AU2003219048B2 - On-line benchmarking - Google Patents
On-line benchmarking Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- AU2003219048B2 AU2003219048B2 AU2003219048A AU2003219048A AU2003219048B2 AU 2003219048 B2 AU2003219048 B2 AU 2003219048B2 AU 2003219048 A AU2003219048 A AU 2003219048A AU 2003219048 A AU2003219048 A AU 2003219048A AU 2003219048 B2 AU2003219048 B2 AU 2003219048B2
- Authority
- AU
- Australia
- Prior art keywords
- key performance
- user
- basis
- computer
- performance indicators
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired - Fee Related
Links
- 230000000052 comparative effect Effects 0.000 claims description 29
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims description 14
- 238000004590 computer program Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 claims description 11
- 230000005055 memory storage Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000007619 statistical method Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000013475 authorization Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 208000018910 keratinopathic ichthyosis Diseases 0.000 description 14
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000003339 best practice Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008676 import Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000001932 seasonal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012549 training Methods 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- 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
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
Description
-1- 00 SON-LINE BENCHMARKING
(N
SThe present invention relates to a method for on-line performance analysis of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client 0 computers linked to the server computer by a communication network.
oo SWO 00/68861 discloses an Internet based benchmarking system. This system Sallows benchmarking for any type of business entity. If so desired, the user can tc benchmark against similar businesses, e.g. companies which are active in the same field. Similar systems are disclosed in WO 97/31320 and US 2001/0053993.
Although these systems allow benchmarking against similar companies, these systems are of a general nature. Benchmarking systems have been designed focussing on very specific markets, thus allowing more accurate benchmarking.
An example of such a specific system is disclosed in international patent application WO 02/01453. This system is specifically designed for the vehicle repair business. This program enables a user to compare its performance to general standards. The standards may not be equally suitable for all users and may become outdated within a short time.
Vehicle repair shops for refinishing damaged cars, generally referred to as body shops, can differ considerably in size, in the types or numbers of cars they refinish, in the quality standards they wish to maintain, etc. Moreover, their performance is dependent on seasonal influences: in winter more car accidents occur than in summer. Comparing a car repair body shop with a general standard of performance therefore does not result in an accurate analysis.
According to one aspect of the invention there is provided a method for on-line performance analysis of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client computers linked to the server computer by a communication network, the method including: N kMelboumalCasesPetent540OO-54999%P54O59 AUkSpecisIP54059.AU Specification 2008-1 1 -6doc 4/12108 2 00 Sproviding a user interface on a client computer allowing input of o performance data of the business entity; defining one or more key performance indicators on the basis of the ,performance data; 9 providing a user interface on the client computer allowing selection of 00 a type of comparative key performance indicator; using the user's selection to generate one or more comparative key performance indicators on the basis of data of a pre-defined minimum t' number of earlier sessions; 0 comparing one or more of the key performance indicators to the corresponding comparative key performance indicators; Sdeducing a performance analysis on the basis of the differences between the key performance indicators and the corresponding comparative key performance indicators, and transferring the analysis to the client computer.
According to another aspect of the invention there is provided a computer program for on-line performance analysis of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client computers linked to the server computer by a communication network, wherein the computer program: defines one or more key performance indicators on the basis of a user's input of performance parameters; 9 consults a database of data obtained from a pre-defined minimum number of earlier sessions to generate one or more comparative key performance indicators on the basis of selection parameters inputted by the user; comparing the indicators to the corresponding comparative indicator; deducing a performance analysis on the basis of the differences between the key performance indicators and the corresponding comparative key performance indicators.
N:\MeloumeCases\Patent\%5400-54999\P54O59 AU\SpecisNP54059AU Specification 2008-11-6 .doec 4/12/08 2a 00 0Other aspects such as, a data carrier, a server computer, and a client computer are also provided.
The method enables a car repair body shop to customize and fine-tune its benchmarking and to compare its performance with those of body shops in the 0o same country or region, over the same period or in the same sub-market, or with those of body shops of similar size, number of employees, etc.. The use of comparative key performance indicators allows customized queries defined by Sthe user. This way, users define interactively their benchmark criteria. The data So on which these customized criteria are based, are continuously updated. If the body shop is part of a chain, a franchise chain, it can compare its performance with those of other franchisees or a relevant group among the franchisees.
