Search Results

Search found 888 results on 36 pages for 'factors'.

Page 6/36 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • SEOPressor - A Worthy SEO Plugin For WordPress?

    If you have some knowledge of SEO, you should know the importance of having excellent on-page factors which can give you the advantage to rank high in search engines without the need for excessive off-Page works. Almost All SEO professional consultants will start a project optimizing On-Page factors first.

    Read the article

  • SEO For Higher Ranking of Website

    In order to get high ranking for your website on the major search engines there are various SEO factors to be kept in mind. Among all other factors there are three basic things which are of utmost importance in search engine optimization of the website or a blog.

    Read the article

  • Why is IaaS important in Azure&hellip;

    - by Steve Loethen
    Three weeks ago, Microsoft released the next phase of Azure.  I have had several clients waiting on this release.  The fact that they have been waiting and are now more receptive to looking at the cloud.  Customers expressed fear of the unknown.  And a fear of lack of control, even when that lack of control also means a huge degree of flexibility to innovate with concerns about the underlying infrastructure.  I think IaaS will be that “gateway drug” to get customers who have been hesitant to take another look at the cloud.  The dialog can change from the cloud being this big scary unknown to a resource for workloads.  The conversations should have always been, and can know be even stronger, geared toward the following points: 1) The cloud is not unicorns and glitter, the cloud is resources.  Compute, storage, db’s, services bus, cache…..  Like many of the resources we have on-premise.  Not magic, just another resource with advantages and obstacles like any other resource. 2) The cloud should be part of the conversation for any new project.  All of the same criteria should be applied, on-premise or off.  Cost, security, reliability, scalability, speed to deploy, cost of licenses, need to customize image, complex workloads.  We have been having these discussions for years when we talk about on-premise projects.  We make decisions on OS’s, Databases, ESB’s, configuration and products based on a myriad of factors.  We use the same factors but now we have a additional set of resources to consider in our process. 3) The cloud is a great solution looking for some interesting problems.  It is our job to recognize the right problems that fit into the cloud, weigh the factors and decide what to do. IaaS makes this discussion easier, offers more choices, and often choices that many enterprises will find more better than PaaS.  Looking forward to helping clients realize the power of the cloud.

    Read the article

  • Best way to calculate unit deaths in browser game combat?

    - by MikeCruz13
    My browser game's combat system is written and mechanically functioning well. It's written in PHP and uses a SQL database. I'm happy with the unit balance in relation to one another. I am, however, a little worried about how I'm calculating unit deaths when one player attacks another because the deaths seem to pile up a little fast for my taste. For this system, a battle doesn't just trigger, calculate winner, and end. Instead, it is allowed to go for several rounds (say one round every 15 mins.) until one side passes a threshold of being too strong for the other player and allows players to send reinforcements between rounds. Each round, units pair up and attack each other. Essentially what I do is calculate the damage: AP = Attack Points HP = Hit Points Units AP * Quantity * Random Factors * other factors (such as attrition) I take that and divide by the defending unit's HP to find the number of casualties of defending units. So, for example (simplified to take out some factors), if I have: 500 attackers with 50 AP vs 1000 defenders with 100 HP = 250 deaths. I wonder if that last step could be handled better to reduce the deaths piling up. Some ideas: I just change all the units with more HP? I make sure to set the Attacking unit's AP to be a max of the defender's HP to make sure they only kill 1 unit. (is that fair if I have less huge units vs many small units?) I spread the damage around more by including the defending unit's quantity more? i.e. in that scenario some are dead and some are 50% damage. (How would I track this every round?) Other better mathematical approaches?

    Read the article

  • Ranking players depending on decision making during a game

    - by tabchas
    How would I go about a ranking system for players that play a game? Basically, looking at video games, players throughout the game make critical decisions that ultimately impact the end game result. Is there a way or how would I go about a way to translate some of those factors (leveling up certain skills, purchasing certain items, etc.) into something like a curve that can be plotted on a graph? This game that I would like to implement this is League of Legends. Example: Player is Level 1 in the beginning. Gets a kill very early in the game (he gets gold because of the kill and it increases his "power curve"), and purchases attack damage (gives him more damage which also increases his "power curve". However, the player that he killed (Player 2), buys armor (counters attack damage). This slightly increases Player 2's own power curve, and reduces Player 1's power curve. There's many factors I would like to take into account. These relative factors (example: BECAUSE Player 2 built armor, and I am mainly attack damage, it lowers my OWN power curve) seem the hardest to implement. My question is this: Is there a certain way to approach this task? Are there similar theoretical concepts behind ranking systems that I should read up on? I've seen the ELO system, but it doesn't seem what I want since it simply takes into account wins and losses.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture: Quality Attributes

    Quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. Dictonary.com ambiguously defines quality as a grade of excellence. Unfortunately, quality must be defined within the context of a situation in that each engineer must extract quality attributes from a project’s requirements. Because quality is defined by project requirements the meaning of quality is constantly changing base on the project. Software architecture factors that indicate the relevance and effectiveness The relevance and effectiveness of architecture can vary based on the context in which it was conceived and the quality attributes that are required to meet. Typically when evaluating architecture for a specific system regarding relevance and effectiveness the following questions should be asked.   Architectural relevance and effectiveness questions: Does the architectural concept meet the needs of the system for which it was designed? Out of the competing architectures for a system, which one is the most suitable? If we look at the first question regarding meeting the needs of a system for which it was designed. A system that answers yes to this question must meet all of its quality goals. This means that it consistently meets or exceeds performance goals for the system. In addition, the system meets all the other required system attributers based on the systems requirements. The suitability of a system is based on several factors. In order for a project to be suitable the necessary resources must be available to complete the task. Standard Project Resources: Money Trained Staff Time Life cycle factors that affect the system and design The development life cycle used on a project can drastically affect how a system’s architecture is created as well as influence its design. In the case of using the software development life cycle (SDLC) each phase must be completed before the next can begin.  This waterfall approach does not allow for changes in a system’s architecture after that phase is completed. This can lead to major system issues when the architecture for the system is not as optimal because of missed quality attributes. This can occur when a project has poor requirements and makes misguided architectural decisions to name a few examples. Once the architectural phase is complete the concepts established in this phase must move on to the design phase that is bound to use the concepts and guidelines defined in the previous phase regardless of any missing quality attributes needed for the project. If any issues arise during this phase regarding the selected architectural concepts they cannot be corrected during the current project. This directly has an effect on the design of a system because the proper qualities required for the project where not used when the architectural concepts were approved. When this is identified nothing can be done to fix the architectural issues and system design must use the existing architectural concepts regardless of its missing quality properties because the architectural concepts for the project cannot be altered. The decisions made in the design phase then preceded to fall down to the implementation phase where the actual system is coded based on the approved architectural concepts established in the architecture phase regardless of its architectural quality. Conversely projects using more of an iterative or agile methodology to implement a system has more flexibility to correct architectural decisions based on missing quality attributes. This is due to each phase of the SDLC is executed more than once so any issues identified in architecture of a system can be corrected in the next architectural phase. Subsequently the corresponding changes will then be adjusted in the following design phase so that when the project is completed the optimal architectural and design decision are applied to the solution. Architecture factors that indicate functional suitability Systems that have function shortcomings do not have the proper functionality based on the project’s driving quality attributes. What this means in English is that the system does not live up to what is required of it by the stakeholders as identified by the missing quality attributes and requirements. One way to prevent functional shortcomings is to test the project’s architecture, design, and implementation against the project’s driving quality attributes to ensure that none of the attributes were missed in any of the phases. Another way to ensure a system has functional suitability is to certify that all its requirements are fully articulated so that there is no chance for misconceptions or misinterpretations by all stakeholders. This will help prevent any issues regarding interpreting the system requirements during the initial architectural concept phase, design phase and implementation phase. Consider the applicability of other architectural models When considering an architectural model for a project is also important to consider other alternative architectural models to ensure that the model that is selected will meet the systems required functionality and high quality attributes. Recently I can remember talking about a project that I was working on and a coworker suggested a different architectural approach that I had never considered. This new model will allow for the same functionally that is offered by the existing model but will allow for a higher quality project because it fulfills more quality attributes. It is always important to seek alternatives prior to committing to an architectural model. Factors used to identify high-risk components A high risk component can be defined as a component that fulfills 2 or more quality attributes for a system. An example of this can be seen in a web application that utilizes a remote database. One high-risk component in this system is the TCIP component because it allows for HTTP connections to handle by a web server and as well as allows for the server to also connect to a remote database server so that it can import data into the system. This component allows for the assurance of data quality attribute and the accessibility quality attribute because the system is available on the network. If for some reason the TCIP component was to fail the web application would fail on two quality attributes accessibility and data assurance in that the web site is not accessible and data cannot be update as needed. Summary As stated previously, quality is what all software engineers should strive for when building a new system or adding new functionality. The quality of a system can be directly determined by how closely it is implemented when compared to its desired quality attributes. One way to insure a higher quality system is to enforce that all project requirements are fully articulated so that no assumptions or misunderstandings can be made by any of the stakeholders. By doing this a system has a better chance of becoming a high quality system based on its quality attributes

    Read the article

  • measuring of network reliability

    - by xpugur
    Hi, i have a exam to do at home but there is a question that i can't solve :S ... can anybody help me about that question (( i google it with diffrent ways but can't found anything as answer)) question: how the network reliability can be measured(write at least 4 factors)? explain 3 of the factors in details with their advantages and disadvantages?

    Read the article

  • How should I choose my DNS?

    - by Jader Dias
    When I have to choose my DNS I think that I should consider: Speed Reliability Privacy Control (reports and stats) The main options that come to my mind, and how I weigh them according to the above factors, are: My ISP = faster (closer to me) but less privacy (they can associate my DNS requests to myself) OpenDNS and such = more control and more privacy (all they have is one of my e-mail addresses) Google = less privacy (they can associate my DNS requests to my Google Account and my searches) What weighting factors, or other options, have I missed?

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – BI Quiz Hint – Performance Tuning Cubes – Hints

    - by pinaldave
    I earlier wrote about SQL BI Quiz over here and here. The details of the quiz is here: Working with huge data is very common when it is about Data Warehousing. It is necessary to create Cubes on the data to make it meaningful and consumable. There are cases when retrieving the data from cube takes lots of the time. Let us assume that your cube is returning you data very quickly. Suddenly on one day it is returning the data very slowly. What are the three things will you to diagnose this. After diagnose what you will do to resolve performance issue. Participate in my question over here I required BI Expert Jason Thomas to help with few hints to blog readers. He is one of the leading SSAS expert and writes a complicated subject in simple words. If queries were executing properly before but now take a long time to return the data, it means that there has been a change in the environment in which it is running. Some possible changes are listed below:-  1) Data factors:- Compare the data size then and now. Increase in data can result in different execution times. Poorly written queries as well as poor design will not start showing issues till the data grows. How to find it out? (Ans : SQL Server profiler and Perfmon Counters can be used for identifying the issues and performance  tuning the MDX queries)  2) Internal Factors:- Is some slow MDX query / multiple mdx queries running at the same time, which was not running when you had tested it before? Is there any locking happening due to proactive caching or processing operations? Are the measure group caches being cleared by processing operations? (Ans : Again, profiler and perfmon counters will help in finding it out. Load testing can be done using AS Performance Workbench (http://asperfwb.codeplex.com/) by running multiple queries at once)  3) External factors:- Is some other application competing for the same resources?  HINT : Read “Identifying and Resolving MDX Query Performance Bottlenecks in SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services” (http://sqlcat.com/whitepapers/archive/2007/12/16/identifying-and-resolving-mdx-query-performance-bottlenecks-in-sql-server-2005-analysis-services.aspx) Well, these are great tips. Now win big prizes by participate in my question over here. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Should we consider code language upon design?

    - by Codex73
    Summary This question aims to conclude if an applications usage will be a consideration when deciding upon development language. What factors if any could be considered upon language writing could be taken into context. Application Type: Web Question Of the following popular languages, when should we use one or the other? What factors if any could be considered upon language writing could be taken into context. Languages PHP Ruby Python My initial thought is that language shouldn't be considered as much as framework. Things to consider on framework are scalability, usage, load, portability, modularity and many more. Things to consider on Code Writing maybe cost, framework stability, community, etc.

    Read the article

  • CPU Usage in Very Large Coherence Clusters

    - by jpurdy
    When sizing Coherence installations, one of the complicating factors is that these installations (by their very nature) tend to be application-specific, with some being large, memory-intensive caches, with others acting as I/O-intensive transaction-processing platforms, and still others performing CPU-intensive calculations across the data grid. Regardless of the primary resource requirements, Coherence sizing calculations are inherently empirical, in that there are so many permutations that a simple spreadsheet approach to sizing is rarely optimal (though it can provide a good starting estimate). So we typically recommend measuring actual resource usage (primarily CPU cycles, network bandwidth and memory) at a given load, and then extrapolating from those measurements. Of course there may be multiple types of load, and these may have varying degrees of correlation -- for example, an increased request rate may drive up the number of objects "pinned" in memory at any point, but the increase may be less than linear if those objects are naturally shared by concurrent requests. But for most reasonably-designed applications, a linear resource model will be reasonably accurate for most levels of scale. However, at extreme scale, sizing becomes a bit more complicated as certain cluster management operations -- while very infrequent -- become increasingly critical. This is because certain operations do not naturally tend to scale out. In a small cluster, sizing is primarily driven by the request rate, required cache size, or other application-driven metrics. In larger clusters (e.g. those with hundreds of cluster members), certain infrastructure tasks become intensive, in particular those related to members joining and leaving the cluster, such as introducing new cluster members to the rest of the cluster, or publishing the location of partitions during rebalancing. These tasks have a strong tendency to require all updates to be routed via a single member for the sake of cluster stability and data integrity. Fortunately that member is dynamically assigned in Coherence, so it is not a single point of failure, but it may still become a single point of bottleneck (until the cluster finishes its reconfiguration, at which point this member will have a similar load to the rest of the members). The most common cause of scaling issues in large clusters is disabling multicast (by configuring well-known addresses, aka WKA). This obviously impacts network usage, but it also has a large impact on CPU usage, primarily since the senior member must directly communicate certain messages with every other cluster member, and this communication requires significant CPU time. In particular, the need to notify the rest of the cluster about membership changes and corresponding partition reassignments adds stress to the senior member. Given that portions of the network stack may tend to be single-threaded (both in Coherence and the underlying OS), this may be even more problematic on servers with poor single-threaded performance. As a result of this, some extremely large clusters may be configured with a smaller number of partitions than ideal. This results in the size of each partition being increased. When a cache server fails, the other servers will use their fractional backups to recover the state of that server (and take over responsibility for their backed-up portion of that state). The finest granularity of this recovery is a single partition, and the single service thread can not accept new requests during this recovery. Ordinarily, recovery is practically instantaneous (it is roughly equivalent to the time required to iterate over a set of backup backing map entries and move them to the primary backing map in the same JVM). But certain factors can increase this duration drastically (to several seconds): large partitions, sufficiently slow single-threaded CPU performance, many or expensive indexes to rebuild, etc. The solution of course is to mitigate each of those factors but in many cases this may be challenging. Larger clusters also lead to the temptation to place more load on the available hardware resources, spreading CPU resources thin. As an example, while we've long been aware of how garbage collection can cause significant pauses, it usually isn't viewed as a major consumer of CPU (in terms of overall system throughput). Typically, the use of a concurrent collector allows greater responsiveness by minimizing pause times, at the cost of reducing system throughput. However, at a recent engagement, we were forced to turn off the concurrent collector and use a traditional parallel "stop the world" collector to reduce CPU usage to an acceptable level. In summary, there are some less obvious factors that may result in excessive CPU consumption in a larger cluster, so it is even more critical to test at full scale, even though allocating sufficient hardware may often be much more difficult for these large clusters.

    Read the article

  • Mathematical attack on the Digital Signature Algorithm

    - by drelihan
    Does anybody know the mathematics behind an attack on DSA where modulus p has p-1 made up of only small factors. In reality, this would not happen as the key generator would guarantee that this is not so. There is much information on the web on generating good input paramters for DSA so that it is hard to crack but no information on how you find X if modulus p has p-1 made up of only small factors.

    Read the article

  • What frustrates you the most at your current workplace?

    - by Andre Bossard
    Do you know these moments when you: stopped laughing at Dilbert, because you realize its true spent evenings completing a project that never went into production when requirements are blurry but the schedule is not There are so many factors that can frustrate developer and hinder him from being productive. What factors do you experience at your current workplace? See Also What Makes you lose motivation?

    Read the article

  • Enterprise Process Maps: A Process Picture worth a Million Words

    - by raul.goycoolea
    p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }h1 { margin-top: 0.33in; margin-bottom: 0in; color: rgb(54, 95, 145); page-break-inside: avoid; }h1.western { font-family: "Cambria",serif; font-size: 14pt; }h1.cjk { font-family: "DejaVu Sans"; font-size: 14pt; }h1.ctl { font-size: 14pt; } Getting Started with Business Transformations A well-known proverb states that "A picture is worth a thousand words." In relation to Business Process Management (BPM), a credible analyst might have a few questions. What if the picture was taken from some particular angle, like directly overhead? What if it was taken from only an inch away or a mile away? What if the photographer did not focus the camera correctly? Does the value of the picture depend on who is looking at it? Enterprise Process Maps are analogous in this sense of relative value. Every BPM project (holistic BPM kick-off, enterprise system implementation, Service-oriented Architecture, business process transformation, corporate performance management, etc.) should be begin with a clear understanding of the business environment, from the biggest picture representations down to the lowest level required or desired for the particular project type, scope and objectives. The Enterprise Process Map serves as an entry point for the process architecture and is defined: the single highest level of process mapping for an organization. It is constructed and evaluated during the Strategy Phase of the Business Process Management Lifecycle. (see Figure 1) Fig. 1: Business Process Management Lifecycle Many organizations view such maps as visual abstractions, constructed for the single purpose of process categorization. This, in turn, results in a lesser focus on the inherent intricacies of the Enterprise Process view, which are explored in the course of this paper. With the main focus of a large scale process documentation effort usually underlying an ERP or other system implementation, it is common for the work to be driven by the desire to "get to the details," and to the type of modeling that will derive near-term tangible results. For instance, a project in American Pharmaceutical Company X is driven by the Director of IT. With 120+ systems in place, and a lack of standardized processes across the United States, he and the VP of IT have decided to embark on a long-term ERP implementation. At the forethought of both are questions, such as: How does my application architecture map to the business? What are each application's functionalities, and where do the business processes utilize them? Where can we retire legacy systems? Well-developed BPM methodologies prescribe numerous model types to capture such information and allow for thorough analysis in these areas. Process to application maps, Event Driven Process Chains, etc. provide this level of detail and facilitate the completion of such project-specific questions. These models and such analysis are appropriately carried out at a relatively low level of process detail. (see figure 2) Fig. 2: The Level Concept, Generic Process HierarchySome of the questions remaining are ones of documentation longevity, the continuation of BPM practice in the organization, process governance and ownership, process transparency and clarity in business process objectives and strategy. The Level Concept in Brief Figure 2 shows a generic, four-level process hierarchy depicting the breakdown of a "Process Area" into progressively more detailed process classifications. The number of levels and the names of these levels are flexible, and can be fit to the standards of the organization's chosen terminology or any other chosen reference model that makes logical sense for both short and long term process description. It is at Level 1 (in this case the Process Area level), that the Enterprise Process Map is created. This map and its contained objects become the foundation for a top-down approach to subsequent mapping, object relationship development, and analysis of the organization's processes and its supporting infrastructure. Additionally, this picture serves as a communication device, at an executive level, describing the design of the business in its service to a customer. It seems, then, imperative that the process development effort, and this map, start off on the right foot. Figuring out just what that right foot is, however, is critical and trend-setting in an evolving organization. Key Considerations Enterprise Process Maps are usually not as living and breathing as other process maps. Just as it would be an extremely difficult task to change the foundation of the Sears Tower or a city plan for the entire city of Chicago, the Enterprise Process view of an organization usually remains unchanged once developed (unless, of course, an organization is at a stage where it is capable of true, high-level process innovation). Regardless, the Enterprise Process map is a key first step, and one that must be taken in a precise way. What makes this groundwork solid depends on not only the materials used to construct it (process areas), but also the layout plan and knowledge base of what will be built (the entire process architecture). It seems reasonable that care and consideration are required to create this critical high level map... but what are the important factors? Does the process modeler need to worry about how many process areas there are? About who is looking at it? Should he only use the color pink because it's his boss' favorite color? Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, these are all valid considerations that may just require a bit of structure. Below are Three Key Factors to consider when building an Enterprise Process Map: Company Strategic Focus Process Categorization: Customer is Core End-to-end versus Functional Processes Company Strategic Focus As mentioned above, the Enterprise Process Map is created during the Strategy Phase of the Business Process Management Lifecycle. From Oracle Business Process Management methodology for business transformation, it is apparent that business processes exist for the purpose of achieving the strategic objectives of an organization. In a prescribed, top-down approach to process development, it must be ensured that each process fulfills its objectives, and in an aggregated manner, drives fulfillment of the strategic objectives of the company, whether for particular business segments or in a broader sense. This is a crucial point, as the strategic messages of the company must therefore resound in its process maps, in particular one that spans the processes of the complete business: the Enterprise Process Map. One simple example from Company X is shown below (see figure 3). Fig. 3: Company X Enterprise Process Map In reviewing Company X's Enterprise Process Map, one can immediately begin to understand the general strategic mindset of the organization. It shows that Company X is focused on its customers, defining 10 of its process areas belonging to customer-focused categories. Additionally, the organization views these end-customer-oriented process areas as part of customer-fulfilling value chains, while support process areas do not provide as much contiguous value. However, by including both support and strategic process categorizations, it becomes apparent that all processes are considered vital to the success of the customer-oriented focus processes. Below is an example from Company Y (see figure 4). Fig. 4: Company Y Enterprise Process Map Company Y, although also a customer-oriented company, sends a differently focused message with its depiction of the Enterprise Process Map. Along the top of the map is the company's product tree, overarching the process areas, which when executed deliver the products themselves. This indicates one strategic objective of excellence in product quality. Additionally, the view represents a less linear value chain, with strong overlaps of the various process areas. Marketing and quality management are seen as a key support processes, as they span the process lifecycle. Often, companies may incorporate graphics, logos and symbols representing customers and suppliers, and other objects to truly send the strategic message to the business. Other times, Enterprise Process Maps may show high level of responsibility to organizational units, or the application types that support the process areas. It is possible that hundreds of formats and focuses can be applied to an Enterprise Process Map. What is of vital importance, however, is which formats and focuses are chosen to truly represent the direction of the company, and serve as a driver for focusing the business on the strategic objectives set forth in that right. Process Categorization: Customer is Core In the previous two examples, processes were grouped using differing categories and techniques. Company X showed one support and three customer process categorizations using encompassing chevron objects; Customer Y achieved a less distinct categorization using a gradual color scheme. Either way, and in general, modeling of the process areas becomes even more valuable and easily understood within the context of business categorization, be it strategic or otherwise. But how one categorizes their processes is typically more complex than simply choosing object shapes and colors. Previously, it was stated that the ideal is a prescribed top-down approach to developing processes, to make certain linkages all the way back up to corporate strategy. But what about external influences? What forces push and pull corporate strategy? Industry maturity, product lifecycle, market profitability, competition, etc. can all drive the critical success factors of a particular business segment, or the company as a whole, in addition to previous corporate strategy. This may seem to be turning into a discussion of theory, but that is far from the case. In fact, in years of recent study and evolution of the way businesses operate, cross-industry and across the globe, one invariable has surfaced with such strength to make it undeniable in the game plan of any strategy fit for survival. That constant is the customer. Many of a company's critical success factors, in any business segment, relate to the customer: customer retention, satisfaction, loyalty, etc. Businesses serve customers, and so do a business's processes, mapped or unmapped. The most effective way to categorize processes is in a manner that visualizes convergence to what is core for a company. It is the value chain, beginning with the customer in mind, and ending with the fulfillment of that customer, that becomes the core or the centerpiece of the Enterprise Process Map. (See figure 5) Fig. 5: Company Z Enterprise Process Map Company Z has what may be viewed as several different perspectives or "cuts" baked into their Enterprise Process Map. It has divided its processes into three main categories (top, middle, and bottom) of Management Processes, the Core Value Chain and Supporting Processes. The Core category begins with Corporate Marketing (which contains the activities of beginning to engage customers) and ends with Customer Service Management. Within the value chain, this company has divided into the focus areas of their two primary business lines, Foods and Beverages. Does this mean that areas, such as Strategy, Information Management or Project Management are not as important as those in the Core category? No! In some cases, though, depending on the organization's understanding of high-level BPM concepts, use of category names, such as "Core," "Management" or "Support," can be a touchy subject. What is important to understand, is that no matter the nomenclature chosen, the Core processes are those that drive directly to customer value, Support processes are those which make the Core processes possible to execute, and Management Processes are those which steer and influence the Core. Some common terms for these three basic categorizations are Core, Customer Fulfillment, Customer Relationship Management, Governing, Controlling, Enabling, Support, etc. End-to-end versus Functional Processes Every high and low level of process: function, task, activity, process/work step (whatever an organization calls it), should add value to the flow of business in an organization. Suppose that within the process "Deliver package," there is a documented task titled "Stop for ice cream." It doesn't take a process expert to deduce the room for improvement. Though stopping for ice cream may create gain for the one person performing it, it likely benefits neither the organization nor, more importantly, the customer. In most cases, "Stop for ice cream" wouldn't make it past the first pass of To-Be process development. What would make the cut, however, would be a flow of tasks that, each having their own value add, build up to greater and greater levels of process objective. In this case, those tasks would combine to achieve a status of "package delivered." Figure 3 shows a simple example: Just as the package can only be delivered (outcome of the process) without first being retrieved, loaded, and the travel destination reached (outcomes of the process steps), some higher level of process "Play Practical Joke" (e.g., main process or process area) cannot be completed until a package is delivered. It seems that isolated or functionally separated processes, such as "Deliver Package" (shown in Figure 6), are necessary, but are always part of a bigger value chain. Each of these individual processes must be analyzed within the context of that value chain in order to ensure successful end-to-end process performance. For example, this company's "Create Joke Package" process could be operating flawlessly and efficiently, but if a joke is never developed, it cannot be created, so the end-to-end process breaks. Fig. 6: End to End Process Construction That being recognized, it is clear that processes must be viewed as end-to-end, customer-to-customer, and in the context of company strategy. But as can also be seen from the previous example, these vital end-to-end processes cannot be built without the functionally oriented building blocks. Without one, the other cannot be had, or at least not in a complete and organized fashion. As it turns out, but not discussed in depth here, the process modeling effort, BPM organizational development, and comprehensive coverage cannot be fully realized without a semi-functional, process-oriented approach. Then, an Enterprise Process Map should be concerned with both views, the building blocks, and access points to the business-critical end-to-end processes, which they construct. Without the functional building blocks, all streams of work needed for any business transformation would be lost mess of process disorganization. End-to-end views are essential for utilization in optimization in context, understanding customer impacts, base-lining all project phases and aligning objectives. Including both views on an Enterprise Process Map allows management to understand the functional orientation of the company's processes, while still providing access to end-to-end processes, which are most valuable to them. (See figures 7 and 8). Fig. 7: Simplified Enterprise Process Map with end-to-end Access Point The above examples show two unique ways to achieve a successful Enterprise Process Map. The first example is a simple map that shows a high level set of process areas and a separate section with the end-to-end processes of concern for the organization. This particular map is filtered to show just one vital end-to-end process for a project-specific focus. Fig. 8: Detailed Enterprise Process Map showing connected Functional Processes The second example shows a more complex arrangement and categorization of functional processes (the names of each process area has been removed). The end-to-end perspective is achieved at this level through the connections (interfaces at lower levels) between these functional process areas. An important point to note is that the organization of these two views of the Enterprise Process Map is dependent, in large part, on the orientation of its audience, and the complexity of the landscape at the highest level. If both are not apparent, the Enterprise Process Map is missing an opportunity to serve as a holistic, high-level view. Conclusion In the world of BPM, and specifically regarding Enterprise Process Maps, a picture can be worth as many words as the thought and effort that is put into it. Enterprise Process Maps alone cannot change an organization, but they serve more purposes than initially meet the eye, and therefore must be designed in a way that enables a BPM mindset, business process understanding and business transformation efforts. Every Enterprise Process Map will and should be different when looking across organizations. Its design will be driven by company strategy, a level of customer focus, and functional versus end-to-end orientations. This high-level description of the considerations of the Enterprise Process Maps is not a prescriptive "how to" guide. However, a company attempting to create one may not have the practical BPM experience to truly explore its options or impacts to the coming work of business process transformation. The biggest takeaway is that process modeling, at all levels, is a science and an art, and art is open to interpretation. It is critical that the modeler of the highest level of process mapping be a cognoscente of the message he is delivering and the factors at hand. Without sufficient focus on the design of the Enterprise Process Map, an entire BPM effort may suffer. For additional information please check: Oracle Business Process Management.

    Read the article

  • Employee Info Starter Kit: Project Mission

    - by Mohammad Ashraful Alam
    Employee Info Starter Kit is an open source ASP.NET project template that is intended to address different types of real world challenges faced by web application developers when performing common CRUD operations. Using a single database table ‘Employee’, it illustrates how to utilize Microsoft ASP.NET 4.0, Entity Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010 effectively in that context. Employee Info Starter Kit is highly influenced by the concept ‘Pareto Principle’ or 80-20 rule. where it is targeted to enable a web developer to gain 80% productivity with 20% of effort with respect to learning curve and production. User Stories The user end functionalities of this starter kit are pretty simple and straight forward that are focused in to perform CRUD operation on employee records as described below. Creating a new employee record Read existing employee record Update an existing employee record Delete existing employee records Key Technology Areas ASP.NET 4.0 Entity Framework 4.0 T-4 Template Visual Studio 2010 Architectural Objective There is no universal architecture which can be considered as the best for all sorts of applications around the world. Based on requirements, constraints, environment, application architecture can differ from one to another. Trade-off factors are one of the important considerations while deciding a particular architectural solution. Employee Info Starter Kit is highly influenced by the concept ‘Pareto Principle’ or 80-20 rule, where it is targeted to enable a web developer to gain 80% productivity with 20% of effort with respect to learning curve and production. “Productivity” as the architectural objective typically also includes other trade-off factors as well as, such as testability, flexibility, performance etc. Fortunately Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 and Visual Studio 2010 includes lots of great features that have been implemented cleverly in this project to reduce these trade-off factors in the minimum level. Why Employee Info Starter Kit is Not a Framework? Application frameworks are really great for productivity, some of which are really unavoidable in this modern age. However relying too many frameworks may overkill a project, as frameworks are typically designed to serve wide range of different usage and are less customizable or editable. On the other hand having implementation patterns can be useful for developers, as it enables them to adjust application on demand. Employee Info Starter Kit provides hundreds of “connected” snippets and implementation patterns to demonstrate problem solutions in actual production environment. It also includes Visual Studio T-4 templates that generate thousands lines of data access and business logic layer repetitive codes in literally few seconds on the fly, which are fully mock testable due to language support for partial methods and latest support for mock testing in Entity Framework. Why Employee Info Starter Kit is Different than Other Open-source Web Applications? Software development is one of the rapid growing industries around the globe, where the technology is being updated very frequently to adapt greater challenges over time. There are literally thousands of community web sites, blogs and forums that are dedicated to provide support to adapt new technologies. While some are really great to enable learning new technologies quickly, in most cases they are either too “simple and brief” to be used in real world scenarios or too “complex and detailed” which are typically focused to achieve a product goal (such as CMS, e-Commerce etc) from "end user" perspective and have a long duration learning curve with respect to the corresponding technology. Employee Info Starter Kit, as a web project, is basically "developer" oriented which actually considers a hybrid approach as “simple and detailed”, where a simple domain has been considered to intentionally illustrate most of the architectural and implementation challenges faced by web application developers so that anyone can dive into deep into the corresponding new technology or concept quickly. Roadmap Since its first release by 2008 in MSDN Code Gallery, Employee Info Starter Kit gained a huge popularity in ASP.NET community and had 1, 50,000+ downloads afterwards. Being encouraged with this great response, we have a strong commitment for the community to provide support for it with respect to latest technologies continuously. Currently hosted in Codeplex, this community driven project is planned to have a wide range of individual editions, each of which will be focused on a selected application architecture, framework or platform, such as ASP.NET Webform, ASP.NET Dynamic Data, ASP.NET MVC, jQuery Ajax (RIA), Silverlight (RIA), Azure Service Platform (Cloud), Visual Studio Automated Test etc. See here for full list of current and future editions.

    Read the article

  • Triangle numbers problem....show within 4 seconds

    - by Daredevil
    The sequence of triangle numbers is generated by adding the natural numbers. So the 7th triangle number would be 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28. The first ten terms would be: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55, ... Let us list the factors of the first seven triangle numbers: 1: 1 3: 1,3 6: 1,2,3,6 10: 1,2,5,10 15: 1,3,5,15 21: 1,3,7,21 28: 1,2,4,7,14,28 We can see that 28 is the first triangle number to have over five divisors. Given an integer n, display the first triangle number having at least n divisors. Sample Input: 5 Output 28 Input Constraints: 1<=n<=320 I was obviously able to do this question, but I used a naive algorithm: Get n. Find triangle numbers and check their number of factors using the mod operator. But the challenge was to show the output within 4 seconds of input. On high inputs like 190 and above it took almost 15-16 seconds. Then I tried to put the triangle numbers and their number of factors in a 2d array first and then get the input from the user and search the array. But somehow I couldn't do it: I got a lot of processor faults. Please try doing it with this method and paste the code. Or if there are any better ways, please tell me.

    Read the article

  • SSIS - Bulk Update at Database Field Level

    - by Adam
    Hello, Here's our mission: Receive files from clients. Each file contains anywhere from 1 to 1,000,000 records. Records are loaded to a staging area and business-rule validation is applied. Valid records are then pumped into an OLTP database in a batch fashion, with the following rules: If record does not exist (we have a key, so this isn't an issue), create it. If record exists, optionally update each database field. The decision is made based on one of 3 factors...I don't believe it's important what those factors are. Our main problem is finding an efficient method of optionally updating the data at a field level. This is applicable across ~12 different database tables, with anywhere from 10 to 150 fields in each table (original DB design leaves much to be desired, but it is what it is). Our first attempt has been to introduce a table that mirrors the staging environment (1 field in staging for each system field) and contains a masking flag. The value of the masking flag represents the 3 factors. We've then put an UPDATE similar to... UPDATE OLTPTable1 SET Field1 = CASE WHEN Mask.Field1 = 0 THEN Staging.Field1 WHEN Mask.Field1 = 1 THEN COALESCE( Staging.Field1 , OLTPTable1.Field1 ) WHEN Mask.Field1 = 2 THEN COALESCE( OLTPTable1.Field1 , Staging.Field1 ) ... As you can imagine, the performance is rather horrendous. Has anyone tackled a similar requirement? We're a MS shop using a Windows Service to launch SSIS packages that handle the data processing. Unfortunately, we're pretty much novices at this stuff.

    Read the article

  • Populate an Object Model from a data dataTable(C#3.0)

    - by Newbie
    I have a situation I am getting data from some external sources and is populating into the datatable. The data looks like this DATE WEEK FACTOR 3/26/2010 1 RM_GLOBAL_EQUITY 3/26/2010 1 RM_GLOBAL_GROWTH 3/26/2010 2 RM_GLOBAL_VALUE 3/26/2010 2 RM_GLOBAL_SIZE 3/26/2010 2 RM_GLOBAL_MOMENTUM 3/26/2010 3 RM_GLOBAL_HIST_BETA I have a object model like this public class FactorReturn { public int WeekNo { get; set; } public DateTime WeekDate { get; set; } public Dictionary<string, decimal> FactorCollection { get; set; } } As can be seen that the Date field is always constant. And a single(means unique) week can have multiple FACTORS. i.e. For a date(3/26/2010), for Week No. 1, there are two FACTORS(RM_GLOBAL_EQUITY and RM_GLOBAL_GROWTH). Similarly, For a date(3/26/2010), for Week No. 2, there are three FACTORS(RM_GLOBAL_VALUE , RM_GLOBAL_SIZE and RM_GLOBAL_MOMENTUM ). Now we need to populate this data into our object model. The final output will be WeekDate: 3/26/2010 WeekNo : 1 FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_EQUITY FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_GROWTH WeekNo : 2 FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_VALUE FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_SIZE FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_MOMENTUM WeekNo : 3 FactorCollection : RM_GLOBAL_HIST_BETA That is, overall only 1 single collection, where the Factor type will vary depending on week numbers. I have tried but of useless. Nothing works. Could you please help me?. I feel it is very tough I am using C# 3.0 Thanks

    Read the article

  • What PSU is usually used in mini-ITX cases/chassis?

    - by Subaru Tashiro
    The mini-ITX computer will be a general use computer. Not a dedicated HTPC or Home server. In general use mini-ITX cases, what PSU form factor is usually used? I understand that some case manufacturers provide custom built PSU to fit their case but I prefer to get the ones that use a PSU that follows standard form factors in case a replacement is needed. For example, what PSU fits into general purpose cases by Lian Li? Am I to assume that smaller PSU form factors also affect the possible maximum output?

    Read the article

  • How full is too full for mechanical hard drives?

    - by Sunny Molini
    I have heard many claim that it doesn't matter how full a drive is until it starts cutting into temp and virtual memory space. This doesn't make sense to me, given the nature of how the data is transacted on a hard drive. The inside of the platter presents less data per revolution than the outside of the drive does, by significant factors. The inside 40% of the radius of full size hard drive is used for the spindle, so only the outside 60% is used for data storage, but that still means that the inside track of a hard drive presents data 60% slower than the outside track. By my calculation, a Hard drive that is only 10% full should perform about 2.25 times faster than a hard drive that is 90% full, assuming that the flow is constrained by other factors. Am I wildly off base here? For all the drives I know, even the top speeds of the first 1% of the drive would be well within the bandwidth provided by a SATA 2 connection.

    Read the article

  • Which type of motherboard i should buy and why?

    - by metal gear solid
    If budged is not a problem. I just need best performance with less power consumption. I can purchase any cabinet , power supply and Motherboard. Is Power supply has any relation with Form factor? Is the size of motherboard and number of Slots only difference between all form factors? Is there any differences among form factors, related to performance of motherboard? Is bigger in Size (ATX) motherboard always better? Is it so smaller in Size motherboard will consume less power? What are pros and cons of each Form factor? What there are so many Form factor were created?

    Read the article

  • Which type of Form factor (motherboard) i should buy and why?

    - by metal gear solid
    If budged is not a problem. I just need best performance with less power consumption. I can purchase any cabinet , power supply and Motherboard. Is Power supply has any relation with Form factor, should i purchase PSU according to Form factor of motherboard? Is the size of motherboard and number of Slots only difference between all form factors? Is there any differences among form factors, related to performance of motherboard? Is bigger in Size (ATX) motherboard always better? Is it so smaller in Size motherboard will consume less power? What are pros and cons of each Form factor? What there are so many Form factor were created?

    Read the article

  • Box 2d basic questions

    - by philipp
    I am a bit new to box2d and I am developing an game with type and letters. I am using an svg font and generate the box2d bodies direct from the glyphs path definition, using the convex hull of them. I also have an decomposition routine the decomposes this hull if necessary. All this it is more or less working, except that I got some strange errors which definitely are caused by the scale factors. The problem is caused by two factors: first: the world scale of box2d, second: the the precision of curve-approximation of the glyph vectors. So through scaling down the input vertices for box2d, it happens that they become equal caused by numerical precision, what causes errors in box2d. Through scaling the my glyphs a bit up, this goes away. I also goes away if I chose a different world scale factor, but this slows down the whole animation quite much! So if my view port is about 990px * 600px and i want to animate Glyphs in box2d which should have a size from about 50px * 50px up to 300px * 300px, which scale factor of the b2world should i choose? How small should the smallest distance from on vertex to another be, while approximating the glyph vectors? Thanks for help greetings philipp EDIT:: I continued reading the docs of box2d and after rethinking of the units system, which is designed to handle object from 0.1 up to 10 meters, I calculated a scale factor of 75. So Objects 600px width will are 8 meters wide in box2d and even small objects of about 20px width will become 0.26 meters width in box2d. I will go on trying with this values, but if there is somebody out there who could give me a clever advice i would be happy!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >