Our company is trying to deploy faster, but finding it difficult updating our support staff, i.e. Call centre operators.
We are finding it hard to update 1000+ operators using video or visual media... common problems include 'video fatigue' or operators simply not reviewing material.
Any ideas?
Related
My Question
What are the best practices for creating a customized report based on a user form input? Specifically, how do I create an easy to maintain system which takes user input which is collected in a form and generate multiple paragraphs that explains the results of analysis.
Background
I am working on a very large multiyear project with a startup (who is my client). My job is to program analysis and generate reports to users. The pipeline for data looks like this:
Users enter information into a form -> results are calculated based on user input -> reports are displayed to users that share analysis.
It is really important to my client that some of the analysis results are displayed in paragraphs in a non-formal user friendly tone. The challenge is that the form and analysis are quite complex and will only get more complex over time. An example of the type of template for the paragraphs looks something like this:
resultsParagraphText=`Hi ${userName}. We found that the best ice cream flavour for you is ${bestIceCreamFlavor}. These other flavors ${otherFlavors} might be good for you. Here are the reasons why you might enjoy these flavors: ${reasonsWhyGoodFlavors}.
However we would not recommend these other flavors ${badFlavors}. Here are the reasons you should avoid this bad flavors: ${reasonsWhyBadFlavors}.`
These results paragraphs, of which there of many, have several minor problems which combined are significant:
If there is a bug in the code, minor visual errors would be visible to end users (capitalization errors, missing/extra commas, and so on).
A lot of string comparisons (e.g. if answers.previousFlavors.includes("Vanilla")) are required to generate the results paragraphs. Minor errors in the forms (e.g. vanilla in the form is not capitalized so answers.previousFlavors.includes("Vanilla") returns false even when user enters vanilla.) can cause errors in the results paragraph.
Changes in different parts of the project (form, analysis) directly effect how the results paragraph is made. Bad types, differences in string values, null or undefined values not being caught directly have an impact on how the results paragraph is made.
There are many edge cases (e.g. What if the user has no other suitable good flavors for them? The the sentence These other flavors ${otherFlavors} might be good for you. needs to be excluded).
It is hard to write paragraphs that use templates and have a non-formal tone.
and so on.
I have charts and other types of ways to display results and have explained to the client the challenges of sharing the information in paragraph form.
What I am looking for
I need examples, how tos, best practices on how to build a maintainable system for generating customized paragraphs based on user input. I know how to solve each of the individual issues (as they are fairly simple) but in a large project this will become very hard to maintain.
Notes
I have no clue what tags to use for the post. Feel free to edit/add tags if you know more appropriate ones.
The project is planning to use machine learning in the future other parts of the project. If there is a ML/AI solution that is useful please tell me.
I am working primarily in JavaScript, Python, C, and R, but if there is a library or tool in any other language please tell me. Finding a solution is very important to me and I would be willing to learn a lot find a best solution.
To avoid this question being removed because I have rephrased it to avoid asking for personal opinion, instead asking for existing examples or how tos. I can also imagine that others might find a solution fairly useful. If you can edit it to make the question less subjective please do so.
If you have any questions or need clarification feel free to ask. Any help is appreciated.
I have a data set of about 1 million employer names. These names are from a free-form text field so they include misspellings and variations in the way they are inputted (e.g. "Amazon" .. "Amzaon" .. "Amazon.com" .. "Amazon Web Services" .. "AWS").
I want to either A) group these 1 million so I have a somewhat accurate sense of how many unique employers are in the data set or B) be able to find all variations of any given employer.
So far, I've been using the data in Tableau, then filtering on "employer name" and searching all variations of the name I can think of. But it's tedious and I'm pretty sure I'm leaving many out.
I've also used the fuzzy add-in for excel but it hasn't worked that well on misspellings, special characters...
Tableau just isn't suited for doing this kind of analysis straight out of the box, and I would highly recommend doing some pre-processing on your data before putting trying to build a workbook around it.
Like another commenter said, you could look into using Tableau Prep Builder for a one-time transformation on your data set, but if you wanted to automate this process it costs extra to add functionality to whatever Tableau Server installation you have.
If you're familiar with Python or R (and the integration between Tableau Server and those services is supported by your organization), you could look into building a script to run the transformation real-time, but it probably won't be too efficient.
