KR20150030608A - Auditing rules optimizer - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method, a system, and a computer program product to determine a timing of auditing a transaction. The auditing rules optimizer system receives data of a transaction performed by a first company including a travel product provided by a second company. The transaction can be classified by types of the transaction and can be determined to audit the transaction or not based on the transaction type. The system is able to determine a predicted value for taking an action to block a transaction and/or recover a discordance. The system is able to determine an action to take based on the predicted value. An auditing can be performed for an inter-airline bill issue between an issuing airline and a flight airline and in a transaction by a travel agency. In each case, experience data of a previous auditing period can be used to control a parameter used to identify a transaction to be audited and determine a predicted value of an auditing action.

Description

Auditing rule optimizer {AUDITING RULES OPTIMIZER}

FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates generally to computer and computer software and, more particularly, to a method and system for determining an expected value of an action on an audit of a transaction, And a computer program product.

In the travel industry, airline tickets are often sold through an indirect seller such as an online travel agency or a validating carrier. Indirect sellers typically check available flights that meet the traveler's itinerary, and book the flight to the traveler when matching flights are found. As part of this bookkeeping process, the indirect seller can retrieve the payment from the traveler for the ticket. In order to cover the charge of the operating carrier providing the transportation service, the indirect seller provides part of the collected payment to the operating carrier.

To ensure that indirect sellers are selling tickets in accordance with the restrictions and rules regarding ticket prices, these transactions can be audited from time to time. The auditor can verify that the fare, tax, and commission amounts match the rules and restrictions on the details of the tickets sold. For example, if an auditor indicates that an indirect seller did not adequately compensate the carrier, the carrier could recover the deficit from the indirect seller. Due to the global revenue scale of the airline industry over the years, even small discrepancies across all tickets sold can be ameliorated to a significant degree by restoring lost revenue.

If the audit indicates that the travel agency or ticketing airline has not been properly charged to the product, the operating airline may simply ignore the discrepancy or, in some cases, issue an agency debit memo (ADM) or an interline bill It can try to recover the inconsistency. If the indirect seller disputes the charge, the carrier may decide not to take action (thus abandoning the discrepancy recovery effort) or not to create an inquiry. An airline can make this decision based on experience or on a disagreement value, without a fairly objective analysis of the costs involved.

Therefore, an improved system and method for optimizing the utilization of the operator and the net profit recovered by the auditor, by supporting the management of the transaction accounting audit by deciding when to conduct the transaction and analyzing the results of the transaction accounting audit And a computer program product.

In one embodiment of the invention, a method is provided for selecting a transaction to be audited during a plurality of transactions. The method includes receiving data about a transaction in a computer. This transaction may be performed by a first company and may be a transaction relating to a travel product provided by a second business entity. The method may include parsing the data into a plurality of parameters, each parameter having a value that defines the nature of the transaction. In response to the plurality of parameters matching a first set of parameters corresponding to a first transaction type, the transaction may be classified as a first transaction type. In response to the plurality of parameters matching a second set of parameters corresponding to a second transaction type, the transaction may be classified as a second transaction type. The method may further comprise determining whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as a first transaction type or a second transaction type.

In another embodiment of the present invention, an apparatus is provided that includes a processor and a memory. The memory, when executed by the processor, includes instructions configured to cause the device to be executed by the first company and to receive data regarding the transaction regarding the trip product provided by the second enterprise. The instruction may be configured to further cause the device to parse the data into a plurality of parameters. In response to the plurality of parameters matching the first set of parameters, the instructions may be configured to cause the device to classify the transaction as a first transaction type. In response to the plurality of parameters matching the second set of parameters, the instructions may be configured to cause the device to classify the transaction into a second transaction type. The command may be configured to determine whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as a first transaction type or a second transaction type.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transient computer readable storage medium containing instructions. The instructions, when executed by the processor, may be configured to cause the processor to be executed by the first company and to receive data regarding the transaction regarding the travel product provided by the second enterprise. The instructions may further be configured to cause the processor to parse the data into a plurality of parameters. In response to the plurality of parameters matching the first set of parameters, the instruction may be configured to cause the processor to classify the transaction as a first transaction type. In response to the plurality of parameters matching the second set of parameters, the instruction may be configured to cause the processor to classify the transaction as a second transaction type. The instructions may be configured to determine whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as a first transaction type or a second transaction type.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a method is provided for optimizing revenue for a transaction on a travel product performed by a first business entity and provided by a second business entity. The method includes receiving data about a transaction in a computer, the data including data representing a first amount quoted on a travel product by a first company. In response to the first amount being less than the second amount imposed on the travel product by the second business entity, the method may determine a first expected value to block the transaction. The method may determine a first difference that is equal to the first expected value minus the first amount and block the transaction in response to the first difference exceeding the threshold.

In another embodiment of the present invention, an apparatus is provided that includes a processor and a memory. The memory, when executed by the processor, comprises instructions configured to cause the device to receive data regarding the transaction, the data including data indicative of a first amount quoted on the travel product by the first company. In response to the first amount being less than the second amount imposed on the travel product by the second business entity, the command may be configured to determine a first expected value for the device to block the transaction. The device may determine a first difference that is equal to the first expected value minus the first amount and block the transaction in response to the first difference exceeding a threshold value.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transient computer readable storage medium of instructions. The instruction, when executed by the processor, may be configured to cause the processor to receive data regarding the transaction, the data comprising data representing a first amount quoted on the travel product by the first company. In response to the first amount being less than the second amount imposed on the travel product by the second business entity, the instruction may be configured to cause the processor to determine a first expected value to block the transaction. The processor may determine a first difference equal to the first expected value minus the first amount and block the transaction in response to the first difference exceeding the threshold.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a method of performing an audit between airlines from the point of view of a ticketing airline is provided. The method includes receiving data from a computer, the data relating to an inter-carrier invoice for a first amount received from an operating carrier. The method further includes determining a probability that the rejection memo can not be disputed by the carrier and determining a second amount equal to the cost of issuing the deny note divided by the probability . In response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by an inconsistency, the method may further include issuing the rejection note to the operating carrier.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, an apparatus is provided that includes a processor and a memory. The memory, when executed by the processor, comprises instructions configured to cause the device to receive data regarding an inter-carrier bill for a first amount from an operating carrier. The command may further be configured to determine, by the device, a second amount equal to the likelihood that the deny note can not be disputed by the operating carrier and the cost of issuing the deny note divided by the likelihood. In response to the first amount exceeding the second amount by an inconsistency, the instruction may further be configured to cause the device to issue the deny note to the operating carrier.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transient computer readable storage medium containing instructions. The instructions, when executed by the processor, may be configured to cause the processor to perform the operation of receiving data relating to the inter-carrier invoice for the first amount from the operating carrier. The command may further be configured to cause the processor to perform the operation of determining a second amount that is equal to the likelihood that the deny note can not be disputed by the operating carrier and the cost of issuing the deny note divided by the probability. In response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by an inconsistency, the instruction may cause the processor to perform an operation of issuing a deny note to the operating airline.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, another method of performing an accounting audit between airlines from a point of view of an operating airline is provided. The method includes receiving data from a computer, wherein the data relates to a rejection note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving an inter-airline bill for the first amount from an operating airline. This method has the second possibility that denial memo inquiries may be disputed by the ticketing airline, and the second possibility that the denial memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline based on accurate and accurate inter- . The method further determines a second amount equal to the cost of issuing the denial note inquiry divided by the sum of the first probability and the second probability. In response to the first amount exceeding the second amount by a mismatch, the method includes issuing the denial note inquiry to the ticketing airline.

