer.
17. The system of claim 16 , wherein updates to the component business model are propagated across said layers.
18. The system of claim 11 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred by using KPI associations represented in the semantic business model.
19. The system of claim 11 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred by using business process associations represented in the semantic business model.
20. The system of claim 11 , wherein one of said dependencies was inferred based on messages sent and received among components as represented in the semantic business model.
21. Implementing a service for analyzing dependencies of components in a component model of a business, comprising the method of:
generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business;
presenting to a user a component business model of the business, and receiving from the user an analytical query of the component business model;
executing the query through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, said executing inferring dependencies among components of the component business model; and
returning the response and said inferred dependencies to the user.
22. A computer implemented system for analyzing dependencies of components in a component model of a business, comprising:
first computer code for generating a semantic business model by applying a business meta-model to a description of the business;
second computer code for presenting to a user a component business model of the business, and receiving from the user an analytical query of the component business model;
third computer code for executing the query through the semantic business model to provide a response to the query, said executing inferring dependencies among components of the component business model; and
fourth computer code for returning the response and said inferred dependencies to the user.
Priority Applications (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/247,028 US20070106520A1 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2005-10-11 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
US12/054,827 US8341592B2 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2008-03-25 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/247,028 US20070106520A1 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2005-10-11 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
Related Child Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US12/054,827 Continuation US8341592B2 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2008-03-25 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20070106520A1 true US20070106520A1 (en) | 2007-05-10 |
Family
ID=38004929
Family Applications (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US11/247,028 Abandoned US20070106520A1 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2005-10-11 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
US12/054,827 Expired - Fee Related US8341592B2 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2008-03-25 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
Family Applications After (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US12/054,827 Expired - Fee Related US8341592B2 (en) | 2005-10-11 | 2008-03-25 | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US20070106520A1 (en) |
Cited By (63)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20070112718A1 (en) * | 2005-10-25 | 2007-05-17 | Shixia Liu | Method and apparatus to enable integrated computation of model-level and domain-level business semantics |
US20070179833A1 (en) * | 2006-01-31 | 2007-08-02 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Assisted business process exception management |
US20070288250A1 (en) * | 2006-06-09 | 2007-12-13 | Jens Lemcke | Method and system for generating collaborative processes |
US20080140472A1 (en) * | 2006-12-12 | 2008-06-12 | Dagan Gilat | Method and Computer Program Product for Modeling an Organization |
US20090006150A1 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2009-01-01 | Sap Ag | Coherent multi-dimensional business process model |
US20090007056A1 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2009-01-01 | Sap Ag | Process extension wizard for coherent multi-dimensional business process models |
US20090254877A1 (en) * | 2008-04-04 | 2009-10-08 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Concept-oriented software engineering system and method for identifying, extracting, organizing, inferring and querying software system facts |
US20090281845A1 (en) * | 2008-05-06 | 2009-11-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus of constructing and exploring kpi networks |
US20090299912A1 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2009-12-03 | Strategyn, Inc. | Commercial investment analysis |
US20090328010A1 (en) * | 2008-06-30 | 2009-12-31 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for platform-independent, script-based application generation for spreadsheet software |
US20100082696A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for inferring and visualizing correlations of different business aspects for business transformation |
US20100082407A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for financial transformation |
US20100082691A1 (en) * | 2008-09-19 | 2010-04-01 | Strategyn, Inc. | Universal customer based information and ontology platform for business information and innovation management |
US20100082385A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for determining temperature of business components for finding business transformation opportunities |
US20100082387A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by using a multi-dimensional shortfall analysis of an enterprise |
US20100082386A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by analyzing series of heat maps by dimension |
US20100191796A1 (en) * | 2009-01-29 | 2010-07-29 | Almeida Kiran Joseph | Method and system for a service intermediary selection in a web service management system |
US20100299165A1 (en) * | 2009-05-19 | 2010-11-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Value network performance comparison analysis |
US20100299139A1 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2010-11-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for processing natural language questions and apparatus thereof |
US20110137819A1 (en) * | 2009-12-04 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Tool for creating an industry business architecture model |
US20110137714A1 (en) * | 2009-12-03 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for managing business performance using industry business architecture models |
US20110137622A1 (en) * | 2009-12-07 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Assessing the maturity of an industry architecture model |
US20110145230A1 (en) * | 2009-05-18 | 2011-06-16 | Strategyn, Inc. | Needs-based mapping and processing engine |
US20110196719A1 (en) * | 2010-02-05 | 2011-08-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for enhancing business performance |
US20110218837A1 (en) * | 2010-03-03 | 2011-09-08 | Strategyn, Inc. | Facilitating growth investment decisions |
US20120011157A1 (en) * | 2010-07-07 | 2012-01-12 | Lindsey Technologies.com Inc. | Method and system for inferencing taxonomy topic concept objects using a metamodel instance model |
US20120054142A1 (en) * | 2010-08-25 | 2012-03-01 | Sap Ag | Task-based experience reuse |
US20120089685A1 (en) * | 2010-10-12 | 2012-04-12 | Sap Ag | Business Network Meta Model |
US20120110548A1 (en) * | 2010-10-27 | 2012-05-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Data type provider for an operating system instrumentation store |
US8326673B1 (en) * | 2006-12-28 | 2012-12-04 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Carrier data based product inventory management and marketing |
US8423408B1 (en) | 2006-04-17 | 2013-04-16 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Dynamic advertising content distribution and placement systems and methods |
US8442858B1 (en) | 2006-07-21 | 2013-05-14 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Subscriber data insertion into advertisement requests |
US20130151691A1 (en) * | 2011-12-09 | 2013-06-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | Analyzing and Reporting Business Objectives in Multi-Component Information Technology Solutions |
CN103744651A (en) * | 2013-12-20 | 2014-04-23 | 柳州职业技术学院 | Method for automatically generating business processing model oriented to business requirements |
US20140129297A1 (en) * | 2012-11-07 | 2014-05-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Determining calculation expression for finding kpi relating to business process |
US20140372481A1 (en) * | 2013-06-17 | 2014-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Cross-model filtering |
US8954342B2 (en) | 2009-12-03 | 2015-02-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Publishing an industry business architecture model |
US20150317580A1 (en) * | 2014-04-30 | 2015-11-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Business performance metrics and information technology cost analysis |
US9213698B1 (en) * | 2011-02-02 | 2015-12-15 | Comindware Ltd. | Unified data architecture for business process management and data modeling |
US9311624B2 (en) * | 2012-02-09 | 2016-04-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | System to view and manipulate artifacts at a temporal reference point |
US9319379B1 (en) | 2013-08-01 | 2016-04-19 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Methods and systems of generating a unique mobile device identifier |
US9374335B2 (en) | 2013-09-11 | 2016-06-21 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for distributing messages to particular mobile devices |
US9483745B2 (en) | 2010-11-03 | 2016-11-01 | Sap Se | Business network GUI |
US9508090B1 (en) | 2014-09-24 | 2016-11-29 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | End user participation in mobile advertisement |
US9590938B1 (en) | 2013-09-11 | 2017-03-07 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for identifying a mobile device with near real time visualization to action |
US9734515B1 (en) | 2014-01-09 | 2017-08-15 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Ad management using ads cached on a mobile electronic device |
US9818133B1 (en) | 2014-10-20 | 2017-11-14 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Method for consumer profile consolidation using mobile network identification |
US9836771B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2017-12-05 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Client mediation and integration to advertisement gateway |
US9922347B1 (en) | 2013-11-27 | 2018-03-20 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Ad management using ads cached on a mobile electronic device |
US9984395B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-05-29 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Advertisement mediation of supply-demand communications |
US10013707B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-07-03 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Address modification for advertisement mediation |
US10055757B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-08-21 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | IP address hashing in advertisement gateway |
US10068261B1 (en) | 2006-11-09 | 2018-09-04 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | In-flight campaign optimization |
US10176003B2 (en) * | 2014-09-02 | 2019-01-08 | Sap Se | Integrated framework for monitoring business activities |
US10405173B1 (en) | 2013-06-05 | 2019-09-03 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Method and systems of collecting and segmenting device sensor data while in transit via a network |
US10410237B1 (en) | 2006-06-26 | 2019-09-10 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Inventory management integrating subscriber and targeting data |
CN110766504A (en) * | 2018-09-27 | 2020-02-07 | 北京嘀嘀无限科技发展有限公司 | Display interface construction method, interface display method and device and electronic equipment |
US10628152B2 (en) * | 2017-06-19 | 2020-04-21 | Accenture Global Solutions Limited | Automatic generation of microservices based on technical description of legacy code |
US10664851B1 (en) | 2006-11-08 | 2020-05-26 | Sprint Communications Company, L.P. | Behavioral analysis engine for profiling wireless subscribers |
WO2020142524A1 (en) * | 2018-12-31 | 2020-07-09 | Kobai, Inc. | Decision intelligence system and method |
US11294646B2 (en) | 2016-05-04 | 2022-04-05 | Open Text Sa Ulc | Application development and extensibility/customization using entity modeling systems and methods |
US11321781B1 (en) * | 2021-03-11 | 2022-05-03 | Bottomline Technologies, Inc. | System and a method for facilitating financial planning |
US11593072B2 (en) * | 2015-06-23 | 2023-02-28 | Open Text Sa Ulc | Compositional entity modeling systems and methods |
Families Citing this family (18)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8209216B2 (en) * | 2008-10-31 | 2012-06-26 | Demandtec, Inc. | Method and apparatus for configurable model-independent decomposition of a business metric |
US8812452B1 (en) * | 2009-06-30 | 2014-08-19 | Emc Corporation | Context-driven model transformation for query processing |
US20120158556A1 (en) * | 2010-12-20 | 2012-06-21 | Bare Said | Dynamic Measurement Of Business Service Usage |
US8478766B1 (en) * | 2011-02-02 | 2013-07-02 | Comindware Ltd. | Unified data architecture for business process management |
US20130139164A1 (en) * | 2011-11-28 | 2013-05-30 | Sap Ag | Business Process Optimization |
US20130151298A1 (en) * | 2011-12-12 | 2013-06-13 | Moose Loop Holdings, LLC | Acquiring and distributing tasks |
US9081472B2 (en) | 2011-12-14 | 2015-07-14 | Sap Se | Dynamic enhancement of context matching rules for business scenario models |
US20130159037A1 (en) * | 2011-12-14 | 2013-06-20 | Ulrich Keil | Multilevel visualization of scenario models and scenario instances |
US9070097B2 (en) | 2011-12-14 | 2015-06-30 | Sap Se | Seamless morphing from scenario model to system-based instance visualization |
US9286584B2 (en) | 2011-12-14 | 2016-03-15 | Sap Se | Visualizing business processes or scenarios in a business software model using transit maps |
US9355375B2 (en) | 2011-12-14 | 2016-05-31 | Holger Knospe | Launch of target user interface features based on specific business process instances |
US9064220B2 (en) | 2011-12-14 | 2015-06-23 | Sap Se | Linear visualization for overview, status display, and navigation along business scenario instances |
JP2014035620A (en) * | 2012-08-08 | 2014-02-24 | International Business Maschines Corporation | Device and method providing information on business element |
US9753615B1 (en) * | 2014-02-20 | 2017-09-05 | The Mathworks, Inc. | Interactive heat map for graphical model performance view |
US20170193409A1 (en) * | 2014-09-19 | 2017-07-06 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp | Business resource modeling |
US11275775B2 (en) * | 2014-10-09 | 2022-03-15 | Splunk Inc. | Performing search queries for key performance indicators using an optimized common information model |
US10860549B2 (en) | 2015-08-05 | 2020-12-08 | Equifax Inc. | Building and managing data-processing attributes for modeled data sources |
US11138241B2 (en) | 2019-07-19 | 2021-10-05 | Walmart Apollo, Llc | Metric definition and visualization |
Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6606744B1 (en) * | 1999-11-22 | 2003-08-12 | Accenture, Llp | Providing collaborative installation management in a network-based supply chain environment |
