WO2001031485A9

WO2001031485A9 - Method and system for vendor selection and tracking using the internet

Info

Publication number: WO2001031485A9
Application number: PCT/US2000/029412
Authority: WO
Inventors: Robert J Campbell; Joseph Black; Tal Friedman; Pat Linnane
Original assignee: Noosh Inc; Robert J Campbell; Joseph Black; Tal Friedman; Pat Linnane
Priority date: 1999-10-26
Filing date: 2000-10-26
Publication date: 2002-08-08
Also published as: WO2001031485A2; AU1231101A; WO2001031485A8

Abstract

Selon un mode de réalisation de l'invention, une grande organisation regroupe de nombreux vendeurs développant des produits et des services pour le compte de ladite organisation et de ses clients. Le système selon l'invention est un programme basé sur l'Internet s'exécutant sur n'importe quel ordinateur de bureau équipé d'un navigateur Internet courant en vue de la mise en oeuvre de la sélection de vendeurs et du suivi du processus d'approvisionnement. L'entreprise ou le vendeur n'a besoin d'aucun logiciel supplémentaire pour accélérer le processus d'approvisionnement ou gérer le suivi du projet. Ledit système enregistre les spécifications de la tâche, génère un appel d'offres et sélectionne les vendeurs potentiels en fonction de leurs capacités et de leur cote de qualité. Le système de sélection et d'évaluation notifie les vendeurs qualifiés, enregistre leur tarification et leur suggestions d'amélioration, et les classe en fonction d'un ou de plusieurs facteurs prédéterminés. Le système suit l'évolution du projet tout en consignant les signatures nécessaires. Le système note les performances des vendeurs et met à jour leur historique. Ledit système de sélection de vendeurs, qui est totalement extensible et compatible avec la technique Six Sigma, permet de gérer le processus de soumission. En outre, le système gère les cotes de qualité et le procédé de signature. Le système informatique selon l'invention utilise l'Internet ou un réseau intranet privé via un serveur Internet ne nécessitant aucun nouveau logiciel de bureau et offrant des fonctions de communication et de suivi en temps réel. Grâce à l'utilisation de l'Internet ou d'un intranet privé, le système est en mesure d'assurer le suivi des données relatives aux performances des fournisseurs de toute l'organisation. Le système est relié à un service de courrier électronique et possède un système de sécurité à plusieurs niveaux.According to one embodiment of the invention, a large organization brings together many sellers developing products and services on behalf of said organization and its customers. The system according to the invention is an Internet-based program running on any office computer equipped with a current Internet browser for the implementation of the selection of sellers and monitoring of the process of supply. The company or the seller does not need any additional software to speed up the procurement process or manage the project monitoring. Said system records the specifications of the task, generates a call for tenders and selects the potential sellers according to their capacities and their quality rating. The selection and assessment system notifies qualified sellers, records their pricing and suggestions for improvement, and ranks them based on one or more predetermined factors. The system tracks the progress of the project while recording the necessary signatures. The system notes the performance of the sellers and updates their history. The vendor selection system, which is fully scalable and compatible with the Six Sigma technique, helps manage the submission process. In addition, the system manages the quality ratings and the signing process. The computer system according to the invention uses the Internet or a private intranet network via an Internet server requiring no new office software and offering communication and monitoring functions in real time. Through the use of the Internet or a private intranet, the system is able to track data related to supplier performance across the organization. The system is linked to an email service and has a multi-level security system.

Description

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VENDOR SELECTION AND TRACKING USING THE INTERNET

CROSS REFERENCE TO PRIOR APPLICATIONS

The present application claims benefit of United States Provisional Application Serial No. 60/161,383, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Vendor Selection and Tracking Using the Internet", filed on October 26, 1999 in the name of Robert J. Campbell.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is related to co pending United States Patent Application Serial Number 09/386,026, filed 8/30/99, entitled "System and Method for Managing Projects", to Spolin et al., co pending United States Patent Application, Serial Number 09/386,027, filed 8/30/99, entitled "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Access Rights", to Spolin, et al., co pending United States Patent Application Serial Number 09/385,180, filed 8/30/99, entitled "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Publishing Restrictions", to Spolin, et al., and co pending United States Patent Application Serial Number 09/385,179, filed on 8/30/99, entitled "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Company Hiding", to Spolin, et al. all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a computerized vendor selection and procurement tracking system and process using the Internet or a private intranet, particularly a vendor selection system for selecting and tracking the performance of vendors. Selection of vendors for the supply of material and services is a major problem for organizations of all sizes. Many purchasing organizations have to make critical acquisition decisions based upon limited or inconsistent information. The procurement decisions are based upon factors that may range from a detailed analysis to a gut feel and may be based solely on the low priced bid.

Even if the organization has a complex computer database for storage of information and data for vendor selection, the important data may be spread out in various desktop computers and portions may be only available to one individual. There is a need for a system of central storage of vendor information and a consistent procedure for vendor selection. Such a system must have the ability of storing consistent information available to all parties needing access. Additionally there is a need for such a system to make vendor decisions based upon consistent criteria. As is well known, the Internet is a worldwide linkage of networks designed to store information at many widely separated sites. The World Wide Web (WWW) is a method of finding text, moving and still images on the Internet using hypertext links. The individual desktop computer uses browser software to communicate with a server at a remote location using telephone lines or other communication channel. Commonly used browsers include Microsoft Internet Explorer^® or the Netscape Navigator^®. Using the WWW permits the user to have access to complicated databases and software without having overly complex software on the individual computer. Readily available desktop computers equipped with a modem and an off the shelf operating system are capable of communicating with the WWW to send and receive information.

The Internet comprises a vast number of computers and computer networks that are interconnected through communication links. The interconnected computers exchange information using various services, such as electronic mail, Gopher, and the World Wide Web ("WWW"). The WWW service allows a server computer system (i.e., Web server or Web site) to send graphical Web pages of information to a remote client computer system. The remote client computer system can then display the Web pages. Each resource (e.g., computer or Web page) of the WWW is uniquely identifiable by a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"). To view a specific Web page, a client computer system specifies the URL for that Web page in a request (e.g., a Hypertext Transfer Protocol ("HTTP") request). The request is forwarded to the Web server that supports that Web page. When that Web server receives the request, it sends that Web page to the client computer system. When the client computer system receives that Web page, it typically displays the Web page using a browser. A browser is a special-purpose application program that effects the requesting of Web pages and the displaying of Web pages.

Currently, Web pages are typically defined using Hypertext Markup Language ("HTML"). HTML provides a standard set of tags that define how a Web page is to be displayed. When a user indicates to the browser to display a Web page, the browser sends a request to the server computer system to transfer to the client computer system an HTML document that defines the Web page. When the requested HTML document is received by the client computer system, the browser displays the Web page as defined by the HTML document. The HTML document contains various tags that control the displaying of text, graphics, controls, and other features. The HTML document may contain URLs of other Web pages available on that server computer system or other server computer systems.

A management tool that is becoming widely used in various organizations in the business world is "Designing for Six Sigma" (DFSS) process. For a process (business, manufacturing, service, etc.), the sigma value is a metric that indicates how well that process is performing. The higher the sigma value, the better the output. Sigma measures the capability of the process to perform defect-free-work, where a defect is synonymous with customer dissatisfaction. With six sigma the common measurement index is defects-per-unit where a unit can be virtually anything - a component, a piece part of a jet engine, an administrative procedure, etc. The sigma value indicates how often defects are likely to occur. As sigma increases, customer satisfaction goes up along with improvement of other metrics (e.g., cost and cycle time).

