US5406477A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Multiple reasoning and result reconciliation for enterprise analysis
Assignee: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP
•
Filing: 1994-06-10
•
Granted: 1995-04-11
•
Expires: 2014-06-10
Abstract
Abstract A computer-based method and apparatus for enterprise analysis, with which a user can generate value projections by applying, in parallel, multiple reasoning methods. The invention presents a method and apparatus for creating a complex, networked model of an enterprise, or system and its environment, that is structured from categorized objects and relationships. Using the model, the present invention is self sufficient in determining which areas of the multiple reasoning methods to appy to the variable projection problem. Applying reasoning methods to a single projection problem generates a set of conflicting intermediate hypotheses that the present invention can resolve to form a single final hypothesis through a reconciliation process that evaluates quality factors associated with the intermediate hypotheses. A problem solution tree tracks the solution process to provide to the user a full explanation of the methods chosen or discarded and data relied upon or disregarded.
Inventors
- 👤 John Harhen
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-27 08:23
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06Q; G06Q10/00; G06Q10/06; G06Q30/00; G06Q30/02; G06Q30/0201; Y; Y10; Y10S; Y10S706/00; Y10S706/902; Y10S706/925
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 25
Claim 1
Independent Claim
300 words
A system analyzer which comprises: a. an input device; b. a computer processor coupled to the input device and arranged to accept as input a user query from the input device; c. a memory coupled to the computer processor; d. the memory including: i. a set of data objects, each data object in the set of data objects comprising information concerning a component of a system to be analyzed; ii. a set of variable objects, each variable object in the set of variable objects defining a factor which affects the functioning of at least one of the components of the system; iii. each variable object in the set of variable objects being linked to at least one other variable object in the set of variable objects by a first relationship being a member of a first set of pre-determined relationships such that the first relationship defines a real-world association that exists between the variable objects linked by the first relationship; iv. each data object in the set of data objects being linked to a preselected variable object by a second relationship being a member of a second set of pre-determined relationships such that the second relationship describes the applicability of the information contained in the data object linked thereby for use in determining a value for variable object linked thereby; v. a set of analytical methods; and e. the computer processor operating to process the user query by automatically selecting at least two analytical methods from the set of analytical methods and applying the selected analytical methods to obtain an answer to the user query from each analytical method, wherein the automatic selection of each analytical method is determined by the applicability of said analytical method to the query based upon the configuration of the data objects and variable objects.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
300 words
A system analyzer which comprises: a. an input device; b. a computer processor coupled to the input device and arranged to accept as input a user query from the input device; c. a memory coupled to the computer processor; d. the memory including: i. a set of data objects, each data object in the set of data objects comprising information concerning a component of a system to be analyzed; ii. a set of variable objects, each variable object in the set of variable objects defining a factor which affects the functioning of at least one of the components of the system; iii. each variable object in the set of variable objects being linked to at least one other variable object in the set of variable objects by a first relationship being a member of a first set of pre-determined relationships such that the first relationship defines a real-world association that exists between the variable objects linked by the first relationship; iv. each data object in the set of data objects being linked to a preselected variable object by a second relationship being a member of a second set of pre-determined relationships such that the second relationship describes the applicability of the information contained in the data object linked thereby for use in determining a value for variable object linked thereby; v. a set of analytical methods; and e. the computer processor operating to process the user query by automatically selecting at least two analytical methods from the set of analytical methods and applying the selected analytical methods to obtain an answer to the user query from each analytical method, wherein the automatic selection of each analytical method is determined by the applicability of said analytical method to the query based upon the configuration of the data objects and variable objects.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
30 words
The system analyzer of claim 1, wherein the computer processor operates to determine a single response to the user query by reconciling among the answers obtained from each analytical method.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
210 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise wherein the model is a frame-based model of the enterprise including a set of frames, each frame in the model representing real-world knowledge, each frame comprising a list of relationships, each relationship in the list of relationships specifying a relationship with another frame, each frame further comprising a list of attributes that store data relating to the frame; storing the model of the enterprise in a knowledge base; providing a set of reasoning methods; providing a set of reconciliation rules; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; applying each reasoning method in the set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the set of frees, to generate from each reasoning method an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each intermediate hypothesis to obtain the future value of the variable by: (i) locating available reconciliation rules from the set of reconciliation rules; (ii) ordering the available reconciliation rules according to a pre-selected preference scheme; and (iii) applying the available reconciliation rules in the order determined at step (ii).