In another embodiment of the present invention, an apparatus is provided that includes a processor and a memory. The memory, when executed by the processor, is configured to execute a command configured to perform an operation of receiving data regarding a deny note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving a bill from the operating airline to the airline for the first amount . The order is denied by the device. The first possibility is that the memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline, and that the inter-airline bill is denied on the basis of an accurate and accurate airline bill. And may further be configured to perform an action of determining the likelihood. The command may perform an operation to determine a second amount equal to the cost of issuing the deny note inquiry to the device divided by the sum of the first probability and the second probability. In response to the first amount exceeding the second amount by an inconsistency, the instruction may cause the device to perform an operation of issuing the deny note inquiry to the issuing airline.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, a computer program product is provided that includes a non-transient computer readable storage medium containing instructions. The command, when executed by the processor, is configured to perform the operation of receiving the data regarding the rejection note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving the inter-airline bill for the first amount from the operating airline . The order may be denied to the processor, the first possibility that the memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline, and the rejection based on an accurate and accurate airline bill between these airline memorandum inquiries may be contested by the ticketing airline. It is possible to further perform an operation of determining the possibility. The instruction may perform an operation of determining a second amount equal to the cost of issuing the deny memo query divided by the sum of the first probability and the second probability. In response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by an inconsistency, the instruction may cause the processor to perform the operation of issuing the denial note inquiry to the issuing airline.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form a part of this specification, illustrate various embodiments of the invention and, together with the general description of the invention given above and the detailed description of the embodiments given below, It plays a role.
1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary operating environment including a plurality of computer systems communicating over a network.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the exemplary computer system of Figure 1;
3 is a block schematic diagram illustrating an audit trail optimizer system that may be hosted by one or more computer systems of FIG.
4 is a flow chart illustrating an optimization process that may be performed by the audit audit rule optimizer system of FIG.
5 is a schematic action flow diagram illustrating actions that may be performed in connection with issuing an invoice to an airline between airlines.
Figure 6 is a graphical depiction of a method for estimating the preventive effect that an action taken in one accounting period has on price errors in a subsequent accounting period.

Embodiments of the present invention may be implemented by processing and database systems, such as Global Distribution System (GDS). This processing and database system may provide an interconnect between an indirect seller of airline tickets and a plurality of computer reservation systems, each associated with a travel service provider. In the context of air travel, this processing and database system can be configured so that travelers can book airline tickets and other travel products through indirect sales channels. These indirect sales channels may include online travel agencies and ticketing airlines that sell tickets for services provided by the operating airline. The indirect seller may receive the payment from the traveler for the bookkeeped ticket. Indirect sellers may compensate the operating carrier for the costs of the services provided.

The processing and database system may include an audit trail optimizer system that determines whether the parties involved in the transaction have been adequately compensated. The audit rule optimizer system may be configured to determine whether a completed transaction should be audited, pending online transactions should be blocked, and / or a preventive action should be taken. The Audit Rule Optimizer system can make this determination based on the estimated value taking the action taken. This estimated value can be determined based on empirical data collected during the previous auditing period. The experience data may include data on the cost of taking the action, the expected revenue generated by taking the action, and an estimate of the preventative effect that may be generated by taking the action. Actions may include preventive actions such as e-mail campaigns and operator training, online actions such as blocking pending transactions, and offline actions such as ADM, billing between airlines, denial memos and inquiries . ≪ / RTI >

Referring now to Figure 1, an operating environment 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention includes a Global Distribution System (GDS) 12 that communicates directly and / or through a network 20, 14, one or more travel agent systems 16, and one or more operator systems 18. The airline system 14 includes a computer reservation system (CRS) and / or a billing system for each airline, so that the travel agent system 16 and / or the GDS 12 can reserve airline tickets To be paid. The airline system 14 communicates directly or via the GDS 12, allowing the ticketing airline to sell seat tickets provided by the operating airline. The operating airline may issue a bill to the ticketing airline for the services provided. The network 20 may include one or more private and / or public networks (e.g., the Internet) capable of exchanging data.

The GDS 12 provides communication between the airline system 14 and the travel agent system 16 to allow a travel agent, ticketing airline or other indirect merchant to book reservations to one or more airline systems 14 via the GDS 12 . ≪ / RTI > To this end, the GDS 12 may maintain a link to each airline system 14 via the network 20. Through these links, the GDS 12 can route the reservation request from the airline system 14 of the airline ticket issuer and / or the travel agent system 16 to the corresponding airline system 14 for the operating airline. Whereby the airline system 14 and the travel agent system 16 can book flights of multiple airlines via a single connection with the GDS 12. The GDS 12 may store a copy of the PNR (Passenger Name Record) generated by the airline system 14. From these copies, a PNR can be maintained by the GDS 12, which includes the entire set of flight data for a travel itinerary that includes an air segment from a number of airlines.

The operator system 18 may communicate with the GDS 12 via the network 20 or some other suitable connection and may provide the system operator with a terminal or other suitable interface with the GDS 12. An operator can communicate with the GDS 12 via the operator system 18 and perform tasks relating to accounting auditing of transactions. The operator can perform actions on actions taken to recover uncovered inconsistencies by audit. To this end, modules hosted by other computer systems, including the GDS 12 and / or the operating environment 10, may provide work to each operator system 18 for display to the operator. Each operator system 18 may receive input from an operator so that the operator can select an operation and allow the displayed operation to be performed by each system.

2, the GDS 12, airline system 14, travel agent system 16 and operator system 18 of the operating environment 10 may be implemented within one or more computer devices or systems, for example, an exemplary computer system (22). ≪ / RTI > The computer system 22 may include a processor 24, a memory 26, a mass storage memory device 28, an input / output (I / O) interface 30 and a user interface 32. The computer system 22 may be operatively coupled to one or more external resources 34 via the network 20 and / or the I / O interface 30. [

The processor 24 may be a microprocessor, a micro-controller, a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a central processing unit, an electric field programmable gate array, a programmable logic device, a state machine, a logic circuit, Or any other device that manipulates the signal (analog or digital) based on an operating command stored in the memory (not shown). The memory 26 may be a single memory device or a plurality of memory devices such as read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), volatile memory, non-volatile memory, static random access memory (SRAM) But is not limited to, a memory device (DRAM), a flash memory, a cache memory, or any other device capable of storing information. The mass storage memory device 28 may include a data storage device, such as a hard drive, an optical drive, a tape drive, a non-volatile solid state device, or any other device capable of storing information. The database 36 may reside in the mass storage memory device 28 and may be used to collect and organize data used by the various systems and modules described herein.

The processor 24 may operate under the control of an operating system 38 resident in the memory 26. Operating system 38 manages computer resources and includes computer program code embodied in one or more computer software applications, for example applications 40 residing in memory 26, having instructions to be executed by processor 24 I will. In an alternative embodiment, the processor 24 directly executes the application 40, so that the operating system 38 can be omitted. One or more data structures 42 may reside in memory 26 and may be used by processor 24, operating system 38 and / or application 40 to store or manipulate data.

The I / O interface 30 may provide a machine interface that operatively connects the processor 24 to other devices and systems, e.g., the network 20 and / or external resources 34. The application 40 may operate in cooperation with the network 20 and / or external resources 34 by communicating via the I / O interface 30 to provide various features, functions, and / Or module. The application 40 may be implemented by one or more external resources 34 or may comprise program code that is dependent on functions and / or signals provided by other systems or network components external to the computer system 22 . In fact, the configuration of possible hardware and software is generally endless, so those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that in an embodiment of the present invention, the application may be located external to the computer system 22, (Hardware and software) distributed to external resources 34, or provided as a service to the network 20, such as a cloud computing service.

The user interface 32 may be operably connected to the processor 24 of the computer system 22 in a known manner that allows the user to interact directly with the computer system 22. [ The user interface 32 may include video and / or alphanumeric displays, touch screens, speakers, and any other suitable audio and visual indicators that may provide the user with information. The user interface 32 may include an input device and a control unit such as an alphanumeric keyboard, a pointing device, a keypad, a push button, a control knob control knobs, microphones, and the like.

Airline tickets purchased through either the airline system 14 or the travel agent system 16 may entail booking, pricing and ticketing flights. Booking a flight may include checking an operating airline inventory for availability of the flight. This check sends a booking request from the airline system 14 or the travel agent system 16 to the GDS 12 which can query the corresponding airline system 14 for flight availability. If there is a seat available on the requested flight, the flight can be booked and the inventory of the operating airline is reduced to reflect this booking. Flights may be priced by the travel agency or ticketing airline with the help of a fare engine (mouse engine) and thus the account of the traveler issued. The ticket ticketing process may involve a travel agency or ticketing airline reporting the sale of tickets to the operating airline's Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP) in the name of the airline. In the United States, Airline Reporting Corporation (ARC) typically provides this service. In any case, the BSP acts as a business process outsourcer (BPO) that provides a clearing house to settle accounts between travel agents, ticketing airlines, airlines and any other entities involved in the transaction. . The operating airline can collect fare (fare) through the BSP to provide seats.

As part of the audit process, the auditable amount (C _A ), which represents the charge to be charged to the ticket, can be determined. The audit amount C _A may be based on data relating to a ticket such as a bookkeeping code, a class of service, a source-destination city pair, a travel date, or any other appropriate data defining a parameter characterizing the ticket . This data determines whether the fare (C _A ) to be charged to the ticket is correct by determining whether fare tariff, business rules, routing map, service table class, tax information, etc. are properly implemented by the indirect vendor . A business rule may include a booking condition such as a minimum stay or advance purchase, and may be specific to a city pair and / or a service class. An audit conducted by an operating airline to verify that an indirect seller has sold the ticket at the correct amount is generally referred to as an "outward auditing". The system can be used to determine whether the operating airline has issued an invoice to an indirect seller at the correct amount. This type of auditing is generally referred to as "inward auditing".

