Search Results

Search found 753 results on 31 pages for 'decisions'.

Page 3/31 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • The softer side of BPM

    - by [email protected]
    BPM and RTD are great complementary technologies that together provide a much higher benefit than each of them separately. BPM covers the need for automating processes, making sure that there is uniformity, that rules and regulations are complied with and that the process runs smoothly and quickly processes the units flowing through it. By nature, this automation and unification can lead to a stricter, less flexible process. To avoid this problem it is common to encounter process definition that include multiple conditional branches and human input to help direct processing in the direction that best applies to the current situation. This is where RTD comes into play. The selection of branches and conditions and the optimization of decisions is better left in the hands of a system that can measure the results of its decisions in a closed loop fashion and make decisions based on the empirical knowledge accumulated through observing the running of the process.When designing a business process there are key places in which it may be beneficial to introduce RTD decisions. These are:Thresholds - whenever a threshold is used to determine the processing of a unit, there may be an opportunity to make the threshold "softer" by introducing an RTD decision based on predicted results. For example an insurance company process may have a total claim threshold to initiate an investigation. Instead of having that threshold, RTD could be used to help determine what claims to investigate based on the likelihood they are fraudulent, cost of investigation and effect on processing time.Human decisions - sometimes a process will let the human participants make decisions of flow. For example, a call center process may leave the escalation decision to the agent. While this has flexibility, it may produce undesired results and asymetry in customer treatment that is not based on objective functions but subjective reasoning by the agent. Instead, an RTD decision may be introduced to recommend escalation or other kinds of treatments.Content Selection - a process may include the use of messaging with customers. The selection of the most appropriate message to the customer given the content can be optimized with RTD.A/B Testing - a process may have optional paths for which it is not clear what populations they work better for. Rather than making the arbitrary selection or selection by committee of the option deeped the best, RTD can be introduced to dynamically determine the best path for each unit.In summary, RTD can be used to make BPM based process automation more dynamic and adaptable to the different situations encountered in processing. Effectively making the automation softer, less rigid in its processing.

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic urls with singular resources

    - by Brendon Muir
    I'm getting strange output when using the following routing setup: resources :warranty_types do resources :decisions end resource :warranty_review, :only => [] do resources :decisions end I have many warranty_types but only one warranty_review (thus the singular route declaration). The decisions are polymorphically associated with both. I have just a single decisions controller and a single _form.html.haml partial to render the form for a decision. This is the view code: = simple_form_for @decision, :url => [@decision_tree_owner, @decision.becomes(Decision)] do |form| The warranty_type url looks like this (for a new decision): /warranty_types/2/decisions whereas the warranty_review url looks like this: /admin/warranty_review/decisions.1 I think because the warranty_review id has no where to go, it's just getting appended to the end as an extension. Can someone explain what's going on here and how I might be able to fix it? I can work around it by trying to detect for a warranty_review class and substituting @decision_tree_owner with :warranty_review and this generates the correct url, but this is messy. I would have thought that the routing would be smart enough to realise that warranty_review is a singular resource and thus discard the id from the URL. This is Rails 3 by the way :)

    Read the article

  • What does it mean to treat data as an asset?

    What does it mean to treat data as an asset? When considering this concept, we must define what data is and how it can be considered an asset. Data can easily be defined as a collection of stored truths that are open to interpretation and manipulation.  Expanding on this definition, data can be viewed as a set of captured facts, measurements, and ideas used to make decisions. Furthermore, InvestorsWords.com defines asset as any item of economic value owned by an individual or corporation. Now let’s apply this definition of asset to our definition of data, and ask the following question. Can facts, measurements and ideas be items that are of economic value owned by an individual or corporation? The obvious answer is yes; data can be bought and sold like commodities or analyzed to make smarter business decisions.  We can look at the economic value of data in one of two ways. First, data can be sold as a commodity that can take the form of goods like eBooks, Training, Music, Movies, and so on. Customers are willing to pay to gain access to this data for their consumption. This directly implies that there is an economic value for data in the form of a commodity because customers see a value in obtaining it.  Secondly data can be used in making smarter business decisions that allow for companies to become more profitable and/or reduce their potential for risk in regards to how they operate.  In the past I have worked at companies where we had to analyze previous sales activities in conjunction with current activities to determine how the company was preforming for the quarter.  In addition trends can be formulated based on existing data that allow companies to forecast data so that they can make strategic business decisions based sound forecasted data. Companies that truly value their data are constantly trying to grow and upgrade their data and supporting applications because it is the life blood of a company. If we look at an eBook retailer for example, imagine if they lost all of their data. They would be in essence forced out of business because they would have nothing to sell. In turn, if we look at a company that was using data to facilitate better decision making processes and they lost all of their data then they could be losing potential revenue and/ or increasing the company’s losses by making important business decisions virtually in the dark compared to when they were made on solid data.

    Read the article

  • How can architects work with self-organizing Scrum teams?

    - by Martin Wickman
    An organization with a number of agile Scrum teams also has a small group of people appointed as "enterprise architects". The EA group acts as control and gatekeeper for quality and adherence to decisions. This leads to overlaps between the team decision and EA decisions. For instance, the team might want to use library X or want to use REST instead of SOAP, but the EA does not approve of that. Now, this can lead to frustration when team decisions are overruled. Taken far enough, it can potentially lead to a situation where the EA people "grabs" all power and the team ends up feeling demotivated and not very agile at all. The Scrum guides has this to say about it: Self-organizing: No one (not even the Scrum Master) tells the Development Team how to turn Product Backlog into Increments of potentially releasable functionality. Is that reasonable? Should the EA team be disbanded? Should the teams refuse or simply comply?