The six-sigma methodology has been used by a number of companies such as Motorola Semiconductors, Texas Instruments, Allied Signal and Digital Corporation and General Electric. All of these companies use this process for a specific application such as semiconductor manufacturing in the case of Motorola and Texas Instruments.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to an embodiment of the invention, in a large organization many vendors develop products and services for the organization and the organization's clients. The Noosh vender selection and evaluation system can be an Internet or intranet based program that runs on any desktop with a current Internet browser for vendor selection and tracking of the procurement process. Additional software is not needed by the business or vendor to expedite the procurement process or manage the project tracking. The vendor selection and evaluation system records the job specifications, generates an RFQ and selects perspective vendors based on capabilities and quality scores. The vendor selection and evaluation system tracks progress of the project while documenting necessary signoffs. The system scores vendor performance and updates vendor history.

According to an embodiment of the invention system can be fully scalable, Six Sigma compliant, and manages the procurement process. There is a hierarchical reporting structure to include many powerful reporting capabilities. It includes any individual division, multiple divisions, or geographies that may go all the way to a total company reports. Companies can view report statistics across all their jobs for each of several categories, with an exemplary value of 6, as well as the total weighted average. One or more buying companies may elect to share reports with their vendors in an automated way. Additionally the system manages quality scoring and the sign- off process. The data system uses the Internet or a private intranet via an Internet Server. This requires no new desktop software and has real-time communication and tracking. By using the Internet or a private intranet, the system has the ability to track data across the entire business. The system can link to e-mail and has multi-level security.

The exemplary embodiment is a system and method for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors including: inputting specifications for an item or service to be acquired; selecting a plurality of prospective vendors; evaluating said vendors based upon a predetermined factor; and selecting a vendor. The predetermined factors include: delivery performance, customer service, cost, quality, process improvement or innovation and other. Each predetermined factor has one or more questions related to the predetermined factor. The selected vendor is rated according to responses to these questions. The responses to said questions are given numerical values that may include 1 for a Yes response, 0 for a No response and a predetermined value for a Partial response. A predetermined value for a partial response is 0.5. The numerical values are weighted in a predetermined manner. Another embodiment includes the addition of tracking the progress of the selected vendor and evaluating and storing results of the selection using the predetermined factor.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of the invention; Figure 2 illustrates the six categories used in a vendor selection system;

Figure 3 illustrates preferences that users can establish for their system; Figure 4 illustrates job selection;

Figure 5 illustrates the completion of dates and quantities for an RFE; Figure 6 illustrates the selection from a group of preferred suppliers; Figure 7 illustrates the suppliers by name, rating and volume;

Figure 8 illustrates the creation of an order; Figure 9 illustrates the review completion of a job; Figure 10 illustrates the scorecard for each job; Figure 11 illustrates the supplier evaluation report;; Figure 12 illustrates each supplier's scores in the 6 categories as well a total weighted score;

Figure 13 illustrates a drill down to see details of each job and its rating;

Figure 14 illustrates a supplier evaluation over time - date parameters; Figure 15 illustrates each supplier and their weighted average score over time;

Figure 16 illustrates a drill down to see details on each job evaluated; and Figure 17 illustrates a supplier's view of its ratings across six categories;

Figure 18 illustrates the Internet environment in which the system exists;

Figure 19 illustrates a flow of the vendor selection portion of the system;'

Figure 20 illustrates a first buyer's report of the evaluation portion of the system;

Figure 21 illustrates a second buyer's report of the evaluation portion of the system; and Figure 22 illustrates a supplier's report of the evaluation portion of the system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The vendor selection and evaluation system herein supplements and is in addition to that described in co pending applications entitled: "System and Method for Managing Projects"; "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Access Rights"; "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Publishing Restrictions"; and "System and Method for Managing Projects Using Company Hiding", to Spolin, et al. all of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram according to an embodiment of the invention of the vendor selection system with the interconnection of the various desktop tenninals or personal computers with a vendor selection database located within an Internet or a private intranet server. The vendor selection system -10 comprises a database 12 located within or as part of an Internet Server 14. Various desktop terminals or personal computers 16 - 30 are connected via the Internet 32 to these terminals. Each terminal is equipped with software that permits the terminal to communicate with Server 14 via the Internet 32. Specialized vendor selection software is not required in any terminal. The terminals or personal computers only need be readily available Internet browser software such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator. Typical terminal locations include: marketing department 16; legal department 18, procurement department 20, client's location 22, vendors' locations 24, 26, 28, and 30.

The categories for rating include: Delivery Performance; Cost; Customer Service; Quality; Process Improvement/Innovation; and Other.. A buyer using the system can create different questions under each of the 6 standard categories. For example the "Delivery Performance could be "On Time." Buyers can also assign a relative value of a particular question to the organization. The total weights are summed to 100%. Access can be granted to only certain personnel in the organization that will allow only authorized people to modify any questions or weights. Buyers can also set minimum thresholds of performance that their vendors must meet to be able to continue to receive Requests for estimates. This information is used by the database for future vendor rating. Each awarded bid gives a selected vendor an opportunity to improve or hurt its rating within the acquiring organization. The rating therefore becomes a moving number in the vendor selection process. The Noosh Supplier Evaluation and Selection System (the system) is a system where Buyers can create scorecards with standard categories and customized questions and weights to evaluate their supplier base. Access rights will be created that only allow certain members of the buyer's company to create, edit, and delete the scorecard data. The Buyers can set thresholds of performance that suppliers must exceed if they are to continue to receive business. The Buyers will have visibility to their suppliers' current and historical performance score when the buyer is requesting price quotes and when the Buyer is ready to create an order; the system will maintain the specialties/capabilities of each supplier and those will be matched up against the type of product or service desired by the Buyer so the Buyer will see only those suppliers with the capabilities and sufficient performance to potential provide the product or service. After each product or service is completed, the Buyer will evaluate the supplier in each of the categories and the system will calculate the total score for each order. Extensive management reporting is available to allow Buyers and suppliers to monitor performance scores and trends, and to provide a powerful tool for management to make decisions on the supplier base

An exemplary embodiment of the system is the acquisition of print material. Figures 2-17 illustrate various screens that are available to be used and/or viewed in the system. Figure 2 illustrates a computer screen outlining the categories or questions that a buyer uses in its selection of a vendor or supplier. These are divided in six categories; Delivery Performance 102; Cost 104; Customer Service 106;

Quality 108; Process Improvement/Innovation 110 and Other 112. This first step is for the management of the buyer account to setup their "scorecard" for their suppliers

In this embodiment, these 6 categories are preferably fixed. The purpose of having fixed categories is to provide consistency in reporting within companies and across companies and industries. The use of six is exemplary and other numbers of categories may better suit the needs of a user of the vendor selection system.

Users such as, Buyers can add one or more questions under each category 114. These questions are preferably not fixed, which is intended to provide some flexibility so Buyers can tailor the service to fit their needs. Exemplary questions are 1) "On- Time?" 116, for Delivery Performance 102; "Less than or equal to stated price?" 118 for Customer Service 106; "Available when necessary?" 120 and "Responsive to

Buyer needs" 122; "Adheres to product specification?" 124 for Quality 108; and

"Supplier improved upon product or process 126 for Process Improvement/Innovation

The Buyers can also weight each question from 0-100% 128. The total of all the questions should preferably be exactly equal to 100%. For example, as illustrated in Figure 2, the weighting is 35% 130 for Delivery performance 102; 25% 132 for Cost 104; 5% for each of the questions 134 and 136 assigned to Buyer service 106; 20% for the question assigned to Quality 108; and 10% 140 for the question assigned to process Improvement/Innovation. Questions in an exemplary embodiment have at least 3 possible answers: "Yes", "No", and "Partial". In this example, a rating of 'Yes' gets a score of 1, "No" gets a score of 0, and "Partial" gets a score of 0.5. Other embodiments allow buyers to choose more scores between 0 and 1 for each question. The weighted average score for the supplier equals the score for each question multiplied by the weight for each question, with a maximum of 100%. For example:

