Asset allocation evaluation system

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-11210616-B2
Application number	US-201916431523-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Jun 4, 2019
Priority date	Dec 31, 2015
Publication date	Dec 28, 2021
Grant date	Dec 28, 2021

Abstract

A system and method for presenting information for evaluating asset allocation. In example embodiments, the method includes determining a readiness score associated with a request location and in response to determining the readiness score associated with the request location transgresses a threshold readiness score, causing display of an alert notification within a user interface. The method further includes receiving a request submitted via the user that specifies a requested quantity of the asset type to be allocated to the request location. Based on the request, the user interface displays a fulfillment indicator to indicate a portion of the requested quantity of the asset type that is fulfilled based on combination of reallocation quantities of the asset type to be allocated to the request location from each destination location in a set of destination locations.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1. A server system comprising:
one or more processors of a machine; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the machine to perform operations comprising:
determining a readiness score associated with a request location based on a comparison of a scheduled quantity of an asset type at the request location and a historic demand quantity of the asset type at the request location;
in response to determining that the readiness score associated with the request location transgresses a threshold readiness score, automatically causing display of an alert notification within a user interface presented by a client device, the alert notification being displayed in the user interface with an indicator of a deficiency in the scheduled quantity of the asset type at the request location determined based on the comparison of the scheduled quantity to the historic demand quantity;
in response to receiving a request to reallocate a first quantity of the asset type to the request location, calculating detriment scores associated with reallocating the first quantity of the asset type from a set of source locations to the request location, wherein each detriment score is calculated based on a model distribution that specifies a baseline quantity of the asset type associated with a respective source location, each detriment score providing a measure of detriment to the respective source location caused by reallocation of a portion of the first quantity of the asset type from the respective source location to the request location;
causing the user interface presented by the client device to display:
a listing of the set of source locations,
the detriment score calculated for each respective source location; and
an input element for initiating reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location;

receiving from the client device, an input submitted via the input element displayed in the user interface presented by the client device; and
in response to receiving the input, initiating the reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location and causing the user interface to a update a fulfillment indicator to indicate a portion of the deficiency in the scheduled quantity of the asset type at the request location that is fulfilled based on reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a transport score based on an amount of resources needed to reallocate the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining an activity score that reflects activity of an asset at a current location of the asset.

4. The system of claim 1 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a maintenance score based on a current state of repair of one or more assets of the asset type.

5. The system of claim 1 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a location-demand score based on a first prospective future demand of the asset type corresponding to the request location and a second prospective future demand of the asset type corresponding to a source location.

6. The system of claim 1 , the operations further comprising:
determining a benefit score associated with reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location, the benefit score providing a measure of benefit to the request location associated with reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location; and
causing presentation of the benefit score within the user interface.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein initiating the reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location comprises:
modifying a schedule record to reflect the reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location.

8. The system of claim 1 , wherein the user interface comprises a table that includes a list of asset types allocated to the request location, a baseline quantity for each asset type, an allocated quantity for each asset type, and a gap quantity for each asset type.

9. A method comprising:
determining a readiness score associated with a request location based on a comparison of a scheduled quantity of an asset type at the request location and a historic demand quantity of the asset type at the request location;
in response to determining that the readiness score associated with the request location transgresses a threshold readiness score, automatically causing display of an alert notification within a user interface presented by a client device, the alert notification being displayed in the user interface with an indicator of a deficiency in the scheduled quantity of the asset type at the request location determined based on the comparison of the scheduled quantity to the historic demand quantity;
in response to receiving a request to reallocate a first quantity of the asset type to the request location, calculating detriment scores associated with reallocating the first quantity of the asset type from a set of source locations to the request location, wherein each detriment score is calculated based on a model distribution that specifies a baseline quantity of the asset type associated with a respective source location, each detriment score providing a measure of detriment to the respective source location caused by reallocation of a portion of the first quantity of the asset type from the respective source location to the request location;
causing the user interface presented by the client device to display:
a listing of the set of source locations,
the detriment score calculated for each respective source location; and
an input element for initiating reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location;

receiving from the client device, an input submitted via the input element displayed in the user interface presented by the client device; and
in response to receiving the input, initiating the reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location and causing the user interface to update a fulfillment indicator to indicate a portion of the deficiency in the scheduled quantity of the asset type at the request location that is fulfilled based on reallocation of the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location.

10. The method of claim 9 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a transport score based on an amount of resources needed to reallocate the first quantity of the asset type from the set of source locations to the request location.

11. The method of claim 9 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining an activity score that reflects activity of an asset at a current location of the asset.

12. The method of claim 9 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a maintenance score based on a current state of repair of one or more assets of the asset type.

13. The method of claim 9 , wherein the calculating of the detriment scores includes determining a location-dema

Assignees

• Palantir Technologies Inc

Inventors

• Brahms Christopher
• Knudson Eric
• Beard Mitchell
• Lii Patrick
• Turrell Sophia

Classifications

• H04L67/52

  specially adapted for the location of the user terminal · CPC title

• H04L67/01

  Protocols · CPC title

• G06Q10/06312 Primary

  Adjustment or analysis of established resource schedule, e.g. resource or task levelling, or dynamic rescheduling · CPC title

• H04L67/10

  in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network (software deployment G06F8/60; multiprogramming arrangements G06F9/46) · CPC title

• H04L67/42

  Electricity · mapped topic