    Read the article

  • Construction Paper, Legos, and Architectural Modeling

    I can remember as a kid playing with construction paper and Legos to explore my imagination. Through my exploration I was able to build airplanes, footballs, guns, and more, out of paper. Additionally I could create entire cities, robots, or anything else I could image out of Legos.  These toys, I now realize were in fact tools that gave me an opportunity to explore my ideas in the physical world through the use of modeling.  My imagination was allowed to run wild as I, unknowingly at the time, made design decisions that directly affected the models I was building from the raw materials.  To prove my point further, I can remember building a paper airplane that seemed to go nowhere when I tried to throw it. So I decided to attach a paper clip to the plane before I decided to throw it the next time to test my concept that by adding more weight to the plane that it would fly better and for longer distances. The paper airplane allowed me to model my design decision through the use of creating an artifact in that I created a paper airplane that was carrying extra weight through the incorporation of the paper clip in to the design. Also, I remember using Legos to build all sorts of creations, and these creations became artifacts of my imagination. As I further and further defined my Lego creations through the process of playing I was able to create elaborate artifacts of my imagination. These artifacts represented design decision I had made in the evolution of my creation through my child like design process. In some form or fashion the artifacts I created as a kid are very similar to the artifacts that I create when I model a software architectural concept or a software design in that the process of making decisions is directly translated in to a tangible model in the form of an architectural model. Architectural models have been defined as artifacts that depict design decisions of a system’s architecture.  The act of creating architectural models is the act of architectural modeling. Furthermore, architectural modeling is the process of creating a physical model based architectural concepts and documenting these design decisions. In the process of creating models, the standard notation used is Architectural modeling notation. This notation is the primary method of capturing the essence of design decisions regarding architecture.  Modeling notations can vary based on the need and intent of a project; typically they range from natural language to a diagram based notation. Currently, Unified Markup Language (UML) is the industry standard in terms of architectural modeling notation  because allows for architectures to be defined through a series of boxes, lines, arrows and other basic symbols that encapsulate design designs in to virtual components, connectors, configurations and interfaces.  Furthermore UML allows for additional break down of models through the use of natural language as to explain each section of the model in plain English. One of the major factors in architectural modeling is to define what is to be modeled. As a basic rule of thumb, I tend to model architecture based on the complexity of systems or sub sub-systems of architecture. Another key factor is the level of detail that is actually needed for a model. For example if I am modeling a system for a CEO to view then the low level details will be omitted. In comparison, if I was modeling a system for another engineer to actually implement I would include as much detailed information as I could to help the engineer implement my design.

    Read the article

  • Bunny Inc. – Episode 1. Mr. CIO meets Mr. Executive Manager

    - by kellsey.ruppel(at)oracle.com
    To make accurate and timely business decisions, executive managers are constantly in need of valuable information that is often hidden in old-style traditional systems. What can Mr. CIO come up with to help make Mr. Executive Manager's job easier at Bunny Inc.? Take a look and discover how you too can make informed business decisions by combining back-office systems with social media. Bunny Inc. -- Episode 1. Mr. CIO meets Mr. Executive ManagerTechnorati Tags: UXP, collaboration, enterprise 2.0, modern user experience, oracle, portals, webcenter, e20bunnies

    Read the article

  • Customer Experience Management : A conversation with world experts RTD

    - by David lefranc
    A conversation with world experts in Customer Experience Management in Rome, Italy - Wed, June 20, 2012 It is our pleasure to share the registration link below for your chance to meet active members of the Oracle Real-Time Decisions Customer Advisory Board. Join us to hear how leading brands across the world have achieved tremendous return on investment through their Oracle Real-Time Decisions deployments and do not miss this unique opportunity to ask them specific questions directly during our customer roundtable. Please share this information with anyone interested in real-time decision management and cross-channel predictive process optimization.http://www.oracle.com/goto/RealTimeDecisions

    Read the article

  • Customer Experience Management : A conversation with world experts RTD

    - by David lefranc
    A conversation with world experts in Customer Experience Management in Rome, Italy - Wed, June 20, 2012 It is our pleasure to share the registration link below for your chance to meet active members of the Oracle Real-Time Decisions Customer Advisory Board. Join us to hear how leading brands across the world have achieved tremendous return on investment through their Oracle Real-Time Decisions deployments and do not miss this unique opportunity to ask them specific questions directly during our customer roundtable. Please share this information with anyone interested in real-time decision management and cross-channel predictive process optimization.http://www.oracle.com/goto/RealTimeDecisions

    Read the article

  • Register Now to the New Oracle Argus Safety 7 Implementation Boot Camp in Miami, Florida - Nov 12-15, 2013!

    - by Roxana Babiciu
    Oracle's Argus Safety 7 boot camp is an instructor-led training course which provides a good understanding of how Oracle Argus Safety Standard Edition and Oracle Argus Safety Japan products addresses complex pharmacovigilance requirements and helps ensure global regulatory compliance by enabling sound safety decisions. Oracle Argus Safety's advanced database helps ensure global regulatory compliance thus in turn enabling sound safety decisions. Register now to this boot camp, a 4-day (in class) instructor led event taught using a combination of lectures and hands-on exercises.

    Read the article

  • Register Now to the New Oracle Argus Safety 7 Implementation Boot Camp - Tokyo, Japan - Dec 10-13, 2013!

    - by Roxana Babiciu
    Oracle's Argus Safety 7 boot camp is an instructor-led training course which provides a good understanding of how Oracle Argus Safety Standard Edition and Oracle Argus Safety Japan products addresses complex pharmacovigilance requirements and helps ensure global regulatory compliance by enabling sound safety decisions. Oracle Argus Safety's advanced database helps ensure global regulatory compliance thus in turn enabling sound safety decisions. Read more here. 

    Read the article

  • Everyone's Guide to Building a Website the Proper Way

    What do I mean when I talk about building a website "the proper way"? I'm not going to talk about any one technology in any depth, but what I am going to talk about is how to understand what you require from a website in order to help you make website creation decisions. Understanding what your requirements will be as time goes by is really important now because the decisions you make will stick around in the form of consequences.