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
210 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise wherein the model is a frame-based model of the enterprise including a set of frames, each frame in the model representing real-world knowledge, each frame comprising a list of relationships, each relationship in the list of relationships specifying a relationship with another frame, each frame further comprising a list of attributes that store data relating to the frame; storing the model of the enterprise in a knowledge base; providing a set of reasoning methods; providing a set of reconciliation rules; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; applying each reasoning method in the set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the set of frees, to generate from each reasoning method an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each intermediate hypothesis to obtain the future value of the variable by: (i) locating available reconciliation rules from the set of reconciliation rules; (ii) ordering the available reconciliation rules according to a pre-selected preference scheme; and (iii) applying the available reconciliation rules in the order determined at step (ii).
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
20 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise includes information about production processes performed by the enterprise.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
17 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise includes information about a market environment.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
19 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise represents facts about the structure of the enterprise.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
21 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise includes flow relationships, causal relationships, compositional relationships and productivity relationships.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise includes proportionality relationships.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
19 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the model of the enterprise includes opinion information, goal information and plan information.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
73 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of creating a model of the enterprise includes the steps of identifying a plurality of objects that each represent a fact about the structure of the enterprise; assigning at least one attribute to each one of the plurality of objects; assigning at least one value to each one of the plurality of objects; and connecting each one of the plurality of objects to related objects.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes proportionality reasoning.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
16 words
The method of claim 11 wherein the set of reasoning methods further includes historical trend analysis.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes historical trend analysis.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes reasoning from productivity.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method of claim 3 wherein the step of applying each reasoning method in the set of reasoning methods comprises the step of applying each reasoning method in parallel.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
146 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise; storing the model of the enterprise; providing a set of reasoning methods; providing a set of reconciliation rules; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; applying each reasoning method in the set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the model, to generate from each reasoning method an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each reasoning method to obtain the future value of the variable, by (i) locating available reconciliation rules from the set of reconciliation rules, (ii) ordering the available reconciliation rules according to a pre-selected preference scheme, and (iii) applying the available reconciliation rules in the order determined at step (ii).
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
146 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise; storing the model of the enterprise; providing a set of reasoning methods; providing a set of reconciliation rules; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; applying each reasoning method in the set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the model, to generate from each reasoning method an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each reasoning method to obtain the future value of the variable, by (i) locating available reconciliation rules from the set of reconciliation rules, (ii) ordering the available reconciliation rules according to a pre-selected preference scheme, and (iii) applying the available reconciliation rules in the order determined at step (ii).
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
177 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise comprising a set of variables objects each representing a component of the enterprise; storing the model of the enterprise in a knowledge base; providing a set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method including an attached required evidence procedure having a variable template; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; selecting a sub-set of reasoning methods from the set of reasoning methods that are applicable to the query by determining if the variable matched the variable template specified in the attached required evidence procedure for each reasoning method; applying each reasoning method in the sub-set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the knowledge base, to generate from each reasoning method in the sub-set of reasoning methods an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each intermediate hypothesis to obtain the future value of the variable.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
177 words
A computer-based method to project the future value of a variable that relates to an enterprise, the method comprising the steps of: creating a model of the enterprise comprising a set of variables objects each representing a component of the enterprise; storing the model of the enterprise in a knowledge base; providing a set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method including an attached required evidence procedure having a variable template; accepting as input a query that requests information about the future value of the variable; selecting a sub-set of reasoning methods from the set of reasoning methods that are applicable to the query by determining if the variable matched the variable template specified in the attached required evidence procedure for each reasoning method; applying each reasoning method in the sub-set of reasoning methods, each reasoning method utilizing the knowledge base, to generate from each reasoning method in the sub-set of reasoning methods an intermediate hypothesis as to the future value of the variable; and reconciling between each intermediate hypothesis to obtain the future value of the variable.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
14 words
The method of claim 17 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes proportionality reasoning.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
16 words
The method of claim 18 wherein the set of reasoning methods further includes historical trend analysis.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 17 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes historical trend analysis.
Claim 25
Dependent Claim
15 words
The method of claim 17 wherein the set of reasoning methods includes reasoning from productivity.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
UST998008I4
Cited
US4754409A
Cited
US4918521A
Cited
US5088048A
Cited
US5182793A
Cited
US5175797A
Cited
US5224204A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 1998-04-10 | 1998-10-10 | 1999-04-11 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2002-04-10 | 2002-10-10 | 2003-04-11 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2006-04-10 | 2006-10-10 | 2007-04-11 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |