business intelligence model (bim) updatejenhork/presentations/bim_torontoselab_july20… ·...

The Business Intelligence Model Representation, Reasoning, and Application

University of Toronto, SE Lab, July 3, 2012 JENNIFER HORKOFF1, DANIELE BARONE1, LEI JIANG1, ERIC YU2, DANIEL AMYOT3,

ALEX BORGIDA4, JOHN MYLOPOULOS1

1Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada jenhork, barone, leijiang, [email protected]

2Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Canada [email protected]

3EECS, University of Ottawa, Canada [email protected]

4Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, USA [email protected]

Business Intelligence Model 1

mailto:[email protected]





Outline Business Intelligence Model Aims

Previous Work (“Stage 1”)

BIM Concepts and Reasoning Consolidation (“Stage 2”) Hybrid Reasoning

BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning (“Stage 3”) Metamodel

Definition and metaproperties

Additional Reasoning Capabilities

BIM in Action: A Hospital Case Study

Conclusions


Business Intelligence (from Wikipedia) Business intelligence (BI) is the ability for an

organization to take all its capabilities and convert them into knowledge, ultimately, getting the right information to the right people, at the right time, via the right channel.

This produces large amounts of information which can lead to the development of new opportunities for the organization.

When these opportunities have been identified and a strategy has been effectively implemented, they can provide an organization with a competitive advantage in the market, and stability in the long run (within its industry).

3

Interfacing.com

Pentaho.com

HighJump.com

Business Intelligence Model

Business Intelligence Model Aims BI Systems are widely used, but

Systems are still very technical and data-oriented

Hard to understand what the data means

Hard to design queries or make new reports without technical knowledge or a knowledge of the underlying data structure

Gap between business and IT-supplied data

Business people would rather reason using their own terms: Strategic objectives, business models and strategies, business

processes, markets, trends and risks

Raise the level of abstraction of BI systems using a modeling language Uses concepts more familiar to business


Business Intelligence Network BIM is part of the Business Intelligence Network*, a

Canadian project for the definition of the next generation of Business Intelligence Technologies.

*http://bin.cs.toronto.edu


Business Intelligence Model (BIM) Development

May existing languages and techniques for capturing business strategy Strategy Maps and Balanced Scorecards (Kaplan & Norton)

Business Motivation Model (OMG)

Dynamic SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) Analysis (Dealtry)

Goal Models

These techniques offer many useful concepts, but often not clearly defined visions, objectives, goals, means, strategies, plans, metrics, indicators,

measures, strengths, weaknesses, threats, vulnerabilities, opportunities, etc..

BIM aims to select a consolidated set of core concepts


BIM Development: “Stage 1”

When I joined the project September 2011

BIM Tech report, PoEM’10 Concepts, background, more detail

ER’11: Jiang et al. BIM concepts

Application of existing analysis procedures (goal modeling, decision analysis) through mapping to BIM

ER’11, PoEM’11 Barone et al. Composite indicators

Reasoning with indicators: unit conversion, normalization, performance levels


Barone et al., “Enterprise Modeling for Business Intelligence,” PoEM’10 Jiang et al., “Strategic Models for Business Intelligence: Reasoning About Opportunities and Threats,” ER'11 Barone et al., “Composite Indicators for Business Intelligence,” ER'11 Barone et al., “Reasoning with Key Performance Indicators,” PoEM’11

BIM Concepts and Reasoning Consolidation: “Stage 2”

One consistent description of BIM concepts Merging of concept descriptions from existing papers

Consistent “picture” or narrative of BIM reasoning Introducing hybrid reasoning


Horkoff et al. “Strategic Business Modeling: Representation and Reasoning”, SoSym (to appear)

Consolidated BIM Concepts Goal: an objective of a business

Can be AND/OR refined

Process: achieves goals

Domain Assumption: properties required for goal satisfaction

Situation: internal or external factors influencing fulfillment of goals Could be SWOT for a particular goal

