# US 10,311,380 B2 · Systems for culture cartography

> Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt

- Number: US 10,311,380 B2
- Document ID: US10311380B2
- Status: Granted
- Kind: B2
- Application number: 14/310,759
- Filed: 2014-06-20
- Published: 2014-12-11
- Granted: 2019-06-04
- Earliest claimed: 2012-08-15
- Assignees: Roundhouse One LLC
- Applicants: Roundhouse One LLC
- Inventors: Mark Raymond Miller; Hadar Wissotzky; Natan Goore; Signo Uddenberg; Christopher Damien; Evelyn Fisher
- Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US10311380B2

## CPC

- G06Q 10/00: Administration; Management
- G06Q: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR

## Abstract

A system provides quantification and mapping of cultural characteristics. An analytic engine collects and organizes cultural attribute information by binary score and by cultural tendency. A cultural score engine coupled to the analytic engine receives cultural attribute information by category and scores the cultural attribute data for each cultural attribute to create scored data. A map engine receives the scored data and maps the cultural attribute data to a graphic output. An assessment engine quantifies areas, organization priorities, or cultural tendencies associated with each graphic output. A comparison engine compares a plurality of graphic outputs in a single comparison graphic output of cultural tendencies.

## Claims

### Claim 1

A system that provides quantification and mapping of cultural characteristics comprising:
a plurality of physical assets;
a data management system that includes an extract transform load (ETL) that includes a physical asset data analysis validator which determines if data from at least a portion of the plurality of physical assets meets value thresholds, if yes the data is sent to a data warehouse of the data management system, an adaptive platform that includes one or more analytic engines for at least a portion of the plurality of physical assets, and a report builder coupled to the plurality of physical assets, a data warehouse, an adaptive, platform that includes one or more analytic engines, a data analysis evaluator, the data warehouse coupled to a server farm, the warehouse including a plurality of databases selected from at least one of: a data management system database, one or more client databases; qualifier metadata; peer network metadata; and data management system historical data, the data management system coupled to the plurality of physical assets and the data server farm, the data management system including the data warehouse coupled to the server farm and at least a portion of the plurality of physical assets, the warehouse including a plurality of databases for at least a portion of the physical assets, the data management system uses multi-dimensional analysis to predict changes and make changes for relative to a study for at least one of a physical asset;
a user interface that includes a user input portal and a reports display, the server farm configured to transform raw data into a format usable by the data management system and pass it to the data warehouse, the user interface coupled to the data management and system;
a scenario builder that uses defined relationships between one or more user-prioritized lenses and incoming data to determine possible short-term and long-term responses to at least one of client facilities and operations that the physical assets wherein short-term responses are developed by a response developer and are passed to a report generator that affect the everyday operations of a facility, and a long-range response developer directed to modification of physical assets, the response developer predicting outcomes and makes changes for at least a portion of the plurality of physical assets in response to the multi-dimensional analysis, where the multi-dimensional analysis is defined as analysis that compares, calculates and performs a correlation on at least a portion of the plurality of physical assets and their attributes from at least two distinct dimensions, where a time and value are used to understand how the plurality of physical assets change over time;
wherein a comparison graphic output predicts outcomes and make changes for a renovation of at least a portion of a plurality of physical assets, where short-term responses are developed by a recurring response developer and a long-range response developer predicts outcomes based on changes to at least a portion of the physical assets.

### Claim 2 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the analytic engine generates one or more culture describing attributes from the cultural attribute information and assigns data scores to the cultural attribute information.

### Claim 3 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the analytic engine assigns data by category, with the assignment of data by category selected by at least one of, an attribute, by binary and by cultural tendencies.

### Claim 4 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the graphic output is a mapped output.

### Claim 5 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the comparison engine calculates a quantifiable allocation to compare the assessed cultural attributes to other cultures.

### Claim 6 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein each attribute includes a selection of sub-attributes selected from at least one of, diversity, social structure, environmental wellness, human wellness, management, financial, decision method and technology adeptness.

### Claim 7 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein for each attribute being scored using a binary score, each attribute is given a corresponding binary ruler with opposing tendencies for the attribute.

### Claim 8 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein for the binary score, each attribute is scored on a scale.

### Claim 9 (depends on 8)

The system of claim 8, wherein, the scale can be set from −10 to 10.

### Claim 10 (depends on 8)

The system of claim 8, wherein, the scale can be set from 0 to 20.

### Claim 11 (depends on 8)

The system of claim 8, wherein, the scale can be set from −5 to 20.

### Claim 12 (depends on 8)

The system of claim 8, where the scale is able to measure decimal increments.

### Claim 13 (depends on 8)

The system of claim 8, wherein, a score on a scale of −10 to 10 can be 7.2.

### Claim 14 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein cultural tendencies include at least one of:
conservative, exploratory, informed, intuitive.

### Claim 15 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein scoring data by cultural tendency is achieved with a linear measure for each cultural attribute category.

### Claim 16 (depends on 15)

The system of claim 15, wherein the linear measure is a binary ruler that scores cultural attributes in relationship to two sub-attributes.

### Claim 17 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the map engine creates a graphic output.

### Claim 18 (depends on 17)

The system of claim 17, wherein the map engine uses a grid location algorithm to map the graphic output.

### Claim 19 (depends on 17)

The system of claim 17, wherein the map engine creates a cultural tendency map with a quadrant assigned for each cultural tendency.

### Claim 20 (depends on 19)

The system of claim 19, wherein the map engine divides each of the quadrants into an incremental grid with X and Y reference points.

### Claim 21 (depends on 19)

The system of claim 19, wherein the map engine divides an incremental grid into decimal values between reference points.

### Claim 22 (depends on 19)

The system of claim 19, wherein the map engine represents binary scores of cultural attributes using a radial measure.

### Claim 23 (depends on 22)

The system of claim 22, wherein the radial measure with a measurable radius (r) is mapped to a graphic output.

### Claim 24 (depends on 23)

The system of claim 23, wherein the map engine sets a mid-point of the binary scale at a 0 point, where (r=0).

### Claim 25 (depends on 24)

The system of claim 24, wherein values farther from the mid-point represent a closer match to the cultural tendency in a quadrant than values closer to the mid-point.

### Claim 26 (depends on 23)

The system of claim 23, wherein a center point of a circle is established at an intersection of X and Y axes, where X and Y are both equal to 0.

### Claim 27 (depends on 23)

The system of claim 23, where the grid is defined by the same scale as the binary ruler.

### Claim 28 (depends on 27)

The system of claim 27, wherein the scale is defined according to a range: X=0, y=10; X=0, y=−10; X=−10, y=0; and X=10, y=0.

### Claim 29 (depends on 23)

The system of claim 23, wherein the radius (r) is any integer or decimal value on the binary scale.

### Claim 30 (depends on 27)

The system of claim 27, wherein the radius (r) value is from 0 and 10 or 0 and −10.

### Claim 31 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the map engine transposes each cultural attribute binary score to the graphic output.

### Claim 32 (depends on 31)

The system of claim 31, wherein the binary score is mapped to the graphic output according to a graphic location algorithm.

### Claim 33 (depends on 32)

The system of claim 32, wherein the graphic location algorithm relates a rotational position given as a number of degrees to a 360 degree reference.

### Claim 34 (depends on 33)

The system of claim 33, wherein the rotational position given as a number of degrees in reference to 360 degrees is described in terms of an angle 9 which is between 0 and 360 degrees, and includes 0 and 360 degrees.

### Claim 35 (depends on 34)

The system of claim 34, wherein the angle 9 depends on a number of cultural attributes being mapped to the graphic output.

### Claim 36 (depends on 35)

The system of claim 35, wherein for whole number N of cultural attributes being mapped to the graphic output, 9 is defined as 9=360/2N.

### Claim 37 (depends on 35)

The system of claim 35, wherein the angle 9 is equal for each cultural attribute being mapped or is weighted according to attribute priority.

### Claim 38 (depends on 34)

The system of claim 34, wherein the rotational position is dependent on how exclusively the cultural attribute being mapped represents the cultural tendency in a quadrant.

### Claim 39 (depends on 38)

The system of claim 38, Wherein cultural attributes that are indicative of a single cultural tendency are placed at a rotational position in the quadrant that does not border or share an X or Y axis.

### Claim 40 (depends on 38)

The system of claim 38, wherein cultural attributes that are indicative of at least one of, multiple cultural tendencies, shared and non-exclusive, are placed at a rotational position in the quadrant bordering or sharing an X or Y axis.

### Claim 41 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the assessment engine performs a radial graphical location algorithm to determine a location of binary scores on the graphical output.

### Claim 42 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the assessment engine assigns cultural attribute data calculated values of radius and rotational position.

### Claim 43 (depends on 42)

The system of claim 42, wherein calculated values of radius and rotational position are mapped as plotted points.

### Claim 44 (depends on 42)

The system of claim 42, wherein radial section allocations derived via a radial grid location algorithm designated by an angle 9 are equal or weighted according to organization priorities.

### Claim 45 (depends on 42)

The system of claim 42, wherein the assessment engine assigns calculated values of radius and rotational position for each cultural attribute data score being mapped.

### Claim 46 (depends on 42)

The system of claim 42, wherein the assessment engine performs a calculation of priority for cultural attribute data.

### Claim 47 (depends on 46)

The system of claim 46, wherein the assessment engine performs the calculation of cultural priority among cultural attribute data using a quantitative valuation algorithm.

### Claim 48 (depends on 46)

The system of claim 46, wherein the calculation of cultural priority affects both the radius (r) and the rotational position measures.

### Claim 49 (depends on 48)

The system of claim 48, wherein the assessment engine creates radial sections from the plotted points to generate a cultural tendencies graphic output.

### Claim 50 (depends on 49)

The system of claim 49, wherein allocation areas are calculated.

### Claim 51 (depends on 50)

The system of claim 50, wherein for a given radius (r) and angle 8 the area associated with the corresponding cultural attribute being mapped is expressed as area A=2r2 sin2 cos2 if the cultural attributes are being mapped as wedge shapes.

### Claim 52 (depends on 49)

The system of claim 49, wherein a quantification of area by quadrant is calculated to assign a value to the cultural tendency.

### Claim 53 (depends on 49)

The system of claim 49, further comprising:
calculating a measure of area to assign a value to a priority for a cultural tendency.

### Claim 54 (depends on 53)

The system of claim 53, further comprising:
determining a measure of area to assign relative values to organization priorities.

### Claim 55 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the comparison engine performs a comparison of one culture to another culture.

### Claim 56 (depends on 55)

The system of claim 55, wherein the comparison engine identifies other cultures for comparison (C8) for comparison to a reference culture (CA).

### Claim 57 (depends on 56)

The system of claim 56, wherein the analytic engine quantifies a data quality score for CA and Cs data.

### Claim 58 (depends on 57)

The system of claim 57, wherein the comparison engine quantifies a difference of a total cultural attribute data score for CA and Cs.

### Claim 59 (depends on 58)

The system of claim 58, wherein the quantified difference is expressed as at least one of, a coefficient, a magnitude difference, and a percentage.

### Claim 60 (depends on 57)

The system of claim 57, wherein the comparison engine plots cultural tendencies of CA and Cs as a graphic output.

### Claim 61 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the comparison engine performs a comparison to a comparison variable.

### Claim 62 (depends on 61)

The system of claim 61, wherein the comparison engine identifies a cultural comparison variable (Cv).

### Claim 63 (depends on 62)

The system of claim 62, wherein the comparison variable Cv relates to different points in time, that include at least one of: (a) a previous time, (where −t=an interval before a current date), (b) a current time (where t=a collection date), (c) a future date (where +t=an interval after the current date).

### Claim 64 (depends on 62)

The system of claim 62, wherein the comparison variable Cv relates to an alternate schedule, where an interval to achieve an outcome is increased (+ti) or decreased (−ti).

### Claim 65 (depends on 62)

The system of claim 62, wherein the comparison variable Cv relates to an outcome that is a quantity associated with a measurable result or outcome state, and the outcome is an increase (+qty) or decrease (−qty).

### Claim 66 (depends on 62)

The system of claim 62, wherein the comparison variable Cv relates to a financial state, which is at least one of, (a) a value associated with an amount of financial increase (+$) or decreased (−$), (b) a total cost of ownership ($teo), (c) cost avoidance ($ca) or (d) a revenue impact ($ri).

### Claim 67 (depends on 61)

The system of claim 61, wherein the comparison engine performs a repeat cultural attribute data collection for another variable.

### Claim 68 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein the comparison engine identifies a reference culture for evaluation (CR).

### Claim 69 (depends on 68)

The system of claim 68, wherein the reference culture CR is compared to a reference culture CA under a modification scenario, where CA is modified by a selected variable Cv, represented by a culture CAv.

### Claim 70 (depends on 69)

The system of claim 69, wherein if the cultural attribute information collection protocol is different for any of CAv or CR the data qualification engine calculates a modified data quality coefficient to represent a change in protocol.

### Claim 71 (depends on 69)

The system of claim 69, further comprising:
plotting cultural tendencies of CR and CAv as a graphic output.

### Claim 72 (depends on 71)

The system of claim 71, further comprising:
plotting organization priorities of CR and CAv on a radial grid map.

### Claim 73 (depends on 72)

The system of claim 72, further comprising:
repeating the graphic output process for each cultural variable included in CR and CAV.

### Claim 74 (depends on 1)

The system of claim 1, wherein for any cultural variables compared a measurable difference is used for comparison.

### Claim 75 (depends on 74)

The system of claim 74, wherein the other cultural variables is two or more of: CA, Cs, CR, Cv, or CAv.

### Claim 76 (depends on 75)

The system of claim 75, further comprising:
calculating a difference for each of for each of any CA, Cs, CR, Cv, or CAv being compared as change (delta) in area in each of a cultural tendency quadrant.

### Claim 77 (depends on 75)

The system of claim 75, further comprising:
calculating a difference for each CA, Cs, CR, Cv, or CAv being compared as a quantitative change in area in each of a cultural tendency quadrant.

### Claim 78 (depends on 75)

The system of claim 75, further comprising:
calculating a difference for each of CA, Cs, CR, Cv, or CAv as a quantitative change area to assign relative values to a cultural tendency.

### Claim 79 (depends on 75)

The system of claim 75, further comprising:
calculating a difference for CA, Cs, CR, Cv, or CAv as a quantitative change in a radius (r) to assign a value to a priority to a cultural tendency.

### Claim 80 (depends on 75)

The system of claim 75, further comprising:
calculating a difference for CA, Cs, CR, or Cv as a quantitative change in area to assign relative values to organization priorities.