Liberate your data

Intelligence is all about knowledge. This website is dedicated sharing expertise on Oracle BI. More »

 

Oracle Hyperion Financial Management 11.1.2.4.207 is available

The following Patch Set Update (PSU) has been released for Hyperion Financial Management 11.1.2.4.x and is available from the My Oracle Support | Patches & Updates section.

Hyperion Financial Management PSU 11.1.2.4.207 Patch 27523845

 

The Readme file describes the defects fixed in this patch and the requirements and instructions for applying this patch.

  • Caution: FDMEE Patch Set Exception (PSE) 25616936 is strongly recommended.
  • Caution: You are urged to carefully read and understand the following requirements. Failure to comply may result in applying a patch that can cause your application to malfunction, including interruption of service and/or loss of data.
  • Before installing or applying this patch, verify that your system configuration (product version, patch level, and platform) exactly matches what is specified in the Readme.

Patch Type

This is a patch set update (PSU). This patch is a full installation.

Supported Paths to this Patch

You can apply this patch to:

  • Release 11.1.2.4.000
  • Release 11.1.2.4.100
  • Release 11.1.2.4.101
  • Release 11.1.2.4.102
  • Release 11.1.2.4.103
  • Release 11.1.2.4.200
  • Release 11.1.2.4.201
  • Release 11.1.2.4.202
  • Release 11.1.2.4.203
  • Release 11.1.2.4.204
  • Release 11.1.2.4.205
  • Release 11.1.2.4.206

Prerequisites for this HFM patch includes:

 

New Features in this Release:

  • New Statistics Option in HFM Insights
  • New Option to Limit Number of Concurrent Consolidations Per User Action
  • Application Creation Wizard
  • Insights Dashboard for Key Metrics/KPIs
  • Support for Solaris
  • Printing Entity Detail Reports
  • Application Year Update
  • Application Elements Download Log Option
  • Application Tab Options
  • Working with Journals in Smart View
  • Rules Profiling
  • Duplicating Applications
  • Importing Applications
  • Viewing Data Grids, Forms, and Process Control as Charts

Defects Fixed - refer to the readme for complete list

Share your experience about installing this patch ...

In the MOS | Patches & Updates screen for HFM Patch 27523845, click on the "Start a Discussion" and submit your review.

The patch install reviews and other patch related information is available within the My Oracle Support Communities.

Visit the Oracle Hyperion EPM sub-space : Hyperion Patch Reviews

 

Questions specific to Hyperion Financial Management ...

The My Oracle Support Community "HFM" is an ideal place to seek & find product specific answers:

Hyperion Financial Management (HFM)

https://cdn.app.compendium.com/uploads/user/e7c690e8-6ff9-102a-ac6d-e4aebca50425/f4a5b21d-66fa-4885-92bf-c4e81c06d916/Image/82b8ac2f922d5cf84cca4bab7ba2655b/community_button_small2.png

To locate the latest Patch Sets and Patch Set Updates for the EPM products visit the My Oracle Support (MOS) Knowledge Article:

Available Patch Sets and Patch Set Updates for Oracle Hyperion Enterprise Performance Management Products Doc ID 1400559.1

OAC – Thoughts on Moving to the Cloud

Last week, I spent a couple of days with Oracle at Thames Valley Park and this presented me with a perfect opportunity to sit down and get to grips with the full extent of the Oracle Analytics Cloud (OAC) suite...without having to worry about client requirements or project deadlines!

As a company, Rittman Mead already has solid experience of OAC, but my personal exposure has been limited to presentations, product demonstrations, reading the various postings in the blog community and my existing experiences of Data Visualisation and BI cloud services (DVCS and BICS respectively). You’ll find Francesco’s post a good starting place if you need an overview of OAC and how it differs (or aligns) to Data Visualisation and BI Cloud Services.

So, having spent some time looking at the overall suite and, more importantly, trying to interpret what it could mean for organisations thinking about making a move to the cloud, here are my top three takeaways:

Clouds Come In Different Shapes and Flavours

Two of the main benefits that a move to the cloud offers are simplification in platform provisioning and an increase in flexibility, being able to ramp up or scale down resources at will. These both comes with a potential cost benefit, depending on your given scenario and requirement. The first step is understanding the different options in the OAC licensing and feature matrix.

First, we need to draw a distinction between Analytics Cloud and the Autonomous Analytics Cloud (interestingly, both options point to the same page on cloud.oracle.com, which makes things immediately confusing!). In a nutshell though, the distinction comes down to who takes responsibility for the service management: Autonomous Analytics Cloud is managed by Oracle, whilst Analytics Cloud is managed by yourself. It’s interesting to note that the Autonomous offering is marginally cheaper.

