METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING KNOWLEDGE BASE

• US 20060212486A1
• Filed: 01/31/2006
• Published: 09/21/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 03/21/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Oversight Systems, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Andrew T. Otwell, Charles A. Coombs, Daniel R. Kuokka, Jeffrey Z. Johnson, Michael E. Lortz, Patrick J.D. Taylor, Peter H. Kennis, Stayton D. Addison
• Inventors: Kennis, Peter H., Kuokka, Daniel R., Coombs, Charles A., Lortz, Michael E., Johnson, Jeffrey Z., Otwell, Andrew T., Taylor, Patrick J.D., Addison, Stayton D.
• Granted Patent: US 7,937,319 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 16/258 Data format conversion from or to a database
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 21/55 Detecting local intrusion or implementing counter-measures
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/018 Certifying business or products
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/03 Credit; Loans; Processing thereof
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/04 Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange

Abstract

A knowledge base and methods for use in connection with a policy compliance monitoring system operative to determine exceptions to policies expressed by computer-executable policy statements. The system allows establishment, codification, and maintenance of enterprise policies, monitors electronic transactions of the enterprise from various and possibly heterogeneous data sources, detects exceptions to established policies, reports exceptions to authorized users such as managers and auditors, and/or provides a case management system for tracking exceptions and their underlying transactions. The knowledge base comprises extractor files that are utilized for extracting information from data sources for utilization in policy compliance monitoring, a mapper for normalizing data from the data sources against a system ontology and storing normalized data in a monitoring database, and computer-executable compliance policy statements used by a transaction analysis engine. The policy statements represent predetermined policies of the enterprise that apply to data stored in the monitoring database.

Claims

1. A knowledge base for use in connection with a policy compliance monitoring system operative to determine exceptions to policies expressed by computer-executable policy statements, comprising:

a plurality of extractor files, the extractor files for utilization by one or more data extractors coupled for data communications with one or more data sources for extracting information for utilization in policy compliance monitoring;

a plurality of normalizing files for access and utilization by a mapper operative for normalizing data from the one or more data sources against a system ontology and storing normalized data in a monitoring database; and

a plurality of computer-executable compliance policy statements for use by a transaction analysis engine, the policy statements representing one or more predetermined policies of the enterprise that apply to data stored in the monitoring database.

2. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein each of plurality of extractor files includes information identifying a data source containing information for utilization in the policy compliance monitoring system, access protocols for the data source, and predetermined tables and columns of tables of the data source.

3. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein an extractor file is provided for one or more of the following types of extractors:

master extractor, resync extractor, log extractor, programmatic extractor, external data source extractor, IT environment extractor.

4. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the normalizing files comprise an ontology file.

5. The knowledge base of claim 4, wherein the ontology file contains information identifying an entity that is subject to testing for policy compliance by a compliance policy statement, in a format corresponding to expressions contained in the compliance policy statement.

6. The knowledge base of claim 4, wherein the ontology file contains linkages identifying other entities related to one of the entities expressed in the ontology.

7. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the normalizing file includes information required to add metadata to data obtained from a data source.

8. The knowledge base of claim 7, wherein the metadata comprises revision information that allows comparison of different versions of an entity over a period of time.

9. The knowledge base of claim 7, wherein the metadata comprises actor information.

10. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the normalizing files comprise a mapping file.

11. The knowledge base of claim 10, wherein the mapping file identifies specific tables and column in a schema of a data source, and corresponding specific tables and columns in a schema of the monitoring database.

12. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the compliance policy statements comprise XML frames.

13. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the compliance policy statements comprise logical expressions for evaluating data stored in the monitoring database against predetermined requirements, and indicators that represent the resolution of a logical expression.

14. The knowledge base of claim 13, wherein one or more indicators comprise an exception signaling possible lack of compliance with a policy expressed by the compliance policy statement.

15. The knowledge base of claim 1, wherein the policy statements comprise one or more of the following types of policy statements:

a generic policy statements, industry specific policy statements, business process specific policy statements, ERP system specific policy statements, customer specific policy statements, division specific policy statements.

16. The knowledge base of claim 1, further comprising a user interface for allowing user access and modification of the extractor files, the normalizing files, and the policy statements, for customization and configuration.

17. A method for maintaining a knowledge base for use in connection with a policy compliance monitoring system operative to determine exceptions to policies expressed by computer-executable policy statements, comprising the steps of:

providing a plurality of extractor files, the extractor files for utilization by one or more data extractors coupled for data communications with one or more data sources for extracting information for utilization in policy compliance monitoring;

providing a plurality of normalizing files for access and utilization by a mapper operative for normalizing data from the one or more data sources against a system ontology and storing normalized data in a monitoring database; and

providing a plurality of computer-executable compliance policy statements for use by a transactions analysis engine, the policy statements representing one or more predetermined policies of the enterprise that apply to the data stored in the monitoring database.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein each of plurality of extractor files includes information identifying a data source containing information for utilization in the policy compliance monitoring system, access protocols for the data source, and predetermined tables and columns of tables of the data source.

19. The method of claim 17, wherein an extractor file is provided for one or more of the following types of extractors:

master extractor, resync extractor, log extractor, programmatic extractor, external data source extractor, IT environment extractor.

20. The method of claim 17, wherein the normalizing files comprise an ontology file.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein the ontology file contains information identifying an entity that is subject to testing for policy compliance by a compliance policy statement, in a format corresponding to expressions contained in the compliance policy statement.

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the ontology file contains linkages identifying other entities related to one of the entities expressed in the ontology.

23. The method of claim 17, wherein the normalizing file includes information required to add metadata to data obtained from a data source.

24. The method of claim 23, wherein the metadata comprises revision information that allows comparison of different versions of an entity over a period of time.

25. The method of claim 23, wherein the metadata comprises actor information.

26. The method of claim 17, wherein the normalizing files comprise a mapping file.

27. The method of claim 26, wherein the mapping file identifies specific tables and column in a schema of a data source, and corresponding specific tables and columns in a schema of the monitoring database.

28. The method of claim 17, wherein the compliance policy statements comprise XML frames.

29. The method of claim 17, wherein the compliance policy statements comprise logical expressions for evaluating data stored in the monitoring database against predetermined requirements, and indicators that represent the resolution of a logical expression.

30. The method of claim 29, wherein one or more indicators comprise an exception signaling possible lack of compliance with a policy expressed by the compliance policy statement.

31. The method of claim 17, wherein the policy statements comprise one or more of the following types of policy statements:

a generic policy statements, industry specific policy statements, business process specific policy statements, ERP system specific policy statements, customer specific policy statements, division specific policy statements.

32. The method of claim 17, further comprising the step of providing a user interface for allowing user access and modification of the extractor files, the normalizing files, and the policy statements, for customization and configuration.

33. A policy statement executable by a computer-based analysis engine operative for determining a possible lack of compliance of electronic transaction data with a predetermined policy expressed by the statement, the electronic transaction data stored in a database accessed by the analysis engine, comprising:

information identifying at least one entity in the database, the entity comprising data items corresponding to the electronic transaction expressed in a predetermined ontology;

at least one indicator comprising computer-executable logical statements expressed in terms of the ontology that resolves to an exception in response to a predetermined condition; and

information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system.

34. The policy statement of claim 33, expressed as an XML data structure.

35. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the database is a monitoring database.

36. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the data in the monitoring database is extracted from one or more data sources.

37. The policy statement of claim 36, wherein the one or more data sources are from the group:

ERP systems, enterprise application systems, external data sources, and information technology (IT) infrastructure data.

38. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the electronic transaction data is obtained from one or more data sources and mapped into a schema corresponding to the ontology and mapping information.

39. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the at least one entity is a transactional entity.

40. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the at least one entity is a support entity.

41. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the at least one indicator utilizes additional information together with entity information in resolving to an exception.

42. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the exception is provided to an external system for user disposition.

43. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the at least one indicator provides a confidence level associated with the exception.

44. The policy statement of claim 43, wherein confidence levels of a plurality of indicators are combined statistically to obtain a single composite confidence level.

45. The policy statement of claim 43, wherein the predetermined condition is the confidence level exceeding a predetermined threshold value.

46. The policy statement of claim 43, further comprising logical statements for computing a priority associated with an exception based on confidence and impact.

47. The policy statement of claim 42, wherein the statement provides for computing a wariness associated with an entity involved in an exception, and providing wariness as an output.

48. The policy statement of claim 47, wherein wariness is computed by combining the confidence levels of one or more exceptions as probabilities, incrementally, as one or more exceptions are resolved, thereby providing updated values for wariness for particular entities over time and as a result of multiple exceptions.

49. The policy statement of claim 43, wherein the at least one indicator provides an expected impact expression.

50. The policy statement of claim 49, wherein the expected impact comprises a product of the confidence level and potential impact.

51. The policy statement of claim 33, further comprising information that determines whether the policy statement should execute by the analysis engine.

52. The policy statement of claim 33, further comprising information that identifies at least one system with which the policy statement is effective.

53. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system comprises information relating to an entity involved in the statement.

54. The policy statement of claim 33, wherein the information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system comprises information relating to the exception.

55. A method for determining a possible lack of compliance of electronic transaction data with a predetermined policy, the electronic transaction data stored in a database, comprising the steps of:

providing a policy statement executable by a computer-based analysis engine operative to access the database, the policy statement comprising;

information identifying at least one entity in the database, the entity comprising data items corresponding to the electronic transaction expressed in a predetermined ontology;

at least one indicator comprising computer-executable logical statements expressed in terms of the ontology that resolves to an exception in response to predetermined conditions; and

information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system;

executing the policy statement by the analysis engine.

56. The method of claim 55, wherein the policy statement is expressed as an XML data structure.

57. The method of claim 55, wherein the database is a monitoring database.

58. The method of claim 55, wherein the data in the monitoring database is extracted from one or more data sources.

59. The method of claim 58, wherein the one or more data sources are from the group:

ERP systems, enterprise application systems, external data sources, and information technology (IT) infrastructure data.

60. The method of claim 55, wherein the electronic transaction data is obtained from one or more data sources and mapped into a schema corresponding to the ontology and mapping information.

61. The method of claim 55, wherein the at least one entity is a transactional entity.

62. The method of claim 55, wherein the at least one entity is a support entity.

63. The method of claim 55, wherein the at least one indicator utilizes additional information together with entity information in resolving to an exception.

64. The method of claim 55, wherein the exception is provided to an external system for user disposition.

65. The method of claim 55, wherein the at least one indicator provides a confidence level associated with the exception.

66. The method of claim 65, wherein confidence levels of a plurality of indicators are combined statistically to obtain a single composite confidence level.

67. The method of claim 65, wherein the predetermined condition is the confidence level exceeding a predetermined threshold value.

68. The method of claim 65, further comprising logical statements for computing a priority associated with an exception based on confidence and impact.

69. The method of claim 65, wherein the statement provides for computing a wariness associated with an entity involved in an exception, and providing wariness as an output.

70. The method of claim 69, wherein wariness is computed by combining the confidence levels of one or more exceptions as probabilities, incrementally, as one or more exceptions are resolved, thereby providing updated values for wariness for particular entities over time and as a result of multiple exceptions.

71. The method of claim 65, wherein the at least one indicator provides an expected impact expression.

72. The method of claim 71, wherein the expected impact comprises a product of the confidence level and potential impact.

73. The method of claim 55, further comprising information that determines whether the policy statement should execute by the analysis engine.

74. The method of claim 55, further comprising information that identifies at least one system with which the policy statement is effective.

75. The method of claim 55, wherein the information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system comprises information relating to an entity involved in the statement.

76. The method of claim 55, wherein the information specifying a view of information resulting from execution of the statement for provision to an external system comprises information relating to the exception.