N:W\elboumelCases\Paten\54000-54999kP5O59 AU\Specis\P54O59 AU Spedfication 2008-11-6 doc 4/12/08 WO 03/077168 PCT/EP03/02595 3 Performance data can for example be financial parameters costs per job, etc.), operational parameters number of employees or total of vehicles repaired within a time period), or any other parameter considered to be relevant.
Preferably, the performance data are quantitative operands suitable for use in a mathematical operation.
On the basis of the performance data, key performance indicators, often referred to as "KPI's", are defined, by mathematical combination of quantitative performance parameters. The system of Key Performance Indicators is described in The KPI Book by Jeff Smith, edited by Insight Training and Development Ltd, 2001. An example would be labour gross profit, calculated from the performance data "labour sales" minus "labour cost of sales", or sales per employee, calculated as "total sales" divided by "number of employees".
The key performance indicators, defined on the basis of the input of a certain user, are compared with corresponding comparative key performance indicators. The differences between a key performance indicator and a corresponding comparative key performance indicator result in an analysis of the performance of the benchmarked business entity. For instance, if a key performance indicator is considerably lower than a corresponding comparative key performance indicator, performance of the business in question can be improved on that point. If, on the other hand, a key performance indicator is considerably higher than the corresponding comparative key performance indicator, performance of the business is generally considered to be satisfactory on the point in question.
A database of performance data and or KPI's obtained from earlier sessions is used for defining a comparative key performance indicator for a user. This database can for instance be stored on the server computer. A sub-group can be selected from the database of performance parameters obtained from earlier sessions to define a customized comparative key performance indicator. The 4 00 user can select which data are used to define suitable and relevant comparative o key performance indicators. Alternatively, customized comparative key performance indicators can be generated automatically, by the server computer on the basis of the user's input. This allows the user to benchmark its business against comparable businesses, of comparable size in personnel 00oo terms, businesses active in comparable markets or in the same geographical Cmarket, etc.
SLeakage of confidential information by detailing queries to such extent that only lo one or very few of the user's competitors would be used in a benchmarking session, should desirably be prevented. Therefore, if a query would cover less than a given number of comparative business entities, one or more of the query criteria should be broadened to such extent that at least a pre-defined minimum of comparative businesses is covered. If for instance a user wants to benchmark its performance against the performances of businesses in the same geographical area, the user should select an area where a given minimum number of competitors is active in order to safeguard the confidentiality of the information.
In an embodiment, the method allows benchmarking of the business's performance against its own forecast and/or its own prior performance results.
Further, the system should preferably also allow historical comparison to give an overview over a selected period of time, the last month, the last year, etc. Optionally, the "granularity" of the results (monthly results, quarterly results, annual results, etc.) can be selected by the user.
A further possible embodiment could allow data import directly from bodyshop management systems such as Carlnfo of Akzo Nobel.
Optionally, the database is accessible to a central administrator, who can use the data to compare the performance of a group of business entities with those of another group or with a total score, for instance for statistical analysis or N:\Melboume\Cases\Patentl54000-54999\P54059AUSpecisP54059 AU Specficaticn 2008-1 I-6 doc 4/12/08 00
O
O trend analysis. The central administrator can contact the database either via a o user interface of the server itself or also via the communication network.
Preferably, the central administrator has the option to compare data over a certain period with data over a second period.
00 In a further preferred embodiment, the system can allow use by central C administrators of different levels. For example, for a number of geographical markets central administrators can be supervised or monitored by a global Scentral administrator. If separate geographical markets are assigned to different So central administrators, the system can be further adapted to the specific needs of particular geographical markets. KPIs may be defined differently per country, for example if the KPI involves use of SI or Imperial units of measurement.
Optionally, the system may allow benchmarking on different levels. A user can s1 select a relevant set of key performance indicators and/or select if these are defined by the most relevant performance parameters only or if these are defined in a more detailed way, by using more different performance parameters. For example, a user can be offered the option to select an analysis based on five KPIs, ten KPIs, 20 KPIs or 50 KPIs. Whereas for the very small, more traditional body shop a low profile benchmarking using only five KPIs would do, the more sophisticated, larger body shop automated to a larger degree would be served best with a detailed session using as many as 50 KPIs.
Errors may be included in a user's input. Since this could result not only in an inaccurate analysis but also in disordering the data from earlier sessions, these errors should preferably be filtered out. This can for instance be done by taking the user's input to a filter which scans the input for errors.
The results of the performance analysis can for instance be reported by graphical output or cell data output which can be readily imported into the usual spreadsheet software, such as Excel® of Microsoft.
N:\Melboume\Cases\Patentl54000-549991P54059 AULSpecislP54059 AU Specfication 2008-11-6 doc 4112/08 -6- 00 Besides the reports, the system may optionally also provide facilities, such as o help files or best practices, or offer the possibility of group discussions, e.g., SInternet newsgroups, or video conferencing, preferably via the same communication network, for instance via Internet based video conferencing software such as Microsoft's Netmeeting®, allowing discussion of the analysis 00 with a consultant or with other business entities. Direct e-mail links to a consultant may also be incorporated, if so required.
SThe communication network can for instance be the Internet. Alternatively, the communication network can be an extranet or an intranet. It is preferred to use web technology to design the user interfaces of the system to optimize ease of use. Web technology can be used for implementation, allowing the user to use browser software, such as Internet Explorer® of Microsoft or Netscape's Navigator®, as a basis for the user interface of the system.
Since confidential information is communicated by the users, the information is preferably protected by password authentication, firewall technology and or 128-bit encryption.
The computer program can allow access to one or more central administrators, optionally of different levels, for statistical analysis of the data and or for defining KPIs or further actions.
The computer program can be in any suitable programming language, but languages particularly suitable for web application, such as Java, are preferred.
The computer program can be stored on a data carrier, such as a CD ROM, a hard disk, a tape or any further suitable medium for memory storage.
The computer program can be stored or run on a server computer that can comprise a memory storage medium storing a database of data obtained from N:\Melboume\Cases\Patenl54000-54999\P54059ALSpecis\P54059.AU Speaflcation 2008-11-6 doc 4/12108 -7- 00
O
O earlier sessions. Alternatively, the server can consult the database at another o source.
An embodiment of the invention is further described and illustrated by the following drawings. In the drawings, figures 1 4 show flow diagrams of 00 subsequent stages of the benchmarking process according to the invention.
0Figures 5A E show the use of comparative key performance indicators allowing customized benchmarking by means of user defined queries.
In the drawings, communication between a user, a car repair body shop, and a server computer proceeds via a communication network, such as the Internet.
Via a user interface, the server computer requests the input of performance data as listed in four categories in Figure 1. These performance data are used to calculate key performance indicators, or KPIs. The KPIs may be calculated on the basis of performance data from different categories, if so required. For N:\MlboumCa- 54999\ AU\Speds\P54059.AU Speification 2008-11-6.doc 4/12108 WO 03/077168 PCT/EP03/02595 8 instance, "Refinish Labour cost per vehicle" is calculated by division of the number of vehicles repaired (an operational datum) by the refinish labour cost (a financial datum).
As shown in Figure 2, the KPIs are combined in a report which is presented to the client computer. The KPls are compared to comparative key performance indicators selected by the user, average scores in a specific geographical area global, national or regional average), scores of a pre-defined group, a former forecast of the user itself for the period in question, or comparative key performance indicators based on a customized query.
As shown in Figure 3, the performance reports are subsequently issued in a suitable format, optionally to be selected by the user, which may prefer a datasheet or graphical display. It may be a monthly or annual report, or cover any suitable user-selected period of time, shown in a selected granularity (per month, per quarter, per year, etc.).
As shown in Figure 4, the system can allow the user access to further facilities, e.g. contacting a consultant for additional advice, consulting help files or best practices or technical support. A video conferencing facility or a user forum facility an Internet based news group) may be incorporated to discuss the report with a consultant and or with other bodyshops.
In Figure 5A a New York based bodyshop wishing to benchmark his performance can run a query to select bodyshops for a more specific comparison. In Figure 5A, he selects bodyshops from the same area. He may want to compare with all other bodyshops in New York City, New York State or any other defined greater or smaller geographic area. or However, other criteria would be employee size (Figure 5B), sales volume (Figure 5C), the number of delivered cars within a defined range (Figure 5D) or a combination of these. He may for instance want to compare with all bodyshops having a number of delivered cars between 80 and 120 or any other suitable range. The selection 9 00 O criteria are used by the computer to calculate and communicate the customized o results.
It is to be understood that, if any prior art publication is referred to herein, such reference does not constitute an admission that the publication forms a part of oo the common general knowledge in the art, in Australia or any other country.
In the claims which follow and in the preceding description of the invention, m except where the context requires otherwise due to express language or 0 lo necessary implication, the word "comprise" or variations such as "comprises" or "comprising" is used in an inclusive sense, i.e. to specify the presence of the stated features but not to preclude the presence or addition of further features in various embodiments of the invention.
N: WalbaumeCasesXPatent'54OOO-54999\P54O59 AU Specis\P54O59 AU Speificalion 2008-1145doc 4/12108
Claims (13)
1. A method for on-line performance analysis of a business entity using a Sserver computer and one or more remote client computers linked to the server computer by a communication network, the method including: oo providing a user interface on a client computer allowing input of performance data of the business entity; defining one or more key performance indicators on the basis of the Sperformance data; a providing a user interface on the client computer allowing selection of a type of comparative key performance indicator; using the user's selection to generate one or more comparative key performance indicators on the basis of data of a pre-defined minimum number of earlier sessions; comparing one or more of the key performance indicators to the corresponding comparative key performance indicators; deducing a performance analysis on the basis of the differences between the key performance indicators and the corresponding comparative key performance indicators, and transferring the analysis to the client computer.
2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the server computer stores a database of performance parameters obtained from earlier sessions and wherein a user interface is provided to the client computer, allowing input of one or more parameters for generating a comparative key performance indicator on the basis of a sub-database selected from the database on the basis of parameters inputted by the user.
3. A method according to either of the preceding claims, wherein one or more central administrators, preferably of different levels, have access to the database of performance parameters, for statistical analysis. N i\MelbaumeCasesPaeI544999\P54O59 ALASpecis\P54059AU Specification 200811-6.doc 13/01109 11
4. A method according to claim 3, wherein one or more of the central administrators have an authorization to define key performance Sindicators.
5. A method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the 0o user is a car repair body shop.
6. A method according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the Scommunication network is the Internet, an extranet or an intranet. 0 lo
7. A computer program for on-line performance analysis of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client computers linked to the server computer by a communication network, wherein the computer program: defines one or more key performance indicators on the basis of a user's input of performance parameters; consults a database of data obtained from a pre-defined minimum number of earlier sessions to generate one or more comparative key performance indicators on the basis of selection parameters inputted by the user; comparing the indicators to the corresponding comparative indicator; deducing a performance analysis on the basis of the differences between the key performance indicators and the corresponding comparative key performance indicators.
8. A data carrier storing a computer program according to claim 7.
9. A server computer programmed by a computer program according to claim 7. N:\MelboumelCaseskPatent\54OOO-54999\P54O59 AU\Spoeds\P5459.AU Speciication 2008-11 -6doc 1310109 12 A server computer according to claim 9, comprising a. memory storage c medium storing a database of data obtained from earlier sessions.
11. A client computer programmed to provide a user interface allowing input of data for a computer program according to claim 7. oo
12. A method as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 6, and substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings. io 13. A computer program as claimed in claim 7, and substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings.
14. A data carrier as claimed in claim 8, and substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings. A server computer as claimed in claim 9 or claim 10, and substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings.
16. A client computer as claimed in claim 11, and substantially as herein described with reference to the accompanying drawings. N:.Meloume\Cases\Patentl5400-54999P54059 AUSpecis\P4059.AU Specification 2008-11-6.doc 13/01/09
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| EP02075990.8 | 2002-03-12 | ||
| EP02075990 | 2002-03-12 | ||
| PCT/EP2003/002595 WO2003077168A1 (en) | 2002-03-12 | 2003-03-11 | On-line benchmarking |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| AU2003219048A1 AU2003219048A1 (en) | 2003-09-22 |
| AU2003219048B2 true AU2003219048B2 (en) | 2009-02-19 |
Family
ID=27798866
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| AU2003219048A Expired - Fee Related AU2003219048B2 (en) | 2002-03-12 | 2003-03-11 | On-line benchmarking |
Country Status (3)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| EP (1) | EP1483711A1 (en) |
| AU (1) | AU2003219048B2 (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2003077168A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US8886650B2 (en) * | 2009-11-25 | 2014-11-11 | Yahoo! Inc. | Algorithmically choosing when to use branded content versus aggregated content |
| WO2023113008A1 (en) * | 2021-12-17 | 2023-06-22 | 日本電気通信システム株式会社 | Information management device, system, method, and program |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WO1997031320A1 (en) * | 1996-02-22 | 1997-08-28 | Cullen Egan Dell Limited | Strategic management system |
| WO2000068861A2 (en) * | 1999-05-12 | 2000-11-16 | Mastercard International Incorporated | Benchmark analysis system |
| WO2001031539A1 (en) * | 1999-10-27 | 2001-05-03 | Market Data Systems, Inc. | Analysis and reporting of time dependent business performance data |
| US20010053993A1 (en) * | 2000-05-17 | 2001-12-20 | Mclean Robert I.G. | Continuously updated data processing system and method for measuring and reporting on value creation performance that supports real-time benchmarking |
Family Cites Families (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5799286A (en) * | 1995-06-07 | 1998-08-25 | Electronic Data Systems Corporation | Automated activity-based management system |
-
2003
- 2003-03-11 EP EP03714816A patent/EP1483711A1/en not_active Withdrawn
- 2003-03-11 WO PCT/EP2003/002595 patent/WO2003077168A1/en not_active Application Discontinuation
- 2003-03-11 AU AU2003219048A patent/AU2003219048B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WO1997031320A1 (en) * | 1996-02-22 | 1997-08-28 | Cullen Egan Dell Limited | Strategic management system |
| WO2000068861A2 (en) * | 1999-05-12 | 2000-11-16 | Mastercard International Incorporated | Benchmark analysis system |
| WO2001031539A1 (en) * | 1999-10-27 | 2001-05-03 | Market Data Systems, Inc. | Analysis and reporting of time dependent business performance data |
| US20010053993A1 (en) * | 2000-05-17 | 2001-12-20 | Mclean Robert I.G. | Continuously updated data processing system and method for measuring and reporting on value creation performance that supports real-time benchmarking |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| EP1483711A1 (en) | 2004-12-08 |
| WO2003077168A1 (en) | 2003-09-18 |
| AU2003219048A1 (en) | 2003-09-22 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US20030182181A1 (en) | On-line benchmarking | |
| Malina et al. | Choice and change of measures in performance measurement models | |
| Croom | The impact of web‐based procurement on the management of operating resources supply | |
| US6901426B1 (en) | System and method for providing access privileges for users in a performance evaluation system | |
| US7921031B2 (en) | Custom survey generation method and system | |
| Partovi | An analytic model to quantify strategic service vision | |
| US20090157524A1 (en) | System and method for enabling and maintaining vendor qualification | |
| US20020052862A1 (en) | Method and system for supply chain product and process development collaboration | |
| US20080208968A1 (en) | System and method for automated documentation for solicited trades | |
| US20140006059A1 (en) | Methods and systems for comparing employee insurance plans among peer groups | |
| KR19990064318A (en) | Sales Process Support System and Method | |
| US20060136281A1 (en) | Method, System, And Storage Medium For Assessing And Implementing An Organizational Transformation | |
| US20090292739A1 (en) | Methods and Systems for Service Tracking and Timeline Updating | |
| WO2004068295A2 (en) | System and method for automating business development | |
| Oliver et al. | ERP systems: The route to adoption | |
| Wójcik et al. | Luxembourg and Ireland in global financial networks: Analysing the changing structure of European investment funds | |
| US20030050829A1 (en) | Method and system for collecting and distributing data evaluating the job performances of short term job contractors through a computer controlled centralized database | |
| US20030046209A1 (en) | Financial asset manager selection and peer group information dissemination method, system and computer-readable medium therefor | |
| US20030004929A1 (en) | Method and apparatus for a computer-implemented system for the maintainence of a business relationship between a seller and a buyer | |
| US20020040309A1 (en) | System and method for importing performance data into a performance evaluation system | |
| AU2003219048B2 (en) | On-line benchmarking | |
| US8468085B1 (en) | System and method for reporting and analyzing mortgage information | |
| AU765187B2 (en) | Performance evaluation tool and method | |
| Tassey et al. | The economic impact of role-based access control | |
| US20040199457A1 (en) | Method for online mortgage shopping |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MK25 | Application lapsed reg. 22.2i(2) - failure to pay acceptance fee |