Next, Oracle have chosen to extend their BYOL (Bring Your Own License) option from their IaaS services to now incorporate PaaS services. This means that if you have existing licenses for the on-premise software, then you are able to take advantage of what appears to be a significantly discounted cost. Clearly, this is targeted to incentivise existing Oracle customers to make the leap into the Cloud, and should be considered against your ongoing annual support fees.

Since the start of the year, Analytics Cloud now comes in three different versions, with the Standard and Enterprise editions now being separated by the new Data Lake edition. The important things to note are that (possibly confusingly) Essbase is now incorporated into the Data Lake edition of the Autonomous Analytics Cloud and that for the full enterprise capability you have with OBIEE, you will need the Enterprise edition. Each version inherits the functionality of its preceding version: Enterprise edition gives you everything in the Data Lake edition; Data Lake edition incorporates everything in the Standard edition.

alt

Finally, it’s worth noting that OAC aligns to the Universal Credit consumption model, whereby the cost is determined based on the size and shape of the cloud that you need. Services can be purchased as Pay as You Go or Monthly Flex options (with differential costing to match). The PAYG model is based on hourly consumption and is paid for in arrears, making it the obvious choice for short term prototyping or POC activities. Conversely, the Monthly Flex model is paid in advance and requires a minimum 12 month investment and therefore makes sense for full scale implementations. Then, the final piece of the jigsaw comes with the shape of the service you consume. This is measured in OCPU’s (Oracle Compute Units) and the larger your memory requirements, the more OCPU’s you consume.

Where You Put Your Data Will Always Matter

Moving your analytics platform into the cloud may make a lot of sense and could therefore be a relatively simple decision to make. However, the question of where your data resides is a more challenging subject, given the sensitivities and increasing legislative constraints that exist around where your data can or should be stored. The answer to that question will influence the performance and data latency you can expect from your analytics platform.

OAC is architected to be flexible when it comes to its data sources and consequently the options available for data access are pretty broad. At a high level, your choices are similar to those you would have when implementing on-premise, namely:

  • perform ELT processing to transform and move the data (into the cloud);
  • replicate data from source to target (in the cloud) or;
  • query data sources via direct access.

These are supplemented by a fourth option to use the inbuilt Data Connectors available in OAC to connect to cloud or on-premise databases, other proprietary platforms or any other source accessible via JDBC. This is probably a decent path for exploratory data usage within DV, but I’m not sure it would always make the best long term option.

alt

Unsurprisingly, with the breadth of options comes a spectrum of tooling that can be used for shifting your data around and it is important to note that depending on your approach, additional cloud services may or may not be required.

For accessing data directly at its source, the preferred route seems to be to use RDC (Remote Data Connector), although it is worth noting that support is limited to Oracle (including OLAP), SQL Server, Teredata or DB2 databases. Also, be aware that RDC operates within WebLogic Server and so this will be needed within the on-premise network.

Data replication is typically achieved using Data Sync (the reincarnation of the DAC, which OBIA implementers will already be familiar with), although it is worth mentioning that there are other routes that could be taken, such as APEX or SQL Developer, depending on the data volumes and latency you have to play with.

Classic ELT processing can be achieved via Oracle Data Integrator (either the Cloud Service, a traditional on-premise implementation or a hybrid-model).

Ultimately, due care and attention needs to be taken when deciding on your data architecture as this will have a fundamental effect on the simplicity with which data can be accessed and interpreted, the query performance achieved and the data latency built into your analytics.

Data Flows Make For Modern Analytics Simplification

A while back, I wrote a post titled Enabling a Modern Analytics Platform in which I attempted to describe ways that Mode 1 (departmental) and Mode 2 (enterprise) analytics could be built out to support each other, as opposed to undermining one another. One of the key messages I made was the importance of having an effective mechanism for transitioning your Mode 1 outputs back into Mode 2 as seamlessly as possible. (The same is true in reverse for making enterprise data available as an Mode 1 input.)

One of the great things about OAC is how it serves to simplify this transition. Users are able to create analytic content based on data sourced from a broad range of locations: at the simplest level, Data Sets can be built from flat files or via one of the available Data Connectors to relational, NoSQL, proprietary database or Essbase sources. Moreover, enterprise curated metadata (via RPD lift-and-shift from an on-premise implementation) or analyst developed Subject Areas can be exposed. These sources can be ‘mashed’ together directly in a DV project or, for more complex or repeatable actions, Data Flows can be created to build Data Sets. Data Flows are pretty powerful, not only allowing users to join disparate data but also perform some useful data preparation activities, ranging from basic filtering, aggregation and data manipulation actions to more complex sentiment analysis, forecasting and even some machine learning modelling features. Importantly, Data Flows can be set to output their results to disk, either written to a Data Set or even to a database table and they can be scheduled for repetitive refresh.

