Service transaction management system and process
US 20030097296A1
(19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. N0.: US 2003/0097296 A1 (43) Pub. Date:
Putt
May 22, 2003
(54)
SERVICE TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PROCESS
(52)
(76)
Inventor: David A. Putt, Avon, CT (US)
(57)
Correspondence Address:
A system and method are presented for managing service transactions. The method includes de?ning a project includ
WIGGIN & DANA LLP ATTENTION: PATENT DOCKETING ONE CENTURY TOWER, PO. BOX 1832
(22)
Filed:
plurality of service providers are noti?ed of the RFP. Pro
posals are received from prospective service providers. The
10/300,946
received proposals are ranked based on evaluations of past
performance of the prospective service providers. The evaluations include Weighted categories of activities and quali?cations of the service providers, Where the Weight is
Nov. 20, 2002 Related US. Application Data
(60)
a percentage value corresponding to a relative importance of
the activities and quali?cation to the project. The method further includes selecting at least one of the prospective service providers to perform the project, negotiating terms of
Provisional application No. 60/331,853, ?led on Nov.
20, 2001.
performance With the prospective service providers, moni toring performance of the project and, upon completion of
Publication Classi?cation
(51)
ABSTRACT
ing a plurality of activities and quali?cations and preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) from the project de?nition. A
NEW HAVEN, CT 06508-1832 (US)
(21) Appl. No.:
US. Cl. ............................................... .. 705/11; 705/80
Int. Cl.7 ................................................... .. G06F 17/60
the project, requesting evaluations of the performance.
Client
‘
[I r” /\\]
$5r‘1
Make RFP edits
Service Provider(s)
65A2'
J A" RF". .. ' is " M Z for editing and review
,./ ur/
7’
"
Proposals from different service
Review input
‘
‘
-
I
7
045 \ |H
am “Wed
p
-
tern late hrmat
N
7
f
"pm r‘,wstlaslzigm Sew-mam n
67l U
_ ,
V
_
.
r
‘ servioe provider evaluation criteria
qualitative criteria on a 1-5 Scale
proposals
are “MN” for each proposal
\i fab/(1M Mug b
L
(4 7 L]
éf’a
_ Fllstonoa peFlo?hanoe of service provider across entire client
4'74’
'
organization and all omer o
"i
Proposal rankings are
. Attach eleetronlc dowments to
,
Scoring inputs for qualitative
Each pargz'gam mores
.
anizations are retrieved T W10 75 ,
Proposals are ranked in orderof
performance for each criteria a '79
"W
0??’ "mp "s raga mg PM
' Proposals are ranked in order of / ‘/ a 8 0 —> performance for all critene based h
risk duration, and cost are
.
.
.
“POM elm’ weighting
developed tor each service
rgyider
Monte Carlo analysis is pe?omied
,v m
—>
‘
‘
the possible
for each
Results simulations lromare Monte reviewed Carlo k’
is
' _
seieded or none are selected
_
.
_
Dec'smn '5 "worded
7;
[0 i0
‘9o /
'
rill Samoa provider
A service provider I proposal _
L i
'
f
(.1 fwgem’ Arum/is
// (,1 Qualitative scoring information is to service’
'
feedback. Does rIot includeEls rankings
696 l
»-1%_—
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 1 0f 33
US 2003/0097296 A1
2:32 Bzwctoml i2i
3952 “Ba
2 632 UEOQ it
9w3Si2gP“i
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 2 0f 33
MM
1\F53S2ki“st
giix3_25m
“\3Nvb%i
3é\.mx3z%ik //
\\
l/
AN
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
03$2 :8!
May 22, 2003 Sheet 3 0f 33
v.21
US 2003/0097296 A1
Eom E 523. .25".