    Read the article

  • A conversation with world experts in Customer Experience Management in Rome, Italy - Wed, June 20, 2012

    - by nicolasbonnet
    It is my pleasure to share the registration link below for your chance to meet active members of the Oracle Real-Time Decisions Customer Advisory Board. Join us to hear how leading brands across the world have achieved tremendous return on investment through their Oracle Real-Time Decisions deployments and do not miss this unique opportunity to ask them specific questions directly during our customer roundtable. Please share this information with anyone interested in real-time decision management and cross-channel predictive process optimization http://www.oracle.com/goto/RealTimeDecisions Nicolas Bonnet / Senior Director Product Management / Oracle Business Intelligence

    Read the article

  • SAF Architecture Evaluation (Introduction)

    I saidin “what’s Software architecture” – architecture is both an early artifact and it also represents the significant decisions about the system – or to sum it up”Architecture is the decisions that youwishyou could get right early in a project.(Ralph Johnston*). That is exactly why I made evaluation one of the key steps in SAF. [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Feature: Lead with Intelligence

    Business efficiency depends on business decisions, and business decisions depend on current, accurate information and powerful analysis. See how Oracle data warehousing, business intelligence, and enterprise performance management solutions deliver the information, analysis, and efficiencies to propel your business ahead of the competition.

    Read the article

  • Oracle’s AutoVue Enables Visual Decision Making

    - by Pam Petropoulos
    That old saying about a picture being worth a thousand words has never been truer.  Check out the latest reports from IDC Manufacturing Insights which highlight the importance of incorporating visual information in all facets of decision making and the role that Oracle’s AutoVue Enterprise Visualization solutions can play. Take a look at the excerpts below and be sure to click on the titles to read the full reports. Technology Spotlight: Optimizing the Product Life Cycle Through Visual Decision Making, August 2012 Manufacturers find it increasingly challenging to make effective product-related decisions as the result of expanded technical complexities, elongated supply chains, and a shortage of experienced workers. These factors challenge the traditional methodologies companies use to make critical decisions. However, companies can improve decision making by the use of visual decision making, which synthesizes information from multiple sources into highly usable visual context and integrates it with existing enterprise applications such as PLM and ERP systems. Product-related information presented in a visual form and shared across communities of practice with diverse roles, backgrounds, and job skills helps level the playing field for collaboration across business functions, technologies, and enterprises. Visual decision making can contribute to manufacturers making more effective product-related decisions throughout the complete product life cycle. This Technology Spotlight examines these trends and the role that Oracle's AutoVue and its Augmented Business Visualization (ABV) solution play in this strategic market. Analyst Connection: Using Visual Decision Making to Optimize Manufacturing Design and Development, September 2012 In today's environments, global manufacturers are managing a broad range of information. Data is often scattered across countless files throughout the product life cycle, generated by different applications and platforms. Organizations are struggling to utilize these multidisciplinary sources in an optimal way. Visual decision making is a strategy and technology that can address this challenge by integrating and widening access to digital information assets. Integrating with PLM and ERP tools across engineering, manufacturing, sales, and marketing, visual decision making makes digital content more accessible to employees and partners in the supply chain. The use of visual decision-making information rendered in the appropriate business context and shared across functional teams contributes to more effective product-related decision making and positively impacts business performance.

