Presentation generation using scorecard elements

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9058307
  • Patent Number
    9,058,307
  • Date Filed
    Friday, January 26, 2007
    17 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, June 16, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
Scorecard data including scorecard views, and the like are exported to a presentation application for generating a presentation based on the scorecard data. Briefing book definitions are generated based on the scorecard data, default parameters and user-defined parameters for providing a user selections for the presentations. Using composite objects, scorecard and report views may be reformatted, resized, laid out, and paginated according to the presentation preferences. Once the user selections are received the presentation may be rendered generating charts based on the data, grouping and breaking down views, incorporating unstructured data, and the like.
Description
BACKGROUND

Key Performance Indicators are quantifiable measurements that reflect the critical success factors of an organization ranging from income that comes from return customers to percentage of customer calls answered in the first minute. Key Performance Indicators may also be used to measure performance in other types of organizations such as schools, social service organizations, and the like. Measures employed as KPI within an organization may include a variety of types of revenue in currency, growth or decrease of a measure in percentage, actual values of a measurable quantity, and the like.


The systems within which performance data (e.g. business performance data) is modeled and processed are typically not well aligned with the productivity tools used to present data, such as presentation applications. Many hours are spent manually transferring and then formatting data from the business system into the presentation tools, often on a periodic basis for reporting. The productivity loss to enterprise engaging in low level activities combined with the potential for error and misinformation represents vast amounts of wasted resource.


SUMMARY

This summary is used to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.


Embodiments are directed to generating renderings of scorecard elements, reports, and associated unstructured data independent from a scorecard application. Views selected by a user may be combined, grouped, or paginated based on default and/or user-defined parameters of the rendering application such as a presentation application. Views may also be reformatted, resized, and laid out according to rendering application preferences.


These and other features and advantages will be apparent from a reading of the following detailed description and a review of the associated drawings. It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are explanatory only and are not restrictive of aspects as claimed.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 illustrates an example scorecard architecture according to aspects;



FIG. 2 illustrates a screenshot of an example scorecard;



FIG. 3 is a screenshot of an example scorecard application with an example scorecard;



FIGS. 4A and 4B are screenshots of user interfaces of the scorecard application of FIG. 3 for exporting scorecard associated data to a presentation file;



FIG. 5 illustrates a screenshot of a presentation application with the example scorecard of FIG. 3;



FIG. 6 is another screenshot of the presentation application of FIG. 5 showing the example scorecard and two related charts on the same slide;



FIG. 7A illustrates selection of metrics and reports of a scorecard for different views;



FIG. 7B illustrates selection of elements of a scorecard beyond metrics and reports for different views;



FIG. 8 illustrates example effects of using composite objects in exporting scorecard data;



FIG. 9 illustrates different configurations of commentary export from a scorecard to a presentation;



FIG. 10 illustrates an example use of cached scorecard data in a presentation;



FIG. 11 illustrates data driven presentation generation within a business logic service in a networked system;



FIG. 12 is a block diagram of an example computing operating environment, where embodiments may be implemented; and



FIG. 13 illustrates a logic flow diagram for a process of generating a presentation from a scorecard in a data driven manner.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As briefly described above, users of business logic applications processing scorecards may be enabled to visually select elements and reports associated with a scored for generation of a presentation of other output based on the scorecard data. In the following detailed description, references are made to the accompanying drawings that form a part hereof, and in which are shown by way of illustrations specific embodiments or examples. These aspects may be combined, other aspects may be utilized, and structural changes may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of the present disclosure. The following detailed description is therefore not to be taken in a limiting sense, and the scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.


While the embodiments will be described in the general context of program modules that execute in conjunction with an application program that runs on an operating system on a personal computer, those skilled in the art will recognize that aspects may also be implemented in combination with other program modules.


Generally, program modules includes routines, programs, components, data structures, and other types of structures that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Moreover, those skilled in the art will appreciate that embodiments may be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. Embodiments may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.


Embodiments may be implemented as a computer process (method), a computing system, or as an article of manufacture, such as a computer program product or computer readable media. The computer program product may be a computer storage media readable by a computer system and encoding a computer program of instructions for executing a computer process. The computer program product may also be a propagated signal on a carrier readable by a computing system and encoding a computer program of instructions for executing a computer process.


Referring to FIG. 1, an example scorecard architecture is illustrated. The scorecard architecture may comprise any topology of processing systems, storage systems, source systems, and configuration systems. The scorecard architecture may also have a static or dynamic topology.


Scorecards are an easy method of evaluating organizational performance. The performance measures may vary from financial data such as sales growth to service information such as customer complaints. In a non-business environment, student performance and teacher assessments may be another example of performance measures that can employ scorecards for evaluating organizational performance. In the exemplary scorecard architecture, a core of the system is scorecard engine 108. Scorecard engine 108 may be an application software that is arranged to evaluate performance metrics. Scorecard engine 108 may be loaded into a server, executed over a distributed network, executed in a client device, and the like.


Data for evaluating various measures may be provides by a data source. The data source may include systems 112, which provide data to a scorecard cube 114. Source systems 112 may include multi-dimensional databases such OLAP, other databases, individual files, and the like, that provide raw data for generation of scorecards. Scorecard cube 114 is a multi-dimensional database for storing data to be used in determining Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as well as generated scorecards themselves. As discussed above, the multi-dimensional nature of scorecard cube 114 enables storage, use, and presentation of data over multiple dimensions such as compound performance indicators for different geographic areas, organizational groups, or even for different time intervals. Scorecard cube 114 has a bi-directional interaction with scorecard engine 108 providing and receiving raw data as well as generated scorecards.


Scorecard database 116 is arranged to operate in a similar manner to scorecard cube 114. In one embodiment, scorecard database 116 may be an external database providing redundant back-up database service.


Scorecard builder 102 may be a separate application or part of a business logic application such as the performance evaluation application, and the like. Scorecard builder 102 is employed to configure various parameters of scorecard engine 108 such as scorecard elements, default values for actuals, targets, and the like. Scorecard builder 102 may include a user interface such as a web service, a GUI, and the like.


Strategy map builder 104 is employed for a later stage in scorecard generations process. As explained below, scores for KPIs and other metrics may be presented to a user in form of a strategy map. Strategy map builder 104 may include a user interface for selecting graphical formats, indicator elements, and other graphical parameters of the presentation.


Data Sources 106 may be another source for providing raw data to scorecard engine 108. Data sources 106 may also define KPI mappings and other associated data.


Additionally, the scorecard architecture may include scorecard presentation 110. This may be an application to deploy scorecards, customize views, coordinate distribution of scorecard data, and process web-specific applications associated with the performance evaluation process. For example, scorecard presentation 110 may include a web-based printing system, and email distribution system, and the like. In some embodiments, scorecard presentation 110 may be an interface that is used as part of the scorecard engine to export data for generating presentations or other forms of scorecard-related documents in an external application. For example, metrics, reports, and other elements (e.g. commentary) may be provided with metadata to a presentation application (e.g. PowerPoint® of MICROSOFT CORPORATION of Redmond, Wash.) a word processing application, or a graphics application to generate slides, documents, images, and the like, based on selected scorecard data.



FIG. 2 illustrates a screenshot of an example scorecard with status indicators 230. As explained before, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are specific indicators of organizational performance that measure a current state in relation to meeting the targeted objectives. Decision makers may utilize these indicators to manage the organization more effectively.


When creating a KPI, the KPI definition may be used across several scorecards. This is useful when different scorecard managers might have a shared KPI in common. This may ensure a standard definition is used for that KPI. Despite the shared definition, each individual scorecard may utilize a different data source and data mappings for the actual KPI.


Each KPI may include a number of attributes. Some of these attributes include frequency of data, unit of measure, trend type, weight, and other attributes.


The frequency of data identifies how often the data is updated in the source database (cube). The frequency of data may include: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, and Annually.


The unit of measure provides an interpretation for the KPI. Some of the units of measure are: Integer, Decimal, Percent, Days, and Currency. These examples are not exhaustive, and other elements may be added without departing from the scope of the invention.


A trend type may be set according to whether an increasing trend is desirable or not. For example, increasing profit is a desirable trend, while increasing defect rate is not. The trend type may be used in determining the KPI status to display and in setting and interpreting the KPI banding boundary values. The arrows displayed in the scorecard in FIG. 2 indicate how the numbers are moving this period compared to the last. If in this period the number is greater than the last period, the trend is up regardless of the trend type. Possible trend types may include: Increasing Is Better, Decreasing Is Better, and On-Target Is Better.