US6718535B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2004-04-06 | Accenture Llp | System, method and article of manufacture for an activity framework design in an e-commerce based environment |
Family Cites Families (16)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20010053991A1 (en) * | 2000-03-08 | 2001-12-20 | Bonabeau Eric W. | Methods and systems for generating business models |
US7334216B2 (en) * | 2000-04-04 | 2008-02-19 | Sosy, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automatic generation of information system user interfaces |
US7503033B2 (en) * | 2000-04-28 | 2009-03-10 | Microsoft Corporation | Model for business workflow processes |
US7409671B1 (en) * | 2000-04-28 | 2008-08-05 | Microsoft Corporation | Model for business workflow processes |
EP1225508A1 (en) * | 2001-01-19 | 2002-07-24 | Thinkingcap Technology Limited | A universal software application |
US20030115211A1 (en) * | 2001-12-14 | 2003-06-19 | Metaedge Corporation | Spatial intelligence system and method |
US20040073442A1 (en) * | 2002-10-11 | 2004-04-15 | Heyns Herman R. | Strategic planning and valuation |
US7711670B2 (en) * | 2002-11-13 | 2010-05-04 | Sap Ag | Agent engine |
US7730446B2 (en) * | 2003-03-12 | 2010-06-01 | Microsoft Corporation | Software business process model |
US7577934B2 (en) * | 2003-03-12 | 2009-08-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Framework for modeling and providing runtime behavior for business software applications |
US7860902B2 (en) * | 2003-07-22 | 2010-12-28 | Sap Ag | Side-effect modeling |
US20050071750A1 (en) * | 2003-09-30 | 2005-03-31 | Nelson Brent Dalmas | Method and system for automated metamodel system file generation |
US20050154976A1 (en) * | 2003-09-30 | 2005-07-14 | Nelson Brent D. | Method and system for automated metamodel system software code standardization |
US20060241956A1 (en) * | 2005-04-22 | 2006-10-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Transforming business models |
US7634766B2 (en) * | 2005-05-20 | 2009-12-15 | Sun Microsystems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for pattern-based system design analysis using a meta model |
US7895572B2 (en) * | 2005-08-15 | 2011-02-22 | Sap Aktiengesellschaft | Systems and methods for enterprise software management |
-
2005
- 2005-10-11 US US11/247,028 patent/US20070106520A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2008
- 2008-03-25 US US12/054,827 patent/US8341592B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6601233B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2003-07-29 | Accenture Llp | Business components framework |
US6718535B1 (en) * | 1999-07-30 | 2004-04-06 | Accenture Llp | System, method and article of manufacture for an activity framework design in an e-commerce based environment |
US6606744B1 (en) * | 1999-11-22 | 2003-08-12 | Accenture, Llp | Providing collaborative installation management in a network-based supply chain environment |
Cited By (95)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20070112718A1 (en) * | 2005-10-25 | 2007-05-17 | Shixia Liu | Method and apparatus to enable integrated computation of model-level and domain-level business semantics |
US20070179833A1 (en) * | 2006-01-31 | 2007-08-02 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Assisted business process exception management |
US9275390B1 (en) | 2006-04-17 | 2016-03-01 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Systems and methods for state based advertisement messaging across media types |
US8423408B1 (en) | 2006-04-17 | 2013-04-16 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Dynamic advertising content distribution and placement systems and methods |
US20070288250A1 (en) * | 2006-06-09 | 2007-12-13 | Jens Lemcke | Method and system for generating collaborative processes |
US10410237B1 (en) | 2006-06-26 | 2019-09-10 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Inventory management integrating subscriber and targeting data |
US8442858B1 (en) | 2006-07-21 | 2013-05-14 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Subscriber data insertion into advertisement requests |
US10664851B1 (en) | 2006-11-08 | 2020-05-26 | Sprint Communications Company, L.P. | Behavioral analysis engine for profiling wireless subscribers |
US10068261B1 (en) | 2006-11-09 | 2018-09-04 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | In-flight campaign optimization |
US20080140472A1 (en) * | 2006-12-12 | 2008-06-12 | Dagan Gilat | Method and Computer Program Product for Modeling an Organization |
US8326673B1 (en) * | 2006-12-28 | 2012-12-04 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Carrier data based product inventory management and marketing |
US20090006150A1 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2009-01-01 | Sap Ag | Coherent multi-dimensional business process model |
US8386996B2 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2013-02-26 | Sap Ag | Process extension wizard for coherent multi-dimensional business process models |
US20090007056A1 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2009-01-01 | Sap Ag | Process extension wizard for coherent multi-dimensional business process models |