For me, one of the most important things about the Data Flows feature is that it provides a clear and understandable interface which shows the sequencing of each of the data preparation stages, providing valuable information for any subsequent reverse engineering of the processing back into the enterprise data architecture.

alt

In summary, there are plenty of exciting and innovative things happening with Oracle Analytics in the cloud and as time marches on, the case for moving to the cloud in one shape or form will probably get more and more compelling. However, beyond a strategic decision to ‘Go Cloud’, there are many options and complexities that need to be addressed in order to make a successful start to your journey - some technical, some procedural and some organisational. Whilst a level of planning and research will undoubtedly smooth the path, the great thing about the cloud services is that they are comparatively cheap and easy to initiate, so getting on and building a prototype is always going to be a good, exploratory starting point.

Why DevOps Matters for Enterprise BI

Why DevOps Matters for Enterprise BI

Why are people frustrated with their existing enterprise BI tools such as OBIEE? My view is because it costs too much to produce relevant content. I think some of this is down to the tools themselves, and some of it is down to process.

Starting with the tools, they are not “bad” tools; the traditional licensing model can be expensive in today’s market, and traditional development methods are time-consuming and hence expensive. The vendor’s response is to move to the cloud and to highlight cost savings that can be made by having a managed platform. Oracle Analytics Cloud (OAC) is essentially OBIEE installed on Oracle’s servers in Oracle’s data centres with Oracle providing your system administration, coupled with the ability to flex your licensing on a monthly or annual basis.

Cloud does give organisations the potential for more agility. Provisioning servers can no longer hold up the start of a project, and if a system needs to increase capacity, then more CPUs or nodes can be added. This latter case is a bit murky due to the cost implications and the option to try and resolve performance issues through query efficiency on the database.

I don’t think this solves the problem. Tools that provide reports and dashboards are becoming more commoditised, up and coming vendors and platform providers are offering the service for a fraction of the cost of the traditional vendors. They may lack some of the enterprise features like open security models; however, these are an area that platform providers are continually improving. Over the last 10 years, Oracle's focus for OBIEE has been on more on integration than innovation. Oracle DV was a significant change; however, there is a danger that Oracle lost the first-mover advantage to tools such as Tableau and QlikView. Additionally, some critical features like lineage, software lifecycle development, versioning and process automation are not built in to OBIEE and worse still, the legacy design and architecture of the product often hinders these.

So this brings me back round to process. Defining “good” processes and having tools to support them is one of the best ways you can keep your BI tools relevant to the business by reducing the friction in generating content.

What is a “good” process? Put simply, a process that reduces the time between the identification of a business need and the realising it with zero impact on existing components of the system. Also, a “good” process should provide visibility of any design, development and testing, plus documentation of changes, typically including lineage in a modern BI system. Continuous integration is the Holy Grail.

This why DevOps matters. Using automated migration across environments, regression tests, automatically generated documentation in the form of lineage, native support for version control systems, supported merge processes and ideally a scripting interface or API to automate the generation of repetitive tasks such as changing the data type of a group of fields system-wide, can dramatically reduce the gap from idea to realisation.

So, I would recommend that when looking at your enterprise BI system, you not only consider the vendor, location and features but also focus on the potential for process optimisation and automation. Automation could be something that the vendor builds into the tool, or you may need to use accelerators or software provided by a third party. Over the next few weeks, we will be publishing some examples and case studies of how our BI and DI Developer Toolkits have helped clients and enabled them to automate some or all of the BI software development cycle, reducing the time to release new features and increasing the confidence and robustness of the system.

Real-time Sailing Yacht Performance – stepping back a bit (Part 1.1)

Slight change to the planned article. At the end of my analysis in Part 1 I discovered I was missing a number of key messages. It turns out that not all the SeaTalk messages from the integrated instruments were being translated to an NMEA format and therefore not being sent wirelessly from the AIS hub. I didn't really want to introduce another source of data directly from the instruments as it would involve hard wiring the instruments to the laptop and then translating a different format of a message (SeaTalk). I decided to spend on some hardware (any excuse for new toys). I purchased a SeaTalk to NMEA converter from DigitalYachts (discounted at the London boat show I'm glad to say).

