| hao wanata ut til us010067655b2 din maratona mt · | hao wanata ut til us010067655b2 din maratona...

| HAO WANATA UT TIL DIN MARATONA MT US010067655B2

( 12 ) United States Patent Hamilton et al .

( 10 ) Patent No . : US 10 , 067 , 655 B2 ( 45 ) Date of Patent : Sep . 4 , 2018

( 54 ) VISUAL AND QUANTITATIVE FACTORS ANNALYSIS SYSTEMS FOR RELATING A HIERARCHY OF FACTORS INCLUDING ONE OR MORE RESOURCES , TASKS , AND COGNITIVE MODELS DISPLAYED IN A HIERARCHICAL GRAPHICAL INTERFACE ENABLING VISUAL AND QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF SUCH FACTORS IN RELATION TO ONE OR MORE PROBLEM / SOLUTION SETS

( 52 ) U . S . CI . CPC . . . . . . . . . . GO6F 3 / 04842 ( 2013 . 01 ) ; G06F 3 / 048

( 2013 . 01 ) ; G06F 370482 ( 2013 . 01 ) ; ( Continued )

( 58 ) Field of Classification Search CPC . . . GO6F 3 / 0484 ; G06F 3 / 04842 ; G06F 3 / 048 ;

GO6F 17 / 00 ; G06F 8 / 00 ; G06Q 10 / 00 ( Continued )

( 56 ) References Cited U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS

@ ( 71 ) Applicant : The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy , Washington , DC ( US )

6 , 778 , 971 B1 *

8 , 175 , 987 B2 * 8 / 2004 Altschuler . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 06

700 / 29 5 / 2012 Fickie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GO6N 3 / 12

706 / 13 ( Continued )

@ ( 72 ) Inventors : John Hamilton , Solsberry , IN ( US ) ; Gail Nicholson , Bloomington , IN ( US ) ; Gary Bullock , Bedford , IN ( US )

OTHER PUBLICATIONS ( 73 ) Assignee : The United States of America , as

represented by the Secretary of the Navy , Washington , DC ( US )

Centers of Gravity from the “ Inside Out ” , by Jan L . Rueschhoff and Jonathan P . Dunne , JFQ / Issue 60 , 1st quarter 2011 , ndupress . ndu . edu ( 120 - 125 ) , 6 pages .

( * ) Notice : Subject to any disclaimer , the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U . S . C . 154 ( b ) by 364 days .

Primary Examiner — Hugo Molina ( 74 ) Attorney , Agent , or Firm — Christopher A . Monsey

( 21 ) Appl . No . : 14 / 230 , 486 ( 22 ) Filed : Mar . 31 , 2014 ( 65 ) Prior Publication Data

US 2015 / 0121272 A1 Apr . 30 , 2015

( 57 ) ABSTRACT A collection of machine readable instructions stored in a storage medium and process for graphical modeling includ ing defining a plurality of resources comprising a plurality of resource objects and associating attributes with said task objects ; defining a plurality of tasks comprising a plurality of task objects , said task objects comprise elements , with a plurality of hierarchical elements and sub - elements , and associating attributes with said elements and sub - elements ; selecting at least one cognitive model defining a human cognitive process or model ; determining if at least one relationship between said plurality of task objects , resource objects , and at least one cognitive model exists , graphically associating said at least one relationship with said task object , resource , object , and at least one cognitive model element where said relationship is determined ; defining

( Continued )

Related U . S . Application Data ( 60 ) Provisional application No . 61 / 817 , 918 , filed on May

1 , 2013

( 51 ) Int . Ci . G06F 3 / 048 GOOF 17 / 00

( 2013 . 01 ) ( 2006 . 01 )

( Continued )

Dverall Flow Chart of task map analysis process ( TMA )

1 Problem / capability / effect to be solved ( P2BS )

2 Define end state of problem la solution to the P2BS ) ( DESP )

3 3 - Define task / Subtask / element ( TASK ) Definemente en un short there enough Are

< tasks / subtasks / elements mentsNO to reach end

state ?

YES

7 Resource / cognitive /

task population mapping Call RCT - PM ) See Figure 2 /

Assessment of the RCT - PM output ( Call ASSESS - MAP ) ,

See Figure 6

IF 9

NO ASSESS - MAP

module results / output maps to end state of problem ( DESP output )

within the confidence level , then go to step 11 ( yes ) ,

go to step 10 No reiterate

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

attributes associated with each said graphical relationship ; and generating a graphical dashboard or data output asso ciated with said task objects , resource objects , and said cognitive model based in part on said graphical relation ships .

9 Claims , 15 Drawing Sheets

( 51 ) Int . Cl . G060 40 / 00 ( 2012 . 01 ) GOOF 15 / 18 ( 2006 . 01 ) G06F 3 / 0484 ( 2013 . 01 ) G06F 3 / 0482 ( 2013 . 01 ) G06F 8 / 34 ( 2018 . 01 ) G060 10 / 06 ( 2012 . 01 ) G06F 8 / 10 ( 2018 . 01 )

( 52 ) U . S . CI . ??? G06F 8 / 10 ( 2013 . 01 ) ; G06F 8 / 34

( 2013 . 01 ) ; G06Q 10 / 06 ( 2013 . 01 ) ( 58 ) Field of Classification Search

USPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 / 771 ; 717 / 105 See application file for complete search history .

2005 / 0198026 A1 * 9 / 2005 Dehlinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . GO6F 17 / 277 2006 / 0003298 A1 * 1 / 2006 Greenshpan . . . . . . . A63B 24 / 0003

434 / 247 2006 / 0254601 A1 * 11 / 2006 Matsumura . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 06

128 / 898 2007 / 0247979 Al * 10 / 2007 Brillon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 30 / 0603

369 / 30 . 06 2008 / 0114708 Al * 5 / 2008 Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GO6N 99 / 005

706 / 12 2009 / 0094184 A1 * 4 / 2009 Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06F 17 / 30734

706 / 60 2009 / 0122575 A1 * 5 / 2009 Omura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GO2B 6 / 0038

362 / 608 2010 / 0094899 A1 * 4 / 2010 Yiu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOOF 9 / 5044

707 / 770 2010 / 0205021 A1 * 8 / 2010 Jewett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 06

705 / 7 . 23 2011 / 0055699 A1 * 3 / 2011 Li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06F 17 / 30864

715 / 709 2011 / 0078652 A1 * 3 / 2011 Mani GO6F 8 / 10

717 / 105 2011 / 0087515 Al * 4 / 2011 Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 04

705 / 7 . 26 2011 / 0231352 A1 * 9 / 2011 Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOON 7 / 00

706 / 45 2011 / 0246961 A1 * 10 / 2011 Tripathi G06F 8 / 34

717 / 105 2012 / 0123579 A1 * 5 / 2012 Kubli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B21D 22 / 20

700 / 104 2012 / 0144309 A1 * 6 / 2012 Zendler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06F 3 / 04815

715 / 739 2013 / 0086460 A1 * 4 / 2013 Folting G06Q 10 / 10

715 / 212 2013 / 0262279 Al * 10 / 2013 Finley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 40 / 10

705 / 31 2014 / 0004548 Al * 1 / 2014 Gordon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOIL 3 / 5029

435 / 21 2014 / 0189636 A1 * 7 / 2014 Jalaldeen G06F 8 / 10

717 / 104

( 56 ) References Cited U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS

8 , 886 , 587 B1 * 11 / 2014 Hainsworth . . . . . . . . . . . GOON 5 / 025 706 / 46

2003 / 0008270 A1 * 1 / 2003 Fleishman . . . . . . . . G06Q 30 / 0241 434 / 322

2003 / 0177168 A1 * 9 / 2003 Heitman . . . . . . . . . . . . H04L 67 / 1097 709 / 201

2004 / 0015465 A1 * 1 / 2004 Gill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 06 706 / 50

2005 / 0038780 A1 * 2 / 2005 de Souza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G06Q 10 / 00

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

* cited by examiner

U . S . Patent Sep . 4 , 2018 Sheet 1 of 15 US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

Overall flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP ) Problem / capability / effect

to be solved ( P2BS )

Define end state of problem ( a solution to the P2BS ) ( DESP )

- Define task / subtask / element ( TASK ) Det no en k

Are 44 there enough

tasks / subtasks / elements to reach end

state ?

YES OLYES Resource / cognitive /

task population mapping Call RCT - PM ) See Figure 2

Assessment of the RCT - PM output ( Call ASSESS - MAP ) ,

See Figure 6

it 9

NO

lf ASSESS - MAP

module results / output maps to end state of problem ( DESP output )

within the confidence level , then go to step 11 ( yes ) ,

go to step 10 to reiterate

YES 11 _ YES Fig . 1 Exit Exit 12


RCT - PM module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

7 . 1 Toput list of tasks /

subtasks / elements ( TASK ) from main step 6

7 . 2 Identify cognitive model ( s ) ( Call CM ) Figure 3

7 . 3 Relate task / subtask / element to CM / OM

( Call T2CM Figure 4 ) 7 . 6

7 . 4

V 15

there enough tasks / subtask / elements

defined for P2BS ? NO Go back to main step 3

until enough tasks / subtasks / elements

YES 7 . 5 7 . 71

7 . 84 Identify resources

( RESOURCES ) Figure 5

7 . 10

7 . 9

Check for tasks / subtasks / elements relationships between hierarchical

structures and establish relationship connects between resources for the higher hierarchical structure task / subtask / element from the lower

level hierarchical structure

Return : Output includes ( M , DM , DS , CM - VAR ,

tasks / subtasks / elements , resources , SPECS , and all

relationships ( T2CM , T2RESOURCE )

Fig . 2

CM module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

U . S . Patent

7 . 2 . 1

Select cognitive model ( s ) ( CM )

7 . 2 . 5

7 . 2 . 2

NO

Does CM ( s ) have decision making steps ?

Does the defined end state of problem ( DESP ) require decision making steps to solve ? YES

7 . 2 . 7

Sep . 4 , 2018

TYES

7 . 2 . 4 .