US8479149B2 (en) | 2008-04-04 | 2013-07-02 | Infosys Limited | Concept-oriented software engineering system and method for identifying, extracting, organizing, inferring and querying software system facts |
US8752005B2 (en) | 2008-04-04 | 2014-06-10 | Infosys Limited | Concept-oriented software engineering system and method for identifying, extracting, organizing, inferring and querying software system facts |
US20090254876A1 (en) * | 2008-04-04 | 2009-10-08 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Concept-oriented software engineering system and method for identifying, extracting, organizing, inferring and querying software system facts |
US20090254877A1 (en) * | 2008-04-04 | 2009-10-08 | Infosys Technologies Ltd. | Concept-oriented software engineering system and method for identifying, extracting, organizing, inferring and querying software system facts |
US20090281845A1 (en) * | 2008-05-06 | 2009-11-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus of constructing and exploring kpi networks |
US20120317054A1 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2012-12-13 | Haynes Iii James M | Commercial investment analysis |
US8214244B2 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2012-07-03 | Strategyn, Inc. | Commercial investment analysis |
US8655704B2 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2014-02-18 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Commercial investment analysis |
US20090299912A1 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2009-12-03 | Strategyn, Inc. | Commercial investment analysis |
US8924244B2 (en) | 2008-05-30 | 2014-12-30 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Commercial investment analysis |
US8543442B2 (en) | 2008-05-30 | 2013-09-24 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Commercial investment analysis |
US10592988B2 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2020-03-17 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Commercial investment analysis |
US20150081594A1 (en) * | 2008-05-30 | 2015-03-19 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Commercial investment analysis |
US8539444B2 (en) | 2008-06-30 | 2013-09-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for platform-independent, script-based application generation for spreadsheet software |
US20090328010A1 (en) * | 2008-06-30 | 2009-12-31 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for platform-independent, script-based application generation for spreadsheet software |
US8494894B2 (en) | 2008-09-19 | 2013-07-23 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Universal customer based information and ontology platform for business information and innovation management |
US20100082691A1 (en) * | 2008-09-19 | 2010-04-01 | Strategyn, Inc. | Universal customer based information and ontology platform for business information and innovation management |
US20100082696A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for inferring and visualizing correlations of different business aspects for business transformation |
US20100082407A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for financial transformation |
US8175911B2 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2012-05-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for inferring and visualizing correlations of different business aspects for business transformation |
US20100082386A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by analyzing series of heat maps by dimension |
US8145518B2 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2012-03-27 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by analyzing series of heat maps by dimension |
US20100082385A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for determining temperature of business components for finding business transformation opportunities |
US20100082387A1 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2010-04-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by using a multi-dimensional shortfall analysis of an enterprise |
US8359216B2 (en) | 2008-10-01 | 2013-01-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by using a multi-dimensional shortfall analysis of an enterprise |
US9092824B2 (en) * | 2008-10-01 | 2015-07-28 | International Business Machines Corporation | System and method for financial transformation |
US8275853B2 (en) * | 2009-01-29 | 2012-09-25 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Method and system for a service intermediary selection in a web service management system |
US20100191796A1 (en) * | 2009-01-29 | 2010-07-29 | Almeida Kiran Joseph | Method and system for a service intermediary selection in a web service management system |
US8301438B2 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2012-10-30 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for processing natural language questions and apparatus thereof |
US20100299139A1 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2010-11-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for processing natural language questions and apparatus thereof |