    Read the article

  • That Escalated Quickly

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2014/05/17/that-escalated-quickly.aspxI have been working remotely out of my home for over 4 years now. All of my coworkers during that time have also worked remotely. Lots of folks have written about the challenges inherent in facilitating communication on remote teams and strategies for overcoming them. A popular theme around this topic is the notion of “escalating communication”. In this context “escalating” means taking a conversation from one mode of communication to a different, higher fidelity mode of communication. Here are the five modes of communication I use at work in order of increasing fidelity: Email – This is the “lowest fidelity” mode of communication that I use. I usually only check it a few times a day (and I’m trying to check it even less frequently than that) and I only keep items in my inbox if they represent an item I need to take action on that I haven’t tracked anywhere else. Forums / Message boards – Being a developer, I’ve gotten into the habit of having other people look over my code before it becomes part of the product I’m working on. These code reviews often happen in “real time” via screen sharing, but I also always have someone else give all of the changes another look using pull requests. A pull request takes my code and lets someone else see the changes I’ve made side-by-side with the existing code so they can see if I did anything dumb. Pull requests can facilitate a conversation about the code changes in an online-forum like style. Some teams I’ve worked on also liked using tools like Trello or Google Groups to have on-going conversations about a topic or task that was being worked on. Chat & Instant Messaging  - Chat and instant messaging are the real workhorses for communication on the remote teams I’ve been a part of. I know some teams that are co-located that also use it pretty extensively for quick messages that don’t warrant walking across the office to talk with someone but reqire more immediacy than an e-mail. For the purposes of this post I think it’s important to note that the terms “chat” and “instant messaging” might insinuate that the conversation is happening in real time, but that’s not always true. Modern chat and IM applications maintain a searchable history so people can easily see what might have been discussed while they were away from their computers. Voice, Video and Screen sharing – Everyone’s got a camera and microphone on their computers now, and there are an abundance of services that will let you use them to talk to other people who have cameras and microphones on their computers. I’m including screen sharing here as well because, in my experience, these discussions typically involve one or more people showing the other participants something that’s happening on their screen. Obviously, this mode of communication is much higher-fidelity than any of the ones listed above. Scheduled meetings are typically conducted using this mode of communication. In Person – No matter how great communication tools become, there’s no substitute for meeting with someone face-to-face. However, opportunities for this kind of communcation are few and far between when you work on a remote team. When a conversation gets escalated that usually means it moves up one or more positions on this list. A lot of people advocate jumping to #4 sooner than later. Like them, I used to believe that, if it was possible, organizing a call with voice and video was automatically better than any kind of text-based communication could be. Lately, however, I’m becoming less convinced that escalating is always the right move. Working Asynchronously Last year I attended a talk at our local code camp given by Drew Miller. Drew works at GitHub and was talking about how they use GitHub internally. Many of the folks at GitHub work remotely, so communication was one of the main themes in Drew’s talk. During the talk Drew used the phrase, “asynchronous communication” to describe their use of chat and pull request comments. That phrase stuck in my head because I hadn’t heard it before but I think it perfectly describes the way in which remote teams often need to communicate. You don’t always know when your co-workers are at their computers or what hours (if any) they are working that day. In order to work this way you need to assume that the person you’re talking to might not respond right away. You can’t always afford to wait until everyone required is online and available to join a voice call, so you need to use text-based, persistent forms of communication so that people can receive and respond to messages when they are available. Going back to my list from the beginning of this post for a second, I characterize items #1-3 as being “asynchronous” modes of communication while we could call items #4 and #5 “synchronous”. When communication gets escalated it’s almost always moving from an asynchronous mode of communication to a synchronous one. Now, to the point of this post: I’ve become increasingly reluctant to escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication for two primary reasons: 1 – You can often find a higher fidelity way to convey your message without holding a synchronous conversation 2 - Asynchronous modes of communication are (usually) persistent and searchable. You Don’t Have to Broadcast Live Let’s start with the first reason I’ve listed. A lot of times you feel like you need to escalate to synchronous communication because you’re having difficulty describing something that you’re seeing in words. You want to provide the people you’re conversing with some audio-visual aids to help them understand the point that you’re trying to make and you think that getting on Skype and sharing your screen with them is the best way to do that. Firing up a screen sharing session does work well, but you can usually accomplish the same thing in an asynchronous manner. For example, you could take a screenshot and annotate it with some text and drawings to illustrate what it is you’re seeing. If a screenshot won’t work, taking a short screen recording while your narrate over it and posting the video to your forum or chat system along with a text-based description of what’s in the recording that can be searched for later can be a great way to effectively communicate with your team asynchronously. I Said What?!? Now for the second reason I listed: most asynchronous modes of communication provide a transcript of what was said and what decisions might have been made during the conversation. There have been many occasions where I’ve used the search feature of my team’s chat application to find a conversation that happened several weeks or months ago to remember what was decided. Unfortunately, I think the benefits associated with the persistence of communicating asynchronously often get overlooked when people decide to escalate to a in-person meeting or voice/video call. I’m becoming much more reluctant to suggest a voice or video call if I suspect that it might lead to codifying some kind of design decision because everyone involved is going to hang up the call and immediately forget what was decided. I recognize that you can record and archive these types of interactions, but without being able to search them the recordings aren’t terribly useful. When and How To Escalate I don’t mean to imply that communicating via voice/video or in person is never a good idea. I probably jump on a Skype call with a co-worker at least once a day to quickly hash something out or show them a bit of code that I’m working on. Also, meeting in person periodically is really important for remote teams. There’s no way around the fact that sometimes it’s easier to jump on a call and show someone my screen so they can see what I’m seeing. So when is it right to escalate? I think the simplest way to answer that is when the communication starts to feel painful. Everyone’s tolerance for that pain is different, but I think you need to let it hurt a little bit before jumping to synchronous communication. When you do escalate from asynchronous to synchronous communication, there are a couple of things you can do to maximize the effectiveness of the communication: Takes notes – This is huge and yet I’ve found that a lot of teams don’t do this. If you’re holding a meeting with  > 2 people you should have someone taking notes. Taking notes while participating in a meeting can be difficult but there are a few strategies to deal with this challenge that probably deserve a short post of their own. After the meeting, make sure the notes are posted to a place where all concerned parties (including those that might not have attended the meeting) can review and search them. Persist decisions made ASAP – If any decisions were made during the meeting, persist those decisions to a searchable medium as soon as possible following the conversation. All the teams I’ve worked on used a web-based system for tracking the on-going work and a backlog of work to be done in the future. I always try to make sure that all of the cards/stories/tasks/whatever in these systems always reflect the latest decisions that were made as the work was being planned and executed. If held a quick call with your team lead and decided that it wasn’t worth the effort to build real-time validation into that new UI you were working on, go and codify that decision in the story associated with that work immediately after you hang up. Even better, write it up in the story while you are both still on the phone. That way when the folks from your QA team pick up the story to test a few days later they’ll know why the real-time validation isn’t there without having to invoke yet another conversation about the work. Communicating Well is Hard At this point you might be thinking that communicating asynchronously is more difficult than having a live conversation. You’re right: it is more difficult. In order to communicate effectively this way you need to very carefully think about the message that you’re trying to convey and craft it in a way that’s easy for your audience to understand. This is almost always harder than just talking through a problem in real time with someone; this is why escalating communication is such a popular idea. Why wouldn’t we want to do the thing that’s easier? Easier isn’t always better. If you and your team can get in the habit of communicating effectively in an asynchronous manner you’ll find that, over time, all of your communications get less painful because you don’t need to re-iterate previously made points over and over again. If you communicate right the first time, you often don’t need to rehash old conversations because you can go back and find the decisions that were made laid out in plain language. You’ll also find that you get better at doing things like writing useful comments in your code, creating written documentation about how the feature that you just built works, or persuading your team to do things in a certain way.

    Read the article

  • E-Seminars para Parceiros - Mar-Abr/10

    - by Claudia Costa
    Para se inscrever nas formações que se encontram abaixo por favor utilize os links de registo indicados. NOME                     DATA                  DURAÇÃO LOCAL   Oracle Real-Time Decisions - Implementation Best Practices 21.04.2010        1 hora/dia            Início: 15:00h on-line Oracle WebLogic Suite 11g Overview & Proficiency Series   15,26,29,30.03.2010 1 hora/dia Início: 09:00h on-line Upgrade to Oracle WebLogic Suite 11g   19.03.2010 1 hora Início: 09:00h on-line Oracle Real-Time Decisions: Introduction to Real-Time Decisions   9.04.2010 1 hora Início: 15:00h on-line Best Strategies for Migrating from Teradata to Oracle Exadata   18.03.2010 1 hora/ Início: 15:00h on-line Oracle Database Awareness - 11gR2 Features for Data Warehouse and OLAP   19.03.2010 1 hora Início: 15:00h on-line Oracle Universal Content Management (UCM) eSeminar Series   2,25.03.2010 1 hora/dia Início: 09:00h on-line Oracle Information Rights Management Overview   17.03.2010 1 hora Início: 15:00h on-line   Para mais informações contacte Melissa Lopes - Tel: 214235194  