Try experimenting with Tableau Prep Builder - the companion tool that comes with your Tableau Creator license. It has a group feature that is designed for just these problems.
In Prep Builder, you’ll just need to connect to your data, add a cleaning step, and then add a group to your cleaning step.
I am researching a problem that is pretty unique.
Imagine a roadside assistance company that wants to dynamically route its vehicles. Hence for each packet of new incidents wants to create routes that will satisfy them, according to some constraints (time constraints, road accessibility, vehicle - incident matching).
The company has an heterogeneous fleet of vehicle (motorbikes for easy cases, up to tow trucks for the hard cases) and each incident states it's uniqueness (we know if it wants just fuel, or needs towing).
There is no depot, only the vehicles roaming on the streets.
The objective is to dynamically create routes on the way, having in mind the minimization of time and the total traveled distance.
Have you ever met such a problem? Do you have any idea in which VRP variant it belongs?
I have seen two previous questions but unfortunately they don't fit with my problem.
The respected optaplanner - VRP but with no depot and Does optaplanner out of box support VRP with multiple trips and no depot, which are both open VRPs.
Unfortunately I don't have code right now, as I am still modelling the way I will approach this problem.
I am really sorry for creating a suggestion question and not a real one.
Thank you so much in advance.
It's a rich dynamic/realtime vehicle routing problem. You won't find an exact name for your problem, as when VRPs get too complex they don't fit inside any of the standard categories.
It's clearly a dynamic/realtime problem (the terms are used interchangeably) as you would typically only find out about roadside breakdowns at short notice.
Sometimes you're servicing a broken down car, which would be a single stop (so a vehicle routing problem). Sometimes you're towing a car, which would be a pick-up delivery problem. So you have a mix of both together.
You would want to get to the broken down vehicles ASAP and some would need fixing sooner than others (think a car broken down in a dangerous position on a motorway). You would therefore need soft time windows so you can penalise lateness instead of the standard hard time windows supported in most VRP formulations.
Also for you to be able to scale to larger problems, you need an incremental optimiser that can restart from the previous (possibly now infeasible) solution when new jobs are added, vehicle positions are changed etc. This isn't supported out of the box in the open source solvers I know of.
We developed a commercial engine which does the above. We started off using the jsprit library, which supports mixing single stop and pickup delivery problems together. We later had to replace jsprit due to the amount of code we had to override to get it running happily for realtime problems, however jsprit may still prove a useful starting point for you. We discuss some of the early technical obstacles we had to overcome in getting jsprit to handle realtime problems in this white paper.
I am new to SuiteScript and want to make our code more efficient. Looking at our code it seems there are many script of the same type for the same record type. For example, 3 clientscripts on a sales order. Is it bad practice to roll all of these scripts into the same script?
I also want to centralise the code. The last 3 years I've written in C# and any reusable code was placed in a relevant class. I want to rewrite the code we have in the same manner. For example, any method that is to do with a sales order is placed in a module called SalesOrderServices. This module can then be added to any of the scripts and the methods are all available if needed. My concern is this would make things less efficient due to loading all the modules in the Services module, even if they are not really needed. So as a second part to this question, is this a good idea or will it make our code be less efficient?
There is quite a lot to consider in a question like this, and there won't be one correct answer, but I'll chime in with my perspective.
It is not necessarily bad practice to combine the similar scripts into one, but it also is not bad practice to keep them separate. That's really a decision that only you and your team can decide on what is most efficient for you to maintain.
I do think you are right to want to break out any reusable functionality into separate modules, but I would be careful putting "everything related to a Sales Order" into one module. My personal preference is to design and group code based on features and business processes rather than around record types. If you try to modularize based on record type, what happens when you have an approval process that touches both Purchase Orders and Vendor Bills? Where will that live? I prefer small, focused modules rather than large monolithic ones, but that is just my preference. That doesn't work best for everyone and every team.
Have you proven that loading additional modules or Script records is a performance bottleneck for your system? I would be very surprised if that were the case, and so I would caution against premature optimization of these sorts of things. There are many facets of NetSuite that operate on the order of seconds and are out of your control, so saving a few micro- or milliseconds here and there isn't going to do anything appreciable for your users.
How do we usually deal with versioning of an aggregate root?
I was thinking along this line (I'm in a survey-design domain).
One way to have versioning is to have an explicit method to create a new version, based on the existing one. For example, Study (an aggregate root).
So initially we have an aggregate root, whose root-entity is Study with (business) key "ABC", version "1".
By invoking the method "newVersion()" on the Study, a copy of that Study and all the other entities that belong to the same aggregate root will be created.
So basically, versioning is done through creation a separate instance (of aggregate root). The ID is composite (business key + version).
How do we know if it's a branch? or is it just one version up? (1.1? or 2). I guess, this simple rule would work: if there's no further version associated, then it's "one version up" (2); if there's already another version, than it's a branch (1.1).
Another concern: noise.
But that means, we cannot work on / modify existing version. We'd have to create a newVersion everytime we want to make modifications to our object. Everytime??? Hmmm.... Doesn't sound right.
Or... we can make rule like this, based on a flag (active / not-active, or published / un-published). If the flag is "not-active", we can modify the AR directly, without creating a new version. If the flag is active we have to either: (a) set it to "not-active" first, and modify.... or (b) create a newVersion and work on the version (initially set to "not-active").
Any thoughts / experience you want to share on this matter?
I think you will find things a bit confusing in researching this question, because there are two very different concepts at play:
Versioning as a concurrency control mechanism to support optimistic concurrency
Versioning as an explicit domain concept
Versioning to support Optimistic Concurrency
Optimistic concurrency is when two simultaneous transactions are allowed to start, but if they both try and modify the same data item, only the first one is permitted to proceed. See Concurrency Control for an overview of different locking strategies.
In summary, you leave versioning up to the persistence technology, because the purpose of the version is to detect simultaneous writes to the persistence layer.
When using this pattern, it's common to not even keep copies of old versions, however it's certainly possible to do so as an audit trail/change log.
Versioning as an explicit domain concept
Based on your question, and the need to support potential branching strategies, it sounds like versioning is an explicit domain concept in your domain - i.e. the concept of a "Version" is something that your domain experts talk about, and working with versions is an important part of the ubiquitous language.
However, you raise a few different concepts which indicate that the domain needs further exploration:
Version branching
User-defined version naming/tagging (but still connected to a 'chain' of versions)
Explicit version changes (user requested) vs implicit version changes (automatic on every change)
If I understand your intent correctly, with explicit versioning, the current 'active'/'live'/'tip' version is mutable and can be modified without tracking the change, until the user 'commits' it - it becomes immutable, and a new 'live' version that is mutable is created.
Some other concepts that may come up if you explore this version:
Branch merging (once you have split two branches, what happens if you want to bring them back together?)
Rolling back - if you have an old version, do you support 'undoing' one or more changes?
Given the above, you may also find some insights from the way that version control systems work both centralised (e.g. subversion) and distributed (e.g. git and mercurial), as they present an active working model of version tracking with a mixture of mutable and immutable elements.
The open questions here suggest to me that you need to explore this in more detail with your domain experts. With DDD sometimes it's easy to get lost in what you can do, but I strongly encourage you to try and understand what you need to do.
How do your users/domain experts think about the world? What kind of operations do they want to be able to do? What is the purpose of these operations towards their initial goal? Your aim is to distill the answers to these questions into a model that effectively encapsulates the processes they work with.
Edit to Consider Modelling
Based on your comment - my first response would be to challenge the interpretation of the word 'version' when thinking about the modified questionnaire. In fact, I'd be tempted to challenge the modelling of the template/survey relationship. Consider a possible set of entities:
Template
Defines the set of questions in the questionnaire
Supports operations:
StartSurvey
Various operations to modify the questions and options in the template etc.
Survey
Rather than referencing a 'live' template, the survey would own it's own questionnaire
When you call Template.StartSurvey it returns a Survey that is prefilled with the list of questions from the template
A survey also supports modifying the questions - but this doesn't change the template it was created from
Unlike a template, a survey also maintains a list of recorded answers, and offers operations to set the answers
It probably also includes a lifecycle state wherein in some states answering questions is permitted, but once 'submitted' you can't modify the answers (just guessing on this one).
In this world, the survey is 'stamped out' from the template, but then lives an independent life. You can modify the questionnaire in the survey all you like, and it won't effect the template.
The trade-off here is that if you do modify the template, none of the surveys that have already been created from it would get updated - but it sounds like that might be safer for you anyway?
You could also support operations to convert a survey back into a template so that if you like the look of a modified survey, you could 'templatize' it so it could be used for future surveys.