Data Retention Framework Using Business Rules for Archive Eligibility

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current data storage systems rely solely on retention periods for archiving records, leading to inefficient storage and increased costs due to unnecessary retention of active records, as they fail to consider business-specific criteria that determine a record's activity status.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a data retention framework that uses business rules to determine archive eligibility criteria, allowing records to be marked as eligible or not eligible for archiving based on criteria beyond the retention period, thereby maintaining active records in primary storage and archiving inactive ones.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of energy

If records are archived based solely on retention period, then storage costs are reduced, but operational convenience deteriorates due to premature archiving of active records

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestorage costsVSAvoidoperational convenience
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of energyVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes the archiving decision parameters from solely time-based (retention period) to a composite of time-based and status-based parameters. By evaluating both the retention period and the record's activity status through business rules, the system determines archiving eligibility more accurately, preventing premature archiving of active records while still archiving inactive ones to reduce storage costs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms by continuously monitoring record status and activity levels. Business rules evaluate current record states and provide feedback on archiving eligibility, allowing the system to adjust archiving decisions dynamically based on actual record usage patterns rather than relying solely on predetermined time periods.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Ease of operation

If retention period is extended to maintain operational convenience, then accessibility is improved, but storage costs increase due to retention of inactive records

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveaccessibilityVSAvoidstorage costs
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from a single parameter (retention period) to multiple parameters for archiving decisions. By incorporating record status and activity evaluation alongside retention period, the system can identify inactive records that are safe to archive even within the retention period window, thereby reducing storage costs without compromising accessibility of active records.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies different archiving treatments to different records based on their individual characteristics. Rather than applying a uniform retention policy to all records, the system evaluates each record's activity status and applies archiving decisions locally - archiving inactive records while maintaining active records in primary storage, optimizing both costs and accessibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Measurement precision

If business rule evaluation is added to archiving process, then archiving accuracy is improved, but processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvearchiving accuracyVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by pre-defining business rules and archiving criteria before the actual archiving process. Records are pre-evaluated against these established rules to determine archiving eligibility in advance, which streamlines the subsequent archiving execution and reduces processing time during actual archiving operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The archiving process is segmented into distinct evaluation stages. The system divides the complex archiving decision into separate business rule evaluations, each assessing specific criteria independently. This segmentation allows for more efficient processing by evaluating different aspects of record eligibility separately rather than as a monolithic assessment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP3308295B1Data retention framework
Publication Date: 2022.07.27 ORACLE INT CORP
  • EP3308295B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3308295B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3308295B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Systems, methods, and other embodiments associated with a computerized data retention framework that enforces archive eligibility criteria beyond a simple retention period are described. In one embodiment, a computerized method (400) includes identifying (410) a record that has been stored in a primary data store for at least a retention period prescribed for the record and evaluating (420) the record to determine if archive eligibility criteria for the record are met. When the archive eligibility criteria is met (430), the record is marked (450) as eligible for archiving. When the archive eligibility criteria is not met (430), the record is marked as not eligible for archiving (440).