In the case of external accounting audits, the system can compare the actual charge imposed by the indirect seller with the charge that must be imposed on the ticket. In an internal accounting audit, the auditing module may compare the amount billed by the operating airline with the amount allocated to the operating airline's share. In any case, if the discrepancy (V) is present in the audited amount (C _A ), the auditor may take steps to restore this discrepancy. This step involves issuing an agency debit memo (ADM) to a travel agency, issuing an invoice between airlines to the issuing airline (ie, issuing an external invoice between airlines), or issuing a denied note to the operating airline ). ≪ / RTI > Methods, systems and computer program products for issuing and managing ADM are described in U.S. Patent Application No. 13 / 926,136, entitled " OPTIMIZING GENERATION OF AGENCY DEBIT MEMOS ", the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes. (Attorney Docket No. AMS-143US).

Referring now to FIG. 3, an audit trail optimizer system 50 may include an audit module 52, an optimizer module 54, a data acquisition module 56, and a value tracking module 58. In each audited transaction, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 may recommend that one or more actions be taken or taken. In the case of a completed transaction, the optimizer system may recommend taking an offline remediation action to recover the identified discrepancy (V). An offline remedial action may include an action to issue an ADM, an action to issue an invoice between airlines, an action to issue a deny note, an action to instigate an inquiry on a dispute or deny note, or any other appropriate action . In the case of a pending transaction, the audit rule optimizer system 50 may recommend taking an online preventive action, for example an action to block pending transactions. The audit trail optimizer system 50 may take preventive actions, for example initiating an email campaign to reduce fraud or mistake, or recommend actions to provide additional agent training have.

To this end, the audit trail optimizer system 50 receives initial audit audit parameters 60, updated audit audit parameters 62 and updated optimizer parameters 62 from one or more sources, such as the GDS 12 or the operator system 18, Parameter 64. The < / RTI > These parameters 60, 62, 64 may be used to adjust the operation of the audit trail optimizer system 50 to allow the system 50 to adapt to changing conditions. The initial accounting audit parameter 60, the updated accounting audit parameter 62 and the updated optimizer parameter 64 are provided to the optimizer module 54, the data acquisition module 56, / RTI > may be based on the experience data provided by < RTI ID = 0.0 > The parameters 60, 62 and 64 may comprise data entered into and / or received from a computer system, database and / or network and received by a system operator.

The audit module 52 may evaluate the transaction and determine the transaction to be audited based on the expected value of performing the audit. For example, a transaction may be selected to be audited in response to an expected value for performing an audit exceeding a threshold. This expected value can be determined based on the characteristics of the transaction to be audited and / or on the audit trail parameters determined from the experience data collected by the data collection module 56. The audit module 52 may be configured to audit and audit transactions belonging to one or more transaction groups selected to be audited. In the case of an online transaction, the audit module 52 may determine the expected value to block the transaction. If the anticipated value blocking the online transaction exceeds the expected value at which the transaction may occur, the audit trail optimizer system 50 may block the transaction.

If the audit module 52 determines that there is an inconsistency in offline transactions, the optimizer module 54 may determine the best action to be taken. Actions are: (1) not doing anything and not collecting discrepancies; (2) issuing an ADM; (3) issuing an invoice between airlines; (4) issuing a rejection note; And (5) inquiring on the received dispute or rejection note. The optimizer module 54 may schedule an action related to taking an action based on the deadline for issuing the ADM, the inter-airline bill, the deny note, and the inquiry. This scheduling can take into account the operator's staffing level and the expected value taking action, where a higher value job is scheduled with a higher priority than a lower value job.

The initial and updated audit audit parameters 60 and 62 may be provided to the audit module 52 and may include (1) issuing an ADM based on the discrepancy (V) identified by the audit module 52 ; (2) the operating airline audits the tickets sold by the ticketing airline - that is, performing an "external audit"; (3) the issuing airline audits the invoices between airlines received from the operating air carrier - ie, performs an "internal accounting audit"; (4) blocking airline tickets such as those sold by online travel agents; And (5) data that can be used to determine an expected value of an action to perform a preventive action, such as an email campaign or additional operator training.

The auditing module 52 analyzes the selected transactions to perform an accounting audit, such as the sale of airline tickets by an indirect seller, an inter-carrier bill and / or a denial note, and the expected value of taking action to recover the discrepancy (V) Can be determined. This expected value can be determined based on the nature of the transaction using the initial and / or updated accounting audit parameters 60, 62 to define data processing functions. The audit parameters (60, 62) may include known or estimated probabilities of possible audit results, and costs associated with the audit process. The initial accounting audit parameter 60 may be provided to the accounting audit module 52 at system start-up to provide an operating value to the accounting audit module 52 until an updated accounting audit parameter 62 is available. The updated accounting audit parameters 62 may be loaded into the accounting audit module 52 periodically, for example, at the end of the audit period. The audit period can be any appropriate period, for example one month or one year. The updated accounting audit parameters 62 may be determined based on the experience data provided by the optimizer module 54. [ This experience data may be captured by data collection module 56 and used by value tracking module 58 to determine updated optimizer parameters 64. [ The value tracking module 58 may use the experience data captured by the data collection module 56 to determine additional updated optimizer parameters 64 and operator efficiency metrics 66. [

The audit trail parameters 60, 62, which may be used to determine the expected value of performing the action, may include data defining the probability (A) that the audit amount C _A is correct. That is, the possibility that the audit amount (C _A ) is equal to the correct amount (C _T ) to be charged to the ticket (A). Additional auditing parameters include the possibility (P _D ) that actions (eg, ADM, inter-company bills, or denial memos) can be disputed by the recipient; The likelihood that the recipient will be able to dispute the action (P _R ) if an action is issued based on the correct accounting audit amount (C _A ); The likelihood that the recipient will be able to dispute the action (P _w ) if an action is issued based on an incorrect accounting audit amount (C _A ); Estimated cost (C _F ) issuing a first action (e.g., ADM, inter-airline bill, or deny note); And data defining an estimated cost (C _I ) issuing an inquiry or other type of dispute in response to receiving the action. The value of the audit parameters 60, 62 may vary depending on the type of action and / or the identity of the entrepreneur involved. For example, it is likely to be able to correct audited amount (C _A) issued the rejects notes ticketing airline in response to receiving the bill between airlines from Airlines based on (P _R) is accurate audit amount (C _A (P _R ) that the travel agency may be able to dispute the issued ADM based on the ADM.

The auditing module 52 may be configured to receive data regarding pending online transactions, such as sales of airline tickets by an online travel agent or a ticketing airline. In response to determining that there is a positive discrepancy (V) between the audit amount (C _A ) and the amount to be charged to the transaction ("Amount Charged" (C _C )), the audit module (52) , Then the auditing module 52 may further determine the expected value to block the transaction. For example, the accounting audit module 52 may block issuance of airline tickets sold by an online travel agent. If the ticket issuance is blocked, the traveler can (1) book the ticket on the audit amount (C _A ) and receive the increased revenue from the ticketing airline; (2) the ticketing airline that blocked the transaction by booking the ticket through a different ticketing airline loses the commission; Or (3) the online travel agent, ticketing airline, and operating airline each may lose revenue by deciding not to book the ticket. An audit trail parameter (60, 62) that can be used to determine the expected value to block the transaction is the probability of loss of sale (P _L ) and the possibility that the traveler may switch to a different ticketing airline (P _s ) . ≪ / RTI >

The data collection module 56 may include (1) the effectiveness of the preventive action; (2) transaction parameters that can be used to group transactions by type by defining transaction types; (3) the price error rate for a limited group of transactions so that a group with a high rate of fraud or error can be audited at a higher rate than other groups; (4) Percentage of transactions belonging to other groups that should be audited at random to generate experience data for the low-risk transaction types; And (5) the cost of performing the auditing function, for example, the cost per action information technology (IT). The parameters that can be used to define the transaction type include the identity of the indirect sales channel, the identity of the specific office of the indirect sales channel, the amount collected in the transaction, the price to be charged to the travel product, the type of ticket or other travel product, Cost, the identity of the operating airline, or any other parameter that defines the nature of the ticket or transaction being sold. Each transaction type may be defined by a set of selected parameters, where each parameter in the set has a range of acceptable values or values. A transaction may be classified as belonging to a transaction type if the parameter value of the transaction falls within an allowable parameter value that defines the transaction type. Depending on how the transaction type is defined, a transaction can belong to more than one transaction type.