7 . 2 . 3

7 . 2 . 9

Define decision step sequence ( DS )

Identify decision model ( DM ) .

Sheet 3 of 15

- 7 . 2 . 8

www

.

tontott

7 . 2 . 10

Output of CM , DS ( if any ) , and DM ( if any )

7 . 2 . 6 .

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

Fig . 3


T2CM module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP ) S

Input tasks / subtasks / elements , CM , DM , DS from RCT - PM step 7 . 3

7 . 3 . 1

Identify tasks / subtasks / elements relationships to each other ( HLT2TASKS )

- 7 . 3 . 2 7 . 3 . 11

7 . 3 . 3 NO Are

there decision steps ( DS ) ?

Relate tasks / subtasks / elements to the CM

( T2CM )

7 . 3 . 5 YES 7 . 3 . 4

Relate tasks / subtask / elements of each

Thierarchical levels to the DM or CM decision step ( DS ) sequence ( HLT2DS )

73 . 6

7 . 3 . 12 FIG . 4B

7 . 3 . 7 s there more

than one set of distinct HLT2DS related

to the decision sequence ?

- - - 4 . 6 . 71 _ - TO FIG . 4B NO

Identify and relate HLT2DS or T2CM and tasks / subtask / element relationships to P2BS

7 . 3 . 8 7 . 3 . 94 YES V

Seperate HLT2DSs into unique hierarchy

breakdown / decomposed structure / units . ( HIER - S )

7 . 3 . 10 Fig . 4A


Define CM and any DM and DS variables

( CM - VAR ) - 7 . 3 . 13

Define and relate confidence / impact factors

for all or a subset of what it takes to

perform / execute tasks / subtasks / elements from resources ( CF ) , tasks /

subtasks / elements ( CLOT ) , decisions in the unique hierarchical structures

( IDEC ) , end state ( CLES ) , iterative complications

( ITER - CL )

7 . 3 . 14

Output tasks / subtask / element relationships HLT2TASKS , their relationships to P2BS , DS , CF , CLOT , IDEC , CLES , ITER - CL , CM . DM , CM - VAR . HLT2DS ,

T2CM , HIERS

15 .

- Waq . - - FROM FIG . 4A

Fig . 4B


T2RESOURCE module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

7 . 8 . 1 Input tasks / subtasks /

elements RCT - PM step 7 . 8

7 . 8 . 2 Define list of resources ( RESOURCES )

Define list / index of task / subtask / element

to resource and decision sequence ( if any ) connection types /

symbols ( INDEX )

Fig . 5 7 . 8 . 3

V Relate ( and can display ) a relationship connection

or lack of connection between resource and task / subtask / element

( T2RESOURCE )

C

7 . 8 . 4 7 . 8 . 10

7 . 8 . 5 Is there a relationship between

each task / subtask / element and at least one

resource ?

Output T2RESOURCE , connections , connection changes . RESOURCES , INDEX , MISSING

RESOURCE

7 . 8 . 72 TNO 7 . 8 . 6

7 . 8 . 8

A missing resource gap is identified ; relate each

task / subtask / element that lacks any resource

connection to a MISSING - RESOURCE to track internally

If a decision sequence ( DS ) is defined , the

relationship connection is modified ( using the INDEX ) ( and can be displayed ) between

tasks / subtask / element and decision indicating

a potential degraded decision 7 . 8 . 9


ASSESS - MAP module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP ) E S

8 . 1 Input all data from main step 7

8 . 24 Identify specifications /

qualities / data structure / features / behaviors of

other resources ( SPECS )

8 . 3

Identify and relate critical weighting factors for each task / subtask / element and decision

steps ( if any ) and create a ( WF - INDEX ( CWF )

- 8 . 4

Determine the boundary parameters of SPEC with respect to each tasks / subtasks / elements and

their hierarchy considering the cognitive model variable settings ( CM - VAR ) settings to assign the confidence factor

( CF ) ( or other confidence level ) , ( call BOUND - SPECS ) Figure 7

Fig . 6

Analyze / compare BSPECS and SPECS of the resources for

conditions such as partially - met ( degraded ) ,

over - met ( superseded ) , met , unknown , or not needed ( call ANALYSIS - SPECS ) Figure 8

- 8 . 5

8 . 7 8 . 7 .

If decision steps , then rolling up / compiling / determining impact on

decision results ( DEC - ROLL - UP ) go to 8 . 6 . 1 ( see Figure

10 ) , else go to step 8 . 7 t some point Output ( see Figure 12 )

- 8 . 6

BOUND - SPECS module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

U . S . Patent

Assess the resource L specification to the task / subtask / element from input from

ASSESS - MAP step 8 . 4

Ol1 / Relate each task / subtask / element to its TASK - BSPECS in the unique hierarchal level

structure and relate the BSPECS to its associated resource SPECS

- 8 . 4 . 4

Compile list of the boundary / parameters of all SPECS tasks / subtasks / elements in the unique hierarchy level structure and any lower levels ( SPEC - ROLL - UP )

Sep . 4 , 2018

-

8 . 4 . 5

8 . 4 . 10

Start at the lowest level of tasks / subtasks / element hierarchy unit

8 . 4 . 2

Determine and relate boundary / parameter of what it takes of the resource SPECS for the task / subtask / element in that unique hierarchical structure to be performed / executed to a confidence factor ( CF ) ( or other confidence

level ) considering the CM - VAR ( the cognitive

and decision model ( s )

and / or DS variable settings ) ( BSPECS )

8 . 4 . 6

Did you compile ( SPEC ROLL - UP ) at the P2BS Level ?

Output the bounded / parameter spec ( BSPECS ) . BSPECS relationships , relationships and SPEC - ROLL

UP lists for each unique hierarchical structure including the P2BS

Sheet 8 of 15

YES

8 . 4 . 7 _

NO

8 . 4 . 9

Go up a hierarchical level of tasks / subtasks / elements , use the HIER SPECS as the boundary parameters for any related tasks / subtasks / elements from lower level unique hierarchical structures

Fig . 7

8 . 4 . 3

8 . 4 . 84

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2


ANALYSIS - SPECS module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

8 . 5 . 14

Input tasks / subtasks / elements , INDEX , RESOURCES , SPEC , BSPECS , MISSING

RESOURCES , BSPEC , and all relationships from

ANALYSIS - SPECS step 8 . 5

8 . 5 . 24

Create index of conditions to compare task / subtask / element ' s bounded / parameters

specifications ( BSPECS ) to resource specifications

( SPECS ) ( CONDITIONS INDEX )

8 . 5 . 3

Analyze conditions of resources SPECS and

bounded specs ( BSPECS ) , to the CONDITIONS - INDEX

to determine if BSPECS met . degraded , superseded , are not needed , or unknown ( additional conditional

statements can be added ) ( CONDITIONS ) Figure 9

8 . 5 . 4

Output relationship index changes of BSC , CONDITION

INDEX , and all input variables

Fig . 8


CONDITIONS module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

E

8 . 5 . 3 . 1 Input tasks / subtasks / Output BSC and elements , CFW , ( L . GAP , Hrelationship connection RESOURCES , BSPECS from 1 representing BSC CONDITIONS step 8 . 5 . 3 8 . 5 . 3 . 17

INO Compare bounded / 8 . 5 . 3 . 16

522 parameters specifications ( BSPECS ) of a task / Are there any subtask / element to more tasks / subtasks / >

resource specifications elements ? ( SPECS ) using

CONDITIONS - INDEX . 8 . 5 . 3 . 15 x ( additional conditional steps can be added )

Are 8 . 5 . 3 . 12 th??? ?n? YES 8 . 5 . 3 . 3 more BSPECS for this

BSPECS a task / subtask / resource is zero , then element ?

Move relationship from resource to SPEC - GAP execute step 17 . 8 . 8 and return here ,

else proceed . 8 . 5 . 3 . 11 8 . 5 . 3 . 4 8 . 5 . 3 . 10 NO

8 . 5 . 3 . 13 . NO 8 . 5 . 3 . 14

If

se procurn herstep

- 8 . 5 . 3 . 5 If BSPECS > SPECS ( but not zero ) , set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to DEGRADED , else proceed

If BSPECS < SPECS , then set BCS of tasks /

subtask / element to SUPERSEDED , else proceed

If BSPECS is unknown , then set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to UNKNOWN - SPEC ,

else proceed

Create a relationship connection between

task / subtask / element and bounded specification BSPECS referencing the INDEX that represents

the BSC

18 . 5 . 3 . 6

- 8 . 5 . 3 . 7 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 If BSPECS - SPECS , then set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to MET and proceed 8 . 5 . 3 . 8 Fig . 9


DEC - ROLL - UP module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

8 . 6 . 1

Input tasks / subtasks / elements , INDEX ,

( WF , BSC , MISSING RESOURCES , DS , from DEC - ROLL - UP step 8 . 6

8 . 6 . 2

Create index of conditions to determine the impact of the ability to perform / execute tasks / subtasks / elements on the decision sequence ( DS )

based on missing resources , spec gaps causing degradation ,

unknowns , and the CM VARS ( DS - UPDATE - INDEX )

8 . 6 . 34

Analyze and update conditions of task / subtask / element relationship

connection states ( BSC ) for impact on the decision sequence , using INDEX . CWF , MISSING - RESOURCES , based on

DS - UPDATE - INDEX conditions to determine any degradation to or met decisions conditions for each unique hierarchy structure , and the P2BS ( additional condition statements can be added )

( IMPACT - DEC ) Figure 11

8 . 6 . 44

Output relationship index changes of DS - UPDATE - INDEX , IDEC , and all input

variables

Fig . 10

IMPACT - DEC module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

U . S . Patent

Tnput tasks / subtasks / elements , INDEX , CWF , BSC , MISSING - RESOURCE , DS , from ANALYSIS

SPECS IMPACT - DEC step 8 . 6 . 3

0 . 0 . 3 . ! / Relate decision sequence to

its IDEC ; the relationship connection of the decision sequence is changed using the INDEX

8 . 6 . 3 . 4

8 . 6 . 3 . 10

Go up a unique hierarchical level of

tasks / subtasks / elements

Sep . 4 , 2018

NO

Start at the lowest level of unique hierarchical units

- 8 . 6 . 3 . 2

Calculate / analyze from all task / subtask / element ' s BSCs using DS - UPDATE - INDEX to determine any impact to the decision sequence .

