Let us consider a situation in which end-users requesting specific email notifications based on selection criteria that differ from user to user. The existing solutions are based on hard coding (LotusScript) decision tree, which means that with each new user request, it can add another level of complexity.
The drawback is that, for each additional item of information (field value), it requires another level in the decision tree, making the addition of new values or specific user requests difficult and complex to code and maintain.
A new solution is to design a new process to allow an end-user (or database process owner/administrator) to create specific notifications rules based on one or more criteria that the end user requires. The new solution gives users the ability to request notifications based on an almost endless combination of field values that they require.
An embodiment of this invention provides features to reduce the amount of additional coding required each time end users request new email notifications based on a combination of specific field values, a new process for end user email notifications, is used to provide the user or database owner/administrator the ability to create these specific rules more easily. Each time an update is done in the master work flow document, the new process cycles through the filter rules and will provide the relevant email to the end user. A further embodiment of this solution provides many advantages:
1. Off-load end user requests (or changes to existing rules) to the end user or database owner/administrator.
2. Provides an easy to use interface for creation of or changes to existing rules as opposed to further coding on the decision tree by the database designer.
3. Gives end users an almost limitless combination of values to create the exact rule they want.
4. Notifications can include groups of users, or as specific as what one end user requires based on their specific criteria.
An embodiment of invention provides a design of a new process to work around a Notes view with documents for an easy user interface. These documents are called ‘Filter Rules’. Each filter rule is created using one or more field values that will be used to compare to the master work flow document. Some of these fields are single value fields, others are multi value fields. If it is a multiple value field, the user has the choice to select one or more values from that field.
An embodiment of the invention is a method (
Each time a user updates the main work flow document, they select the type of notification they want to send out. In one embodiment of invention, it is for a 4 Hr Large System (202). Therefore, the only filter rule documents that the system process are for that specific type of notification the user wants to do. The process will return the total document collection for that type of notification, then go thru each field choice in the filter rule and compare to the value(s) in the master work flow document. If the field value in the filter rule doc matches the field value in the work flow document then it returns a true for that field comparison. If all the fields in the filter doc return true when compared against the corresponding work flow document, then the filter rule is processed to send an email to the user or groups of users (212) specified in the filter document. The user can specifically select names to be placed in the Send To field, to be copied, or to be included as a hidden copy. This method allowed for a much greater number of filter rules to be created, being as simple as containing only 1 field value, or being very specific based on the combination of many field values to have a match. This allows a single end user to request email notifications based on information that only that one user requests to see.
Table 1 below is a sample from filter rules view:
In one embodiment of invention, the system groups the filter rules by type of notification being required on the master work flow document. This way, it is possible to build up a set of rules as the work flow document progresses through the process. Think of each heading as a new level, in which case, the rules usually include a larger audience, including more management.
Note that the embodiment of the invention is about a hierarchy of 1 or two levels (basically a flat hierarchy) of individual filter rules as opposed to traditional Tree-based hierarchy. So instead of searching the Tree for a specific set of filter rules via a Tree search method, all the individual filter rules are looked at individually.
The two things that stand out from this new solution for one embodiment are the following:
1. The grouping of the filter rules, allowing for repeating the same rule set, but a changing audience as it progresses between the different types of notifications, as well as major status changes to the master work flow document.
2. By taking these filter rules and comparing them against the fields in the main work flow document. We had users requesting to be notified for only certain customers, but only specific model number systems, and only if the process has been created for more than 8 hours. This user can now create that rule set very specific to their needs. They will be notified of any updates to the master work flow document when the criteria they need are met.
In one embodiment, by combining the above improvements, it provided a unique solution to a current issue and greatly improved the ability to get information to an end user based on their specific criteria.
A system, apparatus, or device comprising one of the following items is an example of the invention: matching workflow, group filter rules, update notification, database, storing, fields, rules, computer, memory, applying the method mentioned above, for purpose of matching workflow, group filter rules, and update notification/management.
Any variations of the above teaching are also intended to be covered by this patent application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5220657 | Bly et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
6092048 | Nakaoka | Jul 2000 | A |
6493755 | Hansen et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6678698 | Fredell et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6751657 | Zothner | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6996402 | Logan et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7065493 | Homsi | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7200636 | Harding | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213058 | Torres et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7302674 | Gladieux et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7305392 | Abrams et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
20020156879 | Delany et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20040010519 | Sinn et al | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040054569 | Pombo et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040078373 | Ghoneimy et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050108151 | York | May 2005 | A1 |
20070118599 | Castanho et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070127667 | Rachamadugu | Jun 2007 | A1 |