A trading group is a group of transactions that are the source of the transaction (e.g., the identity of an online, offline, or indirect seller), the nature of the ticket being sold (e.g., city pair, For example, transaction blocking, ADM, inter-airline billing, first or second denial note, or inquiry issue). Estimated costs, accounting audit accuracy and likelihood can be determined based on the group to which the transaction belongs. By dividing the audit parameters into groups of transaction types, the expected value can be determined more accurately.

Preventive actions may include actions intended to reduce the incidence of inaccurate pricing and / or fraud of travel products during subsequent audit periods. Examples of preventive actions may include providing additional training to a bookkeeper that properly pricing and / or revealing fraud to (1) a common mistake or fraud email campaign alert travel agent and / or operator and (2) tickets But are not limited to these. The preventive effect can be quantified as an estimated percentage reduction in discrepancies (V) in transactions with similar characteristics in subsequent audits. The unit cost of the preventive action may be determined based on a number of factors such as the number of targeting agents and the range of actions. Preventive effects can be determined for online and offline actions to recover from inconsistencies.

An audit trail parameter may be classified or partitioned based on a parameter that defines one or more characteristics of the transaction. That is, the likelihood and cost data used by the auditing module 52 may be independently defined in a transaction or audit audit scenario having different characteristics. For example, the likelihood that a travel agent will be able to dispute an ADM (P _D ) depends on the identity of the travel agent, the type of ticket, the cost of the ticket, the identity of the operating airline, the discrepancy (V) Amount, or any other appropriate parameter that defines the nature of the transaction or audit audit scenario being evaluated.

The audit trail parameters 60 and 62 may be entered into the audit module 52 for each segment or entered as an overall value applied across a plurality of segments. That is, a separate cost or probability value may be entered for each segment defined in the audit module 52, or some or all of the cost and likelihood values may be applied to some or all of the segments defined in the audit module 52 have. The audit trail parameters 60 and 62 may be selected manually or automatically based on the experience data collected by the data collection module 56. For example, the audit trail parameters 60, 62 may include an average value determined for each intra-segment parameter based on the audit results during one or more prior audit periods.

At the end of the audit period, the optimizer module 54 may determine the type of transaction to be audited based on the value obtained from the audit transaction during the previous audit period and the audit fees. The optimizer module 54 may provide an updated audit trail 62 based on this determination. Since the experiential data may not be available prior to the first auditing period, the optimizer module 54 may enable the accounting module 52 to determine the type of transaction to be audited during the first accounting period, Audit parameters may not be provided. To solve this problem, the audit module 52 may be configured to audit all transactions during the first audit period to collect experience data across a variety of audit scenarios and transaction types. In subsequent auditing periods, auditing decisions may be based on this experience data.

In a subsequent audit period, the audit module 52 may determine that a particular audit scenario, including a particular transaction type, provides a historically negative value. Therefore, the best profit can be realized if the transaction with characteristics of the unprofitable audit scenario can not be audited as a group during the subsequent audit period. However, if the audit module 52 is configured to audit only the types of transactions identified as likely to provide a positive value, new experience data may be collected only for the transaction types in the optimal audit group. Thus, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 may lack the ability to find new trends in billing errors or fraud that only affected the types of transactions previously considered to be unprofitable for auditing. Thus, the range of transactions investigated in the audit rule optimizer system 50 tends to decrease over time.

To solve this potential problem, the audit module 52 may be configured to audit the sample transactions from a group that includes transaction types with negative expected values. In this manner, the audit trail optimizer system 50 can be configured to collect data on transactions across the entire cross-section of the transaction type. This data may change the scope of transactions that are audited during subsequent audits as the cause of the billing errors evolves.

The data collection module 56 may collect data regarding the cost of each action performed or action taken. This data can be classified at the ticket and operator levels to facilitate defining transaction types and generating operator efficiency metrics 66. Cost data may be measured by the optimizer module 54 or some other suitable module. The data collection module 56 provides data on the final results of the audit conducted, the notes to be contested and the results thereof, the issuance of bills between the rejected airlines (including the primary and secondary rejection) Can be collected. The data collection module 56 may collect data regarding the passenger name record.

The transaction type can be defined based on the ticket classification. These ticket classifications can be limited to grouping tickets based on the characteristics of the tickets. Ticket characteristics can correspond to parameters used to determine when transactions should be audited, or when online actions such as blocking ticket sales should be taken. The data collection module 56 may collect the collected data based on the classification of the tickets. The total revenue realized at the perfect price can be determined from the sum of the actual sales and the recovered discrepancies (V) minus the lost sales due to blockage of online transactions.

The data collection module 56 may be configured to associate the collected data with the specific operator that accompanies the base transaction. This allows the value tracking module 58 to provide an operator efficiency metric 66. Operator efficiency metric 66 can be used to monitor the performance of an operator to easily identify an operator who can benefit from the improvement action. The data provided by the data acquisition module 56 may be used to determine whether the current optimizer parameters are correct. To this end, the data acquisition module 56 may provide the data used to generate the updated optimizer parameters 64. This data is the unit cost for each type of action taken or actions taken (eg, ADM, inter-airline billing, denial memo, dispute, referral, etc.), likelihood that the ADM may be disputed, , The likelihood of loss of sales or the possibility that the ticketing airline will be changed by the traveler in response to blocking the online transaction, and the result of the audit conducted or the precautionary action taken during the current audit period, the anticipation of a discrepancy (V) May include data relating to the amount of reduction.

Referring now to FIG. 4, a flow diagram illustrating an optimization process 70 that may be performed by an audit trail optimizer system 50 in response to a decision to audit a transaction is presented. At block 72, the audit trail optimizer system 50 determines the expected value (V _PA ) to take the preventive action. Preventive actions may include issuing a notification about a particular type or group of transactions, or providing training to a system operator about a particular type of error or fraudulent activity. The expected value (V _PA ) can be provided by the following equation:

V _PA = T x R x Y x V _{0 :: n} - C _PA (Equation 1)

Where T is the estimated duration of the preventive effect provided by the action (e.g., the number of years or the audit period), R is the discount rate used to determine the current value of the prevented inconsistency (V) V _{0 :: n} is the cumulative value of the prevention inconsistency for the transaction group considered by the preventive action and C _PA is the cost of the preventive action. The accumulated value of the prevented inconsistency may be provided by the following equation:

(수식 2)

(Equation 2)

Cost (C _PA ) can be fixed cost or can vary depending on the nature of the preventive action. The cost of the preventive action (C _PA ) may be the expected cost determined based on the average cost of the previous preventive action taken. For example, email campaigns may have a relatively fixed cost, whereas operator training may vary depending on how much training the accompanying offices and operators are trained.

At block 74, the audit trail optimizer system 50 may determine whether the expected value V _PA exceeds zero. In other words, can the corresponding preventive action provide a positive expected return in view of the subsequent reduction in expected cost and price errors? In response to the determination that the precautionary action produces a positive expected value V _PA (the "yes" branch in decision block 74), the auditing rule optimizer system 50 proceeds to block 76 , And add the preventive action to the operator worklist before proceeding to block 78. [ The operator worklist may be a worklist to be assigned to one or more operators for execution based on a priority ranking system that ranks the work based on values assigned to the work. This value can be, for example, the expected profit density value of the task. In response to the determination that the preventive action does not have a positive expected value V _PA (a "no" branch in decision block 74), the auditing rule optimizer system 50 proceeds to block 78 .

At block 78, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 sends an appropriate offline action (e. G., Issuing an ADM, issuing an inter-carrier bill, issuing a deny note, It is possible to determine the expected value (V _OFF ) to take. If the transaction is an online transaction, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 determines an expected value (V _ON ) to take an appropriate online action (e.g., an action to block the sale of an airline ticket provided by an online travel agent) .

The process of determining V _OFF may vary depending on whether this action is a first offline action or a subsequent offline action and what type of first action is involved. Examples of the first action include: (1) issuance of a bill to the issuing airline by the operating airline (this is commonly referred to as "issuance of an external bill between airlines"); (2) Issuing (this is commonly referred to as "issuing an internal invoice between airlines"); And (3) issuing the ADM to an online travel agent. The subsequent offline action may include issuing a second rejection note by the operating airline system, issuing a query in response to the issuing airline receiving a second rejection note, and the online travel agent contesting the ADM. Determining V _OFF is described in more detail below with reference to FIG.