US9135633B2 (en) | 2009-05-18 | 2015-09-15 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Needs-based mapping and processing engine |
US8666977B2 (en) | 2009-05-18 | 2014-03-04 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Needs-based mapping and processing engine |
US20110145230A1 (en) * | 2009-05-18 | 2011-06-16 | Strategyn, Inc. | Needs-based mapping and processing engine |
US20100299165A1 (en) * | 2009-05-19 | 2010-11-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Value network performance comparison analysis |
US8954342B2 (en) | 2009-12-03 | 2015-02-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Publishing an industry business architecture model |
US20110137714A1 (en) * | 2009-12-03 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for managing business performance using industry business architecture models |
US20110137819A1 (en) * | 2009-12-04 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Tool for creating an industry business architecture model |
US20110137622A1 (en) * | 2009-12-07 | 2011-06-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Assessing the maturity of an industry architecture model |
US8532963B2 (en) | 2009-12-07 | 2013-09-10 | International Business Machines Corporation | Assessing the maturity of an industry architecture model |
US20110196719A1 (en) * | 2010-02-05 | 2011-08-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for enhancing business performance |
US20110218837A1 (en) * | 2010-03-03 | 2011-09-08 | Strategyn, Inc. | Facilitating growth investment decisions |
US8583469B2 (en) | 2010-03-03 | 2013-11-12 | Strategyn Holdings, Llc | Facilitating growth investment decisions |
US20120011157A1 (en) * | 2010-07-07 | 2012-01-12 | Lindsey Technologies.com Inc. | Method and system for inferencing taxonomy topic concept objects using a metamodel instance model |
US8560480B2 (en) * | 2010-08-25 | 2013-10-15 | Sap Ag | Task-based experience reuse |
US20120054142A1 (en) * | 2010-08-25 | 2012-03-01 | Sap Ag | Task-based experience reuse |
JP2012089119A (en) * | 2010-10-12 | 2012-05-10 | Sap Ag | Business network meta model |
US20120089685A1 (en) * | 2010-10-12 | 2012-04-12 | Sap Ag | Business Network Meta Model |
US8661107B2 (en) * | 2010-10-12 | 2014-02-25 | Sap Ag | Business network meta model |
US8776010B2 (en) * | 2010-10-27 | 2014-07-08 | Microsoft Corporation | Data type provider for a data store |
US20120110548A1 (en) * | 2010-10-27 | 2012-05-03 | Microsoft Corporation | Data type provider for an operating system instrumentation store |
US9483745B2 (en) | 2010-11-03 | 2016-11-01 | Sap Se | Business network GUI |
US9213698B1 (en) * | 2011-02-02 | 2015-12-15 | Comindware Ltd. | Unified data architecture for business process management and data modeling |
US20130151691A1 (en) * | 2011-12-09 | 2013-06-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | Analyzing and Reporting Business Objectives in Multi-Component Information Technology Solutions |
US9311623B2 (en) | 2012-02-09 | 2016-04-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | System to view and manipulate artifacts at a temporal reference point |
US9311624B2 (en) * | 2012-02-09 | 2016-04-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | System to view and manipulate artifacts at a temporal reference point |
US20140129297A1 (en) * | 2012-11-07 | 2014-05-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Determining calculation expression for finding kpi relating to business process |
US10405173B1 (en) | 2013-06-05 | 2019-09-03 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Method and systems of collecting and segmenting device sensor data while in transit via a network |
US10606842B2 (en) | 2013-06-17 | 2020-03-31 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Cross-model filtering |
US20140372481A1 (en) * | 2013-06-17 | 2014-12-18 | Microsoft Corporation | Cross-model filtering |
US9720972B2 (en) * | 2013-06-17 | 2017-08-01 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Cross-model filtering |
US9319379B1 (en) | 2013-08-01 | 2016-04-19 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Methods and systems of generating a unique mobile device identifier |
US9590938B1 (en) | 2013-09-11 | 2017-03-07 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for identifying a mobile device with near real time visualization to action |
US9374335B2 (en) | 2013-09-11 | 2016-06-21 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for distributing messages to particular mobile devices |
US10410241B1 (en) | 2013-11-27 | 2019-09-10 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Swipe screen advertisement metrics and tracking |
US9922347B1 (en) | 2013-11-27 | 2018-03-20 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Ad management using ads cached on a mobile electronic device |
CN103744651A (en) * | 2013-12-20 | 2014-04-23 | 柳州职业技术学院 | Method for automatically generating business processing model oriented to business requirements |
US9734515B1 (en) | 2014-01-09 | 2017-08-15 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Ad management using ads cached on a mobile electronic device |
US9984395B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-05-29 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Advertisement mediation of supply-demand communications |
