Method and system for use and maintenance of a knowledge base system

Abstract

A method of and system for managing and maintaining knowledge bases having knowledge in objects involves authors creating authoring output comprising knowledge objects and analysts managing knowledge base content. Authors use conventions and guides to add uniformity among knowledge objects. Analysts manage backlog of knowledge awaiting entry into the knowledge base, provide to authors feedback from knowledge base users and beneficiaries, and review authoring output for technical accuracy, adherence with the conventions and guides, knowledge base usability, and responsiveness by authors to feedback. A content management system has a criticality system, to provide a ranking indicative of importance of incorporating, into the knowledge base, the suggested needed content, knowledge entry review system to determine whether created knowledge requires additional input before entry into the knowledge base, an escalation system for the additional input issues, and an escalation coordination system for coordinating escalation, receiving feedback, and passing feedback to authors.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A method of managing a knowledge base in which existing knowledge is stored in a plurality of existing knowledge objects, comprising:

using a knowledge author to create authoring output comprising created knowledge objects to be incorporated into said knowledge base,

said created knowledge objects comprising knowledge awaiting entry into said knowledge base, and

said knowledge authors using authoring conventions and guides to add uniformity among said created knowledge objects and said existing knowledge objects, said authoring conventions and guides comprising:

definitions of said existing knowledge objects and for said created knowledge objects;

guidelines for format of said existing knowledge objects and for format and development of said created knowledge objects; and

guidelines for use of synonyms to capture alternative statements of said existing knowledge objects and said created knowledge objects; and

said uniformity comprising uniformity of said format of said created knowledge objects and said existing knowledge objects, uniformity of said development of said created knowledge objects, uniformity of said use of said synonyms, and uniformity of said definitions; and

using a knowledge analyst to manage content in said knowledge base, by

managing backlog of said knowledge awaiting entry into said knowledge base;

providing to said knowledge author feedback concerning said knowledge base from users of said knowledge base and from beneficiaries of said knowledge base; and

reviewing said authoring output for technical accuracy, for adherence with said definitions and guidelines articulated in said authoring conventions and guides, for usability in said knowledge base, and for responsiveness by said knowledge authors to said feedback, said reviewing said authoring output for said technical accuracy comprising determining whether factual circumstances of said authoring output are accurately described by said existing knowledge and by said knowledge awaiting entry into said knowledge base.

2. A method of managing a knowledge base in which existing knowledge is stored in a plurality of knowledge objects, comprising:

developing authoring conventions and guides to add uniformity to said knowledge objects, said authoring conventions and guides having definitions for said knowledge objects, guidelines for format and development of said knowledge objects, and guidelines for use of synonyms to capture alternative statements of said knowledge objects, and said uniformity comprising uniformity of said format and development of said knowledge objects, uniformity of said use of said synonyms, and uniformity of said definitions of said knowledge objects;

providing a reporting system for creating reports of need for content in said knowledge base;

reviewing said reports and, if incorporation of said content into said knowledge base is indicated, incorporating said content into said knowledge base by creating authoring output, said incorporating further comprising using said authoring conventions and guides, and said creating authoring output comprising at least one of the following:

developing at least one created knowledge object for entry into said knowledge base; and

creating at least one edited knowledge object, said edited knowledge object comprising a knowledge object already existing in said knowledge base and edited in order for said content to be incorporated into said knowledge base;

managing a backlog of knowledge awaiting entry into said knowledge base,

providing a feedback system for feedback concerning said knowledge base from beneficiaries of said knowledge base; and

after said creating said authoring output and before entering each said created knowledge object and each said edited knowledge object into said knowledge base, reviewing each said created knowledge object and each said edited knowledge object for technical accuracy, for adherence with said definitions and guidelines articulated in said authoring conventions and guides, for usability in said knowledge base, and for said feedback, said reviewing each said created knowledge object and each said edited knowledge object for said technical accuracy comprising determining whether factual circumstances of said authoring output are accurately described in each said edited knowledge object and each said created knowledge object.

3. A knowledge maintenance system for a knowledge base in which existing knowledge is stored in knowledge objects, comprising:

a user reporting system to provide at least one interaction report, each said interaction report for reporting at least one instance of needed content in said knowledge base; and

a content management system to review each said instance in each said report and, if incorporation into said knowledge base of said needed content suggested by said instance is indicated, to incorporate said needed content into said knowledge base by developing created knowledge from said needed content and by incorporating said created knowledge into said knowledge base, said content management system further comprising:

a first pass review having

a subject matter review of said report to determine whether said instance comprises a content incorporation candidate, said subject matter review comprising a comparison of said needed content suggested by said instance to existing content in said knowledge base, said comparison comprising a redundancy check for said instance to determine whether said needed content suggested by said instance is already stored in said knowledge base, and

a criticality system to provide each said instance with a criticality ranking indicative of a scale of importance of incorporating, into said knowledge base, said needed content that is suggested by said instance;

a backlog management system to manage a backlog of each said needed content that is suggested by each said instance determined to be a content incorporation candidate;

an authoring system for authoring said needed content suggested by said instance into said created knowledge; and

a knowledge entry review system for reviewing said created knowledge, said knowledge entry review system having:

a quality level review of said created knowledge to identify said created knowledge as additional input issues knowledge if said created knowledge requires additional input before said created knowledge can be entered into said knowledge base, and to identify said created knowledge as resolvable issues knowledge if said created knowledge does not require additional input before said created knowledge can be entered into said knowledge base;

an approval system for approval of entry into said knowledge base of said resolvable issues knowledge;

an escalation system for escalation of said additional input issues knowledge to an entity that can provide said additional input; and

an escalation coordination system for coordinating said escalation, receiving feedback from said escalation, said feedback comprising said additional input, and passing said feedback into said authoring system.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein said user reporting system comprises:

a knowledge notes memo capability in said knowledge base for sending an experience report memo reporting a knowledge base use experience; and

a draft memo capability for saving an incomplete experience report memo for later completion.

5. The system of claim 3, wherein said authoring system further comprises at least one of the following:

a new record authoring system for storing said needed content as said created knowledge in a new record;

an existing record editing system for storing said needed content as said created knowledge in an existing record by editing said existing record; and

a synonym and links system for adding synonyms to other records in said knowledge base and providing links between said needed content and said other records in said knowledge base.

6. The system of claim 3,

wherein said scale of importance comprises a first importance, a second importance, and a third importance; and

wherein said third importance involves issues that are able to be eliminated from incorporation into said knowledge base;

wherein said third importance further involves issues that may be set aside for later consideration for incorporation into said knowledge base; and

wherein said criticality system comprises a system for providing a first criticality ranking to any said instance having said first importance associated therewith, a second criticality ranking any said instance having said second importance associated therewith, and a third criticality ranking any said instance having said third importance associated therewith.

7. The system of claim 6, wherein said criticality system provides said first criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves an issue that has a resolution that is not yet incorporated into said knowledge base.

8. The system of claim 6, wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation, and wherein criticality system provides said first criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves an issue having a resolution that is not disclosed in said existing documentation.

9. The system of claim 6,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation in which are described a first issue and a first resolution to said issue,

wherein said first resolution is erroneously disclosed in said existing documentation, and

wherein said criticality system provides said first criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves said first issue having said first resolution.

10. The system of claim 6,

wherein said existing knowledge comprises knowledge about a product that has been made available in a plurality of releases,

wherein said product has a first release that was made available after previous releases of said product, and said first release is substantially different from said previous releases, and

wherein said criticality system provides said first criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves an issue involving said first release.

11. The system of claim 6,

wherein said existing knowledge comprises knowledge about a product that has been made available in a plurality of versions,

wherein said product has a first version and a second version, said first version having been available before said second version, and

wherein said criticality system provides said second criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves an issue that pertains to said first version.

12. The system of claim 6,

wherein said needed content suggested in said instance involves an issue and a resolution to said issue, and

wherein said criticality system provides said second criticality ranking to said instance when said resolution associated with said issue is not easily understood by users of said knowledge base.

13. The system of claim 6,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation containing disclosures of a plurality of issues and a plurality of resolutions associated with said issues,

wherein said needed content suggested in said instance involves a first issue and a first resolution associated with said first issue,

wherein said resolution is disclosed inadequately in said existing documentation compared to others of said resolutions, and

wherein said criticality system provides said second criticality ranking to said instance associated with said first resolution.

14. The system of claim 6,

wherein said knowledge base is developed for a plurality of issues and a plurality of causes for said issues, with some of said causes occurring more rarely than others of said causes,

wherein one of said issues comprises a first issue having a first cause occurring more rarely than said others of said causes; and

wherein said criticality system provides said third criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves said first issue.

15. The system of claim 6, wherein said criticality system provides said third criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves duplicate records found in said knowledge base.

16. The system of claim 6,

wherein said knowledge base is developed to support a plurality of requests for assistance and said requests involve a plurality of issues, with a first issue being requested more rarely than others of said issues, and

wherein said criticality system provides said third criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves said first issue.

17. The system of claim 6,

wherein said knowledge base is developed for a plurality of issues and a plurality of resolutions for said issues, with a first resolution occurring more rarely than others of said resolutions,

wherein one of said issues comprises a first issue that is well known to users of said knowledge base and that has said first resolution; and

wherein said criticality system provides said third criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves said first issue.

18. The system of claim 6,

wherein said knowledge base is developed to provide support for a plurality of issues and a plurality of solutions, with some of said solutions being more complex than others of said solutions, and

wherein said knowledge base has defined support boundaries for defining an extent of said support provided by said knowledge base;

wherein one of said issues comprises a first issue having a first solution that is more complex than said others of said solutions and that may exceed said defined support boundaries; and

wherein said criticality system provides said third criticality ranking to said instance when said needed content suggested in said instance involves said one of said issues.

19. The system of claim 3,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation,

wherein said resolvable issues knowledge involves resolvable issues, with a first resolvable issue comprising modifications to an existing knowledge object, and

wherein said modifications further comprise inclusion of subject matter into said existing knowledge base, when said subject matter already exists in said existing documentation and when said subject matter is verified as correct.

20. The system of claim 3,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation,

wherein said resolvable issues knowledge involves resolvable issues, with a first resolvable issue comprising modifications to an existing knowledge object, and

wherein said modifications further comprise addition of a synonym to said existing knowledge object.

21. The system of claim 3,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation, and

wherein said additional input issues knowledge comprises said created knowledge that does not exist in said existing documentation.

22. The system of claim 3,

wherein at least some of said existing knowledge is disclosed in existing documentation, and

wherein said additional input issues knowledge comprises said created knowledge that is contained in said existing documentation, but was not verified by said authoring system.

23. The system of claim 3, wherein said additional input issues knowledge comprises said created knowledge that may be subject to specific requirements of a beneficiary of said knowledge base.

24. The system of claim 3, wherein said first pass review is conducted by a knowledge author, and wherein said backlog management system and said knowledge entry review system are implemented by a knowledge analyst.

25. The system of claim 3, wherein said backlog management system further comprises a review of said criticality ranking and providing feedback on said criticality ranking.

26. The method of claim 3, wherein said knowledge entry review system further comprises a review of said created knowledge for accuracy.

27. The method of claim 3, wherein new knowledge entry review system further comprises a review of said created knowledge for adherence with definitions and guidelines articulated in authoring conventions and guides, said authoring conventions and guides developed to add uniformity to said knowledge objects, and said uniformity comprising uniformity of format and development of said knowledge objects, uniformity of use of synonyms to capture alternative statements of said knowledge objects, and uniformity of said definitions.