Weight is a positive integer used to qualify the relative value of the KPI in relation to other KPIs. It is used to calculate the aggregated scorecard value. For example, if an Objective in a scorecard has two KPIs, the first KPI has a weight of 1, and the second has a weight of 3 the second KPI is essentially three times more important than the first, and this weighted relationship is part of the calculation when the KPIs' values are rolled up to derive the values of their present metric.


Other attributes may contain pointers to custom attributes that may be created for documentation purposes or used for various other aspects of the scorecard system such as creating different views in different graphical representations of the finished scorecard. Custom attributes may be created for any scorecard element and may be extended or customized by application developers or users for use in their own applications. They may be any of a number of types including text, numbers, percentages, dates, and hyperlinks.


One of the benefits of defining a scorecard is the ability to easily quantify and visualize performance in meeting organizational strategy. By providing a status at an overall scorecard level, and for each perspective, each objective or each KPI rollup, one may quickly identify where one may be off target. By utilizing the hierarchical scorecard definition along with the KPI weightings, a status value is calculated at each level of the scorecard.


First column of the scorecard shows example top level metric 236 “Manufacturing” with its reporting KPIs 238 and 242 “Inventory” and “Assembly”. Second column 222 in the scorecard shows results for each measure from a previous measurement period. Third column 224 shows results for the same measures for the current measurement period. In one embodiment, the measurement period may include a month, a quarter, a tax year, a calendar year, and the like.


Fourth column 226 includes target values for specified KPIs on the scorecard. Target values may be retrieved from a database, entered by a user, and the like. Column 228 of the scorecard shows status indicators 230.


Status indicators 230 convey the state of the KPI. An indicator may have a predetermined number of levels. A traffic light is one of the most commonly used indicators. It represents a KPI with three levels of results—Good, Neutral, and Bad. Traffic light indicators may be colored red, yellow, or green. In addition, each colored indicator may have its own unique shape. A KPI may have one stoplight indicator visible at any given time. Other types of indicators may also be employed to provide status feedback. For example, indicators with more than three levels may appear as a bar divided into sections, or bands. Column 232 includes trend type arrows as explained above under KPI attributes. Column 234 shows another KPI attribute, frequency.



FIG. 3 is a screenshot of an example scorecard application with an example scorecard. The example scorecard application may be part of a business logic service that collects, processes, and analyzes performance data from various aspects of an organization.


The user interface of the scorecard application as shown in the screenshot includes controls 354 for performing actions such as formatting of data, view options, actions on the presented information, and the like. The main portion of the user interface displays scorecard 358 “Adventure Works Scorecard”. The scorecard includes metrics such as “Internet Sales Amount”, “Internet Order Quantity”, “Customer Count”, and the like in column 362. Columns 364 and 366 respectively display actuals and targets for the category of “Accessories” for each of the listed metrics. Column 368 and 372 display the actuals for the categories “Bikes” and “Female” (referring to female bikes).


Side panel 352 titled “Workspace Browser” provides a section of available KPIs as well as elements of the scorecard such indicators and reports that are associated with the selected scorecard. Other side panel 356 provides additional details about available scorecard elements such as a collapsible list of KPIs, targets, and dimension combinations.


According to some embodiments, portions of all of the presented scorecard may be exported to a presentation application for generating a presentation such as slides, images, and the like based on selected elements of the scorecard. For example, reports for selected metrics along with the source data, commentaries, and the like may be compiled into a report book to be rendered as a presentation.



FIGS. 4A and 4B are screenshots of user interfaces of the scorecard application of FIG. 3 for exporting scorecard associated data to a presentation file. The scorecard application of FIG. 3 may handle a plurality of scorecards at any given time. Thus, a list of scorecards may be made available to a user for selection to be exported.


The user interface screenshot in FIG. 4A illustrates a control panel 476 for actions and a selection panel 474 displaying a list of available scorecards for export. The user may select a desired scorecard by clicking on its name and move to the next screen. Scorecards may be represented in the selection by their names, by icons, other graphics, combinations, and the like.


The screenshot in FIG. 4B is of the user interface when “Export Options” are selected in the control panel 276. The options may include a destination path 478 for a file to be exported to and other actions such as whether or not report view should also be exported, whether a place and time of export should be included in the title, and whether the file should be opened at the conclusion of the export (as indicated by reference numeral 482).



FIG. 5 illustrates a screenshot of presentation application 590 with the example scorecard of FIG. 3. Presentation application 590 in this example screenshot is a slide presentation application. As mentioned previously, other types of applications rendering selected scorecard elements as other types of documents (e.g. images) may also be implemented.


Presentation application 590 also includes a controls portion 596 for performing actions such as formatting, editing, and the like on the generated presentation. The main view panel of the presentation application user interface displays the example scorecard of FIG. 3. In this example scenario, all elements of the scorecard shown in FIG. 3 are selected. Therefore, the scorecard is shown without change in content. Formatting is different however. Format elements such as fonts, font sizes, background color are adjusted to default values of the presentation application. As will be discussed later in conjunction with FIG. 8, scorecard data is exported using composite objects. This enables the receiving application to reformat and resize the presented data according to its parameters.


Depending on selections made by the user during the export operation, subsets of the scorecard data, particular reports associated with the scorecard may also be rendered by presentation application 590. Other available renderings are indicated as minimized slides 594 in the side panel of the presentation application user interface.



FIG. 6 is another screenshot of the presentation application of FIG. 5 showing the example scorecard and two related charts on the same slide.


Controls 696 of the presentation application 590 are shown differently in the screenshot of FIG. 6. As with any application, the control may be presented in various ways depending on an operation mode, user selection, default parameters, and the like. In this example scenario, a user selection for displaying the scorecard along with two selected reports is assumed. Thus, charts 693 and 695 are displayed next to scorecard 692. The charts, as with the scorecard, may also be reformatted and resized according to the parameters of the presentation application.


According to some embodiments, the user may be provided options to select different properties of the charts during the export such as 3D vs. 2D, minimum side, etc. Other available slides in this example scenario as indicated by reference numeral 694 include a subset of the scorecard and another chart based on a selected report.


The screenshots of FIG. 3 through FIG. 6 are for illustration purposed only and do not constitute limitation on embodiments. Indeed, embodiments may be implemented with other types of applications rendering scorecard elements and reports, different selection options, presentation options, and the like, using the principles described herein.



FIG. 7A illustrates example selection of metrics and reports of a scorecard for different views. As discussed previously, a scorecard may include a number of elements such as metrics (e.g. KPIs), reports associated with selected metrics, and the like. A user may be provided with a user interface during the export process to select which metrics and/or reports they want to have exported to the presentation application.


The example scorecard includes in the metrics and reports column 708 two top level KPIs (KPI 1 and KPI 2) with a number of lower level KPIs reporting to each. One of the lower level KPIs (KPI 1.3) under KPI 1 has two reports associated with it. Additionally, three reports (Reports A, B, and C) are also listed. These may be based on a variety of selected metrics from the scorecard.


For selection a user may be provided different user interfaces, a textual listing of available elements, a table-based listing, a graphical listing utilizing icons, and so on. The example in the figure shows the elements and available number of views in a table format. The user is offered to select metrics and reports for three different views (702, 704, and 706) by selecting corresponding cells under each view. Once the selection is made, the business logic application may generate metadata reflecting the user's selections such that the output at the presentation application includes selected items.



FIG. 7B illustrates selection of elements of a scorecard beyond metrics and reports for different views. Metrics and reports are not the only elements associated with a scorecard. Other elements such as commentary, organizational data, analyses, and the like may also be included in the presentation. The example selection in FIG. 7B illustrates such a selection.


During the export process, briefing book definitions may first be generated based on scorecard element definitions and report view definitions. Selections are then made from the briefing book and subparts (e.g. trend charts, etc.). The example briefing book in the figure is “Sales Briefing Book” 710 for an organization. Elements 712 associated with the briefing book include trend graphs, goegraphic breakdown, compensation anaylsis, regional commentary, and revenue goals broken down by manager, district, and region.


Two view types are offered to the user for the above listed briefing book elements: a view by region and a view by time (716 and 718). As in the example in FIG. 7A, the user may select by clicking on corresponding cells for each view by other selections methods. Once the selections are done, the metadata is prepared for generation of the rendered book in the presentation application.


Operations in generating the presentation such as formatting, pagination, groupings, sizing, and the like may then be performed based on the metadata and default parameters of the presentation application.