96 G:
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 4 0f 33
2 70
Templates by Service
Type
Provider
Evaluation Criteria
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 5 0f 33
Dew/e M; Mum: 156
US 2003/0097296 A1
7,0 W
CJe-vI/WMZS
gnu/mp4
M4 ran/1M
4 370 376 7
J
A Tmrrmf d
LINN/7
@
270
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 6 0f 33
[ Reviews templates for best ?t H
// $7 L
Template Database
Project template is createdtonnat m
l De?nes services using Template format
ro'ect P artici P ants / Enters internal P]
/
i A
/ f/ (I
Enters customized criteria for provider evaluation
L All template and customized criteria for provider evaluation are
/b f
I
/
,,,»--
“lo weighted by importance ‘v
Project receives data
Enters customized status
input. mm a“ "5613 with
measures
{lg /"’
'
access, according to
template and is I
customized to the
speci?c project Enters customized performance
520 /F‘""
measures Names or selects service
{2 Z/p? providers to be noti?ed of project
L. Allows project to be released into ServiceTune Network
{2 ‘I
’
j J environgaltmewa: Releases project for approval
I (23h
0
~_L/_ perlunnanoe for all criteria based upon their ‘is weighting
risk, duration, and cost are
developed for each service
~———‘L—*—
provider
Monte Carlo analysis is performed
,t/ (p 9 l,’
—> estimating the possible outcomes /
Results from Monte Carlo
for each service provider
simulations are reviewed
L9a /
(I
III}
// '
A service provider / pruposal is
‘
selected or none are selected
i
. i
.
nec's'on '3 fcordeik
f/
M0 H6
I’1 I’MKGM A5“
Qualitative scoring information is ‘
'
‘ to service providers as
feedback Does not include
rankings
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 14 0f 33
Assign Particlpanis a'vd Rola
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 15 0f 33
US 2003/0097296 A1
mmmmmummmmmmbemmdum
umaamummmmmmacimmpungnamumuwmnnf
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 16 0f 33
15! var Gusts
US 2003/0097296 A1
Dngolng Annual
Give Persorml Quall?mtlons
Hwmnt mm
m Elm
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 17 0f 33
Llst Flrm Quall?callons
M 1147
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 18 0f 33
Plwosd Culllkatlll Statement WW I: m! Edna, mum in "M19.
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 19 0f 33
verlfyn'oposallrimnatlm _
mmuamshubwlumvnpmamm
Ah, /Zr”(
790
$329,530.01 Emu-(Mama
$10 in
A
US 2003/0097296 A1
(19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. N0.: US 2003/0097296 A1 (43) Pub. Date:
Putt
May 22, 2003
(54)
SERVICE TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PROCESS
(52)
(76)
Inventor: David A. Putt, Avon, CT (US)
(57)
Correspondence Address:
A system and method are presented for managing service transactions. The method includes de?ning a project includ
WIGGIN & DANA LLP ATTENTION: PATENT DOCKETING ONE CENTURY TOWER, PO. BOX 1832
(22)
Filed:
plurality of service providers are noti?ed of the RFP. Pro
posals are received from prospective service providers. The
10/300,946
received proposals are ranked based on evaluations of past
performance of the prospective service providers. The evaluations include Weighted categories of activities and quali?cations of the service providers, Where the Weight is
Nov. 20, 2002 Related US. Application Data
(60)
a percentage value corresponding to a relative importance of
the activities and quali?cation to the project. The method further includes selecting at least one of the prospective service providers to perform the project, negotiating terms of
Provisional application No. 60/331,853, ?led on Nov.
20, 2001.
performance With the prospective service providers, moni toring performance of the project and, upon completion of
Publication Classi?cation
(51)
ABSTRACT
ing a plurality of activities and quali?cations and preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) from the project de?nition. A
NEW HAVEN, CT 06508-1832 (US)
(21) Appl. No.:
US. Cl. ............................................... .. 705/11; 705/80
Int. Cl.7 ................................................... .. G06F 17/60
the project, requesting evaluations of the performance.
Client
‘
[I r” /\\]
$5r‘1
Make RFP edits
Service Provider(s)
65A2'
J A" RF". .. ' is " M Z for editing and review
,./ ur/
7’
"
Proposals from different service
Review input
‘
‘
-
I
7
045 \ |H
am “Wed
p
-
tern late hrmat
N
7
f
"pm r‘,wstlaslzigm Sew-mam n
67l U
_ ,
V
_
.
r
‘ servioe provider evaluation criteria
qualitative criteria on a 1-5 Scale
proposals
are “MN” for each proposal
\i fab/(1M Mug b
L
(4 7 L]
éf’a
_ Fllstonoa peFlo?hanoe of service provider across entire client
4'74’
'
organization and all omer o
"i
Proposal rankings are
. Attach eleetronlc dowments to
,
Scoring inputs for qualitative
Each pargz'gam mores
.
anizations are retrieved T W10 75 ,
Proposals are ranked in orderof
performance for each criteria a '79
"W
0??’ "mp "s raga mg PM
' Proposals are ranked in order of / ‘/ a 8 0 —> performance for all critene based h
risk duration, and cost are
.