Influence: situations/goals influence situations/goals Can be logical (implication) or probabilistic (P(A|B))

Indicator: performance measure, quantifies aspects of strategic activities (KPI)


Simple BIM Example


Legend

Goal

Indicator

Process

Situation

To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

High

demand

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

+

To reduce

costs

-

--

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin

Economic

SlowdownLow cost

financing

-

++

AND

OR

Evaluates

Domain

Assumption

AND

Refinement

OR

+

Influence

Achieves

Less Simple Example


To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

-+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin

-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy

balance sheet High R&D

expenditure Low cost

financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

BIM Reasoning

Reasoning with BIM allows an organization to answer strategic or monitoring questions. For example, BestTech may want to pose the following questions: Should we develop technology in-house or acquire technology

through acquisition? Which option is better for maintaining revenue growth and reducing risks?

Is it possible to maintain revenue growth while reducing risks? What strategies can achieve these goals?

Reasoning Technique Required Information

Goal Model Reasoning Initial Reasoning Values

Probabilistic Decision Analysis Conditional Probability Tables, Utility Functions

Reasoning with Indicators Atomic Indicator Values, Business Formulae,

Unit conversion factors

Hybrid Reasoning

(Reasoning with Incomplete

Indicators)

Atomic Indicator Values, (Optional) Business

Formulae, (Optional) Unit conversion factors,

(Optional) Initial Reasoning Values


Reasoning Overview


To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++

Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

-

+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Gross

margin

-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy



financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

Sales

volume (i1)

Number of

Sales

Channels (i2)

Number of

Promotions

(i3)

Number of

Competitors

(i4)

?

Re

aso

nin

g w

ith

In

dic

ato

rs

Exis

tin

g R

ea

so

nin

g T

ech

niq

ue

s

Hybrid Reasoning

To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

-+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin

-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy



financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

Evaluation of Specific Strategies Should we develop technology in-house or acquire

technology through acquisition?


To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++

Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

-

+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin

-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy



financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

PSPD

FD

PS FSPD PD PS

PS

FDPS

PS

Fully

Satisfied/

Denied

Partially

Satisfied/

Denied

FS/FD

PS/PD

Goal Model Reasoning (Giorgini et al.), mapped to BIM

Discovery of Alternative Strategies Is it possible to maintain revenue growth while reducing

risks? What strategies can achieve these goals?


To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++

Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin

-

To offer

promotions

-

+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin

-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy



financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

FSPS

FS

FS

FSFs

FS

Fs

FSFS PS

PD

FD

FD

FDFD

PS

PD

Fully

Satisfied/

Denied

Partially

Satisfied/

Denied

FS/FD

PS/PD

FS

PD

PS

PD

FDFD

PDPD

PD

PD PD

Goal Model Reasoning (Giorgini et al.), mapped to BIM

Probabilistic Evaluation of Strategies

Should we develop technology in-house or acquire technology through acquisition?


Influence diagrams (Howard & Matheson), mapped to BIM

Reasoning with Indicators


To increase

sales volume

Sales

volume

Increase

Sales

Evaluates Measures

Performance

Region

Target

value

Current

value

Threshold

value

Worst

value

Performance level = 0.5

“partially performant”

Satisfaction level = 0.5

“partially satisfied”

Indicator Reasoning with Varying Levels of Information

Reasoning Type Unit Conversion Required Information

Indicator Reasoning using Unit Conversion

Unit conversion factors

Atomic Indicator Values, Business Formulae, Unit

conversion factors

Indicator Reasoning using Performance

Levels

Unit Normalization (Performance

Levels)

Atomic Indicator Values, Business

Formulae

Indicator reasoning without Business

Formula

Unit Normalization (Performance

Levels)

Atomic Indicator Values

Hybrid Reasoning (with Incomplete

Indicators)

Qualitative Normalization

Atomic Indicator Values, (Optional)

Business Formulae, Unit conversion factors, Initial

Reasoning Values Business Intelligence Model 18

Indicator Reasoning using Business Formulae and Unit Conversion


To open new

sales channels

(g2)

