Information processing device, information processing method, and program

Abstract

This information processing device comprises a management unit that manages information indicating that an authorized subject having authority to make an assessment before execution of countermeasures based on an assessment rule has approved the assessment rule. The management unit outputs the information to a data storage unit that stores records relating to countermeasures determined on the basis of the assessment rule.

Description

Information processing device, information processing method, and program

[0001] The present invention relates to a technique for dealing with problem events in NW (network) operations.

[0002] In dealing with a problem event in network operation, a network operation center or the like collects data from the network, analyzes the event, determines how to deal with it, and then takes action on the network.

[0003] Countermeasure decisions include creating countermeasure content and making decisions before taking action. Of these, automatic generation of countermeasure content has progressed to some extent using machine learning inference, case-based inference, rule-based inference, etc.

[0004] Regarding the judgment before the countermeasure is executed, a human judgement by a person in a position of authority or the like is required depending on the countermeasure content. Note that if the automatically generated countermeasure content does not require a human judgement by a person in a position of authority or the like, the human judgement before the countermeasure is executed may be skipped.

[0005] OMG (Object Management Group), "Decision Model and Notation".

[0006] For example, by using a judgment table based on the technology disclosed in Non-Patent Document 1, it is possible to automatically determine whether human intervention is required. However, while network operations require a specific person with a designated authority to make decisions, conventional technology does not have a scheme that ties the creator of the judgment table to a specific person. As a result, the creator of the judgment table essentially acts as a proxy to make decisions before countermeasures are implemented. In other words, there is a problem in that a person other than the one authorized to make decisions before countermeasures are implemented can make decisions before countermeasures are implemented.

[0007] The present invention has been made in consideration of the above points, and aims to provide a technology for outputting a record showing that a decision to take action has been made with the approval of a person who has been granted the authority to make a decision, when dealing with a problematic event that may involve the judgment of an authorized person.

[0008] According to the disclosed technology, an information processing device is provided that includes a management unit that manages information indicating that an authorized entity that has the authority to make a decision before implementing an action based on a judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, and the management unit outputs the information to a data storage unit that stores records related to the action decided based on the judgment rule.

[0009] According to the disclosed technology, when dealing with a problem event that may require the judgment of an authorized human being, a technology is provided for outputting a record indicating that a decision to take action was made with the approval of a human being who has been granted the authority to make the decision.

[0010] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an image of how to deal with a problem event in NW operation. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of a judgment table. FIG. 3 is a diagram for explaining processing for executing a response in the prior art. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a configuration of an information processing system 10 in an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 5 is a flowchart of processing in basic operation examples 1-1 and 1-2. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of an approval table in basic operation example 1-1. FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of an approval table in basic operation example 1-2. FIG. 8 is a flowchart of processing in basic operation example 2. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of data attached to a digital signature in basic operation example 2. FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining an overview of CBR. FIG. 11 is a flowchart of processing in Example 1. FIG. 12 is a diagram for explaining processing in Example 1. FIG. 13 is a flowchart of processing in Example 1. FIG. 14 is a diagram for explaining processing in Example 1. FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of an approval table cleared in Example 1. FIG. 16 is a flowchart of processing in Example 2. FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of an approval table in Example 2. FIG. 18 is a diagram showing an example of a hardware configuration of an information processing device.

[0011] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. The embodiment described below is merely an example, and the embodiment to which the present invention is applied is not limited to the following embodiment.

[0012] In the following, the conventional technology and problems related to this embodiment will be described in more detail, and then the technology related to this embodiment will be described in detail. Note that in this embodiment, an embodiment in which the technology according to the present invention is applied to network operations will be described, but the technology according to the present invention can be applied to various fields (e.g., business automation and workflow in general) without being limited to network operations.

[0013] (Regarding the Prior Art) In network operation, automation (automatic generation) of problem-solving measures has progressed to a certain extent. However, because the execution of the measures can affect not only the network service itself but also higher-level services that are based on it, human intervention, such as by authorized personnel, may be required. In such cases, there are issues with the efficiency and speed of the execution of the measures. Issues with efficiency and speed include a decrease in efficiency due to authorized personnel working the night shift during night operations, or a decrease in speed due to delayed response due to calls outside of working hours.

[0014] An image of how to deal with problem events in network operations is shown in Figure 1. In the example of Figure 1, a network operation center collects data from the network, analyzes the event, determines how to deal with it, and then takes action on the network.

[0015] As mentioned above, the decision to take action includes the creation of action content and a decision before the action is taken. Of these, the creation of action content has been automated to some extent using machine learning inference, case-based inference, rule-based inference, and the like. Meanwhile, the decision before the action is taken involves the judgment of a human, such as an authorized person, depending on the action content. Note that if the automatically generated action content does not require a human judgment by a person in a position of authority, the human decision before the action is taken may be skipped.

[0016] An example of a case where human intervention is required before a countermeasure is taken is when, for example, "when a fault event occurs and network services are affected, human intervention is required."

[0017] <Prior Art of Decision Automation> A business rule engine that implements a decision table in Non-Patent Document 1 (DMN (Decision Model and Notation)) is known as a decision automation technology, and is used in fields such as credit judgment and medical diagnosis.

[0018] With this conventional technology, if human judgment criteria can be expressed as a DMN judgment table and the necessary information items can be input into the judgment table, the judgment result (executable / unexecutable) can be technically output in the same way as a human.

[0019] As will be described later, a judgment table is used in the system according to this embodiment, but the judgment table itself is based on DMN and is a conventional technique.

[0020] Figure 2 shows an example of a judgment table used in this embodiment when an event such as a failure occurs. In the judgment table of Figure 2, for example, if condition A is "a network service is being affected" and condition B is "a congestion event involving only a specific subscriber number," rule number 1 indicates that human intervention by a manager or other person is not required when "a network service is being affected" and "a congestion event involving only a specific subscriber number" occurs. Furthermore, rule number 2 indicates that human intervention is required when "a network service is being affected" and the event is other than "a congestion event involving only a specific subscriber number."

[0021] In this embodiment, the one or more rules are shown in the form of a "judgment table," but the one or more rules may be held in a form other than a table.

[0022] Fig. 3 shows a process for taking action in the prior art when using the decision table shown in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 3, first, a rule creator creates a decision table on the rule engine.

[0023] The rule engine checks events occurring in the network against the judgment rules to determine whether human intervention is necessary. If it is determined that human intervention is unnecessary, a countermeasure is taken without human intervention. If it is determined that human intervention is necessary, a human intervention is required, and the countermeasure is taken if, for example, a human decides to take action.

[0024] (Issues) As described above, by using a decision table, it is possible to automatically determine whether human intervention is required. However, while network operations require specific personnel with authorized roles to make decisions, DMN does not have a scheme that ties the creator of the decision table to a specific person. Therefore, the creator of the decision table essentially acts as a proxy to make decisions before countermeasures are implemented. In other words, it becomes possible for a different entity than the authorized entity to make decisions before countermeasures are implemented.

[0025] As described above, in the conventional technology, the creator of the judgment table essentially acts as a proxy to make pre-action judgments. In other words, it becomes possible for a subject other than the one authorized to make pre-action judgments.

[0026] In other words, the rule created by the rule creator (≠ authorized official) is applied in the actual operation, and the output record shows that the decision made by the rule creator was followed. This record does not show that "the decision made before the action was taken was made in accordance with the decision made by the authorized official."

[0027] In processes such as post-event explanations of the results of measures required in network operations or verification of compliance with internal controls, the above output records do not serve as evidence of the consistency of authority settings and decision-making bodies.

[0028] The system configuration and operation of this embodiment for solving the above problems will be described below.

[0029] (System Configuration Example) Fig. 4 shows a configuration example of the information processing system 10 according to this embodiment. As shown in Fig. 4, the information processing system 10 according to this embodiment has an approval unit 100, an authentication unit 200, a rule engine 300, an approval table management unit 400, a data accumulation unit 500, a CBR execution unit 600, and a judgment table monitoring unit 700. The approval unit 100 has a data input unit 110 and a digital signature unit 120.

[0030] The digital signature unit 120 is used in Basic Operation Example 2, which will be described later, and may not be provided in Basic Operation Examples 1-1 and 1-2, and in the embodiments. The approval table management unit 400 may not be provided in Basic Operation Example 2. The CBR execution unit 600 and the judgment table monitoring unit 700 are used in the embodiments, and may not be provided in the basic operation. In addition, when the CBR execution unit 600 and the judgment table monitoring unit 700 are provided, the CBR execution unit 600 and the judgment table monitoring unit 700 may be independent functional units, or may be functions (processes) within other functional units (e.g., the rule engine 300).

[0031] The approval table management unit 400 may also be called the "management unit 400." The rule engine 300 may also be called the "rule execution unit 300."

[0032] The "approval unit 100, authentication unit 200, rule engine 300, approval table management unit 400, data accumulation unit 500, CBR execution unit 600, and judgment table monitoring unit 700" may be realized by a single information processing device (computer), or each unit may be a separate information processing device, or the "approval unit 100, authentication unit 200, rule engine 300, approval table management unit 400, data accumulation unit 500, CBR execution unit 600, and judgment table monitoring unit 700" may be made up of multiple information processing devices. The "information processing device" may be a physical machine or a virtual machine (e.g., a virtual machine on the cloud).

[0033] For example, the approval unit 100 may be a client terminal (such as a PC) for approving judgment tables for authorized personnel, and the "authentication unit 200, rule engine 300, approval table management unit 400, and data storage unit 500" may be composed of one or more information processing devices.

[0034] The data input unit 110 in the approval unit 100 is a functional unit for inputting approval data into the judgment table. The digital signature unit 120 is a functional unit for attaching a digital signature to the judgment table. The authentication unit 200 authenticates people (such as officials).

[0035] The rule engine 300 determines a countermeasure based on the judgment table and an event that has occurred in the network, and determines whether human intervention is required to determine whether the countermeasure should be executed. The approval table management unit 400 is a functional unit that stores and manages the approval table. The data accumulation unit 500 is a functional unit that accumulates data for audits and post-examination explanations. The data accumulation unit 500 may be divided into multiple accumulation units. In other words, the data accumulation unit 500 may include multiple accumulation units.

[0036] The operation of the information processing system 10 in this embodiment will be described in detail below. First, basic operation examples 1 and 2 will be described as basic operation examples, and then examples 1 and 2 will be described as more specific operations. Note that basic operation example 1 includes basic operation example 1-1 and basic operation example 1-2, and each will be described below.

[0037] (Basic Operation Example 1-1) As mentioned above, in the conventional technology, the creator of the judgment table essentially makes decisions before countermeasures are implemented on behalf of the creator. In other words, it becomes possible for a subject other than the one authorized to make decisions before countermeasures are implemented. To solve this problem, in Basic Operation Example 1-1, the fact that the authorized person in a position has approved the contents of the judgment table is explicitly recorded and managed, and the rule engine 300 makes decisions on behalf of the person.

[0038] A basic operation example 1-1 in the information processing system 10 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

[0039] In S10 (step 10), the rule creator accesses the rule engine 300 from, for example, their own terminal, and creates a judgment table on the rule engine 300. The judgment table is, for example, the judgment table shown in Fig. 2. Note that the rule creator is a different person from the entity (such as a manager) authorized to make judgments before taking action.

[0040] Hereinafter, the "subject authorized to make decisions before taking action" may be referred to as the "authorized subject." The authorized subject may also be referred to as the "Personnel."

[0041] In S11 (step 11), the authorized entity performs authentication by accessing the authentication unit 200 using, for example, the approval unit 100 (assumed to be a client terminal used by the authorized entity). Here, it is assumed that the authorized entity has been successfully authenticated. If the authentication had failed, the authorized entity would not be able to execute subsequent processes.

[0042] In S12, the authority accesses the rule engine 300 from the approval unit 100 to refer to the judgment table.

[0043] Here, the authority determines that the judgment table (specifically, each rule described in the judgment table) is valid, and in S13a, the authority inputs information indicating that the judgment table has been approved, using the data input unit 110 of the approval unit 100. In S13b, the information indicating that the judgment table has been approved is recorded in the approval table managed by the approval table management unit 400.

[0044] An example of an approval table is shown in Fig. 6. Here, an approval table is provided for each judgment table, but this is not limitative. For example, an approval table may be provided for each rule, for each set of judgment tables, or the like. Fig. 6 shows approval table #i corresponding to judgment table #i.

[0045] 6, when approval is given, the approval table records the approval start date and time in association with the personnel who gave the approval. The approval end date and time may also be recorded.

[0046] 5, during the operation of the network, the rule engine 300 applies the rules in the judgment table and makes a judgment on the execution of a countermeasure. For example, if the event that has occurred requires the intervention of a human (authority), the countermeasure is executed through the judgment of the human (authority).

[0047] In S14a, the rule engine 300 outputs a record of the countermeasure execution (a record for audit and post-explanation) to the data storage unit 500, which stores the record. The contents of the record include, for example, information such as "According to rule X, countermeasure Z was executed based on the approval of authority entity #Y."

[0048] In S14b, the approval table management unit 400 outputs the approval table (e.g., FIG. 6) to the data storage unit 500 as a record for audit and post-examination explanation, and the record is stored in the data storage unit 500. Note that, like the data store for audit data, it is desirable that the storage destination for the approval table be a data store that is protected against data tampering by hardware.

[0049] As a result of the above processing, the recorded content in the data storage unit 500 will be recorded as follows, by comparing the records of both S14a and S14b: the decision was made in accordance with the rules approved by the authorized official (e.g., Personnel #01, #02).

[0050] (Basic Operation Example 1-2) Next, basic operation example 1-2 will be described. The processing flow in basic operation example 1-2 is the same as that in basic operation example 1-1, as explained using the flowchart in Figure 5. Below, differences from basic operation example 1-1 will be explained.

[0051] In Basic Operation Example 1-2, when authority is granted to involve multiple human judgements as authorized entities (those in positions of authority to execute a response), an item is added to the approval table to accommodate a consensus system (aggregate approval is granted only when all of the multiple authorized entities approve).

[0052] An example of the approval table stored in the approval table management unit 400 in Basic Operation Example 1-2 is shown in Fig. 7. As shown in Fig. 7, compared to the approval table in Basic Operation Example 1-1 (Fig. 6), an item for "Whether or not a consultation is required in the case of multiple approvers" has been added.

[0053] In the example of Figure 7, it is shown that a consultation between three persons, Personels #1, #2, and #3, is "required." In the example of Figure 7, Personel #3 is "unapproved," but let's assume that Personel #3 also approves the judgment table. This makes judgment table #i valid.

[0054] At this time, if an event that matches the rule that human intervention is "required" occurs and a countermeasure is taken through a consultation between the three persons, Personels #1, #2, and #3, a record indicating that "a countermeasure was taken through a consultation between the three persons, Personels #1, #2, and #3" is stored in the data storage unit 500 from the rule engine 300. In addition, an approval table indicating that the three persons approved the judgment table is also stored in the data storage unit 500.

[0055] As a result of the above processing, the recorded content in the data storage unit 500 will be recorded as follows, by comparing the records of both S14a and S14b, and will indicate that the judgment was made in accordance with the rules approved by the authorized officials (e.g., Personnel #01, #02, #3).

[0056] (Basic Operation Example 2) Next, we will explain Basic Operation Example 2. In Basic Operation Example 2, instead of providing an approval table for each judgment table as in Basic Operation Example 1, an authorized official affixes an electronic signature to each judgment table itself.

[0057] A second example of basic operation in the information processing system 10 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

[0058] The processes of S20 to S22 in FIG. 8 are the same as the processes of S10 to S12 in the basic operation example 1 (FIG. 5).

[0059] Based on the reference in S22, the authority determines that the judgment table (specifically, each rule described in the judgment table) is valid, and in S23a, the authority inputs information indicating that it has approved the judgment table using digital signature unit 120 of approval unit 100. In S23b, digital signature unit 120, having recognized the approval by the authority, instructs rule engine 300 to attach a digital signature to the judgment table indicating that the authority has approved the judgment table, and rule engine 300 attaches a digital signature to the judgment table. The digital signature may include data indicating the approval period.

[0060] 9 shows an example of data that accompanies (is included in) an electronic signature. In the example shown in FIG. 9, for example, the electronic signature added by Personnel#01 is accompanied by "2023 / 11 / 20 00:00" as the approval start date and time. Also, the electronic signature added by Personnel#02 is accompanied by "2023 / 12 / 01 00:00" as the approval start date and time and "2024 / 01 / 31 23:59" as the approval end date and time.

[0061] 8, during the operation of the network, the rule engine 300 applies the rules in the judgment table and makes a judgment on the execution of a countermeasure. For example, if the event that has occurred requires the intervention of a human (authority), the countermeasure is executed through the judgment of the human (authority).

[0062] In S24a, the rule engine 300 outputs a record relating to the countermeasure execution (a record for audit and post-explanation) to the data storage unit 500, which then stores the record. The record stored in the data storage unit 500 in S24a includes, for example, information that "countermeasure execution was carried out based on the judgment of authority entities #1 and #2, based on judgment table #i," as well as an electronic signature indicating that authority entity #1 approved judgment table #i and an electronic signature indicating that authority entity #2 approved judgment table #i.

[0063] As a result of the above processing, the recorded content in the data storage unit 500 indicates that the decision was made in accordance with the rules approved by the authorized officials, Personnel #01 and #02.

[0064] (Regarding CBR) In Examples 1 and 2 described below, case-based reasoning (CBR) disclosed in Reference 1, "Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1): 39-59," is used. Therefore, an overview of CBR will be described here with reference to Fig. 10. CBR processing is performed by a CBR execution unit 600.

[0065] Figure 10 is an excerpt from "Fig. 1. The CBR Cycle" in Reference 1. In CBR, problems are solved for new cases based on past cases, following the steps (1) to (4).

[0066] (1) Case retrieval When a new case (problem) is entered, one or more source cases (past cases that are the basis for problem solving) that are most similar to the new case are retrieved from the case base, which stores multiple past cases.

[0067] (2) Case reuse: Information and knowledge from cases similar to the new case are reused to construct a solution adapted to the new case. The constructed solution is output as a "Suggested Solution."

[0068] (3) Case revision: The proposed solution is evaluated, and if it does not meet the requirements, the solution is adjusted (revised). The revised solution may be output as a "Revised Solution." The final output is output as a "Confirmed solution."

[0069] (4) Case retention: Some of this experience is retained, which may be useful in solving future problems.

[0070] (Example 1) Next, an explanation will be given of Example 1. Example 1 is an example in which CBR is applied to Basic Operation Example 1-1.

[0071] In Example 1, when a problem solution is automatically generated as a "Suggested Solution" by applying CBR, the output is input into the decision table of this embodiment, and the output result from the rule engine 300 based on the input is returned as the final CBR output "Confirmed Solution." This enables the solution to be executed based on the distinction between "automatic execution possible / execution with human intervention required" based on the judgment of an authorized official, thereby resolving issues of efficiency and speed.

[0072] The processing of the first embodiment will be described with reference to the flowchart in Fig. 11. Note that S14a "record output from rule engine" and S14b "record output from approval table management unit" described in basic operation example 1-1 are also executed in the first embodiment in the same way as in basic operation example 1-1 after the countermeasure is taken. In the following explanation, the explanation of "record output from rule engine" and "record output from approval table management unit" will be omitted.

[0073] The processing of S100 to S103b in FIG. 11 is the same as S10 to S13b in the basic operation example 1-1 (FIG. 5).

[0074] During the operation of the network, in S104, the CBR execution unit 600 performs case-based reasoning from events in the network to generate an intermediate output "Suggested Solution," and inputs this to the decision table on the rule engine 300 that was approved in S103a and S103b. Note that, apart from this method, the solution (revised solution) after the RIVISE process in the CBR execution unit 600 may also be input to the approved decision table.

[0075] An example of when a "Suggested Solution" is input into the judgment table is shown in Fig. 12. In the example of Fig. 12, the contents of the "Suggested Solution" match "Condition X = applicable, Condition Y = applicable, Human intervention = not required." In other words, the "Suggested Solution" can be automatically executed. Therefore, based on the judgment table and the above input, the rule engine 300 outputs information indicating that the "Suggested Solution can be automatically executed."

[0076] In S105 of the flow shown in FIG. 11, the output of the rule engine 300 (decision table) ("Suggested Solution can be automatically executed") is returned to the CBR execution unit 600 as "Confirmed Solution," which is the final output of CBR.

[0077] In S106, the CBR execution unit 600 automatically executes the Suggested Solution content (the content of dealing with the network problem event) in accordance with the final output of the CBR.

[0078] <Example 1: Change of Approval Table> In Example 1, when a change is made to the judgment table shown in Fig. 12, the corresponding approval table must also be returned to an unapproved state and approval must be redone. For this purpose, the judgment table monitoring unit 700 is used. The judgment table monitoring unit 700 monitors whether the contents of the judgment table have been changed, and if it detects that the contents have been changed, it changes the approval table to unapproved.

[0079] That is, the judgment table monitor 700 constantly (or frequently) monitors whether the contents of the judgment table have been changed, and upon detecting a change in the contents, clears the approval start date and time and approval end date and time in the corresponding approval table.

[0080] The above process will be described with reference to the flowchart in Fig. 13. In S110, a change occurs to the contents of the judgment table. An example of the change is shown in Fig. 14. In the example of Fig. 14, when "Condition X = Applicable, Condition Y = Applicable", the change is made to "Human Intervention = Required".

[0081] In S111, the judgment table monitoring unit 700 detects the above-mentioned change in content. In S112, the judgment table monitoring unit 700 clears the approval start date and time and approval end date and time in the approval table. An example of the cleared approval table is shown in FIG.

[0082] After the approval table is cleared, the flow of the first embodiment shown in Fig. 11 is executed. It is assumed that the changed judgment table is approved by the rights entity through the flow of Fig. 11 .

[0083] At this time, as shown in FIG. 14, the rule engine 300 outputs information indicating that "the contents of the Suggested Solution are to be implemented with the intervention of human judgment" based on the input from the CBR execution unit 600 (S104).

[0084] In S105, the output of the rule engine 300 (decision table) ("Suggested Solution content is executed with human intervention") is returned to the CBR execution unit 600 as a "Confirmed Solution," which is the final output of CBR.

[0085] In S106, the CBR execution unit 600 presents the Suggested Solution (the solution to the network problem) to a human as requiring human intervention, based on the final output of the CBR. After this, the solution is executed (or not executed) based on the human's judgment.

[0086] (Example 2) Next, a description will be given of Example 2. Example 2 is an example based on Basic Operation Example 1-2.

[0087] It is assumed that both the managed network user company and the managed network provider NOC (Network Operation Center) are responsible for dealing with the problem. For example, it is conceivable that a rule is established by a consensus system between the two parties as to whether or not human intervention by a person in a position of authority is required to execute the problem. In the second embodiment, the basic operation example 1-2 is applied to such a case.

[0088] The processing flow of the second embodiment is shown in Fig. 16. The overall processing flow S200 to S204b is the same as the processing flow S10 to S14b in the basic operation example 1-2 described with reference to Fig. 5.

[0089] 17 shows an example of the approval table managed by the approval table management unit 400 in the second embodiment. As shown in Fig. 17, in the second embodiment, Personnel #01 is the person in charge of the information system of the managed network user company, and Personnel #02 is the person in charge of operation of the NOC that provides the managed network.

[0090] 17 shows that a conference between two persons, Personels #1 and #2, is "necessary." The rule engine 300 (or an independently provided functional unit for monitoring conferences) determines whether approval table #i satisfies the setting for whether a conference is necessary, and performs processing to invalidate judgment table #i while the setting is not satisfied, and to activate judgment table #i while the setting is satisfied.

[0091] For example, in the example of Figure 17, even if both Personels #1 and #2 select "Necessary" in the "Necessary for consultation when multiple approvers" item, if one of Personels #1 and #2 does not approve judgment table #i, the rule engine 300 will invalidate judgment table #i.

[0092] (Hardware Configuration Example) Any of the information processing devices described in this embodiment can be realized, for example, by causing a computer to execute a program. This computer may be a physical computer or a virtual machine on a cloud.

[0093] That is, the information processing device can be realized by executing a program corresponding to the processing performed by the information processing device using hardware resources such as a CPU and memory built into the computer. The program can be recorded on a computer-readable recording medium (such as a portable memory) and stored or distributed. The program can also be provided via a network such as the Internet or email.

[0094] Fig. 18 is a diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the computer. The computer in Fig. 18 includes a drive device 1000, an auxiliary storage device 1002, a memory device 1003, a CPU 1004, an interface device 1005, a display device 1006, an input device 1007, an output device 1008, and the like, all of which are interconnected via a bus B. The computer may further include a GPU.

[0095] The program that realizes the processing on the computer is provided by a recording medium 1001, such as a CD-ROM or a memory card. When the recording medium 1001 storing the program is set in the drive device 1000, the program is installed from the recording medium 1001 to the auxiliary storage device 1002 via the drive device 1000. However, the program does not necessarily have to be installed from the recording medium 1001, but may be downloaded from another computer via a network. The auxiliary storage device 1002 stores the installed program as well as necessary files, data, etc.

[0096] The memory device 1003 reads and stores a program from the auxiliary storage device 1002 when an instruction to start the program is received. The CPU 1004 realizes functions related to the information processing device in accordance with the program stored in the memory device 1003. The interface device 1005 is used as an interface for connecting to a network, etc. The display device 1006 displays a GUI (Graphical User Interface) or the like according to the program. The input device 1007 is composed of a keyboard, mouse, buttons, a touch panel, etc., and is used to input various operation instructions. The output device 1008 outputs the results of calculations.

[0097] (Summary of the embodiment, effects, etc.) As explained above, in the technology explained in this embodiment, a means for recording the judge is provided for each judgment table of the rule engine, so that it is possible to output a record that a decision to take action was made in accordance with a rule approved by an authority (e.g., an official who has been granted the authority to make a decision).

[0098] More specifically, the direct technical effects are as follows:

[0099] This solves the problem in the prior art that the creator of the judgment table ends up making the decision before the countermeasure is implemented on behalf of the creator in the records, and makes it possible to output a record that the countermeasure implementation decision has been made with the approval of a person in a position of authority who has been granted the authority to make the decision.

[0100] In addition, the following effects can be achieved from the perspective of network operations:

[0101] The rule engine technology in the prior art has avoided application to the automation of decisions on how to deal with problems in network operations due to the above-mentioned issues, but the technology according to the present embodiment makes it possible to increase the number of cases in which the rule engine technology can be applied, thereby improving the efficiency and speed of network operations.

[0102] The following additional notes are provided regarding the above-described embodiments.

[0103] <Additional Notes> (Additional Item 1) An information processing device comprising: a management unit that manages information indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before execution of an action based on a judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, wherein the management unit outputs the information to a data accumulation unit that stores records related to actions decided based on the judgment rule. (Additional Item 2) The information processing device according to Additional Item 1, wherein the judgment rule is a decision table having one or more rules. (Additional Item 3) The information processing device according to Additional Item 1, wherein the information managed by the management unit includes information indicating whether consultation among multiple authority entities is necessary. (Additional Item 4) An information processing device comprising: a rule execution unit that adds to the judgment rule an electronic signature indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before execution of an action based on the judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, and outputs a record related to the action decided based on the judgment rule together with the electronic signature to the data accumulation unit. (Supplementary Item 5) An information processing method executed by an information processing device, wherein the information processing device comprises a management unit that manages information indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before execution of an action based on a judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, and the management unit outputs the information to a data accumulation unit that stores a record of the action decided based on the judgment rule. (Supplementary Item 6) An information processing method executed by an information processing device having a rule execution unit, comprising: the rule execution unit attaching to the judgment rule an electronic signature indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before execution of an action based on the judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, and the rule execution unit outputting to the data accumulation unit a record of the action decided based on the judgment rule together with the electronic signature. (Supplementary Item 7) A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the information processing device according to any one of Supplementary Items 1 to 4.

[0104] Although the present embodiment has been described above, the present invention is not limited to such a specific embodiment, and various modifications and changes are possible within the scope of the gist of the present invention described in the claims.

[0105] 10 Information processing system 100 Approval unit 110 Data input unit 120 Digital signature unit 200 Authentication unit 300 Rule engine 400 Approval table management unit 500 Data storage unit 600 CBR execution unit 700 Judgment table monitoring unit 1000 Drive device 1001 Recording medium 1002 Auxiliary storage device 1003 Memory device 1004 CPU 1005 Interface device 1006 Display device 1007 Input device 1008 Output device

Claims

a management unit that manages information indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before a measure based on a judgment rule has approved the judgment rule; The management unit outputs the information to a data storage unit that stores records relating to the measures decided based on the judgment rules. Information processing device. 　 The decision rule is a decision table having one or more rules. The information processing device according to claim 1 . 　 The information managed by the management unit includes information indicating whether or not a consultation among multiple authorized entities is necessary. The information processing device according to claim 1 . 　 a rule execution unit that adds an electronic signature to the judgment rule, indicating that an authority having the authority to make a decision before the execution of a measure based on the judgment rule has approved the judgment rule, and outputs a record of the measure decided based on the judgment rule together with the electronic signature to a data storage unit; An information processing device comprising: 　 An information processing method executed by an information processing device, the information processing device includes a management unit that manages information indicating that an authority having authority to make a decision before execution of a measure based on a judgment rule has approved the judgment rule; a step in which the management unit outputs the information to a data storage unit that stores records relating to the measures decided based on the judgment rules. An information processing method comprising: 　 An information processing method executed by an information processing device having a rule execution unit, the rule execution unit attaching to the judgment rule an electronic signature indicating that the judgment rule has been approved by an authority that has the authority to make a judgment before the execution of a countermeasure based on the judgment rule; a step in which the rule execution unit outputs a record of the action decided based on the judgment rule to a data storage unit together with the electronic signature; An information processing method comprising: 　 A program for causing a computer to function as the information processing device according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

Images