( Note : can expand the BSC degraded states into a scale of degradation within the INDEX such as % probabilities , etc . for calculations ) ( IDEC )

5 . Calculate / analyze from

8 . 6 . 3 . 6

Are there

all unique hierarchies

more unique

using DS - UPDATE

hierarchical levels ?

> INDEX to determine any impact to or confidence level of end state ( DESP ) or P2BS . ( CL - ES )

8 . 6 . 3 . 7 _ YES 8 . 6 . 3 . 9

Sheet 12 of 15

Use the IDEC and decision sequence ( WFS of any related tasks / subtasks / elements from lower level hierarchical structures in calculating / determining decision sequence degradation

Output the IDEC , CL - ES ,

and all relationships , connections for each unique hierarchical structure including the P2BS

8 . 6 . 3 . 8

8 . 6 . 3 . 3

Fig . 118

8 . 6 . 3 . 11 . 6 . 3 . 11

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

Outputs modulae flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP ) Input all variables from all previous steps , perform steps

8 . 7 . 2 - 8 . 7 . 9 as needed and go to step 9 with any variables

U . S . Patent

- 8 . 7 . 1

8 . 7 . 1 . 5 )

8 . 7 . 1 . 1

A list of decisions ( all or critical ) executed / performed with decreased confidence A list of tasks / subtasks / elements ( all or critical ) that impact ability to make decisions

8 . 7 . 1 . 64

Sep . 4 , 2018

8 . 7 . 1 . 7

-

8 . 7 . 1 . 2

Visual maps of resources , bounded SPECS , tasks / subtasks / element , confidence level , CM , DM ,

decision steps , their variations , and their relationships at any level from unique hierarchical structures to P2BS ( VISUAL - MAP ) A list of tasks / subtasks / elements unassociated to resources A list of tasks / subtasks /

elements degraded , superseded , met , nof met ( gap ) , or by resources or

have missing resources at any level from unique hierarchical structures to P2BS A compartmentalize hierarchical structure of tasks / subtasks / elements anyalysis that can be provided different classifications of security

Analyze / determine impact of all previous iterations on P2BS on DESP , i . e . the

confidence level of the end state solution from all circumstances including the unexpected / snafus of CM - VAR and a CM - VAR weighting factor ( CWF - CM - VAR )

( LTER - CL - ES ) Output - Dashboard summarizes the ability of the tasks and their associated resources to solve of problems ( P2BS ) to a confidence levels ( or the chosen parameters / variables of the cognitive model ( CM ) and / or decision

model ( DM ) . ( See DASHBOARD Figure 13 )

Sheet 13 of 15

8 . 7 . 1 . 3

8 . 7 . 1 . 8

8 . 7 . 1 . 4

Fig . 12

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

DASHBOARDS module flow chart of task map analysis process ( TMAP )

U . S . Patent

8 . 7 . 2 . 1

Example dashboards perform steps 8 . 7 . 2 . 1 - 8 . 7 . 2 . 9 as

needed using an index to show states ( for example met - green , degraded - degraded , red = extremely degraded / unknown / can ' t do and go to step 9

8 . 7 . 2 . 54

8 . 7 . 2

Sep . 4 , 2018

Program level iteration dashboard shows

Program level resource iteration dashboard

problem solved ( or not ) for all circumstances

shows which resources accommodates

( red / yellow / green ) ? The confidence level

( or not ) all circumstances ( red / yellow / green ) ?

end state solution ( INTER - CL - ES ) meets 8 . 7 . 2 . 6 Does the resource specification accommodate

expectations ( or not )

all bounded specifications ( or not ) for the

Program level end state dashboard shows

end state ( or not ) ?

problem solved ( or not ) for one set of

Program level resource dashboard shows

circumstances ( red / yellow / green ) ? The

which resources accommodates ( or not )

confidence level of individual end state la

one set of circumstances ( red / yellow / green ) ?

oti 8 . 7 . 2 . 2

solution ( CL - ES ) meets expectations ( or not ) 8 . 7 . 2 . 2 Does the resource specification accommodate

Decision dashboard shows which decisions 18 777

all bounded specifications ( or not ) for one

be made to the level of confidence ( or not )

set of variables ?

( red / yellow / green ) ? The confidence level of

Hierarchy resource dashboard shows

decisions ( DEC ) meets expectations ( or not )

which specifications meet all

Task dashboard shows which tasks be

tasks / subtasks / elements in a unique

completed to the level of confidence ( or not )

hierarchical structure ( red / yellow / green ) ?

( red / yellow / green ) ? The confidence level in lo7 ' , 2 Tasks / subtasks / element resource dashboard

executing / performing tasks / subtasks /

shows if resources accommodate task /

elements ( ( LOTS ) meets expectations ( or not )

subtask / element , i . e . BSC states ( red / yellow / green ) ?

Sheet 14 of 15

8 . 7 . 2 . 4

Fig . 13

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

8 . 7 . 2 . 8

Task mapping and requirement process

K

U . S . Patent

Integrate

New or possible resources

Satisfies requirements to meet end state A

Sep . 4 , 2018

- er

Analysis of how well meets end state

Resources , available

Sheet 15 of 15

Required to solve what does it take

Map of problem to be solved

Determine end state

Cognitive Model

some on ka har

w

Drill down / break down task map

Confidence level to an action

Fig . 14

E -

Sub - tasks Sub - tasks

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

Providing Providing

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

VISUAL AND QUANTITATIVE FACTORS ANNALYSIS SYSTEMS FOR RELATING A HIERARCHY OF FACTORS INCLUDING

ONE OR MORE RESOURCES , TASKS , AND COGNITIVE MODELS DISPLAYED IN A

HIERARCHICAL GRAPHICAL INTERFACE ENABLING VISUAL AND QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF SUCH FACTORS IN RELATION TO ONE OR MORE

PROBLEM / SOLUTION SETS

collective assessments within a system - of - systems context , and correlate resourcing , human problems / interactions , and cognitive models .

Additional features and advantages of the present inven 5 tion will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon

consideration of the following detailed description of the illustrative embodiment exemplifying the best mode of carrying out the invention as presently perceived .

10 10 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

CROSS - REFERENCE TO RELATED The detailed description of the drawings particularly refers to the accompanying figures in which : APPLICATIONS FIG . 1 shows an exemplary overall process associated

15 with an exemplary Task Map Analysis Process ( TMAP ) ; The present application claims priority to U . S . Provisional FIG . 2 shows an exemplary Resource / Cognitive / Task Patent Application Ser . No . 61 / 817 , 918 , filed May 1 , 2013 , Population Mapping ( RCT - PM ) Module Flow Chart of an entitled “ PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR GRAPHICAL exemplary TMAP ; RESOURCING DESIGN , ALLOCATION , AND / OR FIG . 3 shows an exemplary Cognitive Model ( CM ) Flow EXECUTION MODELING AND VALIDATION , " the dis - 20 Chart of an exemplary TMAP ; closure of which is expressly incorporated by reference FIGS . 4a and 4b show an exemplary Tasks to TM ( T2CM ) herein . Module Flow Chart of an exemplary TMAP ;

FIG . 5 shows an exemplary Task to Resource STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY ( T2RESOURCE ) Module Flow Chart of an exemplary

SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT 25 TMAP : FIG . 6 shows an exemplary Assessment of an RCT - PM

The invention described herein was made in the perfor - Output ( ASSESS - MAP ) Module Flow Chart of an exem mance of official duties by employees of the Department of plary TMAP ; the Navy and may be manufactured , used and licensed by or FIG . 7 shows an exemplary Boundary Specifications for the United States Government for any governmental 30 ( BOUND - SPECS ) Module Flow Chart of an exemplary purpose without payment of any royalties thereon . This TMAP ; invention ( Navy Case 102 , 556 ) is assigned to the United FIG . 8 shows an exemplary ANALYSIS - SPECS Module States Government and is available for licensing for com - Flow Chart of an exemplary TMAP ; mercial purposes . Licensing and technical inquiries may be FIG . 9 shows an exemplary CONDITIONS Module Flow directed to the Technology Transfer Office , Naval Surface 35 Chart of an exemplary TMAP ; Warfare Center Crane , email : Cran _ CTO @ navy . mil . FIG . 10 shows an exemplary DEC - ROLL - UP Module

Flow Chart of an exemplary TMAP ; BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FIG . 11 shows an exemplary IMPACT - DEC Module Flow

INVENTION Chart of an exemplary TMAP ; 40 FIG . 12 shows an exemplary Outputs Module Flow Chart

The present invention relates to human - machine inter - of an exemplary TMAP ; faces adapted enable graphical and intuitive analysis for FIG . 13 shows an exemplary DASHBOARDS Module complex multi - variable resourcing or systems - of - systems Flow Chart an exemplary TMAP ; and design modeling and / or validation . One embodiment of the FIG . 14 shows a simplified embodiment of one version of invention enables graphical resource modeling and / or vali - 45 an exemplary TMAP ; dation based on resources , task mapping , and cognitive model correlations . Another embodiment can include a DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS system and process for mapping capabilities or derive requirements for a problem using a given set of resources The embodiments of the invention described herein are and a cognitive model . 50 not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to