If the account being audited is a pending transaction, e. G. An online transaction that has not yet been completed, then the optimization process 70 may determine the expected value (V _ON ) to execute the online action. In this scenario, if an action is not taken, the online transaction may be completed for the amount of charge (C _C ) provided by the online travel agent. Another option is to take online actions and block transactions. Online action may be taken in response to the accounting module 52 determining that there is a significant amount of discrepancy (V) between the amount of charge (C _C ) and the amount of auditable amount (C _A ). If the sale of a ticket is blocked, the traveler can book a ticket for the audited amount (C _A ), which can result in an increase in revenue exceeding the charge amount (C _C ) by a discrepancy (V). However, in response to blocking sales at the imposed amount (C _C ), the traveler may decide to either book the flight through a different ticketing airline at the charge amount (C _C ), or not to book it on this flight.

If a traveler buaches a ticket through a different ticketing airline instead of a blocked ticketing airline, the blocked ticketing airline may lose commission. If the ticketing airline is the operated airline, the airline may result in a service charge between airlines due to the change to a different ticketing airline. In other words, if the carrier is not the ticketing carrier, the carrier can pay a certain percentage of the pre-tax fare to the ticketing carrier. The service charge between airlines is a fee paid to the ticketing airline issuing tickets by the carrier. Generally, this fee is calculated as a percentage of the pre-tax charge imposed on the ticket. Thus, if a traveler changes to a different ticketing airline in response to a block of sales, the revenue may be reduced by a service charge (C _ISC ) between airlines. Therefore, if a traveler is booking a ticket through a different ticketing airline in response to a transaction block, running an online action may result in less revenue than if no action is taken. Likewise, if a traveler decides not to book a ticket, running an online action can completely lose revenue.

The expected value for blocking online sales can be provided in Equation 3:

(1 - P _L - P _s ) x (C _C + V) + P _s x (C _C - C _ISC )

Where P _L is the likelihood that sales will be lost in response to blocking the transaction, and P _s is the likelihood that a traveler will be able to book a ticket through a different ticketing airline. The expected value of doing nothing is simply the amount of charge (C _C ). The expected value (V _ON ) to take an online action is the expected value of executing the online transaction minus the charge amount (C _C ) that can be provided by the following equation:

V x (1 - P _L - P _s ) - P _L x C _C - P _s x C _ISC (Equation 4)

Therefore, determining whether the expected value (V _ON ) to take an online action is positive may include determining the value of the discrepancy (V), the likelihood (P _L and P _s ), the amount charged (C _C ) C _ISC ). ≪ / RTI >

If the online transaction is blocked and the traveler does not issue a ticket in response to the online rejection or changes to a different ticketing airline, the data collection module 56 will (1) record all passenger name records for which ticket issuance has been denied ; (2) track subsequent ticket issuance from a ticketing airline who refuses to issue a ticket on the first request; (3) tracking future ticket issuance (e.g., by monitoring UAC or TCN messages) from different ticketing airlines; And / or (4) any remaining passenger name record generated by the transaction for which the ticket was not issued.

In response to determining the expected value of the offline action (V _OFF ) and the online action (V _ON ) (if applicable), the optimization process may proceed to block 80. At block 80, the optimization process 70 may determine whether the value of V _ON is positive. In response to the expected value V _ON being positive ("yes" branch in decision block 80), the process may proceed to block 82. In response to the expected value V _ON being negative ("no" branch in decision block 80), optimization process 70 may proceed to block 84. In an alternate embodiment of the present invention, an accounted transaction does not include an online transaction, or an online transaction has already ended and may not take online action. In this case, block 80 may be omitted and optimization process 70 may proceed directly from block 78 to block 84. [

At block 84, the optimization process 70 determines whether the expected value (V _OFF ) in the offline action exceeds zero. In response to the expected value (V _OFF ) in the offline action exceeding 0 ("yes" branch at decision block 84), the optimization process 70 proceeds to block 86 and the offline action is not scheduled You can add it to an unlisted worklist. In response to the expected value (V _OFF ) in the offline action not exceeding 0 (the "no" branch in decision block 84), the optimization process 70 may terminate without scheduling the action. That is, no action may occur or no scheduling for the audited transaction as a result of the optimization process 70 terminating.

At block 82, the optimization process 70 may determine whether the expected value (V _ON ) in the online action exceeds the expected value (V _OFF ) in the offline action. In response to the expected value V _ON in the online action exceeding the expected value V _OFF in the offline action (YES branch in decision block 82), optimization process 70 proceeds to block 88 ). At block 88, the optimization process 70 may take an online action. Taking online actions may include, for example, blocking online transactions. In response to the expected value (V _ON ) in the online action not exceeding the expected value (V _OFF ) in the offline action (the "no" branch of decision block 82), optimization process 70 proceeds to block 90).

At block 90, the optimization process 70 adds an offline job to an unscheduled job list so that the job can be scheduled for execution. The optimization process 70 proceeds to block 92 and may determine whether the task has been added to the scheduled task list. The process of adding a task as a scheduled task list may include a task prioritization process that takes into account the amount of available human resources and the value of the task. In response to the job being added to the scheduled job list ("yes" branch at decision block 92), the optimization process 70 may end. In response to the job not being added to the scheduled job list ("NO" branch in decision block 92), the process may proceed to block 94. The reason the job is not added to the scheduled job list is because the operator's job level may be insufficient to complete the job within the allotted time period. At block 94, the optimization process 70 may remove the offline action from the unscheduled task list and proceed to block 88. As discussed above, at block 88, the optimization process 70 may take on-line actions.

When a ticket sold at a travel agency is audited, the auditor module 52 may determine that there is a positive discrepancy (V) between the audited amount (C _A ) and the amount charged (C _C ) The action is to (1) do nothing and not collect discrepancies (V); (2) issue an ADM and, if the ADM is disputed, waive the attempt to collect an inconsistency (V); And (3) issue an ADM and, if the ADM is disputed, issue an inquiry and settle the settlement with the travel agency. To determine the action to take, the audit module 52 may calculate the expected value of each action. In response to the at least one action having a positive expected value, the task schedule may be updated in one or more operator systems 18 so that the operator can issue an ADM and / or a query. This task can be ranked by the value / task time ratio, and can be assigned in order of rate taking into account the deadline date of the task. The number of tasks assigned can take into account human resource constraints. Methods, systems, and program products for creating ADMs and managing job assignments are described in more detail in U.S. Patent Application No. 13 / 926,136.

Referring now to FIG. 5, an action flow diagram 100 illustrates a series of actions that may be exchanged by the operating airline system 102 and the ticketing airline system 104. The audit trail optimizer system 50 is generally operable on one side of the action flow diagram 100. That is, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 may optimize the decisions for either the operating airline system 102 or the ticketing airline system 104. To illustrate the manner in which the audit trail optimizer system 50 operates for an operating airline and for a ticketing airline, each of the operating airline system 102 and the ticketing airline system 104 may operate independently of an auditing rule optimizer system Lt; RTI ID = 0.0 > 50a, < / RTI >

The first action of the operating airline system 102 may be to issue an invoice 106 between airlines to the ticketing airline system 104. In transactions involving issuance of external bills between airlines, the cost of the first action (C _F ) can be assumed to be zero. That is, the expected value (V _OFF ) in the issuance of external bills between airlines is always positive so that external bills may be issued between airlines in all transactions involving the operating and issuing airlines. The inter-airline bill 106 may be for a ticket sold by a ticketing airline for a service provided by an operating airline. As described above, the first action may be taken in all cases where the operating airline provides a service for a ticket sold by a ticketing airline.

In response to the ticketing airline system 104 receiving an inter-airline bill 106, the accounting audit optimizer system 50b may determine the expected value (V _OFF ) to issue the reject note 108. [ The rejection note 108 may be the first action for the ticketing airline, and the expected value V _OFF may be provided by:

(수식 5)

(Equation 5)

Where V is the inconsistency between the charge amount (C _C ) and the accounting audit amount (C _A ) of the inter-airline bill (106), C _F is the cost of issuing a reject note (108) (C _A ) determined by the accounting audit module (52) of the accounting system (50 b) is correct and P _R is the probability that the operating airline will reject the rejection note (C _A ) 108), and P _w is the likelihood that the operating airline may dispute the rejection note (108) if the rejection note (108) is based on an incorrect audit amount (C _A ). The denominator (denominator) (1 - A x P R + (1 - A) x P w) is _{A x (1 - P R)} + (1 - A) x (1 - P w) and the like, the first action It can be seen that this leads to the possibility that it can not be disputed by this recipient.

