Automated Failover Workflow Using Virtual Engineers

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current failover systems and methods are complex and inefficient, leading to issues such as significant duration in failover time, latency in notifying infrastructure teams, lack of visibility into failover progress, manual testing of infrastructure post-failover, and no systemic visibility into failures or audit trails for remediation.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of a method for providing failover automation, which involves obtaining a process inventory for failover, generating a data model and workflow based on this inventory, assembling virtual engineers to perform the failover, and executing the failover process with these virtual engineers.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manual failover processes are used with coordination between teams, then failover can be performed with human oversight and decision-making, but failover time duration increases significantly and operational efficiency decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefailover reliabilityVSAvoidfailover time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by pre-configuring failover workflows, assembling virtual engineers in advance, and preparing data models before actual failover events occur. This allows the system to execute failover operations immediately when needed without manual coordination delays.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables self-service by automating the entire failover process including workflow execution, virtual engineer coordination, and progress tracking without requiring human intervention. The automated system serves itself by monitoring its own state and executing remediation actions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If manual coordination between application teams and infrastructure teams is required, then proper oversight and control can be maintained, but operational complexity and communication overhead increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefailover controlVSAvoidprocess complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges application team responsibilities and infrastructure team responsibilities into a single automated workflow execution engine. The virtual engineers represent both teams' capabilities in one unified system, eliminating the need for inter-team coordination while maintaining proper control through automated validation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The workflow execution system acts as an intermediary that automatically coordinates between application failover requirements and infrastructure capabilities. Instead of human teams communicating directly, the automated system mediates the coordination through predefined workflows and virtual engineers.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Reliability

If periodic manual testing of failover readiness is performed, then system readiness can be verified, but testing frequency is limited and visibility into failover progress is lost

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefailover readinessVSAvoidtesting frequency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables continuous monitoring and automated testing of failover readiness through workflow execution tracking. Instead of periodic manual tests, the system continuously monitors workflow state, virtual engineer availability, and system readiness, providing ongoing verification without interruption to production operations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms by tracking workflow execution progress, monitoring virtual engineer performance, and providing visibility into failover readiness status. This continuous feedback loop enables automatic adjustment and verification without manual intervention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

4Loss of information

If fully manual documentation of redundancy procedures is maintained, then detailed procedural records can be kept, but documentation quickly becomes outdated as services evolve

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprocedural documentationVSAvoiddocumentation maintenance

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The system creates automated digital copies of failover procedures through workflow definitions and virtual engineer configurations. These digital representations are dynamically generated from system state and automatically updated when services evolve, eliminating the need for manual documentation updates while preserving complete procedural information.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentUS20250173214A1System and methods for application failover automation

Publication Date: 2025.05.29 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

AI summary

Provided is a failover automation system and method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, a process inventory for a failover of an application from a first datacenter to a second data center; generating, by the processor, a data model for the failover based on the process inventor; generating, by the processor, a workflow for the failover based on the data model; assembling, by the processor, a set of one or more virtual engineers to perform the failover for the application based on the workflow; and performing, by the processor, the failover for the application with the set of one or more virtual engineers based on the workflow.