    Read the article

  • Guide to the web development ecosystem

    - by acjohnson55
    I'm a long-time software developer, and I've been thrown in the deep, deep end of developing from the ground up what will hopefully be a highly scalable and interactive web application. I've been out of the web game for about 8 years, and even when I was last in it, I wasn't exactly on the cutting edge. I think I've made judicious design decisions and I'm quite happy with the progress I've been making so far, but new, hot web technologies keep crawling out of the woodwork and into my headspace, forcing me to continually revalidate my implementation decisions. Complicating things even further is the preponderance of out-of-date information and the difficulty of knowing what is out of date in the first place. What I'm wondering is, are there any comprehensive books or guides dedicated to compiling and comparing the technologies out there, end-to-end in the web application stack? I'm happy to learn new techs on demand, but I don't like learning about them after I've already spent time going in another direction. I'm looking for the sort of executive info a CTO might read to make sure the best architectural decisions are being made. And just to be clear, this is a question about resources, not about specific technology suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Combined Likelihood Models

    - by Lukas Vermeer
    In a series of posts on this blog we have already described a flexible approach to recording events, a technique to create analytical models for reporting, a method that uses the same principles to generate extremely powerful facet based predictions and a waterfall strategy that can be used to blend multiple (possibly facet based) models for increased accuracy. This latest, and also last, addition to this sequence of increasing modeling complexity will illustrate an advanced approach to amalgamate models, taking us to a whole new level of predictive modeling and analytical insights; combination models predicting likelihoods using multiple child models. The method described here is far from trivial. We therefore would not recommend you apply these techniques in an initial implementation of Oracle Real-Time Decisions. In most cases, basic RTD models or the approaches described before will provide more than enough predictive accuracy and analytical insight. The following is intended as an example of how more advanced models could be constructed if implementation results warrant the increased implementation and design effort. Keep implemented statistics simple! Combining likelihoods Because facet based predictions are based on metadata attributes of the choices selected, it is possible to generate such predictions for more than one attribute of a choice. We can predict the likelihood of acceptance for a particular product based on the product category (e.g. ‘toys’), as well as based on the color of the product (e.g. ‘pink’). Of course, these two predictions may be completely different (the customer may well prefer toys, but dislike pink products) and we will have to somehow combine these two separate predictions to determine an overall likelihood of acceptance for the choice. Perhaps the simplest way to combine multiple predicted likelihoods into one is to calculate the average (or perhaps maximum or minimum) likelihood. However, this would completely forgo the fact that some facets may have a far more pronounced effect on the overall likelihood than others (e.g. customers may consider the product category more important than its color). We could opt for calculating some sort of weighted average, but this would require us to specify up front the relative importance of the different facets involved. This approach would also be unresponsive to changing consumer behavior in these preferences (e.g. product price bracket may become more important to consumers as a result of economic shifts). Preferably, we would want Oracle Real-Time Decisions to learn, act upon and tell us about, the correlations between the different facet models and the overall likelihood of acceptance. This additional level of predictive modeling, where a single supermodel (no pun intended) combines the output of several (facet based) models into a single prediction, is what we call a combined likelihood model. Facet Based Scores As an example, we have implemented three different facet based models (as described earlier) in a simple RTD inline service. These models will allow us to generate predictions for likelihood of acceptance for each product based on three different metadata fields: Category, Price Bracket and Product Color. We will use an Analytical Scores entity to store these different scores so we can easily pass them between different functions. A simple function, creatively named Compute Analytical Scores, will compute for each choice the different facet scores and return an Analytical Scores entity that is stored on the choice itself. For each score, a choice attribute referring to this entity is also added to be returned to the client to facilitate testing. One Offer To Predict Them All In order to combine the different facet based predictions into one single likelihood for each product, we will need a supermodel which can predict the likelihood of acceptance, based on the outcomes of the facet models. This model will not need to consider any of the attributes of the session, because they are already represented in the outcomes of the underlying facet models. For the same reason, the supermodel will not need to learn separately for each product, because the specific combination of facets for this product are also already represented in the output of the underlying models. In other words, instead of learning how session attributes influence acceptance of a particular product, we will learn how the outcomes of facet based models for a particular product influence acceptance at a higher level. We will therefore be using a single All Offers choice to represent all offers in our combined likelihood predictions. This choice has no attribute values configured, no scores and not a single eligibility rule; nor is it ever intended to be returned to a client. The All Offers choice is to be used exclusively by the Combined Likelihood Acceptance model to predict the likelihood of acceptance for all choices; based solely on the output of the facet based models defined earlier. The Switcheroo In Oracle Real-Time Decisions, models can only learn based on attributes stored on the session. Therefore, just before generating a combined prediction for a given choice, we will temporarily copy the facet based scores—stored on the choice earlier as an Analytical Scores entity—to the session. The code for the Predict Combined Likelihood Event function is outlined below. // set session attribute to contain facet based scores. // (this is the only input for the combined model) session().setAnalyticalScores(choice.getAnalyticalScores); // predict likelihood of acceptance for All Offers choice. CombinedLikelihoodChoice c = CombinedLikelihood.getChoice("AllOffers"); Double la = CombinedLikelihoodAcceptance.getChoiceEventLikelihoods(c, "Accepted"); // clear session attribute of facet based scores. session().setAnalyticalScores(null); // return likelihood. return la; This sleight of hand will allow the Combined Likelihood Acceptance model to predict the likelihood of acceptance for the All Offers choice using these choice specific scores. After the prediction is made, we will clear the Analytical Scores session attribute to ensure it does not pollute any of the other (facet) models. To guarantee our combined likelihood model will learn based on the facet based scores—and is not distracted by the other session attributes—we will configure the model to exclude any other inputs, save for the instance of the Analytical Scores session attribute, on the model attributes tab. Recording Events In order for the combined likelihood model to learn correctly, we must ensure that the Analytical Scores session attribute is set correctly at the moment RTD records any events related to a particular choice. We apply essentially the same switching technique as before in a Record Combined Likelihood Event function. // set session attribute to contain facet based scores // (this is the only input for the combined model). session().setAnalyticalScores(choice.getAnalyticalScores); // record input event against All Offers choice. CombinedLikelihood.getChoice("AllOffers").recordEvent(event); // force learn at this moment using the Internal Dock entry point. Application.getPredictor().learn(InternalLearn.modelArray, session(), session(), Application.currentTimeMillis()); // clear session attribute of facet based scores. session().setAnalyticalScores(null); In this example, Internal Learn is a special informant configured as the learn location for the combined likelihood model. The informant itself has no particular configuration and does nothing in itself; it is used only to force the model to learn at the exact instant we have set the Analytical Scores session attribute to the correct values. Reporting Results After running a few thousand (artificially skewed) simulated sessions on our ILS, the Decision Center reporting shows some interesting results. In this case, these results reflect perfectly the bias we ourselves had introduced in our tests. In practice, we would obviously use a wider range of customer attributes and expect to see some more unexpected outcomes. The facetted model for categories has clearly picked up on the that fact our simulated youngsters have little interest in purchasing the one red-hot vehicle our ILS had on offer. Also, it would seem that customer age is an excellent predictor for the acceptance of pink products. Looking at the key drivers for the All Offers choice we can see the relative importance of the different facets to the prediction of overall likelihood. The comparative importance of the category facet for overall prediction might, in part, be explained by the clear preference of younger customers for toys over other product types; as evident from the report on the predictiveness of customer age for offer category acceptance. Conclusion Oracle Real-Time Decisions' flexible decisioning framework allows for the construction of exceptionally elaborate prediction models that facilitate powerful targeting, but nonetheless provide insightful reporting. Although few customers will have a direct need for such a sophisticated solution architecture, it is encouraging to see that this lies within the realm of the possible with RTD; and this with limited configuration and customization required. There are obviously numerous other ways in which the predictive and reporting capabilities of Oracle Real-Time Decisions can be expanded upon to tailor to individual customers needs. We will not be able to elaborate on them all on this blog; and finding the right approach for any given problem is often more difficult than implementing the solution. Nevertheless, we hope that these last few posts have given you enough of an understanding of the power of the RTD framework and its models; so that you can take some of these ideas and improve upon your own strategy. As always, if you have any questions about the above—or any Oracle Real-Time Decisions design challenges you might face—please do not hesitate to contact us; via the comments below, social media or directly at Oracle. We are completely multi-channel and would be more than glad to help. :-)