In response to the operating airline system 102 receiving the rejection note 108, the audit trail optimizer system 50a may determine the expected value (V _OFF ) to dispute the rejection note 108. The expected value (V _OFF ) can be provided by the following equation:

(수식 6)

(Equation 6)

Where V is the inconsistency between the amount of the accounting audit and the amount of payment requested by the rejection note 108, C _I is the cost of issuing the second rejection note 110, A is the accounting audit optimizer system 50a, (C _A ) determined by the accounting auditor module 52 of the issuing airline 52 is correct and P _R is the probability that the second rejection note 110 is based on the correct accounting audit amount C _A , _Pw is the probability that the ticketing airline will be able to dispute the second rejection note 110 if the second rejection note 110 is based on an incorrect audit amount C _A Possibility. The numerator (A x P _R + (1 - A) x P _w ) in Equation 6 can lead to the possibility that the action can be disputed by the recipient of the ticketing airline in this case. If the expected value (V _OFF ) is positive, the operating airline system 102 may issue a second rejection note 110 via the audit trail optimizer system 50a.

molecule:

(A x P _R + (1 - A) x P _w ) (Equation 7)

May indicate the total likelihood that the ticketing airline will be able to contest the second rejection note (110). That is, this molecule represents the sum of the likelihood that the second rejection memo can be correctly and disputed (A x P _R ) and the possibility that the second rejection memo is inaccurate and controversial ((1 - A) x P _w ) . Therefore, the possibility (P _D ) that the second deny note can be disputed by the ticketing airline can be determined from the values of A, P _R and P _w by Eq. (7).

In response to the ticketing airline system 104 receiving the second rejection note 110, the auditing rule optimizer system 50b generates an expected rejection note 110 that issues the inquiry 112 to the validity of the second rejection note 110 Value (V _OFF ) can be determined. The expected value (V _OFF ) issuing the query 112 may be provided by the following equation:

(수식 8)

(Equation 8)

Where V is the disagreement between the accounting audit amount C _A and the second rejection note 110 to the charge amount C _C and C _I is the cost of issuing the query 112 and A is the accounting audit rule optimization (C _A ) determined by the accounting audit module (52) of the system 50b is correct and P _R is the probability that the operating airline inquires if the inquiry 112 is based on the correct accounting audit amount (C _A ) (112), and P _w is the possibility that the operating airline can debate the inquiry 112 if the inquiry 112 is based on an incorrect audit amount C _A

The audit trail optimizer system 50 may (1) determine the expected value to take the first action and not respond if the first action is disputed; (2) determining an expected value to take the first action and responding if the first action is disputed; And (3) determine the expected value (V _OFF ) for performing the offline action by selecting the highest value of the two expected values as V _OFF . Whereby the expected value (V _OFF ) may represent the expected value taking the most appropriate offline action. The expected value (V _OFF ) for the first action may be determined to be the maximum of (9) and (10): < EMI ID =

_{V OFF = A x P R x} (V - C F - C I) + A x (1 - P R) x (V - C F) - (1 - A) x P w x (C F + C I) + (1 - A) x (1 - P _w ) x (V - C _F )

And

V _OFF = V x (A x (1 - P _R ) + (1 - A) x (1 - P _w ) - C _F (Equation 10)

Where C _F is the cost of each first action and C _I is the cost of each second action. The expected value (V _OFF ) taking the second action (if necessary) can be determined to be the maximum of the following equations 11 and 12:

V _OFF = 0 (Equation 11)

And

(수식 12)

(Equation 12)

That is, a second action may be taken in response to receiving the argument, where the expected value (V _OFF ) provided by equation 12 is positive.

Preventive actions, online actions and offline actions are expected to provide a preventive effect. That is, indirect sales of travel products through operator training, information campaigns and auditing of inaccurate or deceptive transactions, and blocking of online transactions during a single audit period, may change the behavior during the next auditable period, resulting in inconsistencies ( V) can be reduced. By quantifying this prevention effect, you can more accurately determine the actual value that takes the action. However, preventing errors or fraud will result in inconsistencies that can be detected by the auditing module 52 because the transactions have the correct amount of charge (C _C ). Thus, the revenue generated by the transaction with the prevented inconsistency can simply be included in the total sales revenue, which has the revenue from other accurately priced transactions.

In order to estimate the preventive effect of the action, it can be assumed that the error rate for that transaction type can be kept the same for each period without action. Based on this assumption, the error rate per period can be applied to transactions grouped by type. These groups may correspond to the defined transaction segments in the audit trail optimizer system 50. Determining the error rate in an individual transaction segment may be preferred over determining the error rate across the group containing all transaction segments. This may be because the reduction of errors across all transactions may reflect the complex effects from different types of errors and preventive actions specific to different transaction segments. Further, when the sizes of these segments vary, the total error rate may vary for reasons not related to the preventive effect.

Referring now to FIG. 6, graph 120 illustrates an exemplary prevention effect between an accounting audit period 122 in which a preventive action is taken and an accounting audit period 124 occurring after taking a preventive action. The bar 126 located in the previous auditor period 122 has a height that represents the total revenue 128 that could be realized in the previous accounting period 122 if all the transactions occurred at full price. Bar 126 includes a lower portion 130 and an upper portion 132. The lower portion 130 may represent the total revenue realized during the auditing period 122 from the sale with the correct price. The upper portion 132 may represent total revenue that could be realized for a transaction with a discrepancy if the price in these transactions is correct. The upper portion 132 may include transactions for which mismatch has been restored and transactions for which mismatch has not been restored. Thus, the height of the upper portion 132 of the bar 126 may indicate the total value 134 of the transaction with a price error, assuming that the correct amount (C _T ) could be collected if the transaction was properly priced.

Similarly, bar 136, located in the subsequent auditing period 124, has a height that represents the total revenue 138 that could have been realized in the subsequent auditing period 124 if all transactions occurred at full price. Bar 136 includes a lower portion 140 and an upper portion 142. The lower portion 140 may represent the total revenue realized during the auditing period 124 from sales with the correct price. The upper portion 142 may represent gross revenue that could be realized for a transaction with a discrepancy if the price is correct. The upper portion 142 may include transactions for which mismatch has been restored and transactions for which mismatch has not been restored. Thus, the height of the upper portion 142 of the bar 136 may indicate the total value 144 of the transaction having a price error, assuming that the correct amount (C _T ) could be collected if the transaction was properly priced .

By dividing the total value 134 of the transaction with the error by the total revenue 128 that could have been generated at a full price, the error rate E for the previous accounting period 122 can be provided. Multiplying this error rate E by the total revenue 138 that could have been realized in the future audit period 124 would result in an expected value 146 for the transaction with a price error in the subsequent audit period 124. [ Can be provided. The difference between the total value 144 of the transaction with the price error and the expected value 146 of the transaction with the price error can provide the total value 148 of the inconsistency to avoid. Assuming that the error rate E can be constant between the auditing period 122 (no action taken in the previous audit period 122) and the auditing period 124, then the subsequent audit period 124 (148) may be attributed to the preventive effect of the action taken in the previous audit period (122).

The number of prevented inconsistencies can be determined by limiting the group of transactions that are affected by the preventive action being analyzed. In some cases, this determination may require limiting the groups that contain the affected transaction types and provide a certain error rate (E). The audit trail optimizer system 50 can determine the percentage (Y) of future inconsistencies prevented for that action based on the total value 144 of the transaction with the price error and the total value 148 of the discrepancy to avoid have. The percentage (Y) of the preventable future inconsistency can be used to update the expected value to take the preventive action (V _PA ) using Equation (1).

The operator efficiency metric 66 is provided by the value tracking module 58 of the audit trail optimizer system 50 based on the experience data collected by the data collection module 56 . These operator efficiency metrics 66 may indicate that one operator has a lower efficiency than another operator. This may be due to an inefficient operator who takes more time to perform a given task than a more efficient operator, or because an inefficient operator performs poorly. An operator performing poorly performing an operation may generate an ADM, an inter-airline bill, a deny note, and / or an inquiry, which may include errors or may be substandard quality. Lower quality actions include (1) increasing the amount of time that must subsequently be consumed to generate notes, invoices and / or inquiries; (2) ultimately reducing the recovered value (e.g., the requested amount is less than what is required); And (3) sub-standards documents increase the likelihood that the recipient will be able to dispute this document, thereby increasing the expected value of taking action by increasing the cost or inconsistency (V) .

Thus, time and quality affect the value taking action, allowing the expected value taking action to differ depending on the operator who assigned the task implementing the action. By creating work values traceable to each operator, the audit trail optimizer system 50 can improve management of operator efficiency. For example, an ineffective operator may be issued based on an average return on invoices, memos, and queries issued, by delaying the expected average value that is identified and taking that action. Identifying a particular type of action for an inefficient operator can be used to target a particular weakness or to assign a task to a particular operator based on how well the operator is handling the task. In any case, an inefficient operator can be improved by performing additional training or replacement if the operator continues to fail to meet its purpose.

When estimating the operator's needs, it is necessary to determine the number of jobs that need to be performed for a given number of transactions. This decision involves uncertainty because there is no data on how the recipient can respond to unpublished actions. For example, when analyzing historical data, it is not known whether a travel agent can dispute an ADM that has not been issued, or whether the airline can reject a new billing or deny note that has not been issued. This can be especially problematic if a particular transaction group has a first action that is not issued at a higher rate. Without this certainty, it may be difficult to predict the expected workload generated by auditing a group of transactions that has not been relatively investigated during previous auditing periods.

To solve this problem, the workload has to be able to generate a best case scenario (i. E., A scenario in which no dispute or rejection note was received) and a worst case scenario (i. E. Lt; / RTI > The approximation of the expected workload can be determined based on the weighted average of the best case and worst case scenario results. In one embodiment of the present invention, the task list may be defined based on assumptions about whether the recipient can debate the action when the action is taken. The task list may be one of a plurality of task lists and may be defined based on the best case scenario assuming that any new ADM and deny notes issued when an action is taken may not be disputed by the recipient. Under this best-case scenario, you may not need a lookup, unlike the one actually published. Thus, the scenario joblist in the best case may not include any new query generation jobs that were not created during the period of the history time being analyzed.

The other task list may be based on a worst case scenario where it is assumed that any new actions taken can be disputed by the recipient. Thus, the worst case scenario worklist may include a lookup operation corresponding to a received dispute for each action having a positive value. Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that other work lists may be limited and analyzed. For example, the worklist may be limited to including a query operation only in a portion of newly issued ADM and / or deny memos. The debated memo can be selected based on possibilities (P _R , P _w and A). The task list may be generated based on the weighted average of the best case and worst case lists.

In operation, the audit trail optimizer system 50 may determine whether to take an action based on an expected value to take an action. This expected value can be determined based on the parameters periodically updated using the experience data from the previous audit period. To this end, the audit trail optimizer system 50 can determine the actual unit cost for each task type based on experience data from the prior audit period. The actual unit cost can be compared to the corresponding estimated cost (C _F , C _G , C _I ) taking action and the estimated cost adjusted accordingly. The auditing rule optimizer system 50 determines the actual percentage of the contested action and can compare these percentages to the total probability (P _D ) that the recipient may contest this action. The audit rule optimizer system 50 can determine the percentage of correct controversy action that the audit amount can be compared to the likelihood that the action will be accurate and the recipient will argue the action (A x P _R ). The audit trail optimizer system 50 can determine the likelihood (P _L ) of a lost transaction being lost and the likelihood (P _s ) that a ticket is blocked through another ticketing airline as a result of blocking the transaction. The parameter may be determined empirically based on the historical data obtained by the data acquisition module 56 and may be updated by the value tracking module 58. [

The Audit Rule Optimizer system 50 can adapt to changing market conditions and automatically evaluate the expected value of the accounting audit actions, such as online accounting audits, preventive actions, and note management actions. The Audit Rule Optimizer system 50 may provide a process for objectively determining which transactions should be audited. Once a transaction to be audited is selected, the auditing rule optimizer system 50 can provide a process for determining the best improvement action for a given transaction. This determination may be based on the estimated value of the improvement action, the deadline for taking the action, and the human resource constraints needed to complete the action before this deadline.

By having the audit trail parameter based on experience data, the audit trail optimizer system 50 can generate a feedback loop after each audit period. This feedback loop can improve monitoring and management of operator efficiency, optimization of the number of deployed human resources, and updating of audit optimizer model parameters.

The Audit Rule Optimizer system 50 can optimize recovered revenue by objectively determining the tools that determine the group of tickets to be audited. If a decision is made regarding the ticket group to be audited during the next audit, then transactions classified as belonging to one of the selected groups may, of course, be audited. Furthermore, transactions for a certain percentage of the unselected group may be randomly audited to generate empirical data that adjusts audit trail parameters during subsequent audit periods. Random auditing ensures that you do not miss new trends in errors or fraudulent behavior by relying on static accounting audit rules.

The program code embodying the embodiments of the invention described herein may be distributed individually or collectively to a number of different types of program products. In particular, the program code may be distributed using a computer readable medium, which may include a computer readable storage medium and a communication medium. In essence, non-transient computer readable storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, and removable and non-volatile, implementations of any method or technology for storing information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, - It can include mobile type media. The computer readable storage medium is a RAM. (ROM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other solid state memory technology, portable compact disc read only memory Storage media, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and which can be read by a computer. The communication medium may embody computer readable instructions, data structures, or other program modules. By way of example and not limitation, communication media may include wired media, e.g., wired networks or direct-wired connections, and wireless media such as acoustic, RF, infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of these may be within the scope of computer readable media.

The methods described herein may be implemented by computer program instructions supplied to a processor of any type of computer to produce a machine with a processor executing instructions that implement the functions / operations specified herein. These computer program instructions may be stored on a computer readable medium that can direct a computer functioning in a particular manner. To this end, the computer program instructions may be loaded into a computer and executed when executed to provide a process for performing a series of operational steps and creating a computer implemented process to implement the functions / operations specified herein.

Further, the program code described herein may be identified based on an application or software component that implements the program code in a particular embodiment of the present invention. However, it is to be understood that any particular program term is only used for convenience, and therefore the present invention should not be construed as being limited to being used in any particular application that is identified and / or implied by such term. It is further understood that the various features, applications, and devices described herein may be used alone or in combination. Further, the manner in which a computer program may be organized into routines, procedures, methods, modules, objects, and / or the like, and / It is to be understood that the present invention is not limited to any particular organization and assignment of program functions described herein, as there are generally no endings to the many ways in which multiple software layers residing on such hardware platforms may be assigned.

In some aspects, the methods presented herein are characterized by:

CLAIMS What is claimed is: 1. A method of conducting an accounting audit between airlines,

Receiving, at the computer, data regarding an inter-carrier bill that includes a first amount from the carrier;

Determining the likelihood that the deny note can not be disputed by the operating carrier;

Determining a second amount that is the same as dividing the cost of issuing the rejection note by the likelihood; And

And issuing the deny note to the operating airline in response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by a mismatch.

As an apparatus,

A processor; And

A memory that includes instructions that when executed by the processor cause the device to:

Receiving data regarding an inter-carrier bill containing the first amount from the carrier;

Determining the likelihood that the deny note can not be disputed by the operating carrier;

Determining a second amount that is the same as dividing the cost of issuing the deny note by the likelihood; And

In response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by a mismatch, issuing the deny note to the operating airline.

As a computer program product,

Non-transient computer readable storage medium; And

And instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:

Receiving data regarding an inter-carrier bill containing the first amount from the carrier;

Determining the likelihood that the deny note can not be disputed by the operating carrier;

Determining a second amount that is the same as dividing the cost of issuing the deny note by the likelihood; And

In response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by a mismatch, issuing the deny note to the operating air carrier.

CLAIMS What is claimed is: 1. A method of conducting an accounting audit between airlines,

Receiving, at the computer, data relating to a rejection note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving an inter-airline bill for the first amount from the operating airline;

Determining a first possibility that a deny note inquiry may be contested by the ticketing airline;

Determining the second possibility that the denied memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline based on an accurate and accurate inter-carrier bill;

Determining a second amount equal to a cost of issuing the deny note inquiry divided by a sum of the first possibility and the second possibility; And

And issuing the denial memo inquiry to the issuing airline in response to the first amount exceeding the second amount by a mismatch.

As an apparatus,

A processor; And

A memory that includes instructions that when executed by the processor cause the device to:

Receiving data relating to a deny note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving an inter-airline bill for the first amount from the operated airline;

An act of determining a first possibility that a deny note inquiry may be contested by the ticketing airline;

Determining the second possibility that the denied memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline based on an accurate and accurate inter-carrier bill;

Determining a second amount equal to a cost of issuing the deny note inquiry divided by a sum of the first possibility and the second possibility; And

And issue the denial memo inquiry to the issuing issuing airline in response to the first amount exceeding the second amount by a mismatch.

