METHODS AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR TASKS IN A PROCESS SYSTEM ENTERPRISE

• US 20140208253A1
• Filed: 01/23/2013
• Published: 07/24/2014
• Est. Priority Date: 01/23/2013
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Fisher-Rosemount Systems Incorporated (Emerson Electric Company)
• Original Assignee: Fisher-Rosemount Systems Incorporated (Emerson Electric Company)
• Inventors: Pettus, Nathan William, Mclaughlin, Glenn, Rajashekar, Navin
• Granted Patent: US 9,740,382 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 715/772
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3055 Monitoring arrangements for monitoring the status of the computing system or of the computing system component, e.g. monitoring if the computing system is on, off, available, not available error or fault processing without redundancy G06F11/0703; error detection or correction by redundancy in data representation G06F11/08; error detection or correction by redundancy in operation G06F11/14; error detection or correction by redundancy in hardware G06F11/16
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 21/577 Assessing vulnerabilities and evaluating computer system security
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 3/04847 Interaction techniques to control parameter settings, e.g. interaction with sliders or dials
• CPC Class Codes: G06T 11/206 Drawing of charts or graphs

Abstract

Methods and apparatus to monitor tasks in a process system enterprise are disclosed. In one example, a method is disclosed that comprises analyzing, using a processor, tasks in an enterprise to determine a criticality of each task and an actionability of each task, ordering, using the processor, the tasks based on the criticality and the actionability of each of the tasks, and rendering, via a display, a first graphic representative of at least a portion of the ordered tasks.

Claims

1. A method, comprising:

analyzing, using a processor, tasks in an enterprise to determine a criticality of each task and an actionability of each task;

ordering, using the processor, the tasks based on the criticality and the actionability of each of the tasks; and

rendering, via a display, a first graphic representative of at least a portion of the ordered tasks.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first graphic is a chart having a first axis corresponding to the criticality of the tasks and a second axis corresponding to the actionability of the tasks, and wherein markers, each representative of one or more tasks, are to be plotted on the chart.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein a location of each marker plotted on the chart is based on a weighted average of the criticality and the actionability of the one or more tasks associated with each corresponding marker.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein each marker corresponds to any of one or more sites, one or more systems, one or more areas, one or more units, one or more process cells, or one or more workstations within the enterprise.

5. The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting any one of a size, a shape, an outline, a color, or an intensity of each marker to indicate a corresponding size of the one or more sites, one or more systems, one or more areas, one or more units, one or more process cells, or one or more workstations associated with the marker.

6. The method of claim 4, further comprising adjusting any one of a size, a shape, an outline, a color, or an intensity of each marker to indicate a number of tasks associated with the corresponding one or more sites, one or more systems, one or more areas, one or more units, one or more process cells, or one or more workstations.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the tasks is based at least in part on vendor specific information associated with any of software, firmware, or hardware associated with the corresponding tasks.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising

grouping the tasks into one or more categories;

and

rendering, via the display, a second graphic indicative of a number, a status, or a characteristic of the tasks associated with each of the one or more categories.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more categories correspond to any of information articles, hotfixes, operating system updates, technical support calls, lifecycle status, changes in lifecycle status, license utilizations, customer support expirations, warranty expirations, or registration status.

10. The method of claim 8, further comprising

grouping the tasks in each of the one or more categories into first and second subcategories, the tasks associated with the first subcategory having a higher priority than the tasks associated with the second subcategory;

and

rendering, via the display, a third graphic having information relating to each of the tasks associated with at least one of the first subcategory or the second subcategory within one of the one or more categories.

11. The method of claim 10, further comprising

reordering the tasks based on user input weights;

and

updating any of the first, second, or third graphics based on the reordered tasks.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the user input weights are to be applied to any of one or more of the tasks, one or more of the first or second subcategories, one or more of the categories, one or more of the sites, one or more systems, one or more areas, one or more units, one or more process cells, or one or more workstations.

13. A system, comprising:

a processor to implement a system management application to

analyze tasks in an enterprise;

quantify a criticality for each of the tasks; and

quantify an actionability for each of the tasks; and

a display to render a first graphic representative of at least one of the criticality or actionability corresponding to at least a portion of the tasks in the enterprise.

14. The system of claim 13, wherein the criticality for each task is based on at least one of a risk associated with each task on a safety or a reliability of at least a portion of the enterprise and an effect of the task on a probability of the risk being realized.

15. The system of claim 13, wherein the first graphic is a chart having a first axis corresponding to the criticality of the tasks and a second axis corresponding to the actionability of the tasks, wherein markers representative of one or more of the tasks are to be plotted on the chart.

16. The system of claim 15, wherein each marker corresponds to a component of the enterprise, the component corresponding to any one of one or more sites, one or more systems, one or more areas, one or more units, one or more process cells, or one or more workstations within the enterprise.

17. The system of claim 16, wherein an appearance of the markers is to be indicative of a size of the component of the enterprise or a number of tasks associated with the component of the enterprise.

18. The system of claim 15, wherein a location of each marker plotted on the chart is based on a weighted average of the criticality and the actionability of the one or more tasks associated with each corresponding marker.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein weights associated with the criticality or actionability of each task or group of tasks are to be adjusted based on a user input.

20. A tangible computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to at least:

analyze tasks in an enterprise to determine a criticality of each task and an actionability of each task;

order the tasks based on the criticality and the actionability of each of the tasks; and

render, via a display, a first graphic representative of at least a portion of the ordered tasks.

21. The computer readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the first graphic is a chart having a first axis corresponding to the criticality of the tasks and a second axis corresponding to the actionability of the tasks, and wherein markers representative of one or more tasks are to be plotted on the chart.

22. The computer readable storage medium of claim 21, wherein a location of each marker plotted on the chart is based on a weighted average of the criticality and the actionability of the one or more tasks associated with each corresponding marker.

23. The computer readable storage medium of claim 20, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to:

group the tasks into one or more categories; and

render, via the display, a second graphic indicative of a number, a status, or a characteristic of the tasks associated with each of the one or more categories.

24. The computer readable storage medium of claim 24, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the machine to:

group the tasks in each of the one or more categories into first and second subcategories, the tasks associated with the first subcategory having a higher priority than the tasks associated with the second subcategory; and

render, via the display, a third graphic having information relating to each of the tasks associated with at least one of the first category or the second category within one of the one or more categories.