This article is about the installation of that hardware and the result (hence Part 1.1), not our usual type of blog. You never know it may be of interest to somebody out there and this is a real-life data issue! Don't worry it will be short and more of an insight into Yacht wiring than anything.

The next blog will be very much back on track. Looking at Kafka in the architecture.

The existing wiring

The following image shows the existing setup, what's behind the panels and how it links to the instrument architecture documented in Part 1. No laughing at the wiring spaghetti - I stripped out half a tonne of cable last year so this is an improvement. Most of the technology lives near the chart table and we have access to the navigation lights, cabin lighting, battery sensors and DSC VHF. The top left image also shows a spare GPS (Garmin) and far left an EPIRB.

Approach

I wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking anything by adding the new hardware so followed the approach we use as software engineers. Check before, during and after any changes enabling us to narrow down the point errors are introduced. To help with this I create a little bit of Python that reads the messages and lets me know the unique message types, the total number of messages and the number of messages in error.

 
import json
import sys

#DEF Function to test message
def is_message_valid (orig_line):

........ [Function same code described in Part 1]

#main body
f = open("/Development/step_1.log", "r")

valid_messages = 0
invalid_messages = 0
total_messages = 0
my_list = [""]
#process file main body
for line in f:

  orig_line = line

  if is_message_valid(orig_line):
    valid_messages = valid_messages + 1
    #look for wind message
    #print "message valid"

    if orig_line[0:1] == "$":
      if len(my_list) == 0:
        #print "ny list is empty"
        my_list.insert(0,orig_line[0:6]) 
      else:
        #print orig_line[0:5]
        my_list.append(orig_line[0:6])

      #print orig_line[20:26]

  else:
    invalid_messages = invalid_messages + 1

  total_messages = total_messages + 1

new_list = list(set(my_list))

i = 0

while i < len(new_list):
    print(new_list[i])
    i += 1

#Hight tech report
print "Summary"
print "#######"
print "valid messages -> ", valid_messages
print "invalid messages -> ", invalid_messages
print "total mesages -> ", total_messages

f.close()

For each of the steps, I used nc to write the output to a log file and then use the Python to analyse the log. I log about ten minutes of messages each step although I have to confess to shortening the last test as I was getting very cold.

nc -l 192.168.1.1 2000 > step_x.log

While spooling the message I artificially generate some speed data by spinning the wheel of the speedo. The image below shows the speed sensor and where it normally lives (far right image). The water comes in when you take out the sensor as it temporarily leaves a rather large hole in the bottom of the boat, don't be alarmed by the little puddle you can see.

Step 1;

I spool and analyse about ten minutes of data without making any changes to the existing setup.

The existing setup takes data directly from the back of a Raymarine instrument seen below and gets linked into the AIS hub.

Results;

 
$AITXT -> AIS (from AIS hub)

$GPRMC -> GPS (form AIS hub)
$GPGGA
$GPGLL
$GPGBS

$IIDBT -> Depth sensor
$IIMTW -> Sea temperature sensor
$IIMWV -> Wind speed 

Summary
#######
valid messages ->  2129
invalid messages ->  298
total mesages ->  2427
12% error

Step 2;

I disconnect the NMEA interface between the AIS hub and the integrated instruments. So in the diagram above I disconnect all four NMEA wires from the back of the instrument.

I observe the Navigation display of the integrated instruments no longer displays any GPS information (this is expected as the only GPS messages I have are coming from the AIS hub).

Results;


$AITXT -> AIS (from AIS hub)

$GPRMC -> GPS (form AIS hub)
$GPGGA
$GPGLL
$GPGBS

No $II messages as expected 

Summary
#######
valid messages ->  3639
invalid messages ->  232
total mesages ->  3871
6% error

Step 3;

I wire in the new hardware both NMEA in and out then directly into the course computer.

Results;


$AITXT -> AIS (from AIS hub)

$GPGBS -> GPS messages
$GPGGA
$GPGLL
$GPRMC

$IIMTW -> Sea temperature sensor
$IIMWV -> Wind speed 
$IIVHW -> Heading & Speed
$IIRSA -> Rudder Angle
$IIHDG -> Heading
$IIVLW -> Distance travelled

Summary
#######
valid messages ->  1661
invalid messages ->  121
total mesages ->  1782
6.7% error

Conclusion;

I get all the messages I am after (for now) the hardware seems to be working.

Now to put all the panels back in place!

In the next article, I will get back to technology and the use of Kafka in the architecture.

Creating Plug-in Visualizations for Oracle Data Visualization

Plug-ins make it possible to extend the visualization capabilities of Oracle Data Visualization.