FIG. 8 illustrates example effects of using composite objects in exporting scorecard data. According to some embodiments, scorecard and report views may be exported to the presentation application as composite objects as opposed to bitmap images or other types of data that may present inherent limitations.


By using composite objects to covey the data, the presentation application is enabled to modify the received views according to its default parameters or user defined values. Examples scorecard view 822 in FIG. 8 includes a listing of metrics (e.g. KPI 1, KPI 2, and their reporting KPIs) as well as the actual and target value columns. By exporting the example scorecard view 822 as a composite object to the presentation application, the business logic application enables the presentation application to modify the view according to its themes. For example, presentation view 824 includes different background coloring for the actual and target value columns while other aspects such as fonts and borders are left untouched. The second example view 826 shows background color of the header row and the font of all cells being modified to match a theme implemented by the presentation application.


Modification of view properties by using composite objects is not limited to the examples shown in the figure. Other aspects of the scorecard or report views including, but not limited to, font, font size, overall size, embellishments, text and graphic effects, and the like, may also be modified in the presentation by employing composite objects.



FIG. 9 illustrates configurations of commentary export from a scorecard to a presentation. Scorecards may include commentary feature, where authorized participants can provide commentary at scorecard, element, dimension, or even cell levels. In a typical scorecard application, the commentary may be presented with an icon (e.g. a small triangle at the corner of a cell). When a user clicks on the triangle, available commentary may be displayed in text form. In a presentation, providing the commentary in the presentation may be employed.


Scorecard view 932 shows a typical scorecard with commentary indicators at the cells for KPI 1.4, KPI 2.1, and target value for KPI 2.1. When the scorecard view is exported to a presentation according to the embodiments, the commentary (938) may be listed below the scorecard view in the presentation as shown in example presentation view 934. According to another embodiment the presentation may include hyperlinks 939 for each commentary listed below the scorecard view as shown in example presentation view 936. The hyperlkinks may take the user to another slide in the presentation or document that lists all available commentary for the particular scorecard. The presentation of the commentary may take other forms not shown here including, but not limited to, placement of the commentary, format of the links, and the like.



FIG. 10 illustrates an example use of cached scorecard data in a presentation. Typically, rendering of presentations from scorecard data is a one time event and the presentations are stationary, meaning the data in the presentation is not dynamic as presented by the scorecard application. On the other hand, scorecard views (as well as report views) may be repeated for data associated with particular time period without substantially changing format. For example, a user may want to view the scorecard (select metrics) and associated reports for the fiscal year 2006. Then, the user may desire to check the views for fiscal year 2005 or any other year.


According to one embodiment, scorecard data may be cached in exporting to the presentation application such that multiple versions of the presentations can be generated for cached versions of data such as by time period. A similar caching and presentation method may be employed for other dimensions such as region, organizational unit, etc.


In the example presentation view of FIG. 10, the main view 1044 displays scorecard view 1046 with two associated charts 1048 and 1049. The data for this view (and the charts) is from fiscal year 2005 as indicated by the side panel 1042. By using the cached data to generate multiple versions of the presentations, a user may simply click on another year (e.g. 2006) on the side panel 1042 and see the same scorecard view and charts based on the metric data for 2006.


Embodiments are not limited to the example data structures, user interfaces, layouts, and operations discussed above. Many other types of operations may be performed and interfaces/layouts used to implement data driven presentation generation from scorecard data using the principles described herein.


Referring now to the following figures, aspects, and exemplary operating environments will be described. FIG. 11, FIG. 12, and the associated discussion are intended to provide a brief, general description of a suitable computing environment in which embodiments may be implemented.



FIG. 11 illustrates data driven presentation generation within a business logic service in a networked system. The system may comprise any topology of servers, clients, Internet service providers, and communication media. Also, the system may have a static or dynamic topology. The term “client” may refer to a client application or a client device employed by a user to perform operations associated with generating data driven presentations from a scorecard. While a networked business logic system may involve many more components, relevant ones are discussed in conjunction with this figure.


In a typical operation according to the embodiments, business logic service may be provided centrally from server 1162 or in a distributed manner over several servers (e.g. servers 1162 and 1164) and/or client devices. Server 1162 may include implementation of a number of information systems such as performance measures, business scorecards, and exception reporting. A number of organization-specific applications including, but not limited to, financial reporting/analysis, booking, marketing analysis, customer service, and manufacturing planning applications may also be configured, deployed, and shared in the networked system.


Data sources 1151-1153 are examples of a number of data sources that may provide input to server 1162. Additional data sources may include SQL servers, databases, non multi-dimensional data sources such as text files or EXCEL® sheets, multi-dimensional data source such as data cubes, and the like.


Users may interact with server running on the business logic service from client devices 1171-1173 over network 1165. In another embodiment, users may directly access the data from server 1162 and perform analysis on their own machines.


Client devices 1171-1173 or servers 1162 and 1164 may be in communications with additional client devices or additional servers over network 1165. Network 1165 may include a secure network such as an enterprise network, and unsecured network such as a wireless open network, or the Internet. Network 1165 provides communication between the nodes described herein. By way of example, and not limitation, network 1165 may include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media.


Many other configurations of computing devices, applications, data sources, data distribution and analysis systems may be employed to implement data driven generation of presentations. Furthermore, the networked environments discussed in FIG. 11 are for illustration purposes only. Embodiments are not limited to the example applications, modules, or processes. A networked environment for may be provided in many other ways using the principles described herein.


With reference to FIG. 12, a block diagram of an example computing operating environment is illustrated, such as computing device 1200. In a basic configuration, the computing device 1200 typically includes at least one processing unit 1202 and system memory 1204. Computing device 1200 may include a plurality of processing units that cooperate in executing programs. Depending on the exact configuration and type of computing device, the system memory 1204 may be volatile (such as RAM), non-volatile (such as ROM, flash memory, etc.) or some combination of the two. System memory 1204 typically includes an operating system, 1205 suitable for controlling the operation of a networked personal computer, such as the WINDOWS® operating systems from MICROSOFT CORPORATION of Redmond, Wash. The system memory 1204 may also include one or more software applications such as program modules 1206, business logic application 1222, and presentation application 1224.


Business logic application 1222 may be any application that processes and generates scorecards and associated data. While presentation application 1224 may include any type of presentation application, such as one generating slide presentations, it may also include other applications that generate different forms of output based on scorecard data such as documents, images, graphics files, and the like. Presentation application 1224 may be an integrated part of business logic application 1222 or operate remotely and communicate with the application and with other applications running on computing device 1200 or on other devices. Furthermore, presentation application 1224 or business logic application 1222 may be executed in an operating system other than operating system 1205. The basic configuration is illustrated in FIG. 12 by those components with dashed line 1208.


The computing device 1200 may have additional features or functionality. For example, the computing device 1200 may also include additional data storage devices (removable and/or non-removable) such as, for example, magnetic disks, optical disks, or tape. Such additional storage is illustrated in FIG. 12 by removable storage 1209 and non-removable storage 1210. Computer storage media may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage or information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. System memory 1204, removable storage 1209 and non-removable storage 1210 are all examples of computer storage media. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by computing device 1200. Any such computer storage media may be part of device 1200. Computing device 1200 may also have input device(s) 1212 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 1214 such as display, speakers, printer, etc. may also be included. These devices are well known in the art and need not to be discussed at length here.


The computing device 1200 may also contain communication connections 126 that allow the device to communicate with other computing devices 1218, such as over a network in a distributed computing environment, for example, an intranet or Internet Communication connection 1216 is one example of communication media. Communication media may typically be embodied by computer readable instruction, data structures, program modules, or other data in a modulated data signal, such as carrier wave or other transport mechanism, and includes any information of delivery media. The term “modulated data signal” means a signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed in such a manner as to encode information in the signal. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared, and other wireless media. The term computer readable media as used herein includes both storage media and communication media.


The claimed subject matter also includes methods. These methods can be implemented in any number of ways, including the structures described in this document. One such way is by machine operations, of devices of the type described in this document.


Another optional way is for one or more of the individual operations of the methods to be performed in conjunction with one or more human operators performing some. These human operators need not be collocated with each other, but each can be only with a machine that performs a portion of the program.



FIG. 13 illustrates a logic flow diagram for a process of generating a presentation from a scorecard in a data driven matter. Process 1300 may be implemented in a business logic application that processes and/or generates scorecards and scorecard-related reports.