Existing systems or processes for requirements analysis precise forms disclosed . Rather , the embodiments selected do not provide a graphically intuitive human - machine inter - for description have been chosen to enable one skilled in the face . Existing requirement analysis systems are not exploit - art to practice the invention . ing visual knowledge that leverage current interactive Referring initially to FIG . 1 , a segment of a machine graphical human / machine interfaces . Human - Computer 55 implemented process is shown which can be implemented Symbiosis includes an idea that technology should be using a graphical user interface ( GUI ) . A GUI is provided to designed in a way that amplifies human intelligence instead permit a user to select a problem to be solved ( P2BS ) ; an of attempting to replace it or automating a manual process . exemplary GUI can enable this selection from a drop down Thus , an aim of the invention is to create an improved menu of known problems / capability / effects with or without graphical interface for enabling or amplifying human ana - 60 the option to add a P2BS . lytics work and analysis that lets people interact with a At Step 2 , a GUI will prompt a user to define a satisfactory virtualization or visualization of their business problem solution / end state is ; this satisfactory solution / end state can within a graphical context which provides an intuitive and be in absolute terms , relative terms / criteria or varying immediate set of relationships which aid in making deci - degrees of abstraction , dollars , confidence factors , e . g . exit sions in the context of multi - variable problems by empha - 65 criteria : a Step 2 definition is used in , e . g . , Step 9 , to sizing graphical correlations that can be assigned meaning determine if an adequate solution to the tasks or problems is and stored in a computer system data base , permit rapid to be had by an exact match or a relative match such as by

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

use of fuzzy logic , subjective voting by a user , Monte Carlo following steps . Go to Step 7 . 3 . 3 . At Step 7 . 3 . 3 , determine betting by one or more users or evaluators , etc . if there are any decision steps ( DS ) ? : This is a yes or no

At Step 3 , a user will define a task / subtask / element in a question . Go to Step 7 . 3 . 4 or Step 7 . 3 . 5 . At Step 7 . 3 . 4 , if the GUI that a particular stakeholder or stakeholder class is answer to Step 7 . 3 . 3 is No : Then go to Step 7 . 3 . 11 . At Step solving that contributes to the end state solution ) . The Step 5 7 . 3 . 5 , if the answer to Step 7 . 3 . 3 is Yes : Then go to Step 3 task / subtask / element is added to a list . The solution can 7 . 3 . 6 . At Step 7 . 3 . 6 , relate Tasks / Subtask / elements of each have many separate tasks that may need to be solved to reach Hierarchical levels to the Cognitive Model CM or Decision a satisfactory end state . Note if a satisfactory solution is not Model ( DM ) decision step ( DS ) sequence ( HLT2DS ) : Go to reached at a later point in this process , Step 3 can / will be Step 7 . 3 . 7 . revisited in an attempt to reach a satisfactory solution . In this 10 In this embodiment , a visual representation allows a embodiment , Step 3 is associated with an iterative process traceable connection between the tasks and the decision that continues to loop until it an exit condition ( adequacy / steps . For decision based analysis , the INDEX can be termination ) is determined to have been met by a user setting utilized to show different relationship states of the decision a condition in this software or process . to the tasks , providing a visual explanation . At Step 4 , a GUI displays a user prompt to ask if a user 15 At Step 7 . 3 . 7 , determine if there is more than one set of

has selected enough task / subtask elements to reach a con - distinct HLT2DS related the decision sequence ? : This is a clusion about whether a satisfactory end state can be yes or no question . Go to Step 7 . 3 . 8 or Step 7 . 3 . 9 . At Step reached ? In this embodiment , Step 4 GUI prompt is a yes or 7 . 3 . 8 , if the answer to Step 7 . 3 . 7 is No : Then go to Step no question . An exemplary system will continue to Step 5 7 . 3 . 12 . At Step 7 . 3 . 9 , if the answer to Step 7 . 3 . 7 Yes : Then ( no ) or Step 6 ( yes ) . 20 go to Step 7 . 3 . 10 . At Step 7 . 3 . 10 separate HLT2DSs into At Step 5 , if the answer to Step 4 is No : No , I do not have unique hierarchy breakdown / decomposed structures .

enough tasks / subtasks / elements to reach a conclusion about ( HIER - S ) : This compartmentalizes the decisions into a whether a satisfactory end state can be reached , then the logical order that is not visual overload , can be addressed exemplary process returns to Step 3 to define additional separately , yet be recombined : Go to Step 7 . 3 . 11 . tasks / subtasks / elements . A user will be prompted to continue 25 In this embodiment , a visual representation allows precise defining tasks / subtasks in a loop until the Step 4 result is and accurate analytical “ drill down ” into the elements , " yes — I have enough tasks to come to a conclusion ( satis - properties , and relationships associated with the subtask / factory end state ) : Then return to Step 3 . element in a manner that allows the results to be " rolled up " At Step 6 , if the Answer to Step 4 is Yes : I have enough into an accurate and complete set of elements and relation

tasks / subtasks / elements to satisfy my end state , then the 30 ships . processing system outputs is a list of tasks / subtasks / ele At Step 7 . 3 . 11 , relate Tasks / Subtask / elements to the CM ments then continues processing at Step 7 . ( T2CM ) : Go to Step 7 . 3 . 12 . In this embodiment , a visual

Referring to FIG . 2 , at Step 7 . 1 , Input list of Tasks representation allows a traceable connection between the subtasks / elements ( Task ) from Main Step 6 : Go to Step 7 . 2 . tasks and the cognitive model ( s ) and its ’ variables . At Step At Step 7 . 2 , Identify Cognitive Model ( Call CM ) . Go to Step 35 7 . 3 . 12 , identify and relate HLT22DS or T2CM and Tasks / 7 . 2 . 1 . ( See FIG . 3 ) subtask / element relationships to the problem to be solved

Referring to FIG . 3 , at Step 7 . 2 . 1 , Select Cognitive ( P2BS ) : Go to Step 7 . 3 . 13 . In this embodiment , a visual Model ( s ) ( CM ) . Go to Step 7 . 2 . 3 . At Step 7 . 2 . 2 , determine representation allows a traceable connection between the if CM Model ( s ) have decision - making steps ? This is a yes tasks / subtasks / elements and the problem to be solved . At or no question . Go to Step 7 . 2 . 3 or Step 7 . 2 . 4 . At Step 7 . 2 . 3 , 40 Step 7 . 3 . 13 , define CM and any DM and DS variables determine if answer to Step 7 . 2 . 2 is Yes : Then go to Step ( CM - VAR ) : Go to Step 7 . 3 . 14 . At Step 7 . 3 . 14 , define and 7 . 2 . 9 . At Step 7 . 2 . 4 , if answer to Step 7 . 2 . 2 is No : Then go relate confidence / impact factors for all or a subset of what it to Step 7 . 2 . 5 . At Step 7 . 2 . 5 , determine if a defined end state takes to perform / execute tasks / subtasks / elements from of problem ( DESP ) requires decision making steps to solve ? resources ( CF ) , tasks / subtasks / elements ( CLOT ) , decisions This is a yes or no question . Go to Step 7 . 2 . 6 OR 7 . 2 . 7 . At 45 in the unique hierarchical structures ( IDEC ) , End State Step 7 . 2 . 6 , if answer to Step 7 . 2 . 5 is No : Then go to Step ( CLES ) , iterative compilations ( ITER - CL ) : Go to Step 7 . 2 . 10 . At Step 7 . 2 . 7 , if answer to Step 7 . 2 . 5 is Yes : Then go 7 . 3 . 15 . At Step 7 . 3 . 15 output Task / Subtask / element relation to Step 7 . 2 . 8 . At Step 7 . 2 . 8 , identify Decision Model ( DM ) : ships HLT2TASKS , their relationships to P2BS , DS , CF , Go to Step 7 . 2 . 9 . At Step 7 . 2 . 9 , define Decision Step CLOT , IDEC CLES , ITER - CL , CM , DM , CM - VAR , Sequence ( DS ) : Go to Step 7 . 2 . 10 . At Step 7 . 2 . 10 , output of 50 HLT2DS , T2CM , HIER - S : Go to Step 7 . 4 ( See FIG . 2 ) . CM if any and DS if any . Go to Step 7 . 3 . ( See FIG . 2 ) Referring to FIG . 2 , at Step 7 . 4 determine if there are

Referring to FIG . 2 , at 7 . 3 , relate Task / subtask / element to enough tasks / subtask / elements defined for P2BS ? : This is a Cognitive Model and / or Decision Model ( Call T2CM FIG . yes or no question . Go to Step 7 . 5 or Step 7 . 6 . At Step 7 . 5 , 4 ) Go to Step 7 . 3 . 1 . if answer to Step 7 . 4 is No : No , then go to Step 7 . 6 . At Step

In this embodiment , visual representation of a task / sub - 55 7 . 6 , go back to Main Step 3 ( FIG . 1 ) until enough tasks / task elements and a Decision Model may be accomplished subtasks / elements are defined to reach the DESP for P2BS . by drawing the “ standard taxonomy ” representations for the At Step 7 . 7 , if answer to Step 7 . 4 is Yes : Yes , then go to Step task / subtask / element and the components of the Decision 7 . 8 . At Step 7 . 8 , identify resources : Create a list of any of the Module and visually representing the interactions by draw - following : all available resources ( for comparison to a ing the “ standard taxonomy ” lines representing process flow , 60 current state ) , ideal resources ( for creation of a comparisons information flow or interaction . A visual representation can model ) , and / or design resources ( for design comparison ) . be quickly assessed for accuracy and completeness . Resources can be an equipment , personnel , cost to solve the

Referring to FIG . 4 , At Step 7 . 3 . 1 , input Tasks / subtasks / problem , etc . Costs can be associated at a lower hierarchical elements and Cognitive Model ( CM ) and / or Decision model level and compiled to analyze costs to confidence levels for DM and / or DS from RCT - PM Step 7 . 3 : Go to Step 7 . 3 . 2 . At 65 each task / subtask / element Go to Step 7 . 8 . 1 ( See FIG . 5 ) . In Step 7 . 3 . 2 , identify Tasks / subtasks / elements relationships to this embodiment , a visual representation of the existing each other ( HLT2TASKS ) : This is done by performing the resources may be accomplished by drawing the “ standard

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

taxonomy ” representations for resources . A visual represen - hierarchical structure , data structure that lists the Task ( s ) and tation can be quickly assessed for accuracy and complete potentially subtasks that are required to get a satisfactory ness . solution to P2BS . The output of ASSESS - MAP flows to a

Referring to FIG . 5 , at Step 7 . 8 . 1 input Tasks / subtasks / decision in Main Step 9 . Go to Step 8 . 1 . ( See FIG . 6 ) In this elements and Resources from RCT - PM Step 7 . 8 : Go to Step 5 embodiment , a picture is worth a thousand words : the visual 7 . 8 . 2 . At Step 7 . 8 . 2 , define list of resources ( RESOURCES ) ; representation of the P2BS and the desired end state pro Go to step 7 . 8 . 3 . At Step 7 . 8 . 3 , define list / index of task / vides the state of the problem at a glance . It provides the subtask / element to resource and decision sequence ( if any ) analyst with a sandbox - like feel for the problem and allows connection types / symbols ( INDEX ) . Go to Step 7 . 8 . 4 . At the analyst to dynamically adjust relationships , elements , Step 7 . 8 . 4 , relate ( and can display ) a relationship connection 10 and properties to achieve a more desirable solution . It may or lack of connection between Resource and Task / subtask also allow an immediate understanding of the resources and element ( T2RESOURCE ) Go to Step 7 . 8 . 5 . In this embodi - tasks to see opportunities for cost savings of research . ment , a visual representation of these connections can be Referring to FIG . 6 , At Step 8 . 1 input all data from Main represented by using lines as defined in the agreed - upon Step 7 : Go to Step 8 . 2 . At Step 8 . 2 , identify Specification / “ visual taxonomy . ” E . g . , a solid line might represent rela - 15 qualities / data / structures / features / behaviors / other of tionship between task / subtask / element requirement that is Resources ( SPECS ) : Here a user needs to identify the met by a resource specification . A bold line might represent specification , limits , or capabilities of their existing relationship between task / subtask / element requirement that resources . A user , if using this process to define a gap in an is superseded by a resource specification , whereas a dotted existing problem can use this step to define what the line might represent relationship between task / subtask / ele - 20 specifications or capabilities of a resource needs to be to ment requirement that is only partially met ( or degraded ) by solve a problem . Resources including can include an asso a resource specification . The lack of a line immediately ciated cost for each specification ( SPEC ) and boundaries / identifies a missing resource . At Step 7 . 8 . 5 , determine if parameters of specifications to allow cost analysis to solve there is a relationship between each task / subtask / element problem ( Step 2 P2BS ) : Go to Step 8 . 3 . At Step 8 . 3 , identify and at least one Resource ? : This is a yes or no question , Go 25 and relate Critical Weighting Factors for each Task / Subtask / to Step 7 . 8 . 6 else go to Step 7 . 8 . 3 . At Step 7 . 8 . 6 , if answer Element and decision steps ( if any ) ( CWF ) : This step shows to 7 . 8 . 5 is Yes : Go to Step 7 . 8 . 10 . At Step 7 . 8 . 7 , if answer how much of an impact each task or element of a solution to 7 . 8 . 5 is Yes : Go to Step 7 . 8 . 8 . At Step 7 . 8 . 8 , a missing has when looking at the P2BS holistically . Go to step 8 . 4 . In resource gap is identified ; relate each Task / subtask / element this embodiment , a visual representation of Critical Weight that lacks any resource connection to a MISSING - RE - 30 ing Factors and tasks can be added shown on unique SOURCE to track internally . Go to Step 7 . 8 . 9 . In this hierarchical structures as for visual reminders / justifications / embodiment , a visual representation of missing resources analysis / depiction . At Step 8 . 4 , determine the boundary / can be created through showing connections between tasks / parameters of SPECS with respect to each Tasks / subtasks / subtasks / elements and a resource place hold . This allows for elements and their hierarchy considering the Cognitive visual analysis and reminders that the task / subtask / element 35 Model variable settings ( CM - VAR ) settings to assign the cannot be performed / executed . At Step 7 . 8 . 9 , if a decision Confidence Factor ( CF ) FIG . 7 : Keep in mind this is with sequence ( DS ) is defined , then the relationship connection is respect to the P2BS . Go to Step 8 . 4 . 1 . ( See FIG . 7 ) modified ( and can be displayed ) between tasks / subtask / Referring to FIG . 7 , at Step 8 . 4 . 1 , assess the resource element and decision using the INDEX , indicating a poten - specifications to the task / subtask / element from input from tial degraded decision . This allows for early flags of 40 ASSESS - MAP Step 8 . 4 : Determine which tasks / subtasks / degraded decisions . Go to Step 7 . 8 . 10 . At Step 7 . 8 . 10 , elements no resources are currently available to complete Output T2RESOURCE , connections , connection changes , the task / subtask / element and thus a gap is identified in the RESOURCES , INDEX , MISSING - RESOURCE : Go to step resources available to complete / perform / solve task / subtask / 7 . 9 ( See FIG . 2 ) . element to the confidence level . This analysis of the

Referring to FIG . 2 , At Step 7 . 9 , check for tasks / subtasks / 45 resources and their specifications allows for identification of elements relationships between hierarchical structures and unknown resources that are required to complete / solve ! establish relationship connects between resources for the perform the task / subtask / element to the confidence level . higher hierarchical structure task / subtask / element from the Also determines which tasks / subtasks / elements can be com connected lower level hierarchical structure ' s task / subtask pleted / solved / performed to the confidence level by the avail element . In other words , if a task / subtask / element in hier - 50 able resources specifications . Go to Step 8 . 4 . 2 . At Step 8 . 4 . 2 , archical structure A has been decomposed further by another starting at a lowest level of Tasks / subtasks / elements hierar hierarchical structure B , the resources used in hierarchical chy unit : Go to step 8 . 4 . 3 . At Step 8 . 4 . 3 , determine and relate structure B are also related to the connected task hierarchical boundary / parameter of what it takes of the resource SPECS structure A . At Step 7 . 10 , return : Output includes CM , DM , for the task / subtask / element in that unique hierarchical DS , CM - VAR , Tasks / subtasks / elements , Resources , SPECS , 55 structure to be performed / executed to a Confidence Factor and all relationships ( T2CM , T2RESOURCE ) ; go to Step 8 ( CF ) ( or other confidence level ) considering the CM - VAR ( See FIG . 1 ) . ( the Cognitive and Decision Model ( s ) and / or DS variable

Referring to FIG . 1 , At Step 8 , call and execute processing settings ) ( BSPECS ) : Determine where resources are avail associated with Call Assessment of Resource / Cognitive able but they cannot do everything that is needed to com Task Population Mapping Module ( Call ASSESS - MAP ) : In 60 plete / solve / perform the task / subtask / element thus the task / this embodiment , the ASSESS - MAP is where the output of subtask / element is degraded in completeness / performance / Main Step 7 ( Call to RCT - PM module ) , is analyzed to solution / ability to a desired confidence level . This analysis determine if tasks requirements are met , not met , super - allows for partial completeness / performance / solution / ability seded , or degraded by resources ; impact of the cognitive of each tasks / subtask / element . A user and implementing model on the resource specifications , adequate resources , 65 system can determine a degree to which a defined task relationships , cognitive and decision making model vari - solution is degraded . ( e . g . , such as if a task requires a sensor ables and parameters , gaps , etc . This exemplary output is a to see in a full 360° of azimuth every second and the current

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

sensor can only accomplish this every 1 . 2 seconds . This is NO then go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 5 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 5 , if a limit of the existing resource that may give me a confi - BSPECS > SPECS ( but not zero ) , set BCS of tasks / subtask / dence factor of between 0 % and 99 % toward solving the task element to DEGRADED , else proceed : If TRUE go to at hand . If the sensor worked every second then the confi - 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 if FALSE go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 6 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 6 , if dence could be 100 % . ) Go to Step 8 . 4 . 4 . At Step 8 . 4 . 4 , relate 5 BSPECS < SPECS , then set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to each Task / subtask / element to its TASK - BSPECS in the SUPERSEDED , else proceed : If TRUE go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 if unique hierarchal level structure and relate the BSPECS to FALSE go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 7 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 7 , if BSPECS is its associated resource SPECS : Go to step 8 . 4 . 5 . At Step unknown , then set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to 8 . 4 . 5 , compile a list of boundary / parameters of all SPECS UNKNOWN - SPEC else proceed : If TRUE go to Step Tasks / subtasks / elements in a unique hierarchy level struc - 10 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 if FALSE go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 8 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 8 , if ture and any lower levels ( SPEC - ROLL - UP ) : Go to step BSPEC S = SPECS , then set BCS of tasks / subtask / element to 8 . 4 . 6 . At Step 8 . 4 . 6 , determine if a compile ( SPEC - ROLL MET , and proceed : Go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 9 , UP ) at the P2BS level was conducted ? Go to Step 8 . 5 . 7 or create a relationship connection between task / subtask / ele 8 . 4 . 9 . At Step 8 . 4 . 7 , if 8 . 4 . 6 is No : Go to 8 . 4 . 8 . At Step 8 . 4 . 8 , ment and Bounded Specification BSPECS referencing the processing will continue up a hierarchical level of Tasks / 15 INDEX that represents the BSC : Go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 11 . Note : subtasks / elements , use the HIER - SPECS as the boundary visual representation of relationship connects of tasks / parameters for any related tasks / subtasks / elements from subtasks / elements to the resources in unique hierarchical lower level unique hierarchical structures : Go to 8 . 4 . 3 . At structures for visual reminders / justifications / analysis / depic Step 8 . 4 . 9 , if 8 . 4 . 6 is Yes : Go to 8 . 4 . 10 . At Step 8 . 4 . 10 , tion of confidence level in the decision . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 10 , if output the bounded / parameter specs ( BSPECS ) , BSPECS 20 Yes from 8 . 5 . 3 . 3 and after returning from 7 . 8 . 8 then go to relationships , Relationships , and SPEC - ROLL - UP lists for Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 11 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 11 , determine if there any more each unique hierarchical structure including the P2BS : Go to BSPECS for this task / subtask / element ? : This is a yes or no step 8 . 5 . ( See FIG . 6 ) . question . Go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 12 or Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 13 . At Step

Referring to FIG . 6 , At Step 8 . 5 , analyze / compare 8 . 5 . 3 . 12 , if yes then go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 2 : Now loop through the BSPECS and SPECS of the resources for conditions such as 25 process again . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 13 , if no then go to Step partially - met ( degraded ) , over - met ( superseded ) , met , 8 . 5 . 3 . 14 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 14 , determine if there are any more unknown , or not needed ( Call ANALYSIS - SPECS ) FIG . 8 : tasks / subtasks / elements ? : This is a yes or no question ; if yes This step analyzes how well a task / subtask / element , how go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 15 if no go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 16 . At Step well a hierarchical level of tasks / subtasks / elements , and the 8 . 5 . 3 . 15 , if yes go to 8 . 5 . 3 . 2 : Now loop through the process problem to be solved ( P2BS from step 1 ) can be completed / 30 again . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 16 , if no go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 17 . At Step solved / performed based on the resources , resource specifi - 8 . 5 . 3 . 17 output BSC and relationship connection represent cations , and confidence level . This step is used to quantify i ng BSC and continue processing at Step 8 . 5 . 4 . ( See FIG . 8 ) . the confidence factor that exist with each existing resource Referring to FIG . 8 , At Step 8 . 5 . 4 , output relationship with regards to the cognitive model being used and the index changes of BSC , CONDITION - INDEX , and all input problem that is to be solved . Each task or subtask needs to 35 variables : Go to Step 8 . 6 . ( See FIG . 7 ) . be linked to a resources that is available or the task / subtask Referring to FIG . 7 , At Step 8 . 6 , if decision steps , then needs to have resources identified as needed but not cur continue processing by rolling up / compiling / determining rently available to solve the task / subtask . A task / subtask impact on decision results ( DEC - ROLL - UP ) go to 8 . 6 . 1 can / will have multiple resources available and potentially ( See FIG . 10 ) , else go to step 8 . 7 . ( See FIG . 6 and FIG . 12 ) . can / will have multiple resources identified as needed but not 40 Referring to FIG . 10 , At Step 8 . 6 . 1 , input Tasks / subtasks / currently available . Go to Step 8 . 5 . 1 . ( See FIG . 8 ) elements , INDEX , CWF , BSC , MISSING - RESOURCE ,

Referring to FIG . 8 , At Step 8 . 5 . 1 , input Tasks / subtasks / DS , from DEC - ROLL - UP Step 8 . 6 : Go to step 8 . 6 . 2 . At Step elements , INDEX , RESOURCES , SPECS , BSPECS , MISS 8 . 6 . 2 , create index of conditions to determine the impact of ING - RESOURCE , BSPEC , and all relationships from the ability to perform / execute tasks / subtasks / elements on ANALYSIS - SPECS Step 8 . 5 : Go to step 8 . 5 . 2 . At Step 45 the decision sequence ( DS ) based on missing resources , spec 8 . 5 . 2 , create index of conditions to compare task / subtask gaps causing degradation , unknowns , and the CM - VARS element ' s bounded / parameters specifications ( BSPECS ) to ( DS - UPDATE - INDEX ) : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 , resource specifications ( SPECS ) ( CONDITIONS - INDEX ) : analyze and update conditions of task / subtask / element rela Go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 , analyze conditions of tionship connection states ( BSC ) for impact on the decision resources SPECS and bounded specs ( BSPECS ) , to the 50 sequence , using INDEX , CWF , MISSING - RESOURCES , CONDITIONS - INDEX to determine if BSPECS met , based on DS - UPDATE - INDEX conditions to determine any degraded , superseded , are not needed , or unknown ( addi degradation to or met decisions conditions for each unique tional conditional statements can be added ) ( CONDI hierarchy structure , and the P2BS ( additional condition TIONS ) ( See FIG . 9 ) : Go to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 1 . statements can be added ) ( IMPACT - DEC ) FIG . 11 : Go to

Referring to FIG . 9 , At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 1 , input Tasks / subtasks / 55 step 8 . 6 . 3 . 1 . ( See FIG . 11 ) . elements , CFW , CL , GAP , RESOURCES , BSPECS from Referring to FIG . 11 , At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 1 , input Tasks / sub CONDITIONS Step 8 . 5 . 3 : Go to step 8 . 5 . 3 . 2 . At Step tasks / elements , INDEX , CWF , BSC , MISSING - RE 8 . 5 . 3 . 2 , compare bounded / parameters specifications SOURCE , DS , from ANALYSIS - SPECS IMPACT - DEC ( BSPECS ) of a task / subtask / element to resource specifica - Step 8 . 6 . 3 : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 2 . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 2 , start at a tions ( SPECS ) using CONDITIONS - INDEX . ( Additional 60 lowest level of unique hierarchical units : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 3 . conditional steps can be added ) : Go to step 8 . 5 . 3 . 3 . At Step At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 3 , calculate / analyze from all task / subtask / 8 . 5 . 3 . 3 , if BSPECS a resource is zero , then move relation element ' s BSCs using DS - UPDATE - INDEX to determine ship from resource to SPEC - GAP execute step 7 . 8 . 8 and any impact to the decision sequence . ( Note : can expand the return here , else proceed : This is a yes no question with yes BSC degraded states into a scale of degradation within the calling function 7 . 8 . 8 and then going to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 10 . A no 65 INDEX such as % probabilities , etc . for calculations ) response or determination will result in processing going to ( IDEC ) : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 4 . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 4 , relate decision Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 4 . At Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 4 , if the answer to Step 8 . 5 . 3 . 3 is sequence to its IDEC ; the relationship connection of the

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2 10

decision sequence is changed using the INDEX : Go to step on DESP , i . e . the confidence level of the end state solution 8 . 6 . 3 . 5 . In this embodiment , a visual representation of from all circumstances including the unexpected / snafus of relationship connects of decisions in unique hierarchical CM - VAR and a CM - VAR weighting factor ( CWF - CM structures for visual reminders / justifications / analysis / depic - VAR ) ( ITER - CL - ES ) . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 8 , output - Dash tion of confidence level in the decision . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 5 , go 5 board — summarizes the ability of tasks and their associated up a unique hierarchical level of Tasks / subtasks / elements : resources to solve of Problem ( P2BS ) to a confidence levels Go to Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 6 . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 6 , determine if there are ( or the chosen parameters / variables of the Cognitive Model more unique hierarchical levels ? : This is a yes or no ques ( CM ) and / or Decision Model ( DM ) . ( see DASHBOARD tion , go to Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 7 for yes or step 8 . 6 . 3 . 9 for no . At Step FIG . 13 ) 8 . 6 . 3 . 7 , if yes go to Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 7 . At Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 8 , use IDEC 10 Referring to FIG . 13 , At Step 8 . 7 . 2 , an exemplary Dash and decision sequence CWFs of related tasks / subtasks / board ( s ) generates / displays / performs steps 8 . 7 . 2 . 1 - 8 . 7 . 2 . 8 elements from lower level hierarchical structures in calcu as needed using an index to show states ( for example lating / determining decision sequence degradation : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 3 and loop through the process again . At Step met = green , degraded = degraded , red = extremely degraded / 8 . 6 . 3 . 9 . if no go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 10 . At Step 8 . 63 . 10 . calculate / 15 unknown / can ' t do and go to Step 9 ( See FIG . 1 ) . At Step analyze from all unique hierarchies using DS - UPDATE 8 . 7 . 2 . 1 , an exemplary Program Level Iteration Dashboard INDEX to determine any impact to or confidence level of shows Problem solved ( or not ) for all circumstances ( red / end state ( DESP ) or P2BS . ( CL - ES ) : Go to step 8 . 6 . 3 . 11 . At yellow / green ) ? A confidence level end state solution ( ITER Step 8 . 6 . 3 . 11 , output the IDEC , CL - ES , and all relation - CL - ES ) meets expectations ( or not ) . At Step 8 . 7 . 2 . 2 , Pro ships , Connections for each unique hierarchical structure 20 gram Level End State Dashboard shows problem solved ( or including the P2BS : Go to step 8 . 6 . 4 . ( See FIG . 10 ) In this not ) for one set of circumstances ( red / yellow / green ) ? A embodiment , a visual representation of relationship between confidence level of individual end state solution ( CL - ES ) the problem to be solved and the confidence level in the end meets expectations ( or not ) . At Step 8 . 7 . 2 . 3 , Decision Dash state allows for top level visual summary of the problem and board shows which decisions are made to the level of solution . 25 confidence ( or not ) ( red / yellow / green ) ? The confidence level

Referring to FIG . 10 , At Step 8 . 6 . 4 , output relationship of decisions ( IDEC ) meets expectations ( or not ) . At Step index changes of DS - UPDATE - INDEX , IDEC , and all input 8 . 7 . 2 . 4 , Task Dashboard shows which tasks are completed to variables : Go to step 8 . 7 . ( See FIG . 6 and FIG . 12 ) . the level of confidence ( or not ) ( red / yellow / green ) ? The Referring to FIG . 6 and FIG . 12 , At Step 8 . 7 , output in confidence level in executing / performing tasks / subtasks / view of Step 8 . 6 . 4 ; go to step 8 . 7 . 1 . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 , input all 30 elements ( CLOT ) meets expectations ( or not ) . At Step variables from all previous steps , perform steps 8 . 7 . 1 and 8 . 7 . 2 . 5 , Program Level Resource Iteration Dashboard shows 8 . 7 . 2 as needed and go to step 9 with any variables . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 1 , generate Visual Maps of Resources , Bounded which resources accommodates ( or not ) all circumstances

( red / yellow / green ) ? Does the resource specification accom SPECS , Tasks / subtasks / element , Confidence Level , CM , DM . Decision Steps , their variations , and their relationships 35 modate all bounded specifications ( or not ) for the end state at any level from unique hierarchical structures to P2BS ( or not ) ? At Step 8 . 7 . 2 . 6 , Program Level Resource Dash ( VISUAL - MAP ) . This exemplary step allows for a layout of board shows which resources accommodates ( or not ) one set the variables and their relationships in a visual representa of circumstances ( red / yellow / green ) ? Does the resource tion . The INDEX of relationship connections can be utilized specification accommodate all bounded specifications ( or to show connections between resources - tasks / subtasks / ele - 40 not ) for one set of variables ? At Step 8 . 7 . 2 . 7 , Hierarchy ments - decisions - cognitive / decision models at any hierarchi - Resource Dashboard shows which specifications meet all cal level and the problem to be solved . Each stakeholder can tasks / subtasks / elements in a unique hierarchical structure be provided a different view . In reverse , exemplary visual ( red / yellow / green ) ? At Step 8 . 7 . 2 . 8 , Tasks / subtasks / element maps can be utilized to draw / document a deficiency from a Resource Dashboard shows if resources accommodate task / user , for example , to draw lines of degradation of decisions 45 subtask / element , i . e . BSC states ( red / yellow / green ) ? . and / or tasks and / or indicate missing resources . A visual map Referring back to FIG . 1 , At Step 9 , if ASSESS - MAP drawing can be iterated through the process to determine module results / output maps to end state of problem ( DESP variables of degradation and impacts to the other hierarchi - output ) within the confidence level , then go to step 11 ( yes ) , cal structures and the problem . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 2 , a list of go to Step 10 to reiterate : This is where there is a determi tasks / subtasks / elements unassociated to resources , i . e . a 50 nation made if a satisfactory solution has happened . I have missing resource . The different critical weight factors can a satisfactory output from ASSESS - MAP , Step 9 that meets show priority of importance of the missing resources . At my exit criteria from DESP , Main Step 2 , of my problem / Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 3 , a list of tasks / subtasks / elements ( all or different capability / effects from P2BS , Main Step 1 . If the answer is critical weight factors ) degraded , superseded , met , and / or yes then all of the information stored in the data sets of a ) not met ( technology gap ) by resources at any level from 55 and the data sets of b ) are returned as the solution for the unique hierarchical structures to P2BS . Different critical P2BS . This is a yes or no question . Go to Step 10 ( no ) or weight factors can show priority of importance of fixing a Step 11 ( yes ) . At Step 10 , if the answer to Step 9 question technology gap ; incremental upgrades of technology solu - is No : No , then go back to the start of the P2BS and loop tions can be re - iterated through a process of impacts . At Step through it again . More tasks may need to be defined or the 8 . 7 . 1 . 4 , a compartmentalized hierarchical structure of tasks / 60 definition of an acceptable solution to the P2BS may need subtasks / elements analysis that can be provided different changing : Go to Step 2 . At Step 11 , if the answer to Step 9 classifications of security . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 5 , a list of decisions question is Yes : Yes , I have a satisfactory output from ( all or different Critical Weight Factors ) executed / performed ASSESS - MAP , Step 9 that meets my exit criteria from with decreased confidence . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 6 , create a list of DESP , Main Step 2 , of my problem / capability / effects from tasks / subtasks / elements ( all or different critical weight fac - 65 P2BS , Main Step 1 : Go to step 12 . At Step 12 , Exit : Return tors ) that impact ability to make decisions . At Step 8 . 7 . 1 . 7 , the acceptable solution to the P2BS . In this embodiment , analyze / determine impact of all previous iteration on P2BS recognize that an output of Step 12 can be a structured data

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

set containing all of the returns for every task that was used in finding a satisfactory solution : Steps 8 . 7 . 1 - 8 . 7 . 2 are examples of outputs .

FIG . 14 shows a simplified embodiment of the invention . At Step A , create a map of a PB2S . At Step B , define 5 available resources . At Step C , define a CM . At Step D , create a hierarchy of task objects with attributes . At Step E , define subtasks to objects created at Step D and define attributes for each subtask ( s ) . At Step F , create relationships between resources defined at Step B and Tasks / Subtasks 10 created at Steps D and E based on sufficiency of resources to perform Tasks or Subtasks in view of the PB2S . The Step F relationships can include different iconography or graphi cal depictions to describe attributes associated with the resources ability to perform a related task . A lack of a 15 relationship indicates a lack of ability for a resource to be used to perform a Task or Subtask . At Step G , determine an end state associated with a PB2S and Task or Subtask . Relate the CM elements defined at Step C with Task and Subtasks in view of end state determined at Step G . At Step H , 20 determine confidence level associated with resources and CM elements in view of Tasks and Subtasks and End State ( s ) . At Step I , determine if requirements have been met associated with PB2S in view of resources , tasks / subtasks , and CM element mapping as well as confidence level and 25 End State . At Step I , determine if new resources are needed to meet desired confidence level in solving P2BS at desired confidence level and desired End State .

Embodiments of the invention include one or more machine readable instruction storage mediums that store 30 machine readable instructions such as executable or inter preted software instructions that are read and executed by a machine e . g . a computer system to perform various steps or process sequences described herein . For example , machine readable instructions are provided which generate graphical 35 user interfaces on a display controlled by or part of the machine that reads the machine readable instructions .

Although the invention has been described in detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments , variations and modifications exist within the spirit and scope of the inven - 40 tion as described and defined in the following claims .

The invention claimed is : 1 . A process for using a machine system to perform

graphical problem , task , resource , and cognitive model depiction , graphical element attribute definition , selective 45 relational mapping , modeling and validation comprising : defining , using a graphical user interface ( GUI ) system comprising a processor , a display , a machine readable stor age medium comprising a plurality of machine readable instructions that control the machine system to perform a 50 plurality of operations or control functions including gen erating one or more GUIs and a user input system that receives user inputs to the machine system including one or more GUI inputs , one or more graphical problem represen tations in the one or more GUIs comprising one or more 55 graphical problem objects stored as problem object data structures including problem object attributes data associ ated with at least one problem to be solved , wherein said GUI system generates the one or more graphical problem objects as a graphical problem object shape comprising a 60 text data with user input textual description of the problem or problems to be solved and one of a plurality of color representations of the one or more graphical problem objects associated with one of a plurality of statuses of the problem or problems to be solved , wherein said one of a plurality of 65 statuses comprises a first status of problem solved and a second status comprising problem not solved ;

defining , using the GUI system , a plurality of graphical task or tasks representations comprising one or a plu rality of graphical task objects in at least a first section of the display , said defining of said plurality of graphi cal task objects comprising associating each graphical task object with one or more hierarchical graphical task elements comprising task attributes data and optionally one or more graphical task sub - elements , wherein the plurality of task attributes data further comprises one or more boundary specifications data associated with respective said task attribute data that are associated with each graphical task object or said one or more graphical task sub - elements , wherein the boundary specifications data each comprise a single value data or a range of values data ;

defining , using the GUI system , a plurality of graphical resource or resources representations comprising at least one or a plurality of graphical resource objects in at least a second section of the display and inputting then associating graphical resource object attributes data with said one or a plurality of graphical task object representations , wherein the resources attributes data comprises one or more resource specifications associ ated with each graphical resource object ;

selecting , using the GUI system , at least one cognitive model graphical object defining a human cognitive process or model data comprising problem - solution attributes data elements where each problem - solution attributes data element comprises one or more decision making steps used to solve said problem to be solved based on accomplishing associated respective said plu rality of graphical task objects and the human cognitive model steps comprise observe , orient , decide and act steps and respective model step attributes ;

determining when , using one or more said machine read able instructions , at least one graphical relationship connection between one or more pairs of said one or more said graphical problem objects , said plurality of graphical task objects , said plurality of graphical resource objects , and at least one graphical cognitive model is missing or not present ;

graphically , using the GUI system , associating another said at least one graphical relationship connection between at least one said one or more pairs of said one or more graphical task object , graphical resource object , and at least one element of said graphical cognitive model where at least one graphical relation ship connection between said graphical resource , task or cognitive object is determined as missing or not present , wherein said graphically associating said at least one graphical relationship connection between said at least one graphical task object and at least one graphical resource object further comprises selectively correlating at least some of said task attributes com prising said boundary specifications with at least some of resource attributes comprising said specification data , and wherein said graphically associating another said at least one graphical relationship connection between at least one said graphical task object and at least one element of said graphical cognitive model comprises correlating at least one said task attribute with at least one said element of said graphical cogni tive object ;

defining one or more of a plurality of first attributes respectively associated with each said graphical rela tionship connection ; and

14

30

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2 13

generating a graphical dashboard or data output associ data associated with said graphical representations of ated with said graphical task objects , graphical resource said problem to be solved , graphical needed capability objects , and said graphical cognitive model based in or needed effects representation data , wherein the part on said graphical relationship connections , graphical resources elements comprising resources wherein said generating said graphical dashboard or 5 attributes data comprises one or more resource speci data output comprises comparing one or more selected fications associated with each graphical resource ele said first attributes with one or more predetermined ment ; data values or ranges of values to evaluate if one or a fourth sequence adapted to be read by said at least one more said selected first attributes match said data processor to generate a fourth graphical user interface values or are within said range of values , wherein when 10 element on said display comprising a plurality of selected said first attributes match said at least one said graphical tasks , subtasks , or elements associated with predetermined data values or said range of values then one or more of said graphical solutions or end states a selected graphical relationship connector associated representations as well as said one or more graphical with said selected said first attribute is displayed in a resources representations and associating each graphi first color , else in a second color and wherein said first 15 cal task object with one or more hierarchical graphical color is associated with a category of acceptability data task elements comprising task attributes data and stored on said recording medium associated with said optionally one or more graphical task sub - elements , relationships between said one or more graphical prob wherein the plurality of task attributes data further lem objects , said plurality of graphical task objects , comprises one or more boundary specifications data said plurality of graphical resource objects , and at least 20 associated with respective said task attribute data that one graphical cognitive model based on at least one are associated with each graphical task object or said said match of said at least one first attribute with at least one or more graphical task sub - elements , wherein the one said predetermined value or said range of values . boundary specifications data each comprise a single

2 . A process as in claim 1 , wherein said graphical dash value data or a range of values data ; board has a first representation if one or more of said first 25 a fifth sequence adapted to be read by said at least one attributes respectively associated with one of said graphical processor to generate a fifth graphical user interface relationships connector match said at least one said prede element on said display comprising a graphical cogni termined data values or said range of values , else a second tive model associated with determining acceptability or representation . non - acceptability of one or more of said resources as