US10013707B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-07-03 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Address modification for advertisement mediation |
US10055757B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2018-08-21 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | IP address hashing in advertisement gateway |
US9836771B1 (en) | 2014-01-21 | 2017-12-05 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Client mediation and integration to advertisement gateway |
US20150317580A1 (en) * | 2014-04-30 | 2015-11-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Business performance metrics and information technology cost analysis |
US10176003B2 (en) * | 2014-09-02 | 2019-01-08 | Sap Se | Integrated framework for monitoring business activities |
US9508090B1 (en) | 2014-09-24 | 2016-11-29 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | End user participation in mobile advertisement |
US9818133B1 (en) | 2014-10-20 | 2017-11-14 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Method for consumer profile consolidation using mobile network identification |
US11593072B2 (en) * | 2015-06-23 | 2023-02-28 | Open Text Sa Ulc | Compositional entity modeling systems and methods |
US11294646B2 (en) | 2016-05-04 | 2022-04-05 | Open Text Sa Ulc | Application development and extensibility/customization using entity modeling systems and methods |
US10628152B2 (en) * | 2017-06-19 | 2020-04-21 | Accenture Global Solutions Limited | Automatic generation of microservices based on technical description of legacy code |
CN110766504A (en) * | 2018-09-27 | 2020-02-07 | 北京嘀嘀无限科技发展有限公司 | Display interface construction method, interface display method and device and electronic equipment |
WO2020142524A1 (en) * | 2018-12-31 | 2020-07-09 | Kobai, Inc. | Decision intelligence system and method |
US11321781B1 (en) * | 2021-03-11 | 2022-05-03 | Bottomline Technologies, Inc. | System and a method for facilitating financial planning |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US8341592B2 (en) | 2012-12-25 |
US20080177622A1 (en) | 2008-07-24 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US8341592B2 (en) | System and method for conducting dependency analysis of business components | |
Nalchigar et al. | Business-driven data analytics: A conceptual modeling framework | |
US8006223B2 (en) | Method and system for estimating project plans for packaged software applications | |
US8290806B2 (en) | Method and system for estimating financial benefits of packaged application service projects | |
US8055606B2 (en) | Method and system for self-calibrating project estimation models for packaged software applications | |
US7971180B2 (en) | Method and system for evaluating multi-dimensional project plans for implementing packaged software applications | |
Hendricks et al. | Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An empirical investigation | |
US7761478B2 (en) | Semantic business model management | |
US8145518B2 (en) | System and method for finding business transformation opportunities by analyzing series of heat maps by dimension | |
US20080312980A1 (en) | Method and system for staffing and cost estimation models aligned with multi-dimensional project plans for packaged software applications | |
US20120323628A1 (en) | Business information and innovation management | |
US20080313008A1 (en) | Method and system for model-driven approaches to generic project estimation models for packaged software applications | |
Wagner | Enterprise strategy management systems: current and next generation | |
Pourshahid et al. | A goal-oriented, business intelligence-supported decision-making methodology | |
US20090076880A1 (en) | System and method for managing the activities of an organization | |
Land et al. | Software systems in-house integration: Architecture, process practices, and strategy selection | |
Vera et al. | Best practices of business process improvement: towards a representation on top of the Quintessence kernel | |
Grant | ERP & data warehousing in organizations: Issues and challenges | |
US20050038693A1 (en) | Technical sales systems and methods | |
Yao et al. | Modeling and configuration of process variants for on-boarding customers to IT outsourcing | |
Niedermann | Deep Business Optimization: concepts and architecture for an analytical business process optimization platform | |
Pareto et al. | Collaborative prioritization of architectural concerns | |
Veres et al. | Using semantic technologies to enhance a requirements engineering approach for alignment of IT with business strategy | |
Gulledge et al. | Aligning the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model with enterprise applications: real-time value chain intelligence | |
Assertion | An Applied Mathematical Model for Business Transformation |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, NEW Y Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:AKKIRAJU, RAMAKALYANI;GOODWIN, RICHARD THOMAS;IVAN, ANCA-ANDREEA;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:017295/0201 Effective date: 20050919 |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO PAY ISSUE FEE |