Process 1300 begins with operation 1302, where scorecard data is received for exporting to the presentation application. The scorecard data may be provided by a plurality of sources such as those discussed in FIGS. 1, 2, and 11. The data may include scorecard view of all or a subpart of the metrics associated with the scorecard, reports associated with all or a subpart of the metrics, unstructured data such as commentary or annotations, attributes or properties associated with the scorecard elements and views. Processing advances from operation 1302 to operation 1304.


At operation 1304, briefing book definitions are generated based on the received data, default parameters, and user-defined parameters. Depending on what type of presentation is to be generated, charts may be created based on the data; scorecard and report views may be reformatted, resized, paginated (broken down to multiple pages or images). Moreover, presentation elements such as slides may be grouped, matched to a theme of the presentation, and unstructured data inserted in the layout of the views as defined by the default or user-defined parameters. The briefing book may then be provided to a user for selection of subparts such as charts, scorecard views, as well as other presentation parameters. Processing proceeds from operation 1304 to operation 1306.


At operation 1306, user selection(s) are received for the rendered book. For example, a user may select a portion if the available charts, particular elements of the scorecard to be presented, and the like. The user may also modify presentation parameters, which defined formatting, sizing, layout, pagination, and the like, of the selected parts. Processing moves from operation 1306 to operation 1308.


At operation 1308, the presentation book is rendered based on the user selections, metadata, and presentation application parameters. During the generation of the rendered book, images may be compressed, slides grouped by metrics, snapshots generated, and views scaled. The rendered book may also include multiple versions of the presentation based on cached scorecard data (e.g. for different fiscal years).


Following the generation of the presentation, the rendered book may be provided to subscribers using predefined security measures by electronic mail, downloading, and the like. After operation 1308, processing moves to a calling process for further actions.


The operations included in process 1300 are for illustration purposes. Generating presentations from scorecards in a data driven manner may be implemented by similar processes with fewer or additional steps, as well as in different order of operations using the principles described herein.


The above specification, examples and data provide a complete description of the manufacture and use of the composition of the embodiments. Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims and embodiments.