28. The method of claim 3, wherein said knowledge entry review system further comprises a review of said created knowledge for usability in said knowledge base.

29. The method of claim 3, wherein said knowledge entry review system further comprises a review of said created knowledge for responsiveness to feedback concerning said knowledge base from users and beneficiaries of said knowledge base.

30. The method of claim 5, wherein said existing record editing system comprises a system for changing said existing record, deleting said existing record, and establishing and deleting record links between said existing record and other records in said knowledge base.

Description

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates generally to knowledge management systems, and particularly to the development, use and maintenance of knowledge base systems.

One environment in which knowledge management systems are particularly useful is the computer product support industry. The computer systems on today's desktops are complicated. They involve many products (hardware and software) from many vendors. The products may or may not operate as expected when configured into a system. In addition, the user guides and references for the products are often incomplete and not always accurate. When end users have problems with their computer systems, they often need help diagnosing and then solving the problem. The computer product support industry has developed in response to that need. When a caller into a technical support organization reports a problem with a product in a certain environment, a technical support representative, sometimes known as an agent, diagnoses and attempts to solve the problem.

However, a mountain of knowledge is necessary in order to provide support for computer products. End users' answers might be found in a public document, or in a customer's or vendor's confidential information, or in a company's bank of general or confidential knowledge. In addition, through support interactions, a company generates a vast array of knowledge, particularly in areas such as product interoperability. Knowledge is always being generated because the resolution to an end user's problem may even need to pieced together from many sources of information, public and private combined.

A computer product support provider's challenge is to handle the increasing technical complexity of support delivery while keeping service quality and customer satisfaction high and costs low. Companies must establish a support infrastructure that enable them to capture, refine, and publish customer service and support information with greater efficiency through a variety of support channels. Adopting a knowledge management approach is an effective means to meet urgent customer demands.

One part of the knowledge management approach is the development and maintenance of knowledge bases as a part of a company's knowledge management system. With the proliferation of information that is needed to run businesses today, many companies are turning to knowledge base systems to store and provide access to its information. Knowledge bases provide a framework for collecting, organizing and refining the full range of information that is both collected and generated daily by a company. Knowledge bases process the new information, transforming it into actionable knowledge, present it in a consistent format, and make it readily available. They make a company increasingly effective in gathering and leveraging "institutional memory." Thus, knowledge bases provide a company with the opportunity to reuse the knowledge that it collects and creates. Such reuse is beneficial because it allows companies to use its data to conduct is business more quickly and efficiently than previously possible.

While knowledge bases provide some real benefit to companies that invest in their creation, they are expensive in time, resources and money to develop and maintain. Once deployed, knowledge bases need careful maintenance to keep up to date. Knowledge, being dynamic, is always being created and collected. Typically only a fraction of the knowledge developed by an entity is captured and reused. The use of the knowledge base itself can result in the creation of new knowledge and therefore new content for the knowledge base. Therefore, it is essential to keep them updated. However, since it is complicated and expensive to update knowledge bases system, knowledge bases often go outdated almost immediately. The company's challenge is to handle the increasing technical complexity of the knowledge it develops and collects, while keeping costs low.

Typically, also, even when the knowledge is captured in a knowledge base, it is not incorporated into the knowledge base at an appropriate level of abstraction. Often, specific instantiations of the knowledge are added, resulting in a knowledge base that is cumbersome to search and hard to maintain. If the information is generalized too much, appropriate resolutions will not be presented in response to queries.

It is therefore an object to treat knowledge as an asset that provides a substantial competitive advantage, and to leverage knowledge to improve customer satisfaction. It is an object of this invention to develop knowledge management systems that allow a company to manage the knowledge it collects and creates, make it available for use it in conjunction with the other systems and processes used by the company, and monitor its use. It is also an object to develop operational processes for keeping the knowledge base updated. Finally, it is an object of this invention to provide systems for generalizing knowledge as much as possible and for modifying a knowledge base only as much as is needed to add new knowledge and ease technology reuse.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In accordance with the present invention, there is described a method of managing a knowledge base in which knowledge is stored in a plurality of knowledge objects. Knowledge authors incorporate new knowledge into the knowledge base by creating authoring output, and knowledge analysts manage content in the knowledge base. The authors use authoring conventions and guides to add uniformity to the knowledge objects, the authoring conventions and guides having definitions of the knowledge objects, guidelines for format and development of the knowledge objects, and guidelines for use of synonyms to capture alternative statements of the knowledge objects. The knowledge analysts manage content by managing backlog of the new knowledge awaiting entry into the knowledge base, by providing to the authors feedback concerning the knowledge base from users of the knowledge base and from beneficiaries of the knowledge base, and by reviewing the authoring output for technical accuracy, for adherence with the definitions and guidelines articulated in the authoring conventions and guides, for usability in the knowledge base, and for responsiveness by the author to the feedback.

In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there is described a method of managing a knowledge base in which knowledge is stored in a plurality of knowledge objects, involving the following steps: developing authoring conventions and guides to add uniformity to the knowledge objects, providing a reporting system for creating reports of need for new content in the knowledge base; reviewing the reports and, if incorporation of the new content into the knowledge base is indicated, incorporating the new content into the knowledge objects of the knowledge base. The method also involves managing the backlog of new knowledge awaiting entry into the knowledge base and providing a feedback system for feedback concerning the knowledge base from beneficiaries of the knowledge base.

In accordance with a further aspect of the present invention, there s described a knowledge maintenance system for a knowledge base in which knowledge is stored in knowledge objects, having a user reporting system for users to report instances of potential need for new content in the knowledge base, and a new content management system to review any the reports of the potential need and, if incorporation of the new content into the knowledge base is indicated, to incorporate the new content into new knowledge in the knowledge base.

The new content management system involves a first pass review having a subject matter review of the report to select the instances that are appropriate candidates for the new content with a comparison of the new content against existing content in the knowledge base.

The new content management system also has a backlog management system to manage a backlog of the new content awaiting entry into the knowledge base, an authoring system for authoring the new content into the new knowledge, and a new knowledge entry review system for reviewing the new knowledge.

In one embodiment, the user reporting system has a knowledge notes memo capability in the knowledge base for sending a memo reporting a knowledge base use experience and a draft memo capability for saving an incomplete experience report memo for later completion.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The above-mentioned and other features of the invention will become more apparent by reference to the following description taken in connection with the accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1a is a block diagram view of a knowledge base system of the preferred embodiment;

FIG. 1b is a block diagram of the knowledge base memory 35 show in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 2 is block diagram view of a knowledge management system 50 for developing and maintaining the knowledge base system 10 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the in-depth analysis 302 shown in FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is a diagrammatic representation of a knowledge object 360 having a knowledge object type 363a;

FIG. 5 is a diagrammatic representation of a knowledge object 360 having a knowledge object type 363b;

FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the query user screen 510 for the query system 22 when a Product tab and a User Data tab are selected;

FIG. 7 is a block diagram of query user screen 510 when a Problem tab and a Transcript tab are selected;

FIG. 8 is a block diagram of the record editor search screen 520 for the record editor user interface 24 for the record editor 23 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 9 is a block diagram of the record editor edit screen 530 for the record editor user interface 24 for the record editor 23 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 10 is a block diagram of the knowledge object editor record search screen 540 for the knowledge object editor 25 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 11 is a block diagram of the knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 of the knowledge object editor 25 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 12 is a block diagram of the knowledge object editor edit screen 550 for the knowledge object editor 25 shown in FIG. 1a, when the Records tab is selected;

FIG. 13 is a block diagram of the knowledge object editor edit screen 550, when the Records tab is selected;

FIG. 14 is a block diagram view of the workflow system 470 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 15 is a block diagram of the development of the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435 and the Knowledge Growth Rate metric 436;

FIG. 16 is a block diagram of the development of the Average Turnaround Time metric 437';

FIG. 17 is a block diagram of tracking knowledge object use 403;

FIG. 18 is an example of the Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 shown in FIG. 20;

FIG. 19 is an example of the Knowledge Objects Created by Week report 491 shown in FIG. 20;

FIG. 20 is a block diagram of the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 shown in FIG. 1a;

FIG. 21 is a block diagram of the seed case development process 140;

FIG. 22 is a block diagram of the objectified knowledge review 160 shown in FIG. 21;

FIG. 23 is a diagrammatic example of link and record editing;

FIG. 24 is a diagrammatic example of synonymic redundancy in knowledge objects;

FIG. 25 is a diagrammatic example of subset/superset redundancy in knowledge objects;

FIG. 26 is a diagrammatic example of dual subset redundancy in knowledge objects;

FIG. 27 is a diagrammatic example of synonymic redundancy in records;

FIG. 28 is a diagrammatic example of subset/superset redundancy in records;

FIG. 29 is a diagrammatic example of dual subset redundancy in records;

FIG. 30 is a block diagram of the granularity review 170 shown in FIG. 22;

FIG. 31 is a block diagram of the dual subset redundancy review 73 shown in FIG. 30;

FIG. 32 is a block diagram of the subset/superset redundancy review 7 shown in FIG. 30;

FIG. 33 is a block diagram of the synonymic redundancy review 73 shown in FIG. 30;

FIG. 34 is a block diagram of the knowledge base populating process;

FIG. 35 is a block diagram of the amending knowledge base processes 28 of the knowledge maintenance system 450 shown in FIGS. 1a and 14;

FIG. 36 is a block diagram of the knowledge base use process 410 shown in FIGS. 14 and 37;

FIG. 37 is a block diagram of the knowledge maintenance system 450 shown in FIGS. 1a and 14;

FIG. 38 is a block diagram of the first pass review 180 shown in FIG. 37;

FIG. 39 is a block diagram of the maintenance authoring process 125 shown in FIG. 37;

FIG. 40 is a block diagram of the technical accuracy review 121 for the maintenance authoring process 125 shown in FIG. 39;

FIG. 41 is a block diagram of the new knowledge entry review process 580 and the activating knowledge objects process 590 shown in FIG. 46; and

FIG. 42 is a block diagram of the quality review 113 of the new knowledge entry review process 580 shown in FIG. 41

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

GENERAL

The preferred embodiment for this invention is a knowledge base that has been developed for use in the technical support environment. Such systems provide knowledge about hardware, software, the environments in which they are used, arid any customer-specific support requirements, such as specific workflow or scripts to follow. A knowledge management system can be used to collect and process that data, and present it in a consistent fashion in a knowledge base, which can assist the agent in identifying a likely cause of the problem and resolution.

FIG. 1a shows a knowledge base system 10 having a knowledge engine 30, a knowledge base memory 35 (also known as memory 35), a front end 20 for accessing the engine 30 and memory 35, and a back end 40 consisting of metrics and reporting for testing and modifying the knowledge base system 10 and for providing customer feedback. Coupled to the knowledge engine 30 is a knowledge base memory 35. The front end 20 has a query system 22 for submitting queries to the knowledge engine 30, a record editor 23 for entering and editing records in the knowledge base memory 35, a knowledge object editor 25 for entering and editing records in the knowledge base memory 35 and a graphics users interface 480 (also known as GUI 480) to allow access to the query system 22 and the editors 23, 25. The back end 40 has a knowledge monitoring reporting subsystem 42 and a knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 to provide reports of knowledge base use activity.

In the preferred embodiment, the knowledge engine 30 is a cognitive processor such as the KnowledgeBridge.TM. processor available from ServiceWare, Inc. of Oakmont, PA. The knowledge base system 10 is optimized for the KnowledgeBridge.TM. architecture, which implements a concept-association model of knowledge storage and retrieval using neural net fuzzy logic, and advanced natural language technology. However, front and back ends 20, 40 are relatively independent of the knowledge engine 30, so that they could be used with virtually any knowledge providing system, such as, for example, a case-based reasoning system.

