IP Library › Granted Patent US 10,445,674
Granted Patent B2
US 10,445,674 · App. 15/445,692 · Granted Oct 15, 2019

Measure factory

Inventors: James Clark (Andover, MA); Frederick A. Powers (Sudbury, MA); Daniel J. Jablonski (Stoneham, MA); Matthew J. Gorman (Wellesley, MA); George M. Dealy (Medfield, MA)
Assignee: Dimensional Insight Incorporated
G06Q10/06316G06F3/048G06F3/0484G06F16/00G06F16/26G06Q10/067
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 10,445,674
App. No.
15/445,692
Granted
Oct 15, 2019
Kind
B2
Abstract

A measure factory for generating analytic measures includes data sets representing business activities arranged as columnar arrays with each column being associated with a distinct source rule that applies to the column when it is used as a data source. The measure factory includes factory rules that govern which operations on available data sources may be executed under what conditions in the measure factory, such as by taking into account the source rules and other applicable factory rules. A factory rule execution hierarchy governs the execution of ready factory rules that lack dependency on other factory rules before executing ready factory rules that have dependency on other factory rules. A script generation facility generates a script to process the plurality of factory rules according to the factory rule execution hierarchy.

Claims (30)

1. A computer-implemented measure factory for generating analytic measures, comprising:

a plurality of data sets comprised of data representing business activities arranged as a columnar array wherein each column is associated with a distinct source rule that applies to the column when it is used as a data source;

a plurality of factory rules that govern which operations on available data sources are executed based on one or more conditions in the measure factory, the executing of operations taking into account the source rules that are applicable to the data sources and at least one other of the plurality of factory rules;

a factory rule execution hierarchy that indicates an order of factory rule execution, the order comprising executing factory rules that lack dependency on other factory rules before executing factory rules that have dependency on other factory rules, and executing ready calc rules, ready flag rules, and ready lookup rules before executing ready link rules which execute before ready plugin rules; and

a factory rules processing facility that applies a portion of the plurality of factory rules to at least a portion of the plurality of data sets.

2. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein an order in which factory rules are presented to the measure factory is independent of an order in which the measure factory executes the factory rules.

3. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein a factory rule is determined to be ready when data that the factory rule requires is available in one or more of the plurality of data sets.

4. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein the data is treated as available when at least one of the following conditions exist: (a) if it is determined only by application of source rules and (b) if it is generated by another factory rule the processing of which is complete for data that the factory rule requires.

5. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein the factory rules processing facility comprises a processor that optimizes at least one factory rule associated with the plurality of data sets by generating and executing a machine-specific code version of the at least one factory rule.

6. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein the factory rules processing facility uses execution threads that separately process portions of the factory rules based on at least one of grouping common calculations across ready rules and grouping different rule calculations that process common portions of at least one of the plurality of data sets.

7. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein a data graph is derived from references to the plurality of data sets in the factory rules.

8. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 7 , wherein the data graph is generated as a step in a factory rules processing process.

9. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 1 , wherein the factory rules processing facility selects at least one of a plurality of factory rules based on an effectivity date associated with each of the plurality of factory rules and a target date.

10. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 9 , wherein the target date is a date on which the at least one of a plurality of factory rules is processed.

11. The computer-implemented measure factory of claim 9 , wherein the target date is an effectivity date.

12. A computer-implemented method of automated measurement of business performance with a measure factory, comprising:

configuring a plurality of business performance measure factory rules as relationships of data source rules and of other factory rules;

arranging a plurality of data sets with data representing business activities as columnar arrays wherein each column is associated with a distinct source rule that applies to the column when the column is used as a data source by the measure factory;

processing a portion of the plurality of data sets from the factory rules based on a factory rule execution hierarchy that indicates an order of factory rule execution, the order comprising executing factory rules that lack dependency on other factory rules before executing factory rules that have dependency on other factory rules, and executing ready calc rules, ready flag rules, and ready lookup rules before executing ready link rules which execute before ready plugin rules; and

processing the portion of the plurality of data sets to produce a business measure.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein an order in which factory rules are presented to the measure factory is independent of an order in which the measure factory executes the factory rules.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein a factory rule is determined to be ready when data that the factory rule requires is available in one or more of the plurality of data sets.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein the data is treated as available when at least one of the following conditions exist: (a) if it is determined only by application of source rules and (b) if it is generated by another factory rule the processing of which is complete for the data that the factory rule requires.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein applying the factory rules comprises executing a machine-specific code version of at least one of the factory rules with a processor on the portion of the plurality of data sets.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein the measure factory uses execution threads that separately process portions of the factory rules based on at least one of grouping common calculations across ready rules and grouping different rule calculations that process common portions of at least one of the plurality of data sets.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein a data graph is derived from references to the plurality of data sets in the factory rules.

19. The computer-implemented method of claim 18 , wherein the data graph is derived as a step in a measure factory process.

20. The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , wherein the measure factory selects at least one of a plurality of factory rules based on an effectivity date associated with each of the plurality of factory rules and a target date.

21. The computer-implemented method of claim 20 , wherein the target date is a date on which the at least one of a plurality of factory rules is processed.

22. The computer-implemented method of claim 20 , wherein the target date is an effectivity date.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Apr 28, 2017
From: CLARK, JAMES; POWERS, FREDERICK A.; JABLONSKI, DANIEL J.; GORMAN, MATTHEW J.; DEALY, GEORGE M.
To: DIMENSIONAL INSIGHT INCORPORATED
Reel/Frame 042172/0122 →
Continuity (8)
Continuation In Part 15164546 · May 25, 2016
Continuation In Part 14954795 · Nov 30, 2015
Continuation 13907274 · May 31, 2013
Provisional Application 62301136 · Feb 29, 2016
Provisional Application 62168339 · May 29, 2015
Provisional Application 61655847 · Jun 5, 2012
Provisional Application 61789527 · Mar 15, 2013
Related Publication 20170270452A1 · Sep 21, 2017