Claims
  • 1. A system for rendering a presentation based on a scorecard, comprising: a memory;a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to perform actions including: receive data associated with the scorecard for exporting to a presentation application, wherein the data includes at least one from a set of: a partial scorecard view, a full scorecard view, a report view, and unstructured data;auto-align and associate the data with a plurality of presentation parts;generate a set of definitions for the presentation parts based on at least one from a set of: the received data, default parameters of the presentation application, and subscriber-defined parameters associated with the presentation;present, based on a permission infrastructure, a subscriber with selection options among available presentation parts and options for redefining attributes of selected presentation parts, the attributes comprising a setting of a view type for the presentation, the view type comprising one of the following: a view by region and a view by time;receive a subscriber selection of at least one of the available presentation parts, the selection defining at least one attribute associated with the selected at least one presentation part;create a composite object for export to the presentation application based on the received subscriber selection, the composite object being configured to define metrics associated with the selected at least one presentation part and a layout of the metrics within the presentation associated with the at least one attribute defined by the selection; andexporting to the presentation application the composite object that is modifiable by the presentation application.
  • 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the data from a plurality of data sources associated with a business logic service.
  • 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide different selection options to different subscribers based on a permission level of each subscriber.
  • 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide the data to the presentation application in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format.
  • 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide a rendered presentation to a predefined number of subscribers through one of an electronic mail, an instant message, and a download process.
  • 6. A method to be executed at least in part in a computing device for rendering a presentation based on a scorecard, the method comprising: receiving data associated with the scorecard for exporting to a presentation application, the data comprising a plurality of scorecard metrics;generating, based on the received data, a briefing book comprising preliminary parts of the presentation and options for a view type for each of the preliminary parts;providing the briefing book to a user and receiving a user selection of at least one of the preliminary presentation parts and a user selection of a corresponding view type for each of the selected at least one presentation parts;creating a composite object for export to the presentation application based on the scorecard data and the received user selections, the composite object being modifiable once received by the presentation application to meet the formatting requirements of the presentation while preserving the content of the scorecard;exporting the composite object to a presentation application; andrendering the presentation by the presentation application, the composite object being used by the presentation application to build the presentation.
  • 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises: reformatting and resizing the briefing book based on an attribute of the presentation.
  • 8. The method of claim 6, wherein the presentation includes at least one of: a slide presentation file, an image file, a graphics file, and a composite document file.
  • 9. The method of claim 6, wherein the method further comprises: grouping the composite object based on at least one from a set of: the user selections, an attribute of the presentation, and the briefing book structure.
  • 10. The method of claim 6, wherein the briefing book is provided to the presentation application as a composite object.
  • 11. A system for rendering a presentation based on a scorecard, comprising: a memory;a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to perform actions including: receive data associated with the scorecard for exporting to a presentation application, the data comprising a plurality of scorecard metrics;generate, based on the received data, a briefing book comprising preliminary parts of the presentation and options for a view type for each of the preliminary parts;provide the briefing book to a user and receiving a user selection of at least one of the preliminary presentation parts and a user selection of a corresponding view type for each of the selected at least one presentation parts;create a composite object for export to the presentation application based on the scorecard data and the received user selections, the composite object being modifiable once received by the presentation application to meet the formatting requirements of the presentation while preserving the content of the scorecard;export the composite object to a presentation application; andrender the presentation by the presentation application, the composite object being used by the presentation application to build the presentation.
  • 12. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to perform actions including reformat and resize the briefing book based on an attribute of the presentation.
  • 13. The system of claim 11, wherein the presentation includes at least one of: a slide presentation file, an image file, a graphics file, and a composite document file.
  • 14. The system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions to perform actions including group the composite object based on at least one from a set of: the user selections, an attribute of the presentation, and the briefing book structure.
  • 15. The system of claim 11, wherein the briefing book is provided to the presentation application as a composite object.
US Referenced Citations (474)
Number Name Date Kind
5018077 Healey May 1991 A
5233552 Brittan Aug 1993 A
5253362 Nolan Oct 1993 A
5404295 Katz et al. Apr 1995 A
5473747 Bird Dec 1995 A
5615347 Davis et al. Mar 1997 A
5675553 O'Brien, Jr. et al. Oct 1997 A
5675782 Montague et al. Oct 1997 A
5680636 Levine Oct 1997 A
5758351 Gibson et al. May 1998 A
5764890 Glasser et al. Jun 1998 A
5778364 Nelson Jul 1998 A
5779566 Wilens Jul 1998 A
5797136 Boyer et al. Aug 1998 A
5819225 Eastwood et al. Oct 1998 A
5826261 Spencer Oct 1998 A
5832504 Tripathi et al. Nov 1998 A
5838313 Hou et al. Nov 1998 A
5845270 Schatz Dec 1998 A
5877758 Seybold Mar 1999 A
5911143 Deinhart et al. Jun 1999 A
5926794 Fethe Jul 1999 A
5941947 Brown et al. Aug 1999 A
5943666 Kleewein et al. Aug 1999 A
5956691 Powers Sep 1999 A
6012044 Maggioncalda et al. Jan 2000 A
6023714 Hill et al. Feb 2000 A
6061692 Thomas et al. May 2000 A
6097802 Fleischer et al. Aug 2000 A
6115705 Larson Sep 2000 A
6119137 Smith et al. Sep 2000 A
6141655 Johnson Oct 2000 A
6163779 Mantha Dec 2000 A
6182022 Mayle et al. Jan 2001 B1
6216066 Goebel et al. Apr 2001 B1
6226635 Katariya May 2001 B1
6230310 Arrouye et al. May 2001 B1
6233573 Bair May 2001 B1
6249784 Macke Jun 2001 B1
6308206 Singh Oct 2001 B1
6321206 Honarvar Nov 2001 B1
6322366 Bergan et al. Nov 2001 B1
6332163 Bowman-Amuah Dec 2001 B1
6341277 Coden et al. Jan 2002 B1
6389434 Rivette May 2002 B1
6393406 Eder May 2002 B1
6421670 Fourman Jul 2002 B1
6435279 Howe et al. Aug 2002 B1
6463431 Schmitt Oct 2002 B1
6466935 Stuart Oct 2002 B1
6490589 Weider et al. Dec 2002 B1
6493733 Pollack Dec 2002 B1
6516324 Jones Feb 2003 B1
6519603 Bays Feb 2003 B1
6522342 Gagnon et al. Feb 2003 B1
6529215 Golovchinsky et al. Mar 2003 B2
6563514 Samar May 2003 B1
6578004 Cimral Jun 2003 B1
6601233 Underwood Jul 2003 B1
6604084 Powers et al. Aug 2003 B1
6606627 Guthrie et al. Aug 2003 B1
6628312 Rao Sep 2003 B1
6633889 Dessloch et al. Oct 2003 B2
6658432 Alavi et al. Dec 2003 B1
6665577 Onyshkevych et al. Dec 2003 B2
6677963 Mani et al. Jan 2004 B1
6687720 Colver et al. Feb 2004 B1
6687735 Logston et al. Feb 2004 B1
6687878 Eintracht Feb 2004 B1
6728724 Megiddo et al. Apr 2004 B1
6763134 Cooper et al. Jul 2004 B2
6772137 Hurwood et al. Aug 2004 B1
6775675 Nwabueze et al. Aug 2004 B1
6782421 Soles et al. Aug 2004 B1
6785675 Graves et al. Aug 2004 B1
6789046 Murstein et al. Sep 2004 B1
6804657 Sultan Oct 2004 B1
6831575 Wu et al. Dec 2004 B2
6831668 Cras Dec 2004 B2
6842176 Sang'udi Jan 2005 B2
6850891 Forman Feb 2005 B1
6854091 Beaudoin Feb 2005 B1
6859798 Bedell et al. Feb 2005 B1
6867764 Ludtke Mar 2005 B2
6868087 Agarwala et al. Mar 2005 B1
6874126 Lapidous Mar 2005 B1
6895383 Heinrich May 2005 B2
6898603 Petculescu May 2005 B1
6900808 Lassiter May 2005 B2
6901426 Powers et al. May 2005 B1
6917921 Cimral et al. Jul 2005 B1
6959306 Nwabueze Oct 2005 B2
6963826 Hanaman et al. Nov 2005 B2
6968312 Jordan Nov 2005 B1
6973616 Cottrille Dec 2005 B1
6976086 Sadeghi et al. Dec 2005 B2
6981252 Sadowsky Dec 2005 B1
6988076 Ouimet Jan 2006 B2
6995768 Jou Feb 2006 B2
7013285 Rebane Mar 2006 B1
7015911 Shaughnessy et al. Mar 2006 B2
7027051 Alford et al. Apr 2006 B2
7043524 Shah et al. May 2006 B2
7058638 Singh Jun 2006 B2
7065784 Hopmann et al. Jun 2006 B2
7079010 Champlin Jul 2006 B2
7158628 McConnell et al. Jan 2007 B2
7181417 Langseth et al. Feb 2007 B1
7200595 Dutta et al. Apr 2007 B2
7216116 Nilsson et al. May 2007 B1
7222308 Sauermann et al. May 2007 B2
7224847 Zhang et al. May 2007 B2
7233908 Nelson Jun 2007 B1
7249120 Bruno et al. Jul 2007 B2
7275024 Yeh et al. Sep 2007 B2
7302421 Aldridge Nov 2007 B2
7302431 Apollonsky et al. Nov 2007 B1
7302444 Dunmore et al. Nov 2007 B1
7313561 Lo et al. Dec 2007 B2
7340448 Santosuosso Mar 2008 B2
7349862 Palmer et al. Mar 2008 B2
7349877 Ballow et al. Mar 2008 B2
7359865 Connor et al. Apr 2008 B1
7383247 Li et al. Jun 2008 B2
7398240 Ballow et al. Jul 2008 B2
7406431 Spira et al. Jul 2008 B2
7409357 Schaf et al. Aug 2008 B2
7412398 Bailey Aug 2008 B1
7433876 Spivack et al. Oct 2008 B2
7440976 Hart et al. Oct 2008 B2
7454393 Horvitz et al. Nov 2008 B2
7496852 Eichorn et al. Feb 2009 B2
7496857 Stata et al. Feb 2009 B2
7509343 Washburn et al. Mar 2009 B1
7523466 DeAngelis Apr 2009 B2
7546226 Yeh et al. Jun 2009 B1
7546246 Stamm et al. Jun 2009 B1
7546549 Danas et al. Jun 2009 B2
7548912 Gideoni et al. Jun 2009 B2
7559023 Hays et al. Jul 2009 B2
7568217 Prasad et al. Jul 2009 B1
7587665 Crow et al. Sep 2009 B2
7587755 Kramer Sep 2009 B2
7599848 Wefers et al. Oct 2009 B2
7613625 Heinrich Nov 2009 B2
7617177 Bukary et al. Nov 2009 B2
7617187 Zhu et al. Nov 2009 B2
7630965 Erickson et al. Dec 2009 B1
7634478 Yang et al. Dec 2009 B2
7636709 Srikant et al. Dec 2009 B1
7640506 Pratley et al. Dec 2009 B2
7660731 Chaddha et al. Feb 2010 B2
7667582 Waldorf Feb 2010 B1
7685207 Helms Mar 2010 B1
7694270 Manikotia et al. Apr 2010 B2
7698349 Hulen et al. Apr 2010 B2
7702554 Ballow et al. Apr 2010 B2
7702779 Gupta et al. Apr 2010 B1
7707490 Hays et al. Apr 2010 B2
7716253 Netz et al. May 2010 B2
7716278 Beringer et al. May 2010 B2
7716571 Tien et al. May 2010 B2
7716592 Tien et al. May 2010 B2
7725947 Bukary et al. May 2010 B2
7730023 MacGregor Jun 2010 B2
7730123 Erickson et al. Jun 2010 B1
7730129 Wang et al. Jun 2010 B2
7739148 Suzuki et al. Jun 2010 B2
7747572 Scott et al. Jun 2010 B2
7752094 Davidson et al. Jul 2010 B2
7752301 Maiocco et al. Jul 2010 B1
7778910 Ballow et al. Aug 2010 B2
7788280 Singh et al. Aug 2010 B2
7792774 Friedlander et al. Sep 2010 B2
7822662 Guzik et al. Oct 2010 B2
7831464 Nichols et al. Nov 2010 B1
7840896 Tien et al. Nov 2010 B2
7848947 McGloin et al. Dec 2010 B1
7899833 Stevens et al. Mar 2011 B2
7899843 Dettinger et al. Mar 2011 B2
7904797 Wong et al. Mar 2011 B2
7953626 Wright et al. May 2011 B2
8010324 Crowe et al. Aug 2011 B1
8095499 Thanu Jan 2012 B2
8126750 Tien et al. Feb 2012 B2
8190992 Tien et al. May 2012 B2
8261181 Tien et al. Sep 2012 B2
8280822 McKeown et al. Oct 2012 B2
8321805 Tien et al. Nov 2012 B2
8495663 Tien et al. Jul 2013 B2
20010004256 Iwata et al. Jun 2001 A1
20010051835 Cline Dec 2001 A1
20010054046 Mikhailov et al. Dec 2001 A1
20020029273 Haroldson et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020038217 Young Mar 2002 A1
20020049621 Bruce Apr 2002 A1
20020052740 Charlesworth May 2002 A1
20020052862 Scott et al. May 2002 A1
20020059267 Shah May 2002 A1
20020078175 Wallace Jun 2002 A1
20020087272 Mackie Jul 2002 A1
20020091737 Markel Jul 2002 A1
20020099578 Eicher et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020099678 Albright et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020103976 Steely et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020112171 Ginter et al. Aug 2002 A1