3 . A process as in claim 2 , well as said tasks , subtasks , or elements , wherein said wherein said first representation is associated with a graphical cognitive model comprises cognitive model

category of acceptability data stored on said recording steps comprising observe , orient , decide and act steps medium associated with said relationships between and respective model step attributes ; said one or more problem objects , said plurality of a sixth sequence adapted to be read by said at least one graphical task objects , said plurality of resource 35 processor to generate a sixth graphical user interface objects , and at least one cognitive model based on at element on said display comprising a plurality of steps least one said match of said at least one first attribute operable for determining acceptability or non - accept with at least one said predetermined value or said range ability of attributes of said tasks , subtasks , and ele of values . ments including determining if inputs and outputs of

4 . A non - transitory machine readable instruction storage 40 said tasks , subtasks , and elements meet predetermined medium adapted to store a plurality of non - transitory or user defined parameters associated with at least one machine readable instructions , comprising or more said solutions or end states ; and

a first sequence adapted to be read by at least one a seventh sequence adapted to be read by said at least one processor to generate a first graphic user interface processor to generate a color representation associated element on a display , said first graphical user interface 45 with one or more of said graphical user interface element comprising one or more graphical representa elements based on one or more predetermined criteria , tions of a problem to be solved based on user input of wherein said predetermined criteria comprise a com a problem data , needed capability data , or needed effect parison between a plurality of acceptability criteria or user selection data from a menu displaying one or a associated with one or more said graphical user ele plurality of graphical problem or problems representa - 50 ments . tions data , graphical needed capability or capabilities 5 . A non - transitory machine readable instruction storage representations data , or graphical needed effect or medium as in claim 4 , further comprising an output effects representations data stored in a first database ; sequence adapted to be read by said at least one processor to

a second sequence adapted to be read by said at least one read a database operable for storing results of one or more processor to generate a second graphical user interface 55 said plurality of processing sequences . element on said display comprising a prompt display 6 . A non - transitory machine readable instruction storage ing a plurality of graphical solutions or end states medium adapted to be read by at least one processor to store representations data to be associated with said first a plurality of non - transitory machine readable instructions graphical user interface element ; adapted for generation of graphical resource modeling and

a third sequence adapted to be read by said at least one 60 validation comprising : processor to generate a third graphical user interface a first processing sequence operable for operating said at element on said display comprising one or more graphi least one processor to generate a first set of graphical cal resources elements associated with said plurality of user interface ( GUI ) elements that displays a first graphical solutions or end states representations that are plurality of user input fields and receives a first plural associated with said first graphical user interface ele - 65 ity of inputs from a user data input device defining one ment , said graphical solutions and end states represen or more problem description graphical representations tations data further comprising at least one constraint comprising one or more problem object description or

US 10 , 067 , 655 B2 15 16

problem attributes data including conditions or envi objects , and said one or plurality of resource objects are ronment associated with a user defined problem to be associated with each other using said one or more solved , wherein said first set of GUI elements com graphical links ; prises one or more graphical problem objects as a a sixth processing sequence operable for generating a graphical problem object shape comprising a text data 5 graphical dashboard or data output associated with said with user input textual description of the problem or task objects , resource objects , and said cognitive model problems to be solved and a plurality of color repre based in part on said graphical links including said sentations of said problem description graphical repre plurality of color representations of at least one said sentations associated with a plurality of statuses of the problem description graphical representations , wherein problem or problems to be solved comprising a first and 10 said generating said graphical dashboard or data output second problem status color representations , wherein a comprises includes comparing one or more of selected default said color representation of said problem said attributes of said cognitive model steps , resource description graphical representation is defaulted to said objects , or task objects with one or more predetermined second problem status color representation graphically data values or ranges of values to evaluate if one or indicating a problem does not have needed cognitive 15 more said selected attributes match said data values or model , tasks and resources correlations to one or more are within said range of values , wherein when selected predetermined solution sufficiency levels or value said attributes match said at least one said predeter including binary determinations , condition based deter mined data values or said range of values then a minations , or user judgement based problem solution selected graphical relationship and one of said plurality sufficiency determinations , wherein said binary deter - 20 of status associated with said selected said attributes is minations include solved or not solved as well as displayed in a first color , else in a second color and sufficient or not sufficient ; wherein said first color denotes one of said plurality of

a second processing sequence operable for generating a statues indicating acceptability of said relationships second set of GUI elements that displays a second between said one or more problem objects , said plu plurality of user input fields and receives a second 25 rality of task objects , said plurality of resource objects , plurality of inputs from said user data input device and at least one cognitive model based on at least one defining one or a plurality of tasks comprising one or a said match of said at least one said attribute with at least plurality of task objects , said defining of said one or a one said predetermined value or said range of values . plurality of task objects comprising associating each 7 . A non - transitory machine readable instruction storage task object with one or more hierarchical task elements 30 medium as in claim 6 , wherein said graphical dashboard has comprising task attributes data and optionally one or a first representation if a pair of said attributes associating more task sub - elements , wherein the plurality of task any two said objects match said at least one said predeter attributes data further comprises one or more boundary m ined data values or said range of values , else a second specifications data associated with respective said task representation . attribute data that are associated with each task object 35 8 . A non - transitory machine readable instruction storage or said one or more task sub - elements , wherein the medium as in claim 7 , wherein said first representation boundary specifications data each comprise a single denotes one of said plurality of statuses indicating accept value data or a range of values data ; ability of said relationships between said one or more

a third processing sequence operable for generating a problem objects , said plurality of task objects , said plurality third set of GUI elements that displays a third plurality 40 of resource objects , and at least one cognitive model based of user input fields and receives a third plurality of on at least one said match of said at least one attribute with inputs from said user data input device defining a at least one said predetermined value or said range of values . plurality of resources comprising one or a plurality of 9 . A machine implemented method of graphical problem , resource objects comprising resource attribute data , task , resource , and cognitive model depiction , graphical wherein the resources attributes data comprises one or 45 element attribute definition , relational mapping as well as more resource specifications associated with each validation using a graphical user interface comprising : resource object ; operating said graphical user interface to define at least

a fourth processing sequence operable for generating a one problem to be solved and related problem attributes fourth set of GUI elements that displays a fourth including at least one objective and problem environ plurality of user input fields and receives a fourth 50 ment or context or alternatively select said at least one plurality of inputs from said user data input device problem to be solved from a plurality of known prob selecting at least one cognitive model defining a human lems , capacities , or effects , said selection of said prob cognitive process or model steps comprising one or lem including selecting at least one said problem to be more observer perception of one or more pattern steps , solved from a plurality of said problems displayed on one or more decision response determination steps 55 a drop down menu on said graphical user interface ; responding to the one or more patterns , and execution inputting a plurality of tasks , subtasks , or task elements of the one or more decision steps and wherein said and respective task attributes including task effects cognitive model steps comprise observe , orient , decide proposed for use in relation to the at least one problem and act steps and respective model step attributes ; to be solved in said graphical user interface and select

a fifth processing sequence operable for enabling said user 60 ing and associating task parameters and attributes with to define or insert one or more of a fifth set of GUI said tasks , subtasks , or elements in said graphical user elements comprising one or more graphical relation interface associated with said at least one problem to be ship links between one or more pairs of said cognitive solved , wherein said task attributes comprise task effect model step , said one or plurality of task objects , and or effects performance of the task produces and one or said one or plurality of resource objects , wherein said 65 more limitations on a capability of said task , wherein first status is determined to exist when each said the plurality of task attributes data further comprises cognitive model steps , said one or plurality of task one or more boundary specifications data associated

17 US 10 , 067 , 655 B2

18 with respective said task attribute data that are associ generating a graphical , hierarchical dashboard or data ated with each task elements or said one or more task output showing one or more said tasks , subtasks , or sub - elements , wherein the boundary specifications data task elements associating at least one said resources by each comprise a single value data or a range of values one or more first relationship types as well as showing data ; said one or more said tasks , subtasks , or task elements selecting at least one cognitive model steps defining a decision step sequence or decision model steps pro associating at least one said cognitive model steps , posed for use in relation to the at least one problem to showing the resources , tasks , subtasks , or task ele be solved as well as defining associated cognitive ments , and the cognitive model steps solve said prob model step attributes and wherein said cognitive model lem is solved with displayed resources , tasks , subtasks , steps comprise observe , orient , decide and act steps and or task elements , and cognitive model steps , wherein respective model step attributes ; said generating said graphical , hierarchical dashboard

determining if at least one first relationship type exists or data output comprises comparing one or more between each of said plurality of tasks , subtasks , or task selected said first attributes with one or more predeter elements and each of said cognitive model steps exists mined data values or ranges of values to evaluate if one based on task and cognitive model step attribute cor - 15 or more said selected first attributes match said data relation ;

defining a list of resources and respective resource attri values or are within said range of values , wherein when butes proposed for use in relation to the at least one selected said first attributes match said at least one said problem to be solved and determining if at least one predetermined data values or said range of values then second relationship type exists between each of said 20 a selected first relationship type associated with said resources and each of said plurality of tasks , subtasks , selected said first attribute is displayed in a first color , or task elements based on task and resource attribute else in a second color and wherein said first color is correlation , wherein said resource attributes comprise associated with a category of acceptability data stored effect or effects each resource can produce and one or on said recording medium associated with said rela more limitations on a capability of each resource and 25 tionships between said one or more problem , said wherein the resources attributes comprises one or more plurality of task objects , said plurality of resource resource specifications associated with each resource ; objects , and at least one cognitive model based on at graphically associating said at least one first relationship least one said match of said at least one first attribute types with said plurality of tasks , subtasks or task with at least one said predetermined value or said range elements with said resources and at least one cognitive 30 of values . model step where said first relationship type is deter mined ; and * * * * *

| hao wanata ut til us010067655b2 din maratona mt · | hao wanata ut til us010067655b2 din maratona...

Documents