1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to securing information in computing systems, and more specifically to limiting access to that information based on the context in which at least a portion of the transactional information was generated, such as from a sale.
2. Background
Securing information has become a priority for organizations to ensure that business processes and information relating thereto remain confidential. As an organization's business processes becomes more complex, the means for securing information has to be flexible to adapt to organizational changes while preserving an appropriate balance between confidentiality (i.e., limiting access to information) and openness (i.e., freedom to access information), both of which are necessary for the success of the organization. Examples of organizational changes requiring such flexibility include employee/group transfers, company reorganizations, compensation plan adjustments and the hiring and/or terminating of personnel.
To manage compensation schemes through these types of organizational changes, as well as providing incentive-based compensation for employees in general, organizations have structured compensation plans in accordance with Enterprise Incentive Management (EIM) principles. These principles tailor compensation plans so as to improve optimal performance and to align the organization's strategy with the desired behaviors of it employees. EIM refers generally to managing variable pay plans throughout an organization (i.e., corporation or enterprise) and includes plans for salespeople, suppliers, distribution channel partners, brokers, customers, employees, executives, and partners.
But conventional approaches to securing information generated in the framework of an organization typically lack the flexibility to adapt to changes in corporate processes or structure, such as a change in traditional compensation schemes or personnel. For example, consider a personnel change from one part of an organization to another part as shown in FIG. 1.
FIG. 1 depicts a traditional organizational chart illustrating an employee transferring from one position in organizational structure 100 to another position in new organizational structure 110. Organizational structures 100 and 110 each represent a hierarchical structure depicting supervisor-subordinate relationships where permissions to access secured information decreases from the top position occupied by “A” to the bottom positions occupied by “D,” “E,” and “F.” A square box in FIG. 1, such as the one labeled A, represents a position or role occupied by an employee (or a group/organizational element) and is interrelated with other square boxes, where the interrelations are depicted as lines connecting at least two square boxes. Hence, an employee or organizational element occupying box A is in a supervisory role to employees or organizational elements in boxes “B” and “Cynthia,” which are both in subordinate roles to that of box A.
In organizational structure 100, Cynthia is shown to occupy a supervisory role in relation to boxes E and F, which can be employees, groups of employees or other organizational elements. In this role, Cynthia has a “span of access” 102 and is granted permission to access information relating at least to her subordinates occupying boxes E and F, which may include transactional information forming Cynthia's compensation.
Further, consider that an employee associated with box E is a sales person operating according to a compensation plan that specifies each of the following allocations to their supervisor Cynthia's compensation: 2% of sales revenue within a particular geographic region; 1% of sales from a particular product line; 2% of sales to a particular customer; and 0.5% of sales by other members of her sales team. Since Cynthia's compensation is based upon such a compensation scheme, she and others in her position are traditionally authorized to access transactional information in her span of access 102 to verify that the sales person's sales revenues are accurately recorded. In particular, Cynthia can access transactional information for boxes E and F but not boxes B and D, which are outside of her span of access 102.
Next, consider that Cynthia assumes a new role in new organizational structure 110 in the position formerly demarcated as box B of organization structure 100. In this role, traditional security mechanisms allow Cynthia to now have access to transactional information within span of access 112, which authorizes her to examine the activities of the employee(s) relating to box D to review the transactional information that affects her compensation in this new role. But once Cynthia assumes this new role in organizational structure 110, she traditionally is precluded from having access to transactional information for span of access 102. This is generally due to traditional approaches to securing information where a person's set of permissions are dependent on the person's current position in an organization. Without having span of access 102, Cynthia is unable to determine whether her previous efforts and those of her previous subordinates are adequately and accurately recognized so that she can justly be compensated for any activity occurring before she assumed her new role in organization structure 110. Thus, there is a need to provide a flexible method of securing information such that the aforementioned drawbacks of conventional EIM schemes are overcome.