20020133368 Strutt et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020138659 Trabaris et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020147803 Dodd et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020161595 Cepeda Oct 2002 A1
20020161614 Spira et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020169658 Adler Nov 2002 A1
20020169799 Voshell Nov 2002 A1
20020177784 Shekhar Nov 2002 A1
20020178119 Griffin et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020184043 Lavorgna et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020184061 Digate et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020188513 Gil et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020194042 Sands Dec 2002 A1
20020194090 Gagnon et al. Dec 2002 A1
20020194329 Alling Dec 2002 A1
20020198985 Fraenkel et al. Dec 2002 A1
20030004742 Palmer et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030009373 Ensing et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030009649 Martin et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030014290 McLean et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030014488 Dalal et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030028419 Monaghan Feb 2003 A1
20030033191 Davies et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030040936 Nader et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030055731 Fouraker et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030055927 Fischer et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030061132 Yu et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030061212 Smith et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030065604 Gatto Apr 2003 A1
20030065605 Gatto Apr 2003 A1
20030069773 Hladik et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030069824 Menninger Apr 2003 A1
20030071814 Jou et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030078830 Wagner et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030093423 Larason et al. May 2003 A1
20030110249 Buus et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030144868 MacIntyre et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030146937 Lee Aug 2003 A1
20030149696 Nelson et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030182181 Kirkwood Sep 2003 A1
20030187675 Hack Oct 2003 A1
20030195878 Neumann Oct 2003 A1
20030204430 Kalmick et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030204487 Sssv Oct 2003 A1
20030212960 Shaughnessy et al. Nov 2003 A1
20030220830 Myr Nov 2003 A1
20030225604 Casati et al. Dec 2003 A1
20030226107 Pelegri-Llopart et al. Dec 2003 A1
20030236732 Cimral et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040021695 Sauermann et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030741 Wolton et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040030795 Hesmer et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040033475 Mizuma et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040044665 Nwabueze Mar 2004 A1
20040044678 Kalia et al. Mar 2004 A1
20040059518 Rothschild Mar 2004 A1
20040064293 Hamilton et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040066782 Nassar Apr 2004 A1
20040068429 MacDonald Apr 2004 A1
20040068431 Smith et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040073549 Turkel et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040078395 Rinkevich et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040083246 Kahlouche et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040093296 Phelan et al. May 2004 A1
20040102926 Adendorff May 2004 A1
20040117731 Blyashov Jun 2004 A1
20040119752 Berringer et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040128150 Lundegren Jul 2004 A1
20040135826 Pickering Jul 2004 A1
20040138944 Whitacre Jul 2004 A1
20040162772 Lewis Aug 2004 A1
20040164983 Khozai Aug 2004 A1
20040172323 Stamm Sep 2004 A1
20040183800 Peterson Sep 2004 A1
20040186765 Kataoka Sep 2004 A1
20040199541 Goldberg et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040204913 Mueller et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040210574 Aponte et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040212636 Stata et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040215626 Colossi et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040225571 Urali Nov 2004 A1
20040225955 Ly Nov 2004 A1
20040230463 Boivin Nov 2004 A1
20040230471 Putnam Nov 2004 A1
20040249482 Abu El Ata et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040249657 Kol et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040252134 Bhatt et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040254806 Schwerin-Wenzel et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040254860 Wagner et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040260582 King Dec 2004 A1
20040260717 Albornoz et al. Dec 2004 A1
20040268228 Croney et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050004781 Price et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050010456 Chang et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050012743 Kapler et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050015732 Vedula et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050039119 Parks et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050041872 Yim et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050049831 Lilly Mar 2005 A1
20050049894 Cantwell et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050055257 Senturk et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060048 Pierre Mar 2005 A1
20050060300 Stolte et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060325 Bakalash Mar 2005 A1
20050065811 Chu et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050065925 Weissman et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050065930 Swaminathan et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050065967 Schuetze et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050065977 Benson et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050071680 Bukary et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050071737 Adendorff et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050091093 Bhaskaran Apr 2005 A1
20050091253 Cragun Apr 2005 A1
20050091263 Wallace Apr 2005 A1
20050096950 Caplan et al. May 2005 A1
20050097438 Jacobson May 2005 A1
20050097517 Goin et al. May 2005 A1
20050108271 Hurmiz et al. May 2005 A1
20050114241 Hirsch May 2005 A1
20050114801 Yang May 2005 A1
20050144022 Evans Jun 2005 A1
20050144108 Loeper Jun 2005 A1
20050149558 Zhuk Jul 2005 A1
20050149852 Bleicher Jul 2005 A1
20050154628 Eckart et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050154635 Wright et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050154769 Eckart et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050160356 Albornoz Jul 2005 A1
20050171835 Mook Aug 2005 A1
20050181835 Lau et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050197946 Williams et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050198042 Davis Sep 2005 A1
20050203876 Cragun et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050209943 Ballow et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050209945 Ballow et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050209946 Ballow et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050209948 Ballow et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050210052 Aldridge Sep 2005 A1
20050216831 Guzik et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050223021 Batra et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050228880 Champlin Oct 2005 A1
20050240467 Eckart Oct 2005 A1
20050240898 Manikotia et al. Oct 2005 A1
20050251432 Barker et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050253874 Lal et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050256825 Dettinger Nov 2005 A1
20050262051 Dettinger et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050262451 Remignanti et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050272022 Montz, Jr. et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050273762 Lesh Dec 2005 A1
20050283393 White et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050289452 Kashi Dec 2005 A1
20060004555 Jones Jan 2006 A1
20060004731 Seibel et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060009990 McCormick Jan 2006 A1
20060010032 Eicher et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060010164 Netz et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060015424 Esposito et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060020531 Veeneman et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060026179 Brown et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060036455 Prasad Feb 2006 A1
20060036595 Gilfix et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060047419 Diendorf et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060047711 Cho et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060053103 Chaudhuri et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060059107 Elmore et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060074789 Capotosto et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060080156 Baughn et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060085444 Sarawgi et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060085445 Thanu Apr 2006 A1
20060089868 Griller et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060089894 Balk et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060089939 Broda et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060095276 Axelrod et al. May 2006 A1
20060095915 Clater May 2006 A1
20060111921 Chang et al. May 2006 A1
20060112123 Clark et al. May 2006 A1
20060112130 Lowson May 2006 A1
20060123022 Bird Jun 2006 A1
20060136830 Martlage et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060154692 Ikehara et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161471 Hulen et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060161596 Chan et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060167704 Nicholls et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060178897 Fuchs Aug 2006 A1
20060178920 Muell Aug 2006 A1
20060184416 Nag Aug 2006 A1
20060195424 Wiest et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060206392 Rice, Jr. et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060212429 Bruno et al. Sep 2006 A1
20060224325 Conway et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060229925 Chalasani et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060230234 Bentolila et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060233348 Cooper Oct 2006 A1
20060235732 Miller et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060235778 Razvi et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060253475 Stewart et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060259338 Rodrigue et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060265377 Raman et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060271583 Hulen et al. Nov 2006 A1
20060277128 Anandarao et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060282819 Graham et al. Dec 2006 A1
20060288211 Vargas et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070021992 Konakalla Jan 2007 A1
20070022026 Davidson et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070033129 Coates Feb 2007 A1
20070038934 Fellman Feb 2007 A1
20070050237 Tien et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070055564 Fourman Mar 2007 A1
20070055688 Blattner Mar 2007 A1
20070067381 Grant et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070112607 Tien et al. May 2007 A1
20070112727 Jardine et al. May 2007 A1
20070143161 Tien et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143174 Tien et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143175 Tien et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070156680 Tien et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070162500 Herwadkar Jul 2007 A1
20070168323 Dickerman et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070174330 Fox et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070192170 Cristol Aug 2007 A1
20070225986 Bowe et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070234198 Tien et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070239508 Fazal et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070239573 Tien et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070239660 Tien et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070254740 Tien et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070255681 Tien et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070260625 Tien et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070265863 Tien et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070266042 Hsu et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070282673 Nagpal et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080005064 Sarukkai Jan 2008 A1
20080040309 Aldridge Feb 2008 A1
20080059441 Gaug et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080066010 Brodersen et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080086345 Wilson et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080086359 Holton et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080109270 Shepherd et al. May 2008 A1