    Read the article

  • Drive project success & financial performance with business critical Enterprise Project Portfolio Management

    - by Sylvie MacKenzie, PMP
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} Oracle Primavera invites you to the first in a series of three webcasts linking Enterprise Project Portfolio Management with enhanced operational performance and better financial results. Few organizations fully understand the impact projects have on their business. Consistently delivering successful projects is vital to the financial success of an asset intensive organization. Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM) is not a new concept yet for many organizations it is not considered "business critical". Webcast 1: Plan – Aligning project selection and prioritization with corporate objectives This webcast will look at 2 key questions: Are you aligning portfolio decisions with strategic objectives? How do you effectively measure the success of your portfolio decisions? Hear from Accenture who'll present a compelling case for why asset intensive organizations should consider EPPM as business critical. They'll explore: How technology is being used to enhance project delivery How collaboration enhances delivery performance The major challenges associated with the planning phase of a project Next hear from Geoff Roberts, Industry Strategist from Oracle Primavera. With over 30 years experience in project management/project controls in the construction, utilities and oil & gas sectors, Geoff will investigate how EPPM is a best practice and can support an organization through project selection and prioritization ensuring that decisions are aligned with corporate objectives. Don’t miss out, register today!

    Read the article

  • Improved Customer Experience, but at what Cost?

    - by Tony Berk
    We can all probably agree that improving your customers' experience is a good thing. But a key question many people are asking is will it help your organization and, in particular, what are the financial benefits?That's a good question, especially when companies ARE experiencing phenomenal return on investment (ROI). Of course, there are many factors that impact ROI or other measures of success, but we'd like to share some success stories as examples of customer experience in action and delivering positive results. If you would like to learn more about the economics of customer experience, see Brian Curran's presentation at the Oracle Customer Experience Summit last month. In this series of blog posts, we'll share actual customer stories. Today's example is Dell, which uses Oracle Real-Time Decisions (RTD) and Siebel CRM as part of their customer experience portfolio to better understand their customers' needs and wants and provide consistent interactions. Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with Siebel, but RTD may be new to many of you. RTD is a complete decision management solution that delivers real-time decisions and recommendations and automatically renders decisions within a business process to create tailored messaging for every customer interaction.What does that mean? In the video below, Dell describes how customer experience is important not just for one interaction channel, but across all "vehicles." RTD is helping Dell understand customer behavior and communicate with the customer in a more relevant manner, across all communication  or interaction channels including sales and service call centers, email marketing and online. Dell continues to expand use of RTD because the benefits are showing up in sales, service and marketing results including 19% increase in close rates, faster issue resolution and 40% improvement in revenue per click in email marketing. Click here, to learn more about Oracle Customer Experience and stay tuned for more customer spotlights.

    Read the article

  • Improved Customer Experience, but at what Cost? See the DELL Computer experience with RTD

    - by Richard Lefebvre
    We can all probably agree that improving your customers' experience is a good thing. But a key question many people are asking is will it help your organization and, in particular, what are the financial benefits? That's a good question, especially when companies ARE experiencing phenomenal return on investment (ROI). Of course, there are many factors that impact ROI or other measures of success, but we'd like to share some success stories as examples of customer experience in action and delivering positive results. If you would like to learn more about the economics of customer experience, see Brian Curran's presentation at the Oracle Customer Experience Summit last month. In this series of blog posts, we'll share actual customer stories. Today's example is Dell, which uses Oracle Real-Time Decisions (RTD) and Siebel CRM as part of their customer experience portfolio to better understand their customers' needs and wants and provide consistent interactions. Regular readers of this blog are probably familiar with Siebel, but RTD may be new to many of you. RTD is a complete decision management solution that delivers real-time decisions and recommendations and automatically renders decisions within a business process to create tailored messaging for every customer interaction. What does that mean? In the video below, Dell describes how customer experience is important not just for one interaction channel, but across all "vehicles." RTD is helping Dell understand customer behavior and communicate with the customer in a more relevant manner, across all communication  or interaction channels including sales and service call centers, email marketing and online. Dell continues to expand use of RTD because the benefits are showing up in sales, service and marketing results including 19% increase in close rates, faster issue resolution and 40% improvement in revenue per click in email marketing. Video link By Tony Berk on Nov 15, 2012

    Read the article

  • Does your analytic solution tell you what questions to ask?

    - by Manan Goel
    Analytic solutions exist to answer business questions. Conventional wisdom holds that if you can answer business questions quickly and accurately, you can take better business decisions and therefore achieve better business results and outperform the competition. Most business questions are well understood (read structured) so they are relatively easy to ask and answer. Questions like what were the revenues, cost of goods sold, margins, which regions and products outperformed/underperformed are relatively well understood and as a result most analytics solutions are well equipped to answer such questions. Things get really interesting when you are looking for answers but you don’t know what questions to ask in the first place? That’s like an explorer looking to make new discoveries by exploration. An example of this scenario is the Center of Disease Control (CDC) in United States trying to find the vaccine for the latest strand of the swine flu virus. The researchers at CDC may try hundreds of options before finally discovering the vaccine. The exploration process is inherently messy and complex. The process is fraught with false starts, one question or a hunch leading to another and the final result may look entirely different from what was envisioned in the beginning. Speed and flexibility is the key; speed so the hundreds of possible options can be explored quickly and flexibility because almost everything about the problem, solutions and the process is unknown.  Come to think of it, most organizations operate in an increasingly unknown or uncertain environment. Business Leaders have to take decisions based on a largely unknown view of the future. And since the value proposition of analytic solutions is to help the business leaders take better business decisions, for best results, consider adding information exploration and discovery capabilities to your analytic solution. Such exploratory analysis capabilities will help the business leaders perform even better by empowering them to refine their hunches, ask better questions and take better decisions. That’s your analytic system not only answering the questions but also suggesting what questions to ask in the first place. Today, most leading analytic software vendors offer exploratory analysis products as part of their analytic solutions offerings. So, what characteristics should be top of mind while evaluating the various solutions? The answer is quite simply the same characteristics that are essential for exploration and analysis – speed & flexibility. Speed is required because the system inherently has to be agile to handle hundreds of different scenarios with large volumes of data across large user populations. Exploration happens at the speed of thought so make sure that you system is capable of operating at speed of thought. Flexibility is required because the exploration process from start to finish is full of unknowns; unknown questions, answers and hunches. So, make sure that the system is capable of managing and exploring all relevant data – structured or unstructured like databases, enterprise applications, tweets, social media updates, documents, texts, emails etc. and provides flexible Google like user interface to quickly explore all relevant data. Getting Started You can help business leaders become “Decision Masters” by augmenting your analytic solution with information discovery capabilities. For best results make sure that the solution you choose is enterprise class and allows advanced, yet intuitive, exploration and analysis of complex and varied data including structured, semi-structured and unstructured data.  You can learn more about Oracle’s exploratory analysis solutions by clicking here.

    Read the article

  • The Connected Company: WebCenter Portal - Feedback - Analytics and Polls

    - by Michael Snow
    Evernote Export body, td { }Guest Post by: Mitchell Palski, Staff Sales Consultant The importance of connecting peers has been widely recognized and socialized as a critical component of employee intranets. Organizations are striving to provide mediums for sharing knowledge and improving awareness across their enterprise. Indirectly, the socialization of your enterprise should lead to cost savings and improved product/service quality. However, many times the direct effects of connecting an organization’s leadership with its employees are overlooked. Oracle WebCenter Portal can help you bridge that gap by gathering implicit and explicit feedback. Implicit Feedback Through Usage Analytics Analytics allows administrators to track and analyze WebCenter Portal traffic and usage. Analytics provides the following basic functionality: Usage Tracking Metrics: Analytics collects and reports metrics of common WebCenter Portal functions, including community and portlet traffic. Behavior Tracking: Analytics can be used to analyze WebCenter Portal metrics to determine usage patterns, such as page visit duration and usage over time. User Profile Correlation: Analytics can be used to correlate metric information with user profile information. Usage tracking reports can be viewed and filtered by user profile data such as country, company or title. Usage analytics help measure how users interact with website content – allowing your IT staff and business analysts to make informed decisions when planning development for your next intranet enhancement. For example: If users are not accessing your Announcements page and missing critical information that they need to be aware of, you may elect to use graphical links on the home page to direct more users to that page. As a result, the number of employee help-requests to HR decreases. If users are not accessing your News page to read recent articles, you may elect to stop spending as much time updating the page with new stories and cut costs in your communications department. You notice that there is a high volume of users accessing the Employee Dashboard page so your organization decides to continue making personalization enhancements to the page and investing in the Portal tool that most users are accessing. Usage analytics aren’t necessarily a new concept in the IT industry. What sets WebCenter Portal Analytics apart is: Reports are tailored for WebCenter specific tools Report can be easily added to a page as simple as a drag-and-drop Explicit Feedback Through Polls WebCenter Portal users can create, edit, take, and analyze online polls. With polls, you can survey your audience (such as their opinions and their experience level), check whether they can recall important information, and gather feedback and metrics. How many times have you been involved in a requirements discussion and someone has asked a question similar to “Well how do you know that no one likes our home page?” and the response is “Everyone says they hate it! That’s all anyone complains about.” No one has any measurable, quantifiable metric to gauge user satisfaction. Analytics measure usage, but your organization also needs to measure the quality of your portal as defined by the actual people that use it. With that information, your leadership can make informed decisions that will not only match usage patterns but also relate to employees on a personal level. The end result is a connection between employees and leadership that gives everyone in the organization a sense of ownership of their Portal rather than the feeling of development decisions being segregated to leadership only. Polls can be created and edited through the Poll Manager: Polls and View Poll Results can easily be added to a page through drag-and-drop. What did we learn? Being a “connected” company doesn’t just mean helping employees connect with each other horizontally across your enterprise. It also means connecting those employees to the decisions that affect their everyday activities. Through WebCenter Portal Usage Analytics and Polls, any decision that is made to remove a Portal page, update a Portal page, or develop new Portal functionality, can be justified by quantifiable metrics. Instead of fielding complaints and hearing that your employees don’t have a voice, give those employees a voice and listen!

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin - #1 - It&acute;s about the money, stupid

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/05/24/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin---1---itacutes-about-the.aspx Software development is an economic endeavor. A customer is only willing to pay for value. What makes a software valuable is required to become a trait of the software. We as software developers thus need to understand and then find a way to implement requirements. Whether or in how far a customer really can know beforehand what´s going to be valuable for him/her in the end is a topic of constant debate. Some aspects of the requirements might be less foggy than others. Sometimes the customer does not know what he/she wants. Sometimes he/she´s certain to want something - but then is not happy when that´s delivered. Nevertheless requirements exist. And developers will only be paid if they deliver value. So we better focus on doing that. Although is might sound trivial I think it´s important to state the corollary: We need to be able to trace anything we do as developers back to some requirement. You decide to use Go as the implementation language? Well, what´s the customer´s requirement this decision is linked to? You decide to use WPF as the GUI technology? What´s the customer´s requirement? You decide in favor of a layered architecture? What´s the customer´s requirement? You decide to put code in three classes instead of just one? What´s the customer´s requirement behind that? You decide to use MongoDB over MySql? What´s the customer´s requirement behind that? etc. I´m not saying any of these decisions are wrong. I´m just saying whatever you decide be clear about the requirement that´s driving your decision. You have to be able to answer the question: Why do you think will X deliver more value to the customer than the alternatives? Customers are not interested in romantic ideals of hard working, good willing, quality focused craftsmen. They don´t care how and why you work - as long as what you deliver fulfills their needs. They want to trust you to recognize this as your top priority - and then deliver. That´s all. Fundamental aspects of requirements If you´re like me you´re probably not used to such scrutinization. You want to be trusted as a professional developer - and decide quite a few things following your gut feeling. Or by relying on “established practices”. That´s ok in general and most of the time - but still… I think we should be more conscious about our decisions. Which would make us more responsible, even more professional. But without further guidance it´s hard to reason about many of the myriad decisions we´ve to make over the course of a software project. What I found helpful in this situation is structuring requirements into fundamental aspects. Instead of one large heap of requirements then there are smaller blobs. With them it´s easier to check if a decisions falls in their scope. Sure, every project has it´s very own requirements. But all of them belong to just three different major categories, I think. Any requirement either pertains to functionality, non-functional aspects or sustainability. For short I call those aspects: Functionality, because such requirements describe which transformations a software should offer. For example: A calculator software should be able to add and multiply real numbers. An auction website should enable you to set up an auction anytime or to find auctions to bid for. Quality, because such requirements describe how functionality is supposed to work, e.g. fast or secure. For example: A calculator should be able to calculate the sinus of a value much faster than you could in your head. An auction website should accept bids from millions of users. Security of Investment, because functionality and quality need not just be delivered in any way. It´s important to the customer to get them quickly - and not only today but over the course of several years. This aspect introduces time into the “requrements equation”. Security of Investments (SoI) sure is a non-functional requirement. But I think it´s important to not subsume it under the Quality (Q) aspect. That´s because SoI has quite special properties. For one, SoI for software means something completely different from what it means for hardware. If you buy hardware (a car, a hair blower) you find that a worthwhile investment, if the hardware does not change it´s functionality or quality over time. A car still running smoothly with hardly any rust spots after 10 years of daily usage would be a very secure investment. So for hardware (or material products, if you like) “unchangeability” (in the face of usage) is desirable. With software you want the contrary. Software that cannot be changed is a waste. SoI for software means “changeability”. You want to be sure that the software you buy/order today can be changed, adapted, improved over an unforseeable number of years so as fit changes in its usage environment. But that´s not the only reason why the SoI aspect is special. On top of changeability[1] (or evolvability) comes immeasurability. Evolvability cannot readily be measured by counting something. Whether the changeability is as high as the customer wants it, cannot be determined by looking at metrics like Lines of Code or Cyclomatic Complexity or Afferent Coupling. They may give a hint… but they are far, far from precise. That´s because of the nature of changeability. It´s different from performance or scalability. Also it´s because a customer cannot tell upfront, “how much” evolvability he/she wants. Whether requirements regarding Functionality (F) and Q have been met, a customer can tell you very quickly and very precisely. A calculation is missing, the calculation takes too long, the calculation time degrades with increased load, the calculation is accessible to the wrong users etc. That´s all very or at least comparatively easy to determine. But changeability… That´s a whole different thing. Nevertheless over time the customer will develop a feedling if changeability is good enough or degrading. He/she just has to check the development of the frequency of “WTF”s from developers ;-) F and Q are “timeless” requirement categories. Customers want us to deliver on them now. Just focusing on the now, though, is rarely beneficial in the long run. So SoI adds a counterweight to the requirements picture. Customers want SoI - whether they know it or not, whether they state if explicitly or not. In closing A customer´s requirements are not monolithic. They are not all made the same. Rather they fall into different categories. We as developers need to recognize these categories when confronted with some requirement - and take them into account. Only then can we make true professional decisions, i.e. conscious and responsible ones. I call this fundamental trait of software “changeability” and not “flexibility” to distinguish to whom it´s a concern. “Flexibility” to me means, software as is can easily be adapted to a change in its environment, e.g. by tweaking some config data or adding a library which gets picked up by a plug-in engine. “Flexibiltiy” thus is a matter of some user. “Changeability”, on the other hand, to me means, software can easily be changed in its structure to adapt it to new requirements. That´s a matter of the software developer. ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >