Multi-user investigation organizer

• US 7,590,606 B1
• Filed: 11/05/2003
• Issued: 09/15/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 11/05/2003
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: U.S.A. as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Original Assignee: United States Of America As Represented By The Administrator Of The National Aeronautics And Space Administration
• Inventors: Sturken, Ian, Wolfe, Shawn R., Keller, Richard M., Panontin, Tina L., Williams, James F., Carvalho, Robert E., Gawdiak, Yuri O.
• Primary Examiner(s): Holmes; Michael B
• Application Number:
  US10/703,039
• Time in Patent Office: 2,141 Days
• Field of Search: None
• US Class Current: 706/45
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management

Abstract

A system that allows a team of geographically dispersed users to collaboratively analyze a mishap event. The system includes a reconfigurable ontology, including instances that are related to and characterize the mishap, a semantic network that receives, indexes and stores, for retrieval, viewing and editing, the instances and links between the instances, a network browser interface for retrieving and viewing screens that present the instances and links to other instances and that allow editing thereof, and a rule-based inference engine, including a collection of rules associated with establishment of links between the instances. A possible conclusion arising from analysis of the mishap event may be characterized as one or more of: not a credible conclusion; an unlikely conclusion; a credible conclusion; conclusion needs analysis; conclusion needs supporting data; conclusion proposed to be closed; and an un-reviewed conclusion.

Claims

1. A system for analyzing a mishap that has occurred, the system comprising:

a reconfigurable ontology associated with a selected mishap, including a list of at least first and second ontology classes related to the selected mishap, at least one definition or property for each of the at least two ontology classes, a value range associated with each of the at least two ontology classes, and at least one relationship or link between the at least two ontology classes, wherein at least one of the at least first and second ontology classes includes information on at least one of the following;

a collection of one or more persons assembled to investigate the mishap;

a project with which the mishap is associated;

a process or procedure associated with the mishap;

at least one person involved in or responsible one or more events leading directly to the mishap;

at least one location or site associated with the mishap;

a characterization of the mishap;

a record associated with the mishap;

a document associated with the mishap;

physical evidence associated with the mishap;

a value of a parameter that is part of a description associated with the mishap;

a characterization or classification of a sub-system associated with the mishap;

an interview of at least one person associated with the mishap;

a description of at least one operation associated with the mishap;

at least one inspection associated with the mishap;

at least one design record of at least one component associated with the mishap;

an analysis of at least one aspect of the mishap; and

at least one result of an investigation of the mishap;

a semantic network that receives, indexes, stores and integrates, for retrieval, the at least two ontology classes, the definition and the value ranges of the at least two ontology classes and the at least one link between the at least two ontology classes;

a network browser interface, having a display screen, that implements a procedure for retrieving and viewing each of the at least two ontology classes in the semantic network, wherein the browser interface (i) displays at least one screen having at least a first group and a second group of possible conclusions concerning a contributing factor to the mishap, where no possible conclusion in the first group also belongs to the second group and (ii) displays at least one conclusion in the first group or in the second group that is characterized as at least one of the following;

not a credible conclusion;

an unlikely conclusion;

a credible conclusion;

conclusion needs analysis;

conclusion needs supporting data;

conclusion proposed to be closed; and

an un-reviewed conclusion; and

a rule-based inference engine, including a collection of at least two rules, associated with one or more of the at least two ontology classes and applied to support the at least one conclusion displayed in the browser interface.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein said browser interface displays at least one screen having a first screen portion that displays at least one parameter associated with said first ontology class and having a second, simultaneously viewable screen portion that displays at least one additional ontology class that is related or linked to said first ontology class displayed in the first screen portion.

3. The system of claim 1, wherein a link is provided between said at least one conclusion concerning said mishap and at least one item of evidence that supports said at least one conclusion.

4. The system of claim 1, wherein a link is provided between said at least one conclusion concerning said mishap and at least one item of evidence that refutes said at least one conclusion.

5. The system of claim 1, wherein said browser interface displays at least one screen having at least one statement of a condition, displayed in a first format, and at least one statement of an event, displayed in a second format that is distinguishable from the first format, where the at least one condition statement is visually connected to the at least one event statement and at least one final event statement is directly or indirectly visually connected to all condition statements and to all event statements other than a final event statement.

6. The system of claim 1, wherein said browser interface displays at least one screen having at least one view sequence, drawn from a list of view sequences including “

included in,”

“

supports,”

“

refutes,”

“

refuted by,”

“

supported by,”

“

date of sequence,”

“

short name description of sequence,”

“

start time of sequence,”

“

end time of sequence,”

“

description of sequence,”

“

confidence level,”

“

involved system,”

“

associated site,”

“

involved operator,”

“

investigation,”

“

x position for sequence,”

“

y position for sequence,”

“

notes,”

“

write permission,” and

“

read permission.”

7. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said collection of persons assembled to investigate said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one meeting agenda for said collection of persons;

at least one receipt or generation of request for information associated with said mishap;

background on at least one of said collection of persons;

at least one investigation procedure implemented by said collection of persons; and

at least one investigation report associated with said mishap.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said project associated with said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one project control;

at least one project plan;

at least one project procedure;

at least one project review;

at least one project mission;

at least one mission description;

at least one mission timeline; and

at least one mission requirement.

9. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said process associated with said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

a description of said process;

at least one process control implemented for said process; and

at least one operating procedure for said process.

10. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said at least one person involved in or responsible for said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

background on said at least one person;

at least one work group or work unit to which said at least one person belongs;

said at least one person'"'"'s normal work responsibilities;

identification of at least one investigator of said mishap; and

a statement of at least one task for the at least one investigator of said mishap.

11. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said location associated with said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one recommendation for said at least one location or site associated with said mishap, as a result of said investigation;

location of at least one evidence processing site associated with said mishap; and

location of at least one record impound site associated with said mishap.

12. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said characterization of said mishap event includes information on at least one of the following:

type of said mishap;

immediate consequences of said mishap;

indirect consequences of said mishap;

speculative factors that may have contributed to said mishap;

confirmed factors that appear to have contributed to said mishap;

recommended changes in at least one procedure to avoid or reduce a likelihood of another occurrence of said mishap; and

recommended changes in at least one equipment item or component to avoid or reduce the likelihood of another occurrence of said mishap.

13. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said records associated with said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one relevant written or published or visually perceptible document associated with said mishap;

location of at least one written or published document relevant to said mishap;

at least one visually perceptible record relevant to said mishap;

at least one audibly perceptible record relevant to said mishap; and

at least one anomaly in at least one of said records relevant to said mishap.

14. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on documents associated with said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one relevant agreement respecting a project associated with said mishap;

at least one analysis report record;

at least one incident report record;

at least one personnel performance record for at least one person associated with the project;

at least one training record for at least one person associated with the project;

at least one control procedure for at least one person associated with the project;

at least one record of adherence to the at least one control procedure for at least one person associated with the project; and

at least one project review document for the project.

15. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on said sub-system of said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one design for a project associated with said mishap;

at least one design record for the project;

at least one analysis of at least one design for the project;

at least one preceding record of a preceding mishap;

at least one risk assessment for the project;

at least one test and verification record for the project; and

at least one integration record for the project.

16. The system of claim 1, wherein said information on analysis of said mishap includes information on at least one of the following:

at least one result from application of fault tree analysis to a project associated with said mishap;

at least one result from application of MORT analysis to the project;

at least one result from application of event sequence analysis to the project;

at least one result from application of comparison of at least one parameter for the project and for a similar project in which a mishap did not occur.

17. The system of claim 1, wherein said semantic network comprises a link adjustment mechanism for performing at least one of the following operations:

creation of a link between said at least two ontology classes, deletion of a link between said at least first and second ontology classes, and addition of an ontology class and creation of at least one link between the added class and at least one of said at least first and second ontology classes.

18. The system of claim 1, wherein:

said semantic network provides said at least first and second ontology classes, said definition and said value range of said at least first and second ontology classes and said at least one link between said at least first and second ontology classes for each of at least first and second users that are spaced apart by a distance in a range of between 1 meter and 20,000 km; and

the first and second users are provided with first and second network browser interfaces, respectively, with each network browser interface providing a procedure for retrieving and viewing each of said at least first and second ontology classes in said semantic network, and each of the first and second users has access to said rule-based inference engine.

19. The system of claim 1, wherein at least one of said ontology, said semantic network, said network browser interface and said inference engine facilitates recording, for retrieval, of at least one of (i) at least one modification is made in at least one document associated with said mishap, (ii) a date and time at which the at least one modification is made and (iii) an identity of a user who makes the at least one modification.

20. A system for analyzing a mishap event that has occurred, the system comprising a computer that is programmed:

to receive a first sequence of values v1(k1), numbered k1=1, . . . , K, of K parameters associated with a mishap event;

to receive a second sequence of values v2(k2), numbered k2=1, . . . , K, corresponding to the first sequence of parameter values and associated at least one non-mishap event;

to compare each parameter value v1(k1=k) for the mishap event with a corresponding parameter value, v2(k2=k) for the at least one non-mishap event, and to determine and to display on a screen a subset S′

of indices k′

(1≦

k′

≦

K) for which parameter differences satisfy a difference criterion

|v1(k1=k′

)−

v2(k2=k′

)|≧

ε

_thr(k′

),

where ε

_thr(k′

) is a selected threshold difference value that may depend upon the index k′

; and

to identify at least one index value, k′

=k″

, in the subset S′

for which the parameter value v1(k1=k″

) contributed to occurrence of the mishap event, and to display a characterization of the parameter with the index value k′

=k″

.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein said system identifies said at least one index k′

in said subset S′

for which said parameter value v1(k1=k′

) contributed to occurrence of said mishap event by comparing a value of each of a sequence of functions

F_k′

{|v1(k1=k′

)−

v2(k2=k′

)|}

for each of said indices k′

in said subset S′

, where F_k′

{u} is a monotonically increasing function of its argument u.