In the preferred embodiment, the knowledge base system 10 is developed and maintained through a knowledge management system 30 shown in FIG. 2. The knowledge management system 50 comprises a methodology to define and develop the knowledge base system 10 and to collect, organize, refine, publish and reuse information in the knowledge base system 10. The knowledge management system 50 also comprises supporting business processes and methodologies to keep the knowledge base updated, to integrate the knowledge base with the other systems and processes used by a user of the knowledge base, and to monitor use of the knowledge. A knowledge analyst 15, also known as an analyst 15, has overall responsibility for the knowledge base and knowledge authors 14, also known as an author 14, populate the knowledge base and then keep it updated using an innovative authoring methodology involving objectifying the knowledge.

MULTI-PHASE PROCESS 60

The knowledge management system 50 of the preferred embodiment provides for a targeted, easily used, monitorable, easily maintained knowledge base system 10. As shown in FIG. 2, its methodology to define and develop the knowledge base system 10 and to collect, organize, refine, publish and reuse information in the knowledge base system 10 involves a multi-phase process 60.

First, in a baseline analysis phase 200, a baseline analysis 202 is conducted to determine the scope of developing the knowledge base, define knowledge base development approach and plan, and define a knowledge engineering direction. Next, an in-depth analysis phase 300 involves conducting an in-depth analysis 302 with an input being the aspect results 204 from the surveying of aspects 204 of the development during the base-line analysis 202.

The in-depth analysis 302 involves conducting a domain analysis 310 to identify a desired domain for the knowledge base, a reservoir analysis 330 to identify and analyze the quality of the sources of knowledge for the domain, and a vector analysis 340 to define a structure for the knowledge base. The in-depth analysis 302 has as outputs a construction and seeding plan 350 for the knowledge base and specifications 370 for operational processes 400 for use of the knowledge base.

In the development phase 500, knowledge base development 502 involves constructing and seeding the knowledge base system 10 in accordance with the construction and seeding plan 350, preparing the knowledge base system 10 for deployment. The construction and seeding of the knowledge base system 10 involves adding content to the knowledge base memory 35. The operational processes 400 are developed in accordance with the specifications 370 drawn up in the in-depth analysis phase 300. Also developed s the deployment plan 520a for deployment of the knowledge base.

In the deployment phase 700, deployment 702 of the knowledge base system 10 occurs In accordance with the deployment plan 520a. The knowledge base system 10 is used to answer end-user queries. The operational processes 400 that were developed during the development phase 500 are used to monitor operations and to provide for continuous improvement of the knowledge base system 10.

The multi-phase process 60 of the methodology to define and develop a targeted, easily used monitorable, easily maintained the knowledge base system 10 is described in detail in the co-pending related patent application, U.S.S.N. 09/382,057, entitled Method and System for Development of a Knowledge Base System, by Sharon Stier and Debra Ann Haughton (Applicant Reference No. S1/P01. The method of identifying a desired domain for the knowledge base and of formulating a seeding methodology for the knowledge base system 10 is described in detail in the co-pending related patent application, U.S.S.N. 09/379,822, entitled Method of Selecting Desired Domains and for Developing a Seeding Methodology for a Knowledge Base System, by Sharon Stier and Debra Ann Haughton (Applicant Reference No. S1/P02). Both were filed on the even date herewith and are herein incorporated by reference.

OBJECTIFYING KNOWLEDGE

General

Referring to FIG. 3, in the vector analysis 340, decisions are made about how to organize the information that is going to be stored in the knowledge base system 10. In so doing, the architecture 342 of the knowledge base is defined. During the architecture definition 341, authoring conventions and guides 341a containing the architectural definitions are developed to provide knowledge base uniformity during authoring of the knowledge base. Returning to FIG. 1a while referring to FIG. 1b, in the knowledge base system 10 of the present invention, the information in the knowledge base memory 35 is stored in knowledge objects 360 (also known as objects and KOs) having a plurality of elements of information consisting of records 361 having associations, also known as links 364, between them. FIG. 1b shows knowledge objects 360a, 360b stored in the knowledge base memory 35. Knowledge object 360, has records R4, R5, and R3. Records R4 and R5 are linked by link L5, records R4 and R3 are linked by link L4, and records R5 and R3 are linked by link L6. Knowledge object 360b has records R1, R2, and R3. Records R1 and R2 are linked by link L1, records R1 and R3 are linked by link L3, and records R2 and R3 are linked by link L2.

The definitions of knowledge object types 363 and record types 362 depend on the domain of the particular knowledge base. Inputs into record type 362 definition include requirements of the intended beneficiaries of the knowledge base, particularly any customers sponsoring the development of the knowledge base. In the preferred embodiment, the knowledge object and record types 363, 362 and definitions also depend on the multi-customer goals and strategy of the developer of the knowledge base.

In the technical support environment of the preferred embodiment, knowledge objects 360 represent a full support interaction, and records 361 represent the factual elements of the interaction. Previous technical support systems modeled the support interaction as "Issue.fwdarw.Resolution." The architecture of the present invention models the interaction differently: "Issue/Symptom.fwdarw.Technical Reason for Problem.fwdarw.Resolution."

This model, which treats the knowledge embodied in the support interaction as an object, is based on an understanding that each call involves two kinds of problem: the problem as stated by the customer (which is the Issue/Symptom) and the other being the actual technical reason for the problem (the Cause). The model shift allows problems to be understood at a more abstract level. Records 361 can be developed that can be used in multiple knowledge objects 360, therefore providing for wider ranges of description of problems but fewer causes and resolutions. For example, referring to FIG. 1b, knowledge objects 360a, 360b share Record R3. Using records 361 in multiple knowledge objects 360 provides for a simpler knowledge base structure and improved technology reuse.

Referring to FIGS. 4 and 5, the architecture of the preferred embodiment supports resolution knowledge object type 363a and "How do I" knowledge object type 363b. The resolution knowledge object type 363a of the preferred embodiment identifies the factual circumstances of a support interaction arid presents a resolution for the identified support interaction. It requires several record types 362 to define the support interaction. Resolution knowledge object type 363a has three support record types (Issue/Symptom record type 362a, Cause record type 362b, Resolution record type 362c), and three product-specific record types (Hardware record type 362e, Software record type 362f, Environment record type 362g). The "How do I" knowledge object type 363b provides step by step instructions for installing, operating, or maintaining products. It has the three product-specific record types (Hardware record type 362e, Software record type 362f, Environment record type 362g) and a "How do I . . . ?" record type 362d.

Each record type 362 in the knowledge object types 363 except the "How do I . . . ?" record type 362d is defined to include synonyms to capture alternative statements of the knowledge. Synonyms are used by the knowledge engine in finding matches during searches. Numerous synonyms can strengthen the activation on a record. The knowledge base architecture 342 could be defined to store the most recognized synonym among the set of synonyms in the record 361 as the main description of the knowledge, in other words as the record name. The other synonyms in the set could be stored as synonym descriptions of the knowledge.

Also included in the definition of records 361, and therefore in each record type 362 are elements known as concepts, hypertext and facets, all not shown, which are components of the KnowledgeBridge.TM. product developed by ServiceWare, Inc. of Oakmont, PA, with which the architecture 342 is implemented. Concepts are the phrases or short sentences that the knowledge engine 30 for a knowledge based system 10 based on object-oriented programming uses to make links and associations. Hypertext is documentation contained in the knowledge base, linked to and reachable from one or more concepts in the knowledge base. It is used to attach additional information to a concept. For, Issue/Symptom record types 362a Cause record types 362b Hardware record types 362e, and Software record types 362f, the information in hypertext is questions or tests to acceptor negate the record. For Resolution record types 362c, it provides advice and instructions to the knowledge base end users. Hypertext has only a single font and can not contain graphics or special formatting. Hypertext may be implemented with multiple levels, with other hypertext levels, for example more detailed sets of instructions, accessible through hyperlinks.

Facets are documents that are used with multiple concepts, for information that is often procedural or definitional. Unlike hypertext, document facets are located external to the knowledge base and can contain different formats with graphics. In the preferred embodiment, facets are HTML documents to allow for more flexibility in formatting and graphics than the Hypertext within the knowledge base. In the preferred embodiment, facets contain the private information about the subject matter of the record. Such private information could be confidential information of the developer of the product being supported. It could be used to solve an end-user's problem, but not disclosed to the end user.

Authoring Conventions and Guides 341a

While developing the architecture of the knowledge base, authoring conventions and guides 341a are developed to add uniformity to authoring output. The authoring conventions and guides 341a have definitions and further have guidelines for format and development of the records. They detail the structure of the records and provide a standard format for all the different kinds of records supported by the architecture. The standard format will guarantee consistency when seeding and later maintaining the knowledge base. The standard format may include guidelines for capitaliation, punctuation, abbreviation, and for phrasing (e.g. tense).

The authoring conventions and guides 341a also contain guidelines for use of synonyms. In the preferred embodiment, synonyms could be alternate words (different words with essentially the same meaning), or they could be different grammatical form of a synonym (nouns, verbs, tenses, spellings), as well as alternate application categories If different versions of a word are included in a record, the probability increases of the record being retrieved in a search of the knowledge base. In addition, a record could have a knowledge object name that could be used as a synonym so that the name is repeated in the record, the repetition thus increasing the probability of the record being retrieved in a search of the knowledge base.

Finally, the authoring conventions and guides 341a provide guidelines for selecting the appropriate level of granularity of a record. The granularity selected for a record is very important. If chosen too high, the knowledge base operates more as a general reference than as a true knowledge delivery system. If selected too high, it operates more as a decision tree, which requires frequent, extensive maintenance of the knowledge base. Each record's level of granularity may differ, so that product records may have high granularity (to cover the number of products in the domain) while Issue/Symptom granularity may be low (to match the usually general manner in which end users describe their problems. The authoring guidelines provide guidelines for selecting the appropriate granularity, or specificity, of each record type that makes up a knowledge object.

OPERATIONAL PROCESSES 400

General

During the in-depth analysis phase 300, as shown in FIG. 2, specifications for operational processes 400 for use of the knowledge base are developed. Returning to FIG. 1a, the operational processes 400 include front end processes 70a for the front end 20 and back end processes 10b for the back end 40.

The front end processes 70a include a knowledge base use process 410 for use of the knowledge base system 10 and a knowledge maintenance system 450 for maintaining and continuously improving the knowledge base system 10. The back end processes 70b include a knowledge monitoring system 430 for monitoring knowledge base operations.

The knowledge monitoring system 430 involves measuring knowledge base use, developing knowledge metrics 431 from the measurements of knowledge use, and providing knowledge monitoring reports, not shown, of the metrics 431. The uses to which the knowledge base is put are stored in the knowledge, base memory 35, and a knowledge monitoring reporting subsystem 42 collects and counts the uses, uses the capabilities described below to compile knowledge metrics from counts of the uses, and generates reports. The knowledge monitoring system 430 is described in detail in the co-pending related patent application, U.S.S.N. 09/379,687, entitled Method and System for Monitoring Knowledge Use, by Sharon Stier and Debra Ann Haughton (Applicant Reference No. S1/P03), which was filed on the even date herewith and is herein incorporated by reference.

The operational processes also include an integration system 770 for knowledge base integration with any systems or processes (both automated and manual) with which the front and back ends 20,40 will interact or co-exist, such as include call tracking and customer reporting systems.

The front end processes 70a include a workflow system 470 for agent users, knowledge authors 14 and knowledge analysts 15, shown in more detail in FIG. 14. Team resources are evaluated and workflow specifications 472 for user and knowledge administration work flow are developed. Workflow specifications 472 are contained in a work flow document, not shown, that describes users' expected interactions with the knowledge base, the call tracking and call routing systems once the knowledge base system 10 is operational. Production resources needed to support the ongoing knowledge base effort once deployed are detailed.

During the in-depth analysis phase 300, the knowledge base graphics user interface 480 of the front end 20 is defined to support the knowledge base use process 410 and maintenance system 450. Also, the knowledge monitoring reporting subsystem 42 and knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 of the back end 40 are developed to support, respectively, the knowledge monitoring system 430 and knowledge maintenance system 450.

Knowledge Base Use Process 410

After a desired domain 312 is selected and the knowledge base development and construction plan 350 is developed, the workflow system 470 for use of the planned knowledge base system 10 is developed. Decisions are made as to who will use the knowledge base and how they will use it. Decisions are also made as to who will maintain the knowledge base and how they will maintain it. In the preferred embodiment as shown in FIG. 14, the workflow system 470 involves the knowledge base use process 410 for agent use of the knowledge base system 10 and the knowledge maintenance system 450 for maintenance for the system 10. Agents 13, who may be support engineers 13' or support mentors 13", follow the knowledge base use process 410 to use the knowledge base system 10 to answer support queries. They search the knowledge base memory 35 for active knowledge objects that represent solutions to the problems presented to the agents.

As the agents 13 use the knowledge base system 10, their description of the problem and the knowledge base's response will be saved. If the combined query and response is not unique, the agents 13 will have accessed an existing knowledge object, which is in the active state. The knowledge engine 30 will note the accessing of an active knowledge object and then use the interaction to strengthen the knowledge base. If the combined query and response is unique, not yet present in the knowledge base or if the agent provides additional input documenting a problem with the knowledge base, the knowledge engine 30 will treat the interaction as a new knowledge object, putting it into a pending state and making it available for review by knowledge authors 14, who populated the knowledge base and then keep it updated, and by knowledge analysts 15, who have overall responsibility for keeping the knowledge base system 10 current, accurate and structured so that it is easily searchable.

The knowledge base use process 410 for agent 13 use of the knowledge base system 10 is described in more detail below in connection with FIG. 36. It involves an agent 13 initiating a query by describing the symptoms of the problem as she knows them. She may narrow her search by entering additional facts about the problem such as product or environment type. She submits her query and receives a possible set of issues that could be the actual issue of the problem causing use the symptoms that she has described. The agent 13 selects the issue that she wants to test for its likelihood of being the actual issue, and performs any appropriate test to confirm or deny the issue. Once she has selected an issue, the agent 13 tests the returned causes, and selects one. She then tests the returned resolutions. When the agent selects a correct resolution, she may then guide the support requester through the indicated resolution steps. She may then save her query.

When the agent 13 recognizes that her query represents missing, incorrect, or incomplete knowledge in the knowledge base, before saving the interaction, she may create a memo outlining the problem with the knowledge base and suggesting the knowledge that should be added to the knowledge base. When she saves the query, the memo will be available for review by the authors 14 and analysts 15 responsible for maintaining the knowledge base system 10.

The Knowledge Maintenance System 450

The knowledge maintenance system 450, which is described in more detail below, provides for populating the knowledge base and for the review of agent queries and updating the knowledge base memory 35 if a need for new content is indicated by the query. It includes the amending knowledge base processes 28, which are the processes an author 14 or agent would use to add, modify, and delete the records and knowledge objects in the knowledge base memory 35. The Amending Knowledge Base processes 28 are shown in FIG. 35 and described in more detail below.

Agent input into the knowledge base is always in the pending state. The knowledge maintenance system 450 provides that only knowledge authors 14 and knowledge agents are able to activate knowledge objects by adding new knowledge objects to the knowledge base memory 35, or by removing the pending status of agent queries which are stored in the memory 35 as pending knowledge objects 360. If the query knowledge engine 30 recognizes that the combination of records arid links constitutes a knowledge object 360 that has already been entered into the knowledge base, the query is used to strengthen the knowledge base system 10. If the query represented a new knowledge object 360 or if new content is indicated the query summary, an author 14 will review the query and, if new content is indicated, incorporate the new content into new knowledge in the knowledge base.

The knowledge analyst 15 monitors the author's backlog and provides quality review of the authoring output. If the new knowledge requires additional input before it can be incorporated into the knowledge base, the knowledge analyst 15 arranges to obtain the additional input (from, for example, the customer whose product is the subject matter of the new knowledge). Once the additional input is obtained, the knowledge analyst 15 feeds it back to the author 14, who updates the new knowledge, and passes it back 10 the analyst 15 for another quality review.

Specifications are developed for reports, described below, to inform authors 14 of the need to maintain the knowledge base and to assist the knowledge analysts 15 in managing authoring output backlog.

Graphics User Interface 480

General

Specifications 482, also known as GUI specs 482 in FIG. 2, for the knowledge base's graphics user interface 480 are developed to accommodate the knowledge base architecture 342 and all of the specifications 412 for the knowledge base use process 410. A GUI document, not shown, is developed to detail screen flow and layout for a graphics user interface 480 designed to make agent querying and interaction reporting and administrative maintenance and monitoring as painless as possible.

Returning to FIG. 1a, for the knowledge base of the preferred embodiment, the graphics user interface 480 has the necessary elements to provide access to all of the back end tools such as the knowledge monitoring reporting sub-system 42 and knowledge maintenance reporting sub-system 46. The user interface for the reporting subsystems 42, 46 are not described in detail here because any conventional report generating user interface may be used to implement the reporting subsystems described below. The graphics user interface 480 also has the necessary elements to provide access to all of the front end tools that are used to support the knowledge base, for example, the query system 22, the record editor 23, and the knowledge object editor 25.

The graphics user interface 480 of the preferred embodiment was adapted from the user interface available with the KnowledgeBridge.TM. processor from ServiceWare, Inc. of Oakmont, PA. It has a knowledge base main screen, not shown, a query user screen 510 for the query system 22, a record editor user interface 24 for the record editor 23, and a knowledge object editor user interface 26 for the knowledge object editor 25.

Knowledge Base Main Screen

The knowledge base main screen has a user ID field, a password field, and a tool selection tab. The user ID field is a free text field for a knowledge base user to enter her knowledge base user identification. The password field is a free text field for the users security password. When the identification number and password are entered, the tools selection tab is a pull down tab from which the user may select the query system 22, the record editor 23 or the knowledge object editor 25.

Query User Screen 510

The query user screen 510, shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, has fields for the architecturally defined record types 362, consisting of a Hardware field 511 for record type 362e, a Software field 512 for record type 362f, an Environment field 513 for record type 362g, and for the general record types, an Issue/Symptom field 514 for record type 362a, a Cause field 515 for record type 362b, a Resolution field 516 for record type 362c, and a "How do I . . . ?" field, not shown, for record type 362d. The record fields all contain picklists from which selections maybe made. Each line of the record's picklist has a picklist checkbox 711 with which the displayed record can be selected. The fields are listed categorically under three descriptive tabs, a Product tab 1 for accessing the Hardware field 511, Software field 512, and Environment field 513; a Problem tab 2 for accessing the Issue/Symptom field 514, Cause field 515, and Resolution field 516; and a "How do I . . . ?" tab 3 for accessing the "How do I . . . ?" field, not shown. The query user screen 510 when the Product tab 1 is selected is shown in FIG. 6. The query user screen 510 when the Problem tab 2 is selected is shown in FIG. 7.

In addition, the query user screen 510 has a Description field 517, which is a free unlabeled text field used For entering a description of the problem the caller is experiencing. It can contain the symptoms that callers are seeing, the product they are using, the function they are trying to perform, or any related environmental considerations (networks, operating systems, etc.) The query user screen 510 also a read-only Hypertext field, not shown, and Facet field, not shown, to accommodate the Hypertext and Facet features described above.

The query user screen 510 also has a Transcript tab 37 for accessing a transcript section 39 that displays a summary description of the use interaction, and a User Data tab 38 for accessing a contents notes section 41. The transcript section 39 has a Transcript field 43 that displays all of the record types 362 that make up the use interaction, with the records 361 selected with the picklist checkboxes 711 of the fields under the tabs 1, 2 displayed appended to and under the record type 362.

The user interface available with the KnowledgeBridge.TM. processor from ServiceWare, Inc. of Oakmont, PA was modified to contain a content notes section 41 with a "Content Needed?" check box 4, a "Draft" check box 5, and a Content Notes field 518. The "Content Needed?" check box 4 is checked when the agent discovers an ambiguity or when she develops or improves a resolution. She may capture the new information/knowledge by filling out the Content Notes field 518, which is a text field for entering notes about missing, incomplete, or inaccurate knowledge in the knowledge base. The field 518 is not visible on the query user screen 510 until the "Content Needed?" check box 4 is clicked. When it is checked, the Content Notes field 518 contains an Issue section 518a, a Cause section 518b, and a Resolution section 559c appear in the Contents Notes field 518 so that the user may fill in the sections 518a, 518b, 518c to report a problem concerning the knowledge base In a Content Notes memo 518'.

The "Draft" check box 5 of the content notes section 41 allows the agent to save an incomplete interaction report memo. She may start drafting a use interaction memo, but delay its completion until a more convenient time, until more facts are obtained, or until a caller reports back on the success of the resolution.

The query user screen 510 has a Save button 6 and a Clear button 7. The Save button 6 will save an agent resolution for later review. The interaction will either be amended, activated as is to update the knowledge base, or deleted. The Clear button 7 will erase all previously inputted information on the screen. The screen also has a bar, not shown, across the top of the query user screen 510. The bar has a has a tool selection tab, which is a pull down tab from which the user may select "New Query" or "Open Draft Query".

Record Editor User Interface 24

The record editor user interface 24 for the record editor 23 has a record editor search screen 520, shown in FIG. 8, and a record editor edit screen 530, shown in FIG. 9. It also has a record editor bar, which is displayed above each of the screens 520, 530. The bar, not shown, has a tool selection tab, which is a pull down tab from which the user may select "Add New Record" or "Search Records." Selecting "Search Records" on the tool selection tab brings up the record editor search screen 520. Selecting "Add New Record" on the tool selection tab brings up a blank record editor edit screen 530.

The record editor search screen 520, shown in FIG. 8, has a Record ID field 521, Creator field 522, Creation Date field 523, "Last Modified by" field 524, Last Modified Date field 525, Record Type field 526, and Knowledge State field 527. It also has a Records section 8 having a Records field 528 and a Record Name field 529. The record ID field 521 is a free unlabeled text field for entering a record ID. The Creator field 522 and "Last Modified by" field 524 are free text fields that also contain a picklist of the persons authorized to add and modify records to the knowledge base memory 35. The Creation Date field 523 and Last Modified Date field 525 are date fields into which the dates of creation and last modification of the record can be entered or displayed.

The Record Type field 526 contains a picklist of the knowledge base record types 362, from which selections may be made. The Knowledge State field 527 contains a picklist of the knowledge state possible for the record 361, which in the preferred embodiment are "Active" and "Obsolete." The Records field 528 is a free tin labeled text field for entering a description of the target record. The Record Name field 529 contains a picklist, in which returned records are displayed and from which selections may be made when the knowledge engine 30 is searched for the contents of the Records field 528.

The record editor search screen 320 also has a Search button 9, a Reset button 11, and a Cancel button 12. The Search button 9 will submit the contents of the Records field 528 to the knowledge engine 30. The Reset button 11 will erase all previously inputted information on the screen. The Cancel button 12 will end the search.

The record editor edit screen 530, shown in FIG. 9, has a Record Name field 531, a Record Type field 532, and a Knowledge State field 533. The Record name field 531 is a free text field. The Record Type field 532 contains a picklist of the knowledge base record types 362, from which selections may be made. The Knowledge State field 533 contains picklists of the types of knowledge state possible for the record, which in the preferred embodiment are "Active" and "Obsolete." The screen 530 also has a Close button 54 and a Save button 55. The Close button 54 will end the editing session. The Save button 55 will submit the edits to the knowledge engine for entry into the knowledge base memory 35.

The Record Editor Edit screen 530 has three descriptive tabs, a Synonyms tab 51 for entering or modifying a record's synonyms, a Hypertext tab 52 for accessing he record's Hypertext entries, and a Facet tab 53 for accessing the record's facet entries. When the Synonyms tab 51 is selected, the screen displays an Assigned Synonyms field 534, a New Synonym field 535, an Add Synonym button 536 a Remove button 537, a Make Suggestion button 538, and a Suggestions field 57. The Assigned Synonyms field 534 is a field that displays the synonyms currently assigned to the record. The New Synonym field 535 is a free text field for entering new synonyms to the Assigned Synonyms field 534. The Add Synonym button 536 will add the new synonym to the Assigned Synonyms field 534. The Remove button 537 will remove any highlighted synonym from the Assigned Synonyms field 534. The Make Suggestion button 538 will display suggested synonyms in the Suggestions field 57, which is a picklist Field with a picklist checkbox 56 with which the displayed record can be selected.

Knowledge Object Editor User Interface 26

The knowledge object editor user interface 26 for the knowledge object editor has a knowledge object editor record search screen 540, a knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 and a knowledge object editor edit screen 550. The user interface also has a knowledge object editor bar, not shown, which is displayed above each of the screens 540, 550, 560. The bar has a tool selection tab, which is a pull down tab from which the user may select "Add Knowledge Object", "List Knowledge Objects", or "Search Knowledge Objects." Selecting "Search Knowledge objects" on the tool selection tab brings up the knowledge object editor record search screen 540. Selecting "Add Knowledge Object" on the tool selection tab brings up a blank knowledge object editor edit screen 550. Selecting "List Knowledge Objects" on the tool selection tab brings up a knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560.

The knowledge object editor record search screen 540, shown in FIG. 10, has a Knowledge Object ID field 541, a Creator field 542, a Creation Date field 543, a "Last Modified by" field 544, a Last Modified Date field 545, a Record Type field 546, and Knowledge Object State field 547. The Knowledge Object State field 547 contains picklists of the types of knowledge object states, such as draft, pending, active or obsolete, from which selections may be made.

The knowledge object editor record search screen 540 also has a Records section 18 having a Record field 548, a Record Name field 549, and a Knowledge Object Contents field 507. The Record field 548 is a free unlabeled text field for entering a description of the target record. The Record Name field 549 contains a picklist, from which selections may be made when the knowledge base memory 35 is searched for the contents of the Record field 548. Each line of the picklist has a picklist checkbox 703 with which the displayed record can be selected. The Knowledge Object Contents field 507 displays all of the record types 362 that make up the knowledge object 360, any records 361 selected from the picklist of field 549 are displayed appended to and under the record type 362.

The knowledge object editor record search screen 540 also has an AND checkbox 701 an OR checkbox 702, a Search button 19, a Reset button 21, and a Cancel button 17. The AND checkbox 701 allows conjunctive searches to be conducted on the records displayed in the Knowledge Object Contents field 507. The OR checkbox 702 allows disjunctive searches to be conducted on the records displayed in the Knowledge Object Contents field 507. The Search button 19 will submit the contents of the Record field 548 to the knowledge engine 30. The Reset button 21 will erase all previously inputted information on the screen. The Cancel button 12 will end the search.

The knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 shown in FIG. 11 has a Knowledge Object List field 561 that contains picklist of knowledge objects returned through a search using the knowledge object editor record search screen 540. The Knowledge Object List field 561 is organized into columns to display particulars of the returned objects. The columns include the ID column 562 to display the ID number of the knowledge object, the Name column 563 to display the name of the agent 13 who first defined the support interaction embodied in knowledge object, the Creator column 564 to display the name of the author 14 or analyst 15 who activated the knowledge object, the creation date column 565, and the knowledge state column 566 to display the knowledge state of the knowledge object.

The knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 also has an Open button 567, a Close button 568, a New Search button 569, and a Clear button 27. The Open button 567 opens a knowledge object that is highlighted in the Knowledge Object list field 561. The Close button 568 closes the knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 and returns the display to the knowledge base main screen. The New Search button 569 clears the data displayed on the knowledge object editor open knowledge object screen 560 and returns to the knowledge object editor record search screen 540.

The knowledge object editor edit screen 550, shown in FIGS. 12 and 13, has a read only Knowledge Object ID field 551 that displays the identification of the knowledge object 360. It also has a Knowledge State field 553 that contains a picklist for selecting the state (either draft, pending, active, or obsolete) of the knowledge object 360.

The knowledge object editor edit screen 550 has two descriptive tabs, a Records tab 554 for displaying and entering records for each of the knowledge objects record types into the knowledge object 360, and a Custom Data tab 558 for displaying the Content Notes memo created in the Content Notes field 518 of the query user screen 510 shown in FIG. 6. The knowledge object editor edit screen 550 when the Records tab 554 is selected is shown in FIG. 12. The knowledge object editor edit screen 550 when the Custom Data tab 558 is selected s shown in FIG. 13.

When the Records tab 554 is selected, the screen 550 shows a Record Name Field 555 and a Records picklist field 556, a Knowledge Object Contents field 557, and an "Edit All Records" button 63. Each line of the Records picklist field 556 has a picklist checkbox 704 with which the displayed record can be selected. The Knowledge Object Contents field 557 displays all of the record types 362 that make up the knowledge object 360, and all of the associated records 361 that are assigned to the record type 362 for the knowledge object 360. The associated records 361 are displayed appended to and under the record type 362. The "Edit All Records" button 63 calls the record editor edit screen 530 so that records can be edited.

A record 361 is assigned to a record type 362 by entering its record name into the Record Name field 555. One or more records may be selected by checking its associated picklist checkbox 704. The record is automatically displayed under its associated record type 361 in the Knowledge Object Contents field 557.

When the Custom Data tab 558 is selected, the screen 550 shows a "Content Needed?" checkbox 64 and a Content Notes field 559. The Content Notes field 559 is a text field that displays and allows for editing of the Content Notes memo 518' created in the Content Notes field 518 of the query user screen 510. The Content Notes field 539 contains an Issue section 559a, a Cause section 559b, and a Resolution section 559c that together define the Content Notes memo 518'.

Knowledge Metrics 431

General

Certain of the knowledge metrics 431 developed by the knowledge monitoring system 430 are used by the knowledge maintenance system 450 to manage backlog. They include a Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435, a Knowledge Growth Rate metric 436, and a Knowledge Turnaround lime metric 437

The Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435 is the change in the count of the number of active knowledge during a selected period. The Knowledge Growth rate metric 436 is a percentage calculated from the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435, compared to a count of the number of active knowledge objects 360 in the knowledge base memory 35 at the beginning of the selected period of time. The Knowledge Turnaround Time metric 437 is the average time elapsed from the time that a suggestion is made for new knowledge to be incorporated into the knowledge base until the time of availability of the new knowledge in the knowledge base

Absolute Knowledge Growth Metric 435 and Knowledge Growth Rate Metric 436

The Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435 which is the size that the knowledge base grew during a selected period, is developed as shown in FIG. 15. When any changes are made to a knowledge object 360, such as when it was created, made pending, activated, returned to pending, obsolete, the particulars of the change are recorded and stored with the knowledge object in the memory 35. The particulars include the change, the date of the change and the person effecting the change.

The knowledge monitoring system 430 has a knowledge growth capability 414 with a start active counter 477 and an ending active counter 477'. When the knowledge monitoring system 430 develops the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435, it identifies he selected period of time and the beginning and end dates for the selected period of time, and retrieves all knowledge objects that were active on the start date of the selected period of time. It increments the start active counter 477 for every active knowledge object that it retrieves. It then retrieves all knowledge objects that were active on the end date of the selected period of time, incrementing the ending active counter 477' for every active knowledge object that it retrieves.

The knowledge growth capability 414 develops the active difference value 477* by subtracting the value of the start active counter 477 from the ending active counter 477'. The active difference value 477.sup.* is the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435. It then develops the Knowledge Growth Rate metric 436 by dividing the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435 by the value of the start active counter 477.

The knowledge growth capability 414 also stores other values and develops other metrics concerning knowledge object count in the memory 35, to be used in reports for the reporting systems 42, 46. For example, for the Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet Report 461 shown in FIG. 18, it stores the number of pending knowledge objects at the start and end of the selected time period and the number of knowledge objects obsolete during the selected time period to be used in.

The knowledge growth capability 414 develops the pending and obsolete knowledge object counts with a start pending counter 478, an ending pending counter 478', a start obsolete content counter 479 and an ending obsolete content counter 479'. When the knowledge monitoring system 430 develops the Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet Report 461, it identifies the selected period of time and the beginning and end dates for the selected period of time, and retrieves all knowledge objects that were pending or obsolete on the start date of the selected period of time. It increments the start pending counter 478 for every pending knowledge object that it retrieves, and the start obsolete content counter 479 for every obsolete knowledge object that it retrieves. It then retrieves all knowledge objects that were pending or obsolete on the end date of the selected period of time, incrementing the ending pending counter 478' for every pending knowledge object that it retrieves and the ending obsolete content counter 479' for every obsolete knowledge object that it retrieves.

The knowledge growth capability 414 develops the pending difference value 478.sup.* by subtracting the value of the start pending counter 478 from the ending pending counter 478'. It develops the obsolete difference 479.sup.* by subtracting the value of the start obsolete counter 479 from the ending obsolete counter 479'.

Knowledge Turnaround Time Metric 437

The Knowledge Turnaround Time metric 437 may be developed manually, with authors 14 keeping track of when they receive a report of need for knowledge base content and when they activate the new knowledge developed therefrom in the knowledge base. The authors records could be used to develop average turnaround times for each author 14, which could be averaged to (level op a team turnaround time.

Alternatively, the knowledge turnaround time could be developed as shown in FIG. 16, When a knowledge object is saved, the engine stores the contents displayed in the Creation date field 543 and the Date Activated field 509 in the knowledge object editor record search screen 540 (shown in FIG. 10). The knowledge monitoring system 430 has a turnaround capability 416 having turnaround counters 415a, 415b, 415c, through 415z for each knowledge object 360a through 360z in a set.

When the knowledge monitoring system 430 develops the Knowledge Turnaround time metric 437, it identifies the selected period of time and the beginning and end dates for the selected period of time, and retrieves all of the knowledge objects that were activated during the selected period of time. The capability 416 then counts for each knowledge object in the returned set the number of days between the dates of the creation and activation, stores the count in the turnaround counters 415a, 415b, 415c, through 415z, and provides the associated turnaround time in instantiation reports of the knowledge objects 360a through 360z. The turnaround capability 416 could also average the values of the turnaround counters 415a, 415b, 415c through 415z for defined sets of knowledge objects to develop an Average Turnaround Time 437', and provide aggregation reports of the averages.

Knowledge Object Use 403

In addition to developing the above metrics, the knowledge monitoring system 430 can track the number of times a selected knowledge object 360 is recorded in total and for a selected period of time. Knowledge object use 403 tracking is also used in reports developed for the knowledge maintenance system 450, described below.

FIG. 17 is a block diagram of tracking knowledge object use 403. Referring to FIG. 17, the knowledge engine 30 has reuse counters 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z, one for each knowledge object 360a through 360z. The reuse counter 365a keeps track of the number of times the knowledge object 360a is recorded, which occurs every time that the Save button on the query user screen 510 is selected to save a query that matches the knowledge object 360a. The knowledge monitoring system 430 has a reuse counter capability 151 having monitoring reuse counters 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z to store the current value of each reuse counter 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z. It also has reuse difference counters 365*a, 365*b, 365*c, through 365*z to generate the number of times that the reuse counters 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z, were incremented during a selected period.

When the knowledge monitoring system 430 develops the number of times a selected knowledge object 360 is recorded, the reuse counter capability 151 identifies the selected period of time and the beginning and end dates for the selected period of time, and retrieves the values of the reuse counters 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z, and retrieves all of the knowledge objects the use of which were recorded during the selected period of time. The reuse counter capability 151 stores the value of each reuse counter 365a, 365b, 365c, through 365z in monitoring reuse counters 365'a, 365'b, 365'c, through 365'z and increments the reuse difference counters 365*a, 365*b, 365*c, through 365*z for each time that its associated knowledge object 360a through 360z was recorded during the selected period of time.

Knowledge Maintenance Reporting subsystems 46

Specifications are also developed for the reporting subsystems of the back end 40. Reporting specifications are developed detailing a standard set of internal and external reports. The reporting system of the preferred embodiment has a knowledge monitoring reporting subsystem 42 that supports the knowledge monitoring process 430 and a knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 that supports the knowledge maintenance process 450.

Any conventional report generating user interface may be used to implement the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 described below. The knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 is developed to support the knowledge maintenance system 450 in evaluating potential need for new content in the knowledge base. The knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 is coupled with the knowledge base maintenance system 450. As shown in FIG. 20, the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 provides reports of need for new content for the knowledge base system 10 and reports of authoring output to the knowledge analyst 15 to assist in backlog management.

The specifications for the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem further require the knowledge base architecture 342 to support periodic collection and reporting of memos documenting knowledge base use and need for new content and of data about knowledge authoring.

The knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 provides two instantiation reports for documenting need for new content, to cover the two channels described in the knowledge base use process 410, described below in connection with FIG. 36, by which agents may report need for new content. First, the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 compiles and produces a Pending Knowledge Objects report 101 that lists the particulars of all of the knowledge objects 360 in a pending state. Second, the knowledge maintenance reporting subsystem 46 provides a Content Needed report 102 that lists the particulars of al of the knowledge objects 360 that have the "Content Needed" checkbox 64 activated. The particulars for both reports include the knowledge object ID number, date of creation, the agent creator, the knowledge object' s record types and their associated record names, and content notes, if any.

For backlog management, the instantiation reports 404, Content Needed report 102 and the Knowledge Objects Created by Week report 491, document authoring output to assist the knowledge analyst 15 in backlog management. The Knowledge Objects Created by Week report 491, shown in FIG. 19, identifies the particulars for all the knowledge objects created in the selected week. The report 491 is both an instantiation report 404 and an aggregation report 405. The report 491 is an instantiation report that identifies the particulars for all the knowledge objects 360r created in the selected week and the value of their associated reuse difference counters 365*r and reuse counters 365'r. However, for purposes of the knowledge monitoring reporting subsystem 42, it is also an aggregation report because the knowledge objects in the report are totaled to provide the weekly Overall Knowledge Delivery Volume metric 438", which is developed by the knowledge monitoring system 430.

For each knowledge object 360a through 360z, the report 491 identifies the knowledge object ID number, author 14, and creation date. For each knowledge object 360r, the report 491 also identifies for all of the records, such as the record name 361r, the Hardware record 361e-r, Software record 361f-r, Environment record 361g-r, Issue record 361a-r, Cause record 361b-r, and Resolution record 361c-r. The report 491 may be printed for each author 14 to identify how many knowledge objects an author 14 created in a week.

The maintenance system 450 also provides aggregation reports for documenting authoring output assist the knowledge analyst 15 in backlog management. For example, the Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 is used to show the extent of progress in a selected week toward eliminating authoring backlog.

The Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461, shown in FIG. 18, is developed by the knowledge monitoring system 430 to present the Absolute Knowledge Growth metric 435, Knowledge Growth Rate metric 436, and Average Knowledge Turnaround Time metric 437'. The Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 contains a Pending Start column 462 to display the value of the start pending counter 478, which is the number of pending knowledge objects in the knowledge base memory 35 at the start of the week. The Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 also has a Pending Added column 463 to display the value of the total agent pending query value 408' developed by the knowledge object state counter capability 409. The total agent pending query value 408' is the number of pending knowledge objects added during the week.

The Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 also has a Pending Left column 464 to display the value of the ending pending counter 478', which is the number of pending knowledge objects left at the end of the week. The Balance Sheet report 461 also contains a Promoted to Active column 465 to display the Absolute Knowledge Growth 435, which is the number of pending knowledge objects that were promoted to active state during the week. The report 461 has a Discarded to Obsolete column 466 to display the obsolete content counter value 479*, which is the number of knowledge objects that have been discarded to the obsolete state in the week.

The Balance Sheet report 461 contains an Average Days to Active column 467 to display the Average Knowledge Turnaround Time metric 437', which is the average number of days that a knowledge object remained in the pending state before it was activated. The Balance Sheet report contains a % Activated column 456 that displays the Knowledge Growth rate metric 436.

In particular, the Pending Start column 462, the Pending Added column 463, and the Pending Left column 464 could provide an agent with the size of the backlog. The Promoted to Active column 465 and Discarded to Obsolete column 466 could show an agent how many objects an author 14 can address in a week. In addition, the Average Days to Active column 467 could indicate a problem with knowledge turnaround. The Pending Knowledge Objects Balance Sheet by Week report 461 could be organized by author 14 so that the analyst 15 could review authoring progress by author 14. The columns could then be totaled so that the analyst 15 could review progress for the entire knowledge base.

KNOWLEDGE BASE CONSTRUCTION AND SEEDING

General

The seed case development process 140 is used to develop seed case knowledge objects for the domain selected in the domain analysis using the reservoirs identified in the reservoir mapping and the architecture defined in the vector analysis. They follow the authoring conventions and guides 341a and templates developed in the vector analysis 340, and seed in the order and numbers developed with the assistance of the seeding methodology indicator.

Domain and reservoir selection and seeding methodology are described in detail in the co-pending related patent applications, U.S.S.N. 09/382,057, entitled Method and System for Development of a Knowledge Base System, by Sharon Stier and Debra Ann Haughton (Applicant Reference No. S1/P01) and U.S.S.N. 09/379,822, entitled Method of Selecting Desired Domains and for Developing a Seeding Methodology for a Knowledge Base System by Sharon Stier and Debra Ann Haughton (Applicant Reference No. S1/P02). Both were filed on the even date herewith and are herein incorporated by reference.

Once the seed cases are developed, the knowledge base populating process 80 is used to enter the seed knowledge objects into the knowledge base memory 35.

Seed Case Development process 140

General

Knowledge authors 14, with the assistance of a knowledge engineer (not shown), populate the knowledge base using an innovative authoring methodology involving objectifying the knowledge. The authors 14 are led by the knowledge engineer to build the knowledge through a white board methodology of reviewing current knowledge and past support, "How do I." It is also preferred to have a synonym records type to store at least one synonym with the knowledge object to facilitate retrieval of the record by searching the knowledge base.

The seed case development process 140 by which authors 14 and knowledge engineer develop each potential new knowledge object from information in the knowledge reservoirs is described with reference to FIG. 21.

The seed case development process 140 starts with step 141, in which the authors 14 and knowledge engineer develop a set of unique likely support interaction instantiations. Starting in step 142 they proceed through the set of interaction instantiations, one instantiation at a time, following the knowledge objectification process 150 for each instantiation to develop for each instantiation a knowledge object 360 of the knowledge object type 363 that is appropriate for the instantiation. The knowledge object types 363 are defined in accordance with the knowledge base architecture 342 that was developed in the vector analysis 340.

The knowledge objectification process 150 involves, for each interaction instantiation developing the potential knowledge object 660 and its associated potential records 661. In a step 150a, all of the essential facts are identified for the variables that define the interaction. The facts considered to be essential for the knowledge object type 363 were defined in the vector analysis 340 as the record types 362, specifically Hardware record type 362e, Software record type 362f, Environment record type 362g, Issue/Symptom record type 362a, Cause record type 362b, and Resolution record type 362c. If appropriate for the target instantiation, hey also identify facts for the "How do I" record type 362d.

In step 150b, names are developed for the essential facts that will become the record names. Preferably, synonyms are also developed for the names of the essential facts so that at least one synonym is stored with the records in the knowledge object to facilitate retrieval of the knowledge object by searching the knowledge base. The authors 14 and knowledge engineer draft and record name to meet the definitions and format guidelines in the authoring conventions and guidelines 341a that were developed during the architecture definition 341 of the vector analysis 340. In addition, any hypertext or facets necessary to complete describe the records 361 are identified and noted.

The architecture 341 definition of the knowledge object 360 also includes links 364 to show associations between the records 361. However, in the preferred embodiment, the links 364 between the records 361 of a knowledge object 360 are developed by the knowledge engine 30 automatically when the knowledge object 360 is entered into the knowledge base memory 35.

As can be seen, objectifying the knowledge before introducing it into the knowledge base allows records 361 to be used in multiple knowledge objects 360. It also allows the knowledge to be incorporated with the appropriate granularity. Because the knowledge to be introduced is first broken into elements 366, and each element 366 is generalized to the appropriate level, the knowledge object 360 is not incorporated into the knowledge base with just one granularity. All of the object's elements 366 are introduced into the knowledge base at its own appropriate granularity.

Returning to the seed case development process 140, in step 143, the authors 14 and knowledge engineers then conduct the objectified knowledge review 160 on each newly created knowledge object 360. In the objectified knowledge review 160, described in more detail below with reference to FIG. 22, the new knowledge, objectified as a potential knowledge object 660 (also known as a potential new knowledge object 660) having potential new records 661 and potential new links 664, is reviewed against the existing knowledge in the knowledge base, which is also objectified into existing knowledge objects 360, to identify affected knowledge objects 760 in the knowledge base that have existing records 361 and links 364 that would be affected by addition of the potential knowledge object 660 into the knowledge base and to develop any additional new knowledge 670 that may be developed when the potential new knowledge object 660 is combined with the affected knowledge objects 760. In the objectified knowledge review 160, the knowledge base is amended to add the new knowledge represented by the potential new record 661 into the knowledge base while minimizing the affect of adding the new knowledge on the affected knowledge objects 760. The knowledge base is also amended to incorporate any additional new knowledge 670 that may have been developed by analyzing the affected knowledge objects 760 against the potential knowledge object 660.

In step 144, when all of the records have been through the objectified knowledge review 160, the potential knowledge object 660 is reviewed once again to ensure, after any modifications that may have occurred, that it still represents a unique support interaction instantiation. A unique knowledge object could contain at least one unique record, or it could be a unique combination of old records.

In step 146, if the potential knowledge object does not represent a unique instantiation, it is duplicative and deleted from the set of likely support instantiations. In step 145, if the potential knowledge object represents a unique instantiation, it is approved for entry into the knowledge base. It is recorded in a spreadsheet, not shown. Each row of the spreadsheet is a potential knowledge object 660, which in the preferred embodiment is a unique, complete likely support interaction having a likely problem with a resolution. There is a spreadsheet column for each record type 362. All of the record types 362 that have been identified in the vector analysis for the knowledge object type should be filled out in the spreadsheet, one record 361 for each record type 362 in each potential knowledge object 360.

Finally, in step 147, the process described in steps 142-146 is repeated for the remaining instantiations in the set of likely support interactions. As the knowledge objects to be incorporated into the knowledge base are identified using the Seed Case Development process 140, the knowledge base takes form.

Objectified Knowledge review 160

General

In every knowledge base, it is possible that that knowledge could be incorporated into the knowledge base in a duplicative or redundant fashion. The purpose of the objectified knowledge review 160 is to minimize that possibility by testing for and, if found, minimizing synonymic redundancy and subset redundancy, which are described in more detail below. A result of the review 160 is that additional new knowledge may be developed by combining the potential knowledge object 660 with any affected knowledge objects 760 found in the knowledge base while examining the possible redundancies.

Having objectified the new knowledge into a potential knowledge object 660 with at least one potential new element 666 of information, the authors 14 and agents conduct the objectified knowledge review 160 on the potential knowledge object 660 one potential new element 666 at a time. In step 161, they test the potential new element 666 against all elements 366 existing in the knowledge base that have the same element type as the potential new element 666, in order to identify affected elements 766 that would be affected by addition of the potential new element 666 into the knowledge base system 10.

Affected elements 766 are identified by looking for inter-relationships between the elements 666, 366 at the most abstract level possible. Affected elements 766 represent elements 366 in the knowledge base that are apparently identical to the potential new element 666, or form apparent dual subset redundancies, apparent subset/superset redundancies, or apparent synonymic redundancies with the potential new element 666.

By so identifying affected elements 766, the affected knowledge objects 760 in which the affected elements 766 are contained are identified. In the review 160 of the preferred embodiment, the potential new elements 666 are potential new records 661 and the affected elements 766 are affected records 761.

In step 162, the set of affected records 761 is reviewed and a record status 662 is developed for the potential new record 661. If affected records 761 were not identified, the potential new record 661 is given a "No Existing Records" status 663, and in step 163, the potential new record 661, now found to be unique and needed in the knowledge base, is added to the knowledge base. If in step 162, affected records 761 were identified, the record is provided with an "Existing Record" status 664a or a "Similar Record" status 665, depending on what affected records were found, and in step 163 a granularity review 170, described n detail below, is conducted of any potential new record 661 having an Existing Record and Similar Record status 664a, 665.

In the granularity review 170 of step 166, the potential new record 661 is tested, depending on its record status 662 against each affected record 761 to identify actually identical records, or to identify an actual dual subset redundancy, an actual subset/superset redundancy, or an actual synonymic redundancy between the records 661, 761. In addition, during the granularity review 170, additional new knowledge 670 may be developed when the potential new record 661 is combined with the affected record 761. Decisions are made as to what edits, if any, are needed to the knowledge base memory to incorporate the knowledge represented in the potential new record 661, to eliminate or minimize redundancies between the potential new record 661 and the affected record 761, and to incorporate any additional new knowledge 670 into the knowledge base. Step 164 is repeated until all of the affected records 761 are reviewed against the potential new record 661.

In step 165, the affected elements 766 and potential new elements 666 are either accepted as is or are updated in accordance with the decisions made in the granularity review 170 concerning the potential new record 661 and the affected records 761. By amending the affected elements 766, as shown in FIG. 23, the affected knowledge objects 760 are amended. In the preferred embodiment, elements 366 may be records 361 or links 364, so affected element updating means either updating affected records 761 or updating affected links 764.

Updating affected records 761 involves editing existing records 361 to store the new knowledge represented in the potential new record 661 and deleting affected records 761 that are duplicative now that the new knowledge is incorporated into the knowledge base. Editing records 361 may involve adding new synonyms or ways to phrase a current issue. It may also involve removing an existing record from a knowledge object and substituting a different one in its place.

Updating affected links 764 involves at least one of the following: editing affected links 764 to store the new knowledge represented in the potential new link 664 and deleting the affected links 764 that are duplicative or unnecessary now that the new knowledge is incorporated into the knowledge base. In the preferred embodiment, where the links 364 are created automatically by the knowledge engine 30, link editing is done indirectly by the authors 14 and knowledge engineer by selecting for the knowledge object 360 the appropriate records 361 between which the links 364 will be developed. The knowledge engine 30 then modifies an object's links 364 in response to the modifications of the records 361 within the object 360.

As an example, referring to FIG. 23, if a knowledge object 760 has records 361a, 361b and 361c, and existing record 361a is removed from the knowledge object 360 and a new record 361u is substituted in its place, the engine 30 edits the links 364a/b, 364b/c, 364a/c in the knowledge object 360 by deleting the links 364a/b and 364a/c between the removed record 361a and the knowledge object's remaining records 361b and 361c, and adding new links 364u/b and 364u/c between the new record 361u and the knowledge object's remaining records 361b and 361c.

Finally, when the element updating of step 165 is completed, in step 166, the process described in steps 161-165 is repeated for the remaining potential new records 661 in the potential knowledge object 660.

Affected Knowledge Objects 760

Affected knowledge objects 760 may be existing knowledge objects 360 into which the potential knowledge object 660 could be incorporated. For example, as shown in FIG. 25, if the potential new knowledge object 660Y describes a resolution to a problem in which Operating System A will not start, and the same resolution is described in an existing knowledge object 360Z for operating systems in general not starting up, the existing knowledge object 360Z is an affected knowledge object 760Y into which the potential new knowledge object 660Y could be incorporated.

Affected knowledge objects 760 could be existing knowledge objects 360 that could be incorporated into the potential new knowledge object 660. For example, as shown in FIG. 24, if the potential knowledge object 660X describes a resolution for unjamming printers in general, and the same resolution is described in an existing knowledge object 360W for unjamming Printer B, the existing knowledge object 360W is an affected knowledge object 760 that could be incorporated into the potential new knowledge object 660X.

Further, affected knowledge objects 760 could be existing knowledge objects 360 having existing knowledge from which the additional new knowledge 670 could be developed when the existing knowledge is combined with the new knowledge. For example, as shown in FIG. 26, if the potential new knowledge object 660T describes a resolution for changing the volume for speaker C, and the same resolution is described in an existing knowledge object 360U for changing the volume for speaker D, and an as yet un-created potential knowledge object 660 could be created to contain the additional now knowledge that there is a common resolution for changing the volume for speakers in general, existing knowledge object 360U is an affected knowledge object 760 having existing knowledge from which additional new knowledge 660V could be developed when the existing knowledge is combined with the new knowledge.

In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, redundancies between knowledge objects are minimized by minimizing the redundancies between the records that compose the knowledge objects. The minimizing of redundancies between records is accomplished through the granularity review 170 described below.

Granularity review 170

General

The granularity review 170 (shown in FIG. 30) is conducted on each of the affected records 761 that is identified during step 161 of the objectified knowledge review 160. It starts with step 171 of testing the record status 662 of the potential new record 661, given the affected record 761. If the potential new record 661 has an "Existing Record" status 664a, it is apparently redundant because its record name is identical to the name of an affected record 761 currently under review, and the review 170 proceeds to step 172. If the potential new record 661 has a "Similar Record" status 665, the potential new record 661 has an apparent dual subset redundancy, apparent superset/subset redundancy, or apparent synonymic redundancy with the affected record 761 currently under review. If the determination is made that the potential new record 661 has neither status 664a, 665 because of affected record 761, the affected record 761 is not really affected by the potential new record 661, which may now be entered into the knowledge base. The review 170 proceeds to step 176 to make that decision.

If the potential new record 661 was given a "Existing Record" status 664a because of the affected record 761 currently under review, the records 661, 761 are apparently identical, and, in a step 172, a review is made of the records 661, 761 to determine whether they are actually identical. The determination is usually done by inspecting the records 661, 761. If the record names of records 661, 761 are identical, the review 170 proceeds to step 176. If the records 661, 761 are not identical, the potential record 661 and affected record 761 are reviewed once again in step 171 to determine whether the potential new record 661 should have a "Similar Record" status 665 because of the affected record 761.

If the potential new record 661 was granted a "Similar Record" status 665 because of the affected record 761 currently under review, in step 171, the records 661,761 are reviewed to determine whether they constitute an apparent dual subset redundancy apparent superset/subset redundancy, or apparent synonymic redundancy. Apparent dual subset redundancy is tested in step 173 in a dual subset review 73. If the affected record 761 has an apparent superset/subset redundancy with the potential new record 661, in a step 174 a subset/superset redundancy review 74 is conducted to determine whether the records 661, 761 represent an actual subset/superset redundancy. If the affected record 761 has an apparent synonymic redundancy with the potential new record 661, in a step 175 a synonymic redundancy review 77 is conducted to determine whether the records 661, 761 represent an actual synonymic redundancy. During the reviews 73, 74 and 75 additional new knowledge may be developed by combining the potential new record 661 and the affected record 761.

After the reviews 73, 74, and 75, in a step 176 decisions are made as to what edits, if any, are needed to the knowledge base memory to incorporate the knowledge represented in the potential new record 661, to eliminate or minimize redundancies between the potential new record 661 and the affected records 761, and to incorporate any additional new knowledge 670 into the knowledge base. If the records 661, 671 were actually identical, the potential new record 661 already appears in the knowledge base, and no amendments need to be made to the knowledge base. If a potential new record 661 proved not to be redundant with an affected record 761, both should co-exist in the knowledge base, and the amendment to the knowledge base constitutes adding the potential new record 661 into the knowledge base.

When the appropriate decisions concerning amendments have been made in a step 177, the granularity review is repeated for all of the other remaining affected records 761 for the potential new record 661. When all of affected records have been analyzed against the potential new record 661, the granularity review 170 of step 163 has now been completed and the objectified knowledge review 160, shown in FIG. 22, can proceed to step 165 of editing the affected records and the potential new record 661 in the manner decided during the granularity review 170.

Step 171: Redundancies

In the step 171 of the granularity review 170 shown in FIG. 30, the affected record 761 being reviewed is analyzed in order to determine what kind of redundancy the potential new record 661 represents for it. As noted above, in the step 162 of the objectified knowledge review 160 shown in FIG. 22, a record status 662 was provided to the potential record 661.

When the potential new record 661 is given an "Existing Record" status 664a, at least one affected record 761 having the same record type 362 as the potential new record 661 was found and is apparently identical to the potential new record 661. In other words, the needed record may already exist. With an "Existing Record" status 664a, the granularity review 170 proceeds to Step 172 to determine whether the records really are identical. When the potential new record 661 is provided with a "Similar Record" status 665, at least one affected record 761 was found that is not identical but is similar enough to the potential new record 661 to represent an apparent redundancy with the potential new record 661. With a Similar Record status 665, the granularity review 170 determines whether the similarity represents an apparent dual subset, subset/superset, or synonymic redundancy.

The purpose of the granularity review 170 is to ensure that each record is incorporated into the knowledge base at the appropriate granularity, thus minimizing synonymic redundancy and subset redundancy. Synonymic redundancy refers to records that essentially mean the same thing but are not exactly identical. Subset Redundancy refers to two (or more) records, where one record contains the meaning of the other, but at a more general or specific level.

An example of synonymic redundancy, shown in FIG. 27, would be two records 361a, 361b for the Issue record type 362a, record 361a being "Print quality is poor," and record 361b being "Poor print quality." Once created, records are referred to only by ID numbers, and all references are through reference pointers only. Therefore, while the records 361a, 361b clearly mean the same thing, the knowledge engine 30 does not recognize them as such.

Unless synonymically redundant records such as records 361a, 361b are linked, the knowledge engine 30 will not recognize their congruency. Each record has its own frequency of selection based upon how often it is selected. When resolving a problem represented in unlinked synonymically redundant records, a knowledge base user picks one of the unlinked synonymically redundant records, such as record 361a. She chooses record 361a to the exclusion of record 361b. Her selection affects the frequency of selection of only records 361a. Although the actual frequency of the problem is a combination of the frequencies of both unlinked synonymic records 361a, 361b, the knowledge engine 30 will only calculate combined frequencies for linked records. As an example, if record 361a for "Print quality is poor" is selected three times, and record 361b for "Poor print quality" is selected five times, there is no clear indication that a quality problem existed with the printer on eight separate occasions. A preferred solution is to delete one record, incorporating the deleted problem statement into the remaining record as a synonym.

Subset redundancy comes in two forms, subset/superset redundancy, where one record is a generalized case of the other, and dual subset redundancy, where two or more records are subsets of an un-created, more generalized records. Referring to the examples of affected knowledge objects above an example of a subset/superset redundancy, shown in FIG. 28, would be the following pair of records 361S, 361R of the Issue record type 362a, record 361S is "Operating System A will not start" and record 361R is "Operating system will not start." Record 361S is a subset of record 361R; record 361R is a superset of record 361S. One solution is to delete record 361S, incorporating the deleted problem statement of record 361S into record 361R as a synonym.

An example of dual subset redundancy, shown in FIG. 29, would be the following pair of records 361Q, 361P of the Issue record type 362a: record 361Q is "Speaker C is too loud" and record 361P is "Speaker D is too loud." Records 361Q, 361P are both subsets of an uncreated record 361O, "Speaker is too loud." Since the mechanism for solution is likely the same for any set of speakers, there is little need to have such a granular record as it is stated in records 361P, 361Q. Possible solutions would be to create the new record 361O to contain the generalized problem description, using the problem statement in records 361P, 361Q as synonyms. Alternatively, one record could be deleted and the other edited to carry the generic description, incorporating its original problem statement and the deleted problem statement as synonyms. If the target user would not always think of the speaker problem in a general way, a generalized description would not be useful, and both records might be kept in the knowledge base to preserve the intentional redundancy. Additionally, the generalized description of records 361P and 361Q could be added to both records as a synonym, and the records could be linked together for frequency counting purposes.

The problem with leaving synonymic and subset redundancies in the knowledge base is that the knowledge engine 30 does not learn the appropriate frequency for the problem, which can lead to the knowledge base system providing incorrect solutions. Even when the correct solution is provided with both records, the frequency of the occurrence of the underlying generic issue in the unlinked synonymic or subset/superset records will be miscalculated. The knowledge engine 30 will not know the frequency of the underlying problem, and will miscalculate the likelihood of the resolution being the correct resolution. For example, in response to a query about the generic issue, the correct problem and resolution might be presented. However, the knowledge engine 30 might return another problem and resolution that is incorrect for the issue as presented but might be returned as the most likely resolution to the problem because it has an occurrence frequency that is higher than the occurrence frequency of either of the redundant records alone. When new knowledge is objectified and a granularity review 170 is conducted on the elements of the knowledge object before its entry into the knowledge base, synonymic and subset redundancies are caught and corrected by editing the records or providing appropriate links between records.

Each of the redundancy reviews 73, 74 and 75 involve generalizing the potential new record 661 and the affected records 761 to the greatest extent possible, and then analyzing the differences and similarities between them. Based on the analysis the knowledge engineer and authors 14 decide how to proceed with the potential new record 661 and each affected record 761.

When the distinctions between the records 661, 761 outweigh the similarities, a decision could be made in step 176 to maintain the distinctions between the potential new record and the affected record to maintain a high level of granularity in the system. When the similarities between the records outweigh the distinctions, a decision could be made in step 176 to clarify the similarities, thus maintaining a lower level of granularity in the system. How granular to make the records of a knowledge base will depend upon the specific business needs that set the goals for implementing the knowledge base, and on the types of problems to be encountered in the knowledge base.

Step 173: Dual Subset Redundancy Review 73

In the dual subset redundancy review 73 conducted in step 173, an apparent dual subset redundancy between records 661, 761 is tested in order to determine whether the records 661, 761 represent an actual dual subset redundancy. Referring to the example in FIG. 29, for purposes of describing the review 73, the record 361P may be considered to be the potential new record 661P, and the record 361Q may be considered to be the affected record 761Q.

The records 661P and 761Q, both of which being records of the Issue record type 362a, may not demonstrate actual dual subset redundancy if the high level of granularity shown by the potential and affected records is dictated by differences in resolution or in some other knowledge about Speaker D or Speaker C that will be stored in the knowledge base. The appropriate granularity for the potential new record 661P and the affected record 761Q is tested in the dual subset redundancy review 73.

The dual subset redundancy review 73 is shown in FIG. 31. The first step 61 is to develop the additional new knowledge 670O that would be the superset generated from the combination of the dual subsets represented by the records 661P, 761Q. The additional new knowledge 670O would be that the loud volume of Speaker D and the loud volume of Speaker C could be treated as equivalents and a more generic description concerning loud speaker volume in general, and it may be embodied in a new record 361O for the Issue record type 362a. The language of the superset record 361O is developed using the authoring conventions and guides 341a, developed during the architecture definition 341 of the vector analysis 340.

The purpose of the dual subset granularity review 73 is to look for equivalence between the records 661P and 761Q, and substitutability of the superset record 361O. The equivalence testing involves determining whether the records 661P, 761Q are really the same, whether the mechanisms for solution and other associated information are the same for the potential new record 661P and the affected record 761Q, and whether, for purposes of describing the factual circumstances of the support interactions embodied in the knowledge objects of the knowledge base, the knowledge embodied in the records 661P, 761Q could be as described as well by the more generic additional new knowledge 670O embodied in the record 361O.

The equivalence testing has two levels, a first level review 73a that tests the equivalence of the potential knowledge objects 660P and any affected knowledge object 760Q with which the affected record 761Q is associated, and a second level review 73b that tests the equivalence of the records 661P, 761Q, 361O within the potential and affected knowledge objects 660P, 760Q.

In step 62, the first level review 73a is conducted by testing for equivalence between the potential knowledge object 660P and any affected knowledge object 760Q. The potential new record 661P and the other records 361P of the potential new knowledge object 660P are reviewed against the affected record 761Q and the other records 361Q of each of the affected knowledge objects 760Q. In the preferred embodiment the first level review 73a involves determining whether the factual circumstances of the support interaction defined by the potential knowledge object 660P, including the cause of and resolution for the support problem, is equivalent to any of the support interactions defined by the affected knowledge objects 760Q.

If equivalence is found between potential knowledge object 660P and at least one affected knowledge object 760Q, in every other aspect but records 661P, 761Q, it is not necessary to add to the knowledge base the potential knowledge object 660P as it is currently written. However, it may be appropriate to add the potential knowledge object 660P with a superset record 361O associated with it. Before doing so, it is necessary to test for the apparent dual subset redundancy that is represented by records 361O, 761Q. Therefore, the potential new record 661P would be abandoned, replaced in the potential knowledge object 660P with the superset record 361O, which would now be potential knowledge object 661O. The review 73 would end, and the granularity review 170 would return to step 171 to initiate the testing of the apparent subset/superset redundancy of records 661O, 761Q.

If, in the step 62, equivalence is not found in solution or other aspect between potential knowledge object 660P and any affected knowledge object 760Q, the level of granularity demonstrated by having different records 661P, 761Q might be necessary. In other words, a decision could be made to maintain intentional redundancy for the records 361P, 361Q in order to provide the separate paths to their different resolutions with which they are respectively linked or to the knowledge that their associated knowledge objects, respectively 660P, 760Q, do not share.

However, it is possible that the differences in solution or other aspect between the knowledge objects arise from other records in the knowledge objects, and not records 661P, 761Q. Before deciding to maintain the granularity of records 661P, 761Q, the review 73 proceeds to step 63 for the second level review 73b, in which the record 361O is substituted into the knowledge objects 760Q and 660P to determine whether the support interactions defined by the knowledge objects 660P, 760Q could be just as well described by the generic knowledge in record 361O.

In a first step 63a, the record 361O is substituted into the potential knowledge object 660P. If the support interaction is not described with sufficient accuracy when record 361O is used, intentional redundancy should be maintained in the knowledge base. In step 176 the potential new record 661P will be approved for entry in the knowledge base and for use in the potential knowledge object 660P. The proposed language of the potential new record 661P may be modified in order to emphasize the distinctions between the records 661P, 761Q and to eliminate or minimize the apparent dual subset redundancy and thus eliminate the affect of the potential new record 661P on the affected record 761Q. The proposed language of the affected record 761Q may also be modified in order to eliminate or minimize the apparent dual subset redundancy.

If, on the other hand in step 63a the support interaction defined by the potential knowledge objects 660P is described with sufficient accuracy when record 361O is used, the level of granularity demonstrated by having different records 661P, 761Q may not be necessary. Thus by generalizing the records to the greatest extent possible, an actual dual subset redundancy between the potential new record 661P and an affected record 671Q may have been found and additional new knowledge 670O may have been developed from the new knowledge embodied in the potential knowledge abject 660P combined with the knowledge embodied in the affected knowledge object 760Q.

However, because records may be associated with multiple knowledge objects, it is possible that the affected record 761Q is associated with knowledge objects in the knowledge base whose support interactions will not be accurately described by the superset record 361O. The knowledge objects with which the affected record 761Q is associated are the affected knowledge objects 760Q. Substituting a record 361O for the affected record 761Q may not be appropriate in all of the affected knowledge objects 760Q.

Before determining whether records 661P, 761Q represent an actual dual subset redundancy that could be eliminated by substituting the record 361O, in a step 63b, the record 361O is substituted one by one into the affected knowledge objects 760Q, and each affected knowledge object 760Q is reviewed to determine whether the additional new knowledge 670O embodied in a record 361O actually may replace the knowledge embodied in the affected record 761Q to describe the issue in the support interaction embodied in the knowledge object 760Q.

If the substitution was not acceptable in even one of the affected knowledge objects 760Q, the records 661P, 761Q are not completely redundant and the review 170 would proceed to step 176 where a decision is made as to how to proceed with the records 661P, 761Q and 361O. One decision might be to leave the affected record 761Q as is, reject record 361O, and approve the potential new record 661P for entry in the knowledge base and use in the potential knowledge object 660P.

Another decision might be to modify the wording of potential new record 661P to incorporate the superset wording of 361O. The modified potential new record 661P could then be approved for entry in the knowledge base and used in the potential knowledge object 660P. Since the superset language was found to be substitutable in some but not all of the affected knowledge objects 760Q, the potential new record 661P could also be substituted for the affected record 761Q in the knowledge objects 760Q for which substitution of it for the affected record 761Q was a acceptable, while the affected record 761Q is maintained in the affected knowledge objects 760Q for which substitution was not acceptable. Which decision to make will depend upon the specific business needs that set the goals for implementing the knowledge base, and on the types of problems to be encountered in the knowledge base.

If the substitutions of record 361O in steps 63a and 63b were acceptable in all of the knowledge objects 660P 760Q, an actual dual subset redundancy has been established between the records 661P, 761Q, and record 361O represents additional new knowledge 670O developed from records 661P, 761Q. In step 176, the decision would be made to and the additional new knowledge 670O to the knowledge base by rejecting the potential new record 661P, modifying the affected record 761Q to incorporate generalized wording that encompasses the meaning of both records 661P and 761Q, namely "Speake