.
.
“POM elm’ weighting
developed tor each service
rgyider
Monte Carlo analysis is pe?omied
,v m
—>
‘
‘
the possible
for each
Results simulations lromare Monte reviewed Carlo k’
is
' _
seieded or none are selected
_
.
_
Dec'smn '5 "worded
7;
[0 i0
‘9o /
'
rill Samoa provider
A service provider I proposal _
L i
'
f
(.1 fwgem’ Arum/is
// (,1 Qualitative scoring information is to service’
'
feedback. Does rIot includeEls rankings
696 l
»-1%_—
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 1 0f 33
US 2003/0097296 A1
2:32 Bzwctoml i2i
3952 “Ba
2 632 UEOQ it
9w3Si2gP“i
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 2 0f 33
MM
1\F53S2ki“st
giix3_25m
“\3Nvb%i
3é\.mx3z%ik //
\\
l/
AN
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
03$2 :8!
May 22, 2003 Sheet 3 0f 33
v.21
US 2003/0097296 A1
Eom E 523. .25".
96 G:
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 4 0f 33
2 70
Templates by Service
Type
Provider
Evaluation Criteria
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 5 0f 33
Dew/e M; Mum: 156
US 2003/0097296 A1
7,0 W
CJe-vI/WMZS
gnu/mp4
M4 ran/1M
4 370 376 7
J
A Tmrrmf d
LINN/7
@
270
Patent Application Publication May 22, 2003 Sheet 6 0f 33
[ Reviews templates for best ?t H
// $7 L
Template Database
Project template is createdtonnat m
l De?nes services using Template format
ro'ect P artici P ants / Enters internal P]
/
i A
/ f/ (I
Enters customized criteria for provider evaluation
L All template and customized criteria for provider evaluation are
/b f
I
/
,,,»--
“lo weighted by importance ‘v
Project receives data
Enters customized status
input. mm a“ "5613 with
measures
{lg /"’
'
access, according to
template and is I
customized to the
speci?c project Enters customized performance
520 /F‘""
measures Names or selects service
{2 Z/p? providers to be noti?ed of project
L. Allows project to be released into ServiceTune Network
{2 ‘I
’
j J environgaltmewa: Releases project for approval
I (23h
0
~_L/_ perlunnanoe for all criteria based upon their ‘is weighting
risk, duration, and cost are
developed for each service
~———‘L—*—
provider
Monte Carlo analysis is performed
,t/ (p 9 l,’
—> estimating the possible outcomes /
Results from Monte Carlo
for each service provider
simulations are reviewed
L9a /
(I
III}
// '
A service provider / pruposal is
‘
selected or none are selected
i
. i
.
nec's'on '3 fcordeik
f/
M0 H6
I’1 I’MKGM A5“
Qualitative scoring information is ‘
'
‘ to service providers as
feedback Does not include
rankings
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 14 0f 33
Assign Particlpanis a'vd Rola
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 15 0f 33
US 2003/0097296 A1
mmmmmummmmmmbemmdum
umaamummmmmmacimmpungnamumuwmnnf
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 16 0f 33
15! var Gusts
US 2003/0097296 A1
Dngolng Annual
Give Persorml Quall?mtlons
Hwmnt mm
m Elm
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 17 0f 33
Llst Flrm Quall?callons
M 1147
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 18 0f 33
Plwosd Culllkatlll Statement WW I: m! Edna, mum in "M19.
US 2003/0097296 A1
Patent Application Publication
May 22, 2003 Sheet 19 0f 33
verlfyn'oposallrimnatlm _
mmuamshubwlumvnpmamm
Ah, /Zr”(
790
$329,530.01 Emu-(Mama
$10 in
A
US 2003/0097296 A1