As a computer program product,

Non-transient computer readable storage medium; And

And instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:

Receiving data relating to a deny note sent by the ticketing airline in response to receiving an inter-airline bill for the first amount from the operated airline;

An act of determining a first possibility that a deny note inquiry may be contested by the ticketing airline;

Determining the second possibility that the denied memo inquiry may be disputed by the ticketing airline based on an accurate and accurate inter-carrier bill;

Determining a second amount equal to a cost of issuing the deny note inquiry divided by a sum of the first possibility and the second possibility; And

And issuing the deny note inquiry to the ticketing airline in response to the first amount being greater than the second amount by a mismatch.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of illustrating particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the invention at all. As used herein, the singular forms "a" and "above" are intended to include the plural unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. As used herein, the term "comprising" and / or "comprising" refers to the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements and / or components and may include one or more other features, , Steps, operations, elements, components, and / or groups thereof are not intended to be exclusive or inclusive. Furthermore, when the terms "comprising", "having", "having", "having", "consisting", or variations thereof are used in this specification or claims, ≪ / RTI >

The embodiments of the present invention are illustrated to illustrate several embodiments and these embodiments are described in considerable detail, but applicants are not intended to limit the appended claims to such details at all. Additional advantages and modifications will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Thus, the invention is not limited in its application to the specific details, representative apparatus and method in the broader aspects, and the illustrative examples shown and described. Accordingly, there may be deviations from this specification without departing from the spirit and scope of the inventor's general inventive concept.

Claims (21)

A method for selecting a transaction to be audited during a plurality of transactions,
Receiving, at a computer, first data relating to a transaction, the transaction being associated with a travel product performed by a first company and provided by a second company;
Parsing the first data into a plurality of parameters, wherein each parameter has a value that defines a characteristic of the transaction;
Classifying the transaction into the first transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a first set of parameters corresponding to a first transaction type;
Classifying the transaction into the second transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a second set of parameters corresponding to a second transaction type; And
Determining whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as the first transaction type or the second transaction type. The method according to claim 1,
The step of determining whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as the first transaction type or the second transaction type comprises:
Establishing a first rate for auditing a transaction of the first transaction type; And
And setting a second rate for accounting for transactions of the second transaction type. 3. The method of claim 2,
Wherein the first rate is unity and the second rate is less than one. The method according to claim 1,
Further comprising the step of determining a preventive effect of auditing the transaction, wherein the step of determining whether to audit the transaction is based at least in part on the preventive effect. 5. The method of claim 4,
Wherein the determining the preventive effect comprises:
Defining in a database of audit audit data a first plurality of transactions audited during a first period of time;
Defining a second plurality of traded audited transactions in a database of auditing data for a second period occurring after said first period;
Determining, in the first plurality of transactions, a first error rate equal to a first percent of an audited transaction having a price error;
Determining a second error rate equal to a second percent of the audited transaction having a price error in the second plurality of transactions; And
And defining the prevention effect based on a difference between the first error rate and the second error rate. The method according to claim 1,
Wherein the plurality of parameters include:
The type of the travel product, the price charged to the travel product, the price to be charged to the travel product, the cost of the travel product, the identity of the first company and the identity of the second enterprise How to. The method according to claim 1,
Further comprising the step of storing said second data in a database containing accounting audit data in response to receiving second data relating to the accounting audit of said transaction. 8. The method of claim 7,
Determining, in response to accounting for the transaction, a discrepancy between a first price parameter of the transaction and a second price parameter of the travel product;
Determining an expected value to take an action based on the discrepancy with the accounting audit data stored in the database; And
And if the expected value exceeds a threshold, taking the action. 8. The method of claim 7,
Determining a first average value for accounting for transactions of the first transaction type based on the accounting audit data in the database;
Determining a second average value to audit a transaction of the second transaction type based on the accounting audit data in the database;
Setting a first rate for auditing a transaction of the first transaction type based at least in part on the first average value; And
And setting a second rate for auditing the transaction of the second transaction type based at least in part on the second average value. As an apparatus,
A processor; And
The instructions comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to:
Receiving first data about a transaction, the transaction being associated with a travel product performed by a first business entity and provided by a second business entity;
Parsing the first data into a plurality of parameters, each parameter having a value that defines a characteristic of the transaction;
Classifying the transaction as a first transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a first set of parameters corresponding to a first transaction type;
Classifying the transaction as a second transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a second set of parameters corresponding to a second transaction type; And
Determining whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as the first transaction type or the second transaction type. 11. The method of claim 10,
Wherein the command is further configured to cause the device to perform an action to determine a preventive effect of accounting for the transaction, and wherein the act of determining whether to audit the transaction is based at least in part on the prevention effect . 12. The method of claim 11,
The instructions cause the device to:
Limiting the first plurality of traded audited accounts in the database of audit data for a first period of time;
Limiting the second plurality of traded audited transactions in a database of auditing data for a second period occurring after the first period;
Determining, in the first plurality of transactions, a first error rate equal to a percentage of the audited transaction having a price error; And
Determining a second error rate equal to a percentage of the audited transaction having a price error in the second plurality of transactions,
Wherein the preventive effect is determined based on a difference between the first error rate and the second error rate. 18. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
Receiving first data about a transaction, the transaction being associated with a travel product performed by a first business entity and provided by a second business entity;
Parsing the first data into a plurality of parameters, each parameter having a value that defines a characteristic of the transaction;
Classifying the transaction as a first transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a first set of parameters corresponding to a first transaction type;
Classifying the transaction as a second transaction type in response to the plurality of parameters matching a second set of parameters corresponding to a second transaction type; And
Determining whether to audit the transaction based at least in part on whether the transaction is classified as the first transaction type or the second transaction type. Storage medium. CLAIMS What is claimed is: 1. A method for optimizing revenue for a transaction on a travel product performed by a first company and provided by a second business entity,
Receiving, at a computer, data relating to the transaction, the data comprising data representing a first amount quoted by the first company in the travel product;
Determining a first expected value to block said transaction in response to said first amount being less than a second amount imposed on said travel product by said second business entity;
Determining a first difference equal to subtracting the first amount from the first expected value; And
And blocking said transaction in response to said first difference exceeding a threshold. 15. The method of claim 14,
Wherein determining the first expected value to block the transaction comprises:
If the transaction is blocked, determining a first possibility that the transaction may be completed by the first entity in the second amount;
If the transaction is blocked, determining a second possibility that the transaction may be completed in the first amount by a third entity collecting a service charge for completing the transaction;
Determining a third amount by multiplying the second amount and the first possibility;
Determining a fourth amount by multiplying the second difference and a second difference equal to subtracting the service charge from the first amount; And
Setting the first expected value equal to the sum of the third amount and the fourth amount. 15. The method of claim 14,
Determining a second expected value for completing the transaction at the first amount and contesting the transaction offline;
Determining a second difference equal to subtracting the first amount from the second expected value;
Setting a threshold equal to the second difference in response to the second difference being positive; And
And setting a threshold of zero in response to the second difference being not positive. 17. The method of claim 16,
Further comprising: adding a first job to the job list to improve the transaction in response to the second difference being positive and exceeding the first difference, wherein the job in the job list is completed offline Lt; / RTI > 18. The method of claim 17,
Ranking each job in the job list based on an expected profit density value of the job in descending order;
Scheduling each task in the task list in order of ranking so that tasks having the highest expected profit density value are scheduled first;
Removing the first task from the task list in response to the first task being unable to be scheduled due to lack of resources; And
Further comprising: blocking the transaction in response to the first job being removed from the job list and the first difference being positive. As an apparatus,
A processor; And
The instructions comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to:
The method comprising: receiving data regarding a transaction performed by a first company, the data comprising data representing a first amount quoted for a travel product provided by a second business entity, Receiving data, estimated by a business entity;
Determining an expected value to block said transaction in response to said first amount being less than a second amount imposed on said travel product by said second business entity;
Determining a first difference that is equal to the expected value minus the first amount; And
And in response to the first difference exceeding a threshold, blocking the transaction. 20. The method of claim 19,
Wherein the instructions cause the device to:
If the transaction is blocked, determining a first possibility that the transaction may be completed by the first entity in the second amount;
If the transaction is blocked, determining a second possibility that the transaction may be completed in the first amount by a third entity collecting a service charge for completing the transaction;
Determining a third amount by multiplying the second amount and the first possibility;
Determining a fourth amount by multiplying the second difference and a second difference equal to subtracting the service charge from the first amount; And
Setting the expected value equal to the sum of the third amount and the fourth amount;
To determine an expected value to block said transaction. 18. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
Receiving data relating to a transaction performed by a first company, the data comprising data representing a first amount quoted for a travel product provided by a second business entity, Receiving data, estimated by a business entity;
Determining an expected value to block said transaction in response to said first amount being less than a second amount imposed on said travel product by said second business entity;
Determining a first difference that is equal to the expected value minus the first amount; And
And in response to the first difference exceeding a threshold, blocking the transaction. ≪ Desc / Clms Page number 22 >

Images