20080115103 Datars et al. May 2008 A1
20080140623 Tien et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080162209 Gu et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080162210 Gu et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163066 Gu et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163099 Gu et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163125 Gu et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080163164 Chowdhary et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080168376 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080172287 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080172348 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080172414 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080172629 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080183564 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080184099 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080184130 Tien et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080189632 Tien et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080189724 Tien et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080229214 Hamilton et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080243597 Ballow et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080249824 DiBernardino et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080288889 Hunt et al. Nov 2008 A1
20090276296 Spriegel Nov 2009 A1
20090300110 Chene et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090319344 Tepper et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100262659 Christiansen et al. Oct 2010 A1
20120150905 Tien et al. Jun 2012 A1
20130311904 Tien et al. Nov 2013 A1
20140129298 Hulen et al. May 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (14)
Number Date Country
1128299 Aug 2001 EP
1050829 Mar 2006 EP
WO 9731320 Aug 1997 WO
WO 0165349 Sep 2001 WO
WO 0169421 Sep 2001 WO
WO 0169421 Sep 2001 WO
WO 03037019 May 2003 WO
WO 0101206 Jan 2004 WO
WO 0101206 Jan 2004 WO
WO 2004114177 Dec 2004 WO
WO 2004114177 Dec 2004 WO
WO 2005062201 Jul 2005 WO
WO 2005072410 Aug 2005 WO
WO 2005101233 Oct 2005 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (189)
Entry
Rutledge, Patrice-Anne et al., “Special Editiion Using Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003”; Sep. 13, 2003; Que; pp. 115-117 & 127-128.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 18, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,444.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 23, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,818.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 7, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,516.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 13, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,520.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 21, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/408,450.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 24, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jul. 6, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jul. 14, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 8, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324.
Ergometrics.com Web Pages, Ergometrics, Feb.-Mar. 2000, Retrieved from Archive.org Jan. 25, 2007.
Arnold, Tom, Dashboard & Scorecard Software—Tools for Operations Management and Strategy Deployment, Sep. 18, 2002.
iDashes.net Web Pages, iDashes, Inc., May 2001, Retrieved from Archive.org Jan. 25, 2007.
IBM WebSphere: Chapter 6—Working with WebSphere Business Modeler, cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390 in OA dated Sep. 1, 2010, 20 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 4, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 5, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,458.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 10, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,818.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 30, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 1, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 8, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,516.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 9, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,499.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 29, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 6, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 12, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 25, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 1, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,516.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 1, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,499.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 2, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,122.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 4, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 1, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 4, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 12, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 10, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
Acharya, Shared, “Pattern Language for Data Driven Presentation Layer for Dynamic and Configurable Web Systems,” Version: Conference Draft, Jul. 26, 2004, pp. 1-33. http://hillside.net/plop/2004/papers/sacharya0/PLoP2004—sacharya0—0.pdf.
“Data Driven Components,” Java Developers Journal, SYS-CON Media, Inc. 2004. http://www2.sys-con.com/itsg/virtualcd/Java/archives/0405/hyrkas/index.html.
Chien et al., XML Document Versioning, SIGMOD Record, vol. 30, No. 3, Sep. 2001.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 17, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 25, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,115.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 30, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 31, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 1, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 7, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,499.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jul. 21, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,714.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 19, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/408,450.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 6, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,520.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 19, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,115.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 1, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,434.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 2, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 30, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
Monson et al., “IBM Workplace for Business Controls and Reporting: Administration and Operations Best Practices”, IBM Redpaper, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-240.
“Cognos Business Intelligence Series 7, Cognos Impromptu (2006), Mastering Impromptu Reports”, Cognos Incorporated, pp. 1-154.
“Cognos Series 7 PowerPlay Transformer”, (2003), Installation Guide, Cognos Incorporated, pp. 1-62.
“Cognos Business Intelligence Series Cognos PowerPlay for Windows (2006), Discovering PowerPlay”, Cognos Incorporated, pp. 1-74.
“Cognos Business Intelligence Series 7 PowerPlay for Windows”, (2006), PowerPlay User Guide, Cognos Incorporated, pp. 1-230.
“Epicor Vantage: Introducing the Next Generation Global Enterprise Resource Planning Software”, Epicore Vantage, http://m.scala.com.cn'downloads/vantage/vantage6Oage.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, 60 pgs.
T. E. Graedel et al., “Hierarchical Metrics for Sustainability”, Environmental Quality Management, Winter, 2002, vol. 12 Issue 12, pp. 21-30, Retrieved from Business Source Complete Database.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 5, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 10, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,122.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 10, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 24, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,444.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 29, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,520.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 8, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
Kraynak, “Absolute Beginner's Guide to Microsoft Office Excel 2003”, Que, Sep. 2003, 32 pp.
John Wiley et al., “Power Point All-in-One Desk Reference for Dummies,” Jan. 10, 2007.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 21, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 8, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 14, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,019.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 28, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 15, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/408,450.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 24, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
“SYSPRO Offers Executive Dashboard with SYSPRO e.net Solutions”; Business Wire, Oct. 11, 2004.
Park et al., Role-Based Access Control on the Web; ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, vol. 4, No. 1, Feb. 2001.
“Microsoft Office Business Scorecard Manager”; Microsoft, 2003.
“Microsoft Takes Up Scorecarding; Performance Management app aims to Maximize Office”; eWeek, Oct. 31, 2005.
Tedeschi, Digital Cockpits are a Faster, Much Closer Way of Tracking Performance in a Corporation's Every Corner; New York Times, Jul. 29, 2002.
Havenstein; “BI Reporting Tools Improve”; InfoWorld, vol. 25, No. 45, Nov. 17, 2003.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 6, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 11, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,458.
IndicatorBarometer; retrieved from <http://www.aiqsystems.com/docs/ref—7.pdf>, archived Oct. 15, 2004.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 22, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,714.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 3, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,530.
U.S. Office Action dated Feb. 18, 2009 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,434.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 28, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
“Business Analysis with OLAP”, Netways, http://www.netways.com/newsletter.olap.html, printed Mar. 7, 2006, 3 pp.
“Centralization and Optimization of Performance Metrics, Data Sources, and Analysis Activities”, 2005 Computerworld Honors Case Study, http://www.cwhonors.org/laureates/Business/20055240.pdf, printed Mar. 7, 2006, 4 pp.
“Chapter 13—OLAP Services”, SQL Server 7.0 Resource Guide, 2006 Microsoft Corporation, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/70/reskit/part9/sqc12.mspx, printed Mar. 6, 2006, 18 pp.
“Cognos 8 Business Intelligence Overview”, Cognos Incorporated, http://www.cognos.com/products/cognos8businessintelligence/index.html, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 1 pp.
“CorVu Products”, Seabrook, http://www.seabrook.ie/corvu.htm#corvurapidscorecard, printed Mar. 7, 2006, 3 pp.
“Enhanced Vendor Scorecards Vendor Documentation”, Publix Super Markets, Inc., copyright 2003, revised date Feb. 9, 2004, http://my.datexx.com/www/customer/p14Vendor%20EVS%20Documentation.pdf, 25 pp.
“Epicor Vantage: Introducing the Next Generation Global Enterprise Resource Planning Software”, Epicor Vantage, http://www.scala.com.cn/downloads/vantage/vantage—60—page.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, 60 pp.
“Extend Business Scorecard Manager 2005”, ProClarity, http://www.proclarity.com/products/clients—scorecardmanager.asp, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 2 pp.
“Microsoft Office Business Scorecard Manager 2005 Overview and Benefits”, Microsoft Corporation, http://www.office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA012225141033.aspx, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 3 pp.
“MicroStrategy: Best in Business Intelligence”, MicroStrategy Inc., http://www.microstrategy.com/Software/Products/User-Interfaces/Web, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 3 pp.
“OutlookSoft CPM: A Unified Corporate Performance Management Solution”, OutlookSoft Corporation, http://www.outlooksoft.com/product.index.htm, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 2 pp.
“SBM Solutions: Product Guide”, SBM Associates, http://www.productcosting.com/prodguide.htm, printed Feb. 28, 2006, 1 pp.
“Scorecarding with Cognos® Metrics Manager”, Congros, http://www.cognos.com/pdfs/factsheets/fs—scorcarding—with—cognos—metrics—manager.pdf, printed Mar. 7, 2006, 4 pp.
“The Balanced Scorecard”, http://cc.msncache.com/cache.aspx?q=2846702033267&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE3, 4 pp.
Badii, Atta et al., “Information Management and Knowledge Integration for Enterprise Innovation”, Logistics Information Management, vol. 16, No. 2, 2003, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0880160205.pdf, pp. 145-155.
Bajwa, Deepinder S. et al., “An Empirical Assessment of the Adoption and Use of Collaboration Information Technologies in the U.S., Australia, and Hong Kong”, http://dsslab.sims.monash.edu,au/dss2004/proceedings/pdf/07—Bajwa—Lewis—Pervan—Lai.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, copyright 2004, pp. 60-69.
Bird, Steven et al., “Annotation Graphs as a Framework for Multidimensional Linguistic Data Analysis”, http:///ac1.ldc.upenn.educ/W/W99/W99-0301.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, pp. 1-10.
Calame, Paul et al., “Cockpit: Decision Support Tool for Factory Operations and Supply Chain Management”, Intel Technology Journal Q1, 2000 Intel Corporation, http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/q12000/pdfcockpit.pdf, pp. 1-13.
Elmanova, Natalia, “Implementing OLAP in Delphi Applications”, http://www.only4gurus.net/miscellaneous/implementing—olap—in—delphi—a.doc, printed Mar. 6, 2006, 19 pp.
Ferguson, Mike, “Conquering Cpm and Business Intelligence”, Business Intelligence.com, ITNews265, http://www.businessintelligence.com/ex/asp.code.21/xe/article.htm, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 6 pp.
Lebow, David G. et al., “HyLighter: An Effective Interactive Annotation Innovation for Distance Education”, http://wwwuwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource—library/proceedings/04—1344.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, 5 pp.
Rother, Kristian et al., “Multidimensional Data Integration of Protein Annotations”, Springer-Verlag GmbH, http://www.springerlink.com/(3riocx450rr2iv55x2txum55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,11,15;journa1,827,2337;linkingpublicationresults,1:105633,1, printed Jan. 12, 2006, 2 pp.
Sanders, Paul, “SQL Server 2005: Real-Time Business Intelligence Using Analysis Services”, Microsoft Corporation, Apr. 1, 2005, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/rtbissas.mspx, printed Jan. 11, 2006, 9 pp.
Zaidi, Omar et al., “Data Center Consolidation: Using Performance Metrics to Achieve Success”, http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/searchNetworking/Downloads/IV—INS—DataCenter—Consolidation—WP.pdf, printed Jan. 12, 2006, 10 pp.
Acharya, Sharad, “Pattern Language for Data Driven Presentation Layer for Dynamic and Configurable Web Systems,” Version: Conference Draft, Jul. 26, 2004, pp. 1-33, http://hillside.net/plop/2004/papers/sacharya0/PLoP2004—sacharya0—0.pdf.
“Data Driven Components,” Java Developers Journal, SYS-CON Media, Inc. 2004, http://www2.sys-con.com/itsg/virtualcd/Java/archives/0405/hyrkas/index.html, 7 pp.
“Hyperion Intelligence Desktop, Plugin, and HTML Client Products,” Hyperion™ Developer Network, http://dev.hyperion.com/resource—library/articles/intelligence—desktop—article.cfm, 7 pp.
“BusinessObjects Enterprise 6,” An End-to-End Overview, White Paper., http://www.spain.businessobjects.com/global/pdf/products/queryanalysis/wp—e6—overview.pdf, 20 pp.
“Cognos 8 Business Intelligence—Dashboards,” COGNOS® The Next Level of Performance, http://www.cognos.com/products/cognos8businessintelligence/dashboards.html, 2 pp.
“Microsoft Builds Business Intelligence Into Office Software,” Microsoft PressPass—Information for Journalists, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/oct05/10-23BiLalunchPR.mspx, 4 pp.
“Hyperion System 9 BI+Enterprise Metrics,” A Hyperion Data Sheet, Hyperion Solutions Corporation Worldwide Headquarters, Oct. 2006, http://www.hyperion.com/products/resource—library/product—collateral/EnterpriseMetrics.pdf, pp. 1-2.
“Products: PilotWorks,” Products: PilotWorks—Scorecard, 2006 Pilot Software, pp. 1-3.
“Reveleus Business Analytics,” Reveleus, an i-flex businedss, pp. 1-4.
Batista, Gustavo E.A.P.A.; Monard, Maria Carolina; “An Analysis of Four Missing Data Treatment Methods for Supervised Learning,” University of Sao Paulo, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science (ICMC), http://coblitz.codeen.org:3125/citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/27545/http:zSzzSzwww.icmc.usp.brzSz˜gbatistazSzpdfszSzaai2003.pdf/batista03analysis.pdf, 12 pp.
“Crystal Xcelsius Workgroup.” http://www.xcelsius.com/Products/Enterprise—feastures.html, 3 pp.
“Reporting and Dashboards with Cognos 8 Business Intelligence,” Cognos, The Next Level of Intelligence, http://www.cognos.com/pdfs/whitepapers/wp—reporting—and—dashboards—with—c8bi.pdf , pp. 1-16.
“BusinessObjects Plan Dashboarding XI for Retail,” BusinessObjects, http://www.businessobjects.com/pdf/products/planning/plan—dashboarding—rt.pdf, 2 pp.
“SAS® Risk Intelligence Offerings, Risk Reporting; Data Integration; Internal Risk Ratings; Credit Risk; Market Risk; Operational Risk”, htip://www.sas.com/industry/fsi/risk/brochure2.pdf, 12 pp.
Tenhunen, Jarkko; Ukko, Juhani; Markus, Tapio; Rantanen, Hannu; “Applying Balanced Scorecard Principles on the SAKE-System: Case Telekolmio Oy,” Lappeenranta University of Technology (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management); Telekolmio Oy (Finland). http://www.lut.fi/tuta/lahti/sake/IWPM2003a.pdf, 11 pp.
Kleijnen, Jack; Smits, Martin T.; “Performance Metrics in Supply Chain Management,” Tilburg University, The Netherlands, Department of Information Systems and Management. http://center.kub.nl/staff/kleijnen/jors-proofs.pdf, 8 pp.
Martinsons, Maris; Davison, Robert; Tse, Dennis; “The Balanced Scorecard: A Foundation for the Strategic Management of Information Systems,” University of Hong Kong, Sep. 28, 1998. http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/BUSN7040/Articles/Martinsons%20et%20al%201999%20DSS%20the%20balanced%20scorecard.pdf, 18 pp.
U.S. Office Action mailed Jul. 25, 2008 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,434.
U.S. Office Action mailed Sep. 5, 2008 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Office Action dated Nov. 24, 2008 cited in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 26, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 26, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,520.
Cognos Incorporated, “Scorecarding with Cognos Metrics Manager,” Oct. 2004.
Charles Bloomfield, “Bringing the Balanced Scorecard to Life: The Microsoft Balanced Scorecard Framework,” Microsoft Corporation White Paper, May 2002.
Mulins, Craig S., “Distributed Query Optimization Technical Support”, Jul. 1996.
Callen, Daniel J. et al., “Consolidation of Query Results in a Multidatabase Environment: An Object Oriented Approach” IEEE, 1996.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 14, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 15, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,458.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 23, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/214,678.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 12, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 28, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 3, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 24, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/393,335.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 8, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,516.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 9, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,818.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 28, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 1, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,444.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 12, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 4, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/280,548.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 20, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/412,499.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,032, filed Feb. 24, 2012 entitled “Concerted Coordination of Multidimensional Scorecards”.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 5, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 4, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,171.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 31, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,444.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 27, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
MrExcel Consulting, Using Excel to Track Student Grades; Nov. 2006; 6 pgs.
Kraynak, “Absolute Beginner's Guide to Microsoft Excel 2003”, Sep. 2003, Appendix A; 4 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 17, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/670,516.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 5, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953.
Junuzovic et al., “Response Time in N-user Replicated, Centralized, and Proximity-Based Hybrid Collaboration Architectures”, 2006, 10 pgs.
Oracle Collaboration Suite Metric Reference Manual 10g Release 2 (10.2), Oracle, 2006, pp. 1-544.
Stevens, et al., “Developing a Framework for Integrating Prior Problem Solving and Knowledge Sharing Histories of a Group to Predict Future Group Performance”, 2005, 9 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 26, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 21, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,032.
Tien et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/948,306, filed Jul. 23, 2013 entitled “Realtime Collaboration Using Embedded Data Visualizations”.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 8, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,032.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 30, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/039,714.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 17, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jul. 16, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327.
U.S. Official Action mailed Nov. 18, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/624,122.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 20, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/152,095, filed Jan. 10, 2014 entitled “System and Method for Multi-Dimensional Average-Weighted Banding Status and Scoring”.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 22, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327, 25 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 22, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953, 33 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 5, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763, 27 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 13, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,032, 35 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Feb. 24, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390, 24 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed May 8, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953, 26 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 3, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,324, 24 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jun. 24, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327, 25 pgs.
Jungmann, Jens Heiner. “A Dynamic Approach to Query Optimization in Centralized Relational Databases.” Order No. 1348599 The University of Texas at Arlington, 1992; Ann Arbor: ProQuest; Web. Aug. 28, 2014; 128 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 5, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/404,032, 16 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 22, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/668,763, 81 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Sep. 25, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/948,306, 67 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 28, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,818, 33 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 5, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/623,953, 36 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Dec. 9, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,327, 10 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Aug. 26, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390.
U.S. Official Action mailed Oct. 7, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899.
U.S. Official Action mailed Jan. 5, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,899, 31 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Mar. 19, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 131948,306, 27 pgs.
U.S. Official Action mailed Apr. 9, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/313,390, 32 pgs.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20080184099 A1 Jul 2008 US