To increase

sales volume

(g1)

To offer

promotions (g3)

Sales

volume

(i1)

OR

Number of

Sales

Channels (i2)

Number of

Promotions

(i3)

Increased

Competition

(s1)

-

Number of

Competitors

(i4)

cv(i3) = 5 promotions

cf(i3,i1) = 7cv(i2) = 10 sales channels

cf(i2,i1) = 20

cv(i4)= 2 competitors

cf(i4,i2) = 2

cv = 155 thousand $ in

sales

(𝑐𝑣(𝑖2) − 𝑐𝑣(𝑖4)𝑐𝑓(𝑖4, 𝑖2)) 𝑐𝑓 𝑖2, 𝑖1

+ 𝑐𝑣(𝑖3) 𝑐𝑓 𝑖3, 𝑖1

= 20 𝑐𝑣(𝑖2 − 2𝑐𝑣(𝑖4)) + 7𝑐𝑣(𝑖3)

Indicator Reasoning using Business Formulae and Performance Levels


To open sales

channels (g2)

To increase

sales volume

(g1)

To offer

promotions (g3)

Sales

volume

(i1)

OR

Number of

Sales

Channels (i2)

Number of

Promotions

(i3)

Increased

Competition

(s1)

-

Number of

Competitors

(i4)

pl = -0.1pl = 0.8

pl = 0.2

pl = 0.5

To increase

sales volume

Sales

volume

Increase

Sales

Evaluates Measures

Performance

Region

Target

value

Current

value

Threshold

value

Worst

value

Performance level = 0.5

“partially performant”

Satisfaction level = 0.5

“partially satisfied”

Indicator Reasoning without Business Formulae


To open sales

channels (g2)

To increase

sales volume

(g1)

To offer

promotions (g3)

Sales

volume

(i1)

OR

Number of

Sales

Channels (i2)

Number of

Promotions

(i3)

Increased

Competition

(s1)-

Number of

Competitors

(i4)(per+, per-)

(0.2, 0.0)

-

(per+, per-)

(0.25, 0.0)(per+, per-)

(0.0, 0.1)

(per+, per-)

(0.25, 0.1)

+

-+

+ -

+ -Conflict

Hybrid Reasoning (Reasoning with Incomplete Indicators)

To open sales

channels

To increase

sales

Increased

competition

To acquire

technology through

acquisition

To develop new

technology in-house

To reduce

risks

To reduce

patent

infringement

lawsuit risk

To reduce

external

dependence

To establish

strategic

partnership

-

To reduce

financial risk

+

+

To invest in new

technologies

-

To maintain

competitive

advantage

+

+

Acquire a

competitor

Develop a

technology

+

++Sufficient

funds

Strong R & D

capability

High

demand

To maintain

revenue growth

To increase

sales volume

To maintain

gross margin-

To offer

promotions

-

+

To reduce

costs

-

-

-

Total sales

Sales

volume

Gross

margin-

Economic

Slowdown

Healthy



financing

+++

+

+

-

++

AND

ANDAND

AND

OR

OR

OR

PSPD

FD

PSPD PD PS

PS

FDPS

PS

(0.4, 0.0)

-

(per+, per-)

(1.0, 0.0)

+

(0.0, 0.25)

(1.0, 0.25)

(0.0, 0.1)

(0.25, 0.0)

(0.2, 0.0)

Number of

Competitors

(per+, per-)

(0.2, 0.0)

-+Number of

Sales

Channels

-

(per+, per-)

(0.8, 0.0)

+

Number of

Promotions

(per+, per-)

(0.0, 0.1)

+ -

(0.4, 0.25)

(0.25, 0.1)

(per+, per-)

(0.5, 0.0)

+ -

PD


BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning (“Stage 3”)

Review concepts introduced in existing business and goal model languages BMM, SWOT, BSc, GMs, SM

Review all concepts previously introduced as part of BIM

Select set of “core” BIM concepts and relationships

Determine how concepts and relationships interact What is allowed, what is not?

Iterative process of language (re)design

Define concepts formally using description logic


Horkoff et a. “Making data meaningful: The Business Intelligence Model and its Formal Semantics in Description Logics”, ODBASE (to appear)

BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning: Metamodel

Consolidated language “metamodel”/upper-level ontology


Business Schema

+name : string

+evidence : Set of EvidenceValue

Thing

+pursued : Set of PursuitValue

Goal

Situation

+target : float

+threshold : float

+currentValue : float

Indicator Task

1*

Relationship1

*

+strength [0..1] : StrengthLabel

+pursue [0..1] : PursuitLabel

Influence

+and : Boolean

Refines Measures

Evaluates

+internal : Boolean

Organizational Situation

+Strong Evidence For = SF

+Weak Evidnece For = WF

+Weak Evidence Against = WA

+Strong Evidence Against = SA

«enumeration»

EvidenceValue

+Pursued = Pur

+Not Pursued = NotPur

«enumeration»

PursuitValue

Entity

+Strong Positive = ++

+Weak Positive = +

+Weak Negative = -

+Strong Negative = --

«enumeration»

StrengthLabel

+Pursue = P

+Not Pursue = !P

«enumeration»

PursueLabel

-source

1 *

1-destination

*

BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning: Definition and Metaproperties

Formal definition of language concepts and relationships Using description logic, e.g.,

Class: Goal SubClassOf: Situation

Property: influences Domain: Situation Range: Situation InverseOf: infBy

More specialized concepts representing using metaproperties duration (long-term/short-term), likelihood of fulfillment

(high/low), nature of definition (formal/informal), scope (broad/narrow), number of instances (many/few), and perspective from BSC (financial/ customer/ internal/ learning and growth)

E.g., Vision is a “goal with a long duration, broad scope, low chance of fulfillment, informal definition, and few instances”


OWL Protégé Implementation


BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning: Additional Reasoning Capabilities

Description of BIM in DL Is easily extensible

Allows publishing of generic BIM models as ontologies on the semantic web

DL allows reasoning capabilities beyond the application of existing approaches in previous work: Can support “What if?” type reasoning from GM, but now

inherent to the language, no mapping

Tested using an OWL encoding in Protégé

Introduced reasoning with pursuit

Detecting inconsistencies in BIM Schemas

Automatically classify defined concepts relative to existing concepts, organizing the model

Allowing more detailed conceptual modeling of entities, tasks, etc.


Business Intelligence Modeling in Action: A Hospital Case Study

Daniele Barone*, Thodoros Topaloglou**, and John Mylopoulos*

*Computer Science Department, University of Toronto, Canada barone, [email protected]

**Rouge Valley Health System, Toronto, Canada [email protected]

Selected slides from…

Abstract We present results of using the Business Intelligence

Model (BIM) in the definition of requirements for a Business Intelligence (BI) Solution currently undertaking at the Rouge Valley Health System (RVHS)

June 2012 24th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'12) 29

Business Intelligence

Solution

Business Intelligence

Solution

BIM BIM

RVHS RVHS

A vendor BI

platform

A vendor BI

platform

Case Study Questions and Method Questions:

What is the value of BIM in a BI implementation?

Is the initial BIM language sufficient to support the business modeling needs of the case study?

Who are the users of BIM?

Is there a development methodology that matches with BIM?

How does BIM map to data?

Method: in situ case study in a healthcare organization during BI

implementation.

researchers worked side-by-side with a BI development team.

shadow the implementation effort and generate models that capture the requirements and design choices of the implementation.


Rouge Valley Health System RVHS is a two site hospital with 479 beds in the east greater Toronto

area

Key facts 2700 employees

Over 500 physicians and 1000 nurses

109,190 Emergency Department (ED) visits in 2010-11

24,100 admissions

23,900 surgeries

3,700 births

over 189,000 clinic visits

Has a corporate performance mgmt framework and corporate scorecard

In 2010-11, RVHS launched two transformative IT initiatives to create a competency center in business process management, and

develop an enterprise Business Intelligence system


Business Intelligence Vision at RVHS

Business Need

RVHS generates/collects a wealth of data which contain revealing facts about the quality and efficiency of RVHS’s processes, utilization of resources and outcomes.

RVHS aims to gain insights into operating performance in order to improve efficiencies and the quality of patient care.

Managers need timely access to synchronized data from all levels.

The BI system needs to provide an integrated repository of data from disparate sources organized to meet the needs of business and clinical users.

The BI system must provide a data access interface that will enable business users and to access information on their own.


Business Problem: Emergency Department Patient Flow


Arrival Triage Registration

Arrival in ED

Non Physician

Initial Assessment

(NPIA)

Special Consult

Clinical Decision

Unit(CDU)

Physician Initial

Assessment (PIA)

Treatment in ED

Disposition Decision

Patient Left ED

Departure from ED

ED Length of Stay

The Emergency Room National Ambulatory Initiative (ERNI) measures and reports how long patients spend in Emergency Departments. Clinicians

(will) collect 38 data elements (DART) related to the patient journey through the Emergency Department from arrival to departure.

Improve the quality of Patient care

June 2012 24th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering

(CAiSE'12)

34

The Seven Phases for the Design of the Emergency Department Data Mart: A Mixed approach

Process WorkflowDesign

Goal/Strategy

Map Design

Indicator Map

Design

Process Map

Design

Actor Map Design

Resource Map

Design

Goal IndicatorObject Graph

Goa/StrategyMap

ProcessWorkflow

ProcessMap

IndicatorMap

ResourceMap

ActorMap

BIM Requirement Specification

Indicator RequirementDefinement

Goal Indicator Object GraphDefinement

----------------------------------------

IndicatorTemplate

Goal IndicatorObject Graph

ANALYSIS AND RECONCILIATION

STAGINGDESIGN

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS

----------------------------------------

Preliminaryworkload

----------------------------------------

Workloaddata volume

Logicalschema

-------------

--------

--------

---

--------

---

Factschema

Requirementspecification

----------------------------------------

ETLprocedures

LOGICALDESIGN

PHYSICALDESIGN

WORKLOADREFINEMENT

-------------

--------

--------

---

--------

---

----------------------------------------

Operationalsource

schemata

Reconciledschema

Physicalschema

Parallel ActivitiesThe outputs of one activity

are used as inputsfor the other activity in

a continue loop-cycle refinement

DBMS

XMLRelationaletc.

LogicalModel

------------------------------------

Strategy goalsDocument

Users Requirements

Data Warehouse Design: Modern Principles and

Methodologies, Matteo Golfarelli and Stefano Rizzi, (2009)

Requirement Analysis with

BIM

Requirement Analysis: Actor Goal Indicator Object (AGIO)


Dart Dart • 38 Indicators

AGIO

Sheet

AGIO

Sheet • Informal

Requirement

AGIO

Graph

AGIO

Graph • Formal

Requirement

• General description • Organization's Context • Measurement • Data Mart and Navigability • Performance Parameters • Data sources details • Security / Data Access • Information and Data Quality

Reduce the percentage of ER

Left Without Being Seen patients

Percentage of ED LWBS patients(ID 7)

Time

Location

Patient

<responsible for>

Physician Initial Assessment

ER Manager

<measure><evaluate>

Who

What Why

Which (perspective)

From AGIO Sheet and AGIO Graph

Extrapolate:

Actor Map

Goals/Strategy Map

Indicator Map

Process and Workflow Map

Resource Map

Whatever combination of the above:

e.g., Goal/Strategy Map + Indicator Map


Goal/ Strategy Map + Indicators


Reduce the percentage of

admitted ED patients

Percentage of ED Visits Admitted

(ID 8)

[GOAL NOT DEFINED] the total number of patient

visits

Total ED Visits(ID 1)

?

[GOAL NOT DEFINED] the percentage of

patient visits classified as CTAS I / II / III / IV / V

Percentage of Emergency Department

Visits CTAS I / II / III / IV / V

(ID 2-6)

?

Reduce the percentage of ED

LWBS patients

Percentage of ED LWBS patients(ID 7)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED patients in the

Emergency Department

Average LOS_ED - all dispositions

(ID 9)

Average LOS_ED for non-admitted

patients(ID 10)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS I-II non-admitted

patients to equals or less than 7 hours

Percentage of ED CTAS I-II non-admitted patients with

LOS equals or less than 7

hours(ID 11)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS III non-admitted patients to equals or less

than 7 hours

Percentage of ED CTAS III non-admitted patients with


hours(ID 12)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS IV-V non-

admitted patients to equals or less than 4 hours

Percentage of ED CTAS IV-V non-admitted patients with


hours(ID 13)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED admitted patients

Average LOS_ED for

admitted patients(ID 14)

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS I-II

admitted patients to equals or less than 8

hours

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS III


hours

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED CTAS IV-V


hours

Percentage of ED CTAS IV-V

admitted patients with


hours(ID 17)

Percentage of ED CTAS I-II



hours(ID 15)

Percentage of ED CTAS III



hours(ID 16)

<evaluate><evaluate>

<evaluate>

<evaluate><evaluate>

Reduce the LOS_ED of ED non-admitted patients

Percentage of non-admitted patients with

LOS_ED equals or less

than <a specified time>

in hours<ID ABS-1>

<evaluate>

<influence> <influence> <influence>

LEGEND

LOS = Length of StayED = Emergency DepartmentCTAS = Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale

<evaluate>

<evaluate>

<influence> <influence> <influence>

Percentage of admitted

patients with LOS_ED

equals or less than <a

specified time> in hours

<ID ABS-2>

<evaluate>

<evaluate>

<evaluate>

<influence>

<influence>

<evaluate>

Negative Indicator

Goal

Indicator Type not defined

?

<evaluate>

<evaluate>

Improve the level care of ED patients

Improve the level care of IP patients

Improve the level care of patients

<influence> <influence>

<influence> <influence> <influence><influence>

….

….

….<influence>

<influence>

<influence>

Positive Indicator

Level care of ED patients(ID ABS-3)

<evaluate>

Level care of IP patients

(ID ABS-4)

<evaluate>

Level care of patients

(ID ABS-5)

<evaluate>

<influence>

Time

Location

CTAS

Dimension

Time

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

Time

Location

Time

Location

PatientTime

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

Time

Location

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

Time

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

CTASProvider

Provider

Time

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

CTAS

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

ProviderProvider

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

Time

Location

CTAS

Provider

LOS Hours

LOS Hours

Provider

Level of care of the

patients

Actor Map


Senior Management

Team(SMT)

Management Information

System Clinical Team(MIS)

Clinician

Performance Evaluation

Service Team(PES)

Hospital

Middle Management

Team

Staff

ANDAND

Floor Manager

Emergency Department

Manager(ED Manager)

Unit Clerk

Support Service

AND

Registered Nurse (RN)

Physician(MD)

Nurse Practitioner

(NP)

Registered Practical Nurse

(RPN)

Therapist

AND

Physiotherapist (PT)

Occupational Therapist

(OT)

AND

Infection Control Practitioner

(ICP)

Triage

Assessm

ent

Left

ED

Registrat

ion

Decisio

n/

Disposit

ion To

Admit

Triage

DateTime

<produce>

Service

DateTime

<produce>

Task Information

Provider

InitialAsses

DateTime

<produce>

Physician

Initial

Assessm

ent

NegativeIndicator

Time to PIA

Seen

By

Consult

ant

Consult

ant

Request

<produce>

Consultant

Called

DateTime

<produce>

Consultant

Arrived

DateTime

<produce>

AdmitDecision

DateTime

<produce>

Depa

rt

Er

DateTime

<produce>

Left ER

DateTime

Waiting for

Consultant

Time to get

a Bed

LOS_ED

LEGEND

Transfer

of Care

Transfer of Care

DateTime

<produce>

STA

RT

join in

one

path

DO both

paths IF

Ambulance

Arrive =

True ELSE

DO

Registration

path only

Control Flow Node

END

START/END point

<measure>

<measure>

<measure>

<measure><measure> <measure>

<measure>

<measure>

Note: Ambulance

arrive and Patient

Walki-in sub-

processes are

hided due to

space constrains

Emergency Department Process + Indicators


eDART (daily):1) # of Visits2) % of CTAS 13) % of CTAS 24) % of CTAS 35) % of CTAS 46) % of CTAS 57) % Left Without Being Seen8) % of Visits Admitted9) AVG LOS All dispositions10) AVG LOS Non admitted patients11) % of CTAS 1-2 Non Admitted patients with LOS <= 7 hours12) % of CTAS 3 Non Admitted patients with LOS <= 7 hours13) % of CTAS 4-5 Non Admitted patients with LOS <= 7 hours14) AVG LOS Admitted patients15) % of CTAS 1-2 Admitted patients with LOS <= 8 hours16) % of CTAS 3 Admitted patients with LOS <= 8 hours17) % of CTAS 4-5 Admitted patients with LOS <= 8 hours

Dashboard (hourly):a) AVG Time to Physician Initial Assessmentb) AVG Waiting time for a Bed

ED Visit(01/09/2011 - Present)

- Triage,- Registration,- Consultation Request- Consultation Performed- Discharge,- Disposition,- Left ED

DayHoliday

YearQuarter

Week

Month

Date

Provider

CTAS

Level

Code

Diagnosis

Location

Bed

Ward

Name

Group

Description

Floor/ Unit

Faciltiy

Time

HH

MM

SS

Desciption

ED#DART:#

0

10

20

30

40

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22

Pa*ents#in#ED#

total

#visits

AvgVis

avgTot

Emergency#Department# :#

Admissions#(since#12AM):#5 #Wai*ng#for#Consult:#8#

Wai*ng#for#bed:#2 #Wai*ng#for#DI:#3#

ED#White#Board

DART#Trending

Inpa*ent#Ac*vity ALC#Analysis

FEED

(A)

(B)

ED Fact Schema and a Dashboard


We derived it from the Indicator Map

Lessons Learnt What is the value of BIM in a BI implementation?

BIM concepts enhance communication and collaboration between designers and domain experts

Provide a roadmap for project team

Is the initial BIM language sufficient to support the business modeling needs of the case study? Used concepts such as stakeholders, goals, processes, KPIs,

scorecard, resources, etc …

Some concepts and methods not used (situations, reasoning, …)

Who are the users of BIM? Business analysts and not business managers

Designers and domain experts understood and used the models for communication


Lessons Learnt Is there a development methodology that matches with BIM?

Extended widely practiced BI solution development techniques by enriching them with BIM concepts

How does BIM map to data?

Indicator maps used to derive fact schemas, map current indicators to objectives

Future WORK: Toward a Model for Performance Management Solution

Performance management enables organizations to monitor performance across the business, linking performance to business cycles and strategies that govern their overall direction.

Use the formal requirements output of our Requirement analysis as input for Performance Management Frameworks in BI platforms to validate our BIM model as a Performance Management Solution Model


* WebFOCUS Performance Management Framework v5, Information Builders (2009)

Conclusions Business Intelligence Model

Fill the gap between BI data and business strategy

Language and reasoning consolidation Consistent “story” or use cases for all types of BIM reasoning

Hybrid reasoning with incomplete indicators

BIM Language Semantics and Reasoning Language (re)design, formal definition, use of metaproperties,

expanded reasoning

BIM in Action

Future Work Expanded description of semantics and reasoning


Thank you!

Questions?

Contact:

[email protected]

[email protected]




business intelligence model (bim) updatejenhork/presentations/bim_torontoselab_july20… ·...

Documents