MANAGING COMPLIANCE OF DATA INTEGRATION IMPLEMENTATIONS

• US 20120246170A1
• Filed: 03/22/2011
• Published: 09/27/2012
• Est. Priority Date: 03/22/2011
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Momentum Consulting
• Original Assignee: Momentum Consulting
• Inventors: Iantorno, Daniel M.
• Application Number:
  US13/053,594
• Publication Number:
  US 20120246170A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 707/748
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3672 Test management
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/77 Software metrics

Abstract

A system and associated processes which permit organizations to objectively evaluate compliance levels for data integration implementations and other application development platforms. An implementation scorecard analytics feature is provided to the user to permit analysis and computation of a score representing a level of maturity and/or compliance of the code being analyzed. Also disclosed are a system and process for evaluating mapping complexity in a data integration implementation and a transformation, session, and workflow attribute configuration management system, which provides a more granular level reporting for transformation, session, and workflow attributes to diagnose variations in implementations.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method of evaluating a compliance level comprising:

determining a set of compliance factors;

determining a set of gradation categories for each compliance factor;

permitting user selection of one or more gradation categories that are within a compliance range;

determining a compliance level based upon the user-selected gradation categories and the compliance factors.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a score based upon the CMMI model for implementation maturity.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a total weighted score for the implementation based upon one or more of the compliance factors.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining a mapping complexity for the implementation.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining a count of mapping code documentation.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of determining an individual score for each respective compliance factor.

7. The method of claim 6, further comprising applying a weighting factor to at least one of the individual scores to determine the compliance level.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of displaying the compliance factors and a respective score for each.

9. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of determining a mapping complexity further comprises determining a target load plan count, a mapping target definition count, and a mapping transformation object count.

10. The method of claim 8, further comprising the step of applying a weighting factor to at least one of the counts.

The method of claim 4, further comprising determining a complexity score and a compliance range and designating whether or not the complexity score is within the compliance range on a graphical user interface.

11. The method of claim 4, further comprising the step of displaying a heat map form for visualizing the complexity level.

12. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of displaying an integrated view of attributes relating to transformations, sessions and workflows.

15. The method of claim 12, further comprising applying a weighting factor to at least one of the counts.

13. A computer-implemented method of determining mapping complexity in a data integration implementation comprising the steps of:

determining a target load plan count;

determining a target definition count determining a mapping transformation object count;

determining complexity factor based on at least one of the target load plan count, target definition count and mapping transformation object count.

16. An apparatus comprising:

a processor;

a display coupled to the processor; and

a computer-readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to evaluate a compliance level by;

determining a set of compliance factors;

determining a set of gradation categories for each compliance factor;

permitting user selection of one or more gradation categories that are within a compliance range; and

determining a compliance level based upon the user-selected gradation categories and the compliance factors.

17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to evaluate the compliance level by determining a total weighted score for the implementation based upon one or more of the compliance factors.

18. The method of claim 16, wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to evaluate the compliance level by determining a mapping complexity.

19. The method of claim 16, wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to evaluate the compliance level by determining an individual score for each respective compliance factor and applying a weighting factor to at least one of the individual scores to determine the compliance level.

20. The method of claim 16, wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to evaluate the compliance level by determining a complexity score and a compliance range and designating whether or not the complexity score is within the compliance range on a graphical user interface.