Question Weight Answer Score

Delivery 35% Yes 35 (35% x 1.0)

Cost 25% Partial 12.5 (25% x 0.5)

Service 10% Yes 10 (10% x 1.0)

Quality 20% Yes 20 (20% x 1.0)

Innovation 10% No 0 (10% x 0.0)

Other 0% n a n/a

Total 77.5

The system is setup so only users with appropriate access can create, modify, and delete the scorecard.

Users such as Buyers have further options to allow them to manage the supplier evaluations as illustrated in Figure 3 under Supplier rating Preference 142. The system can be "activated" or "de-activated" from use at any time 144. The users can set a rolling period in months 146 wherein the supplier ratings will be calculated. So, for example, if the period is set to "12 months", then the current supplier score will be based scores given in the last 12 months Buyers have the ability to determine whether these ratings will be shared with the suppliers they are evaluating 148. If the evaluations are "shared", suppliers will be able to view their evaluations from that buyer. Buyers can also set "thresholds" of performance of which suppliers must exceed 150. For example, if a buyer sets a threshold to "60", then suppliers must maintain an average score above 60 in order to continue to receive business from that buyer.

The buyer configures and/or selects the print or non-print product or service he/she wants to order. The buyer has the ability to specify the product or service and then save it (example for Printed Product as illustrated in Figure 4, 152).

The buyer requests an estimate or quote from the suppliers. The buyer will complete the information on the product or service due dates and quantity, as illustrated in Figures 5-6. The exemplary information required includes Estimate due date and time 154; Job due date and time 156; Description 158; and Details 160. The buyer can then request various quantity values 162 and certain standard items including, but not limited to Prepress, Printing, Bindery, Paper and Shipping 164.

The buyer then clicks to see a list of their suppliers from their list as illustrated in Figure 7. The list of suppliers includes the following information on each supplier: Name 166; Company 168; Current supplier rating 170; # of Orders that comprise the rating 172; and Specialties/capabilities (not shown). The buyer can sort the suppliers by any of these columns and also exclude any suppliers from appearing in this list.

The buyer will also be able to click on the supplier company name to find out more information on the supplier, including their address, equipment types, and number of employees. The "specialties/capabilities" of each supplier will be matched to the type of product or service that the buyer is trying to procure. For example, if the buyer wants to procure an envelope, only suppliers that can provide envelopes will appear in this selection.

The buyer then selects the suppliers in which they would like to receive price estimates or quotes from and then submits the request to those suppliers. When the suppliers have responded to this by submitting price estimates, or quote the buyer can view each supplier's price estimate along with their current supplier rating and the number of orders that this comprises as shown in Figure 8. The buyer will then select the best supplier quote based on one or more of the following price, supplier rating, type of product, and ability to meet delivery requirements. After selecting the supplier, the buyer will create the order with the supplier. After the product or service is completed and given to the buyer, the buyer will indicate that the product or service is "delivered" as shown in Figure 9. After this is marked as "delivered", the supplier evaluation form will appear. As shown in Figure 9, the status may include "Completed and Shipped" 174. Upon completion of the particular order the buyer will then answer each of the questions and submit the evaluation the performance of the supplier as shown in Figure 10. As can be seen the categories are the same as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The category questions are answered with a Yes 176, No 178, Partial 180 and Comments responses. Notice that the weighting is listed with the total and the result of the question portion 184. If the answer is No, the scoring gives 0% to the score. If the answer is partial the weighting is preprogrammed to give a rating number less than the Yes answer and the No answer. The system will do the calculations and return the score for the supplier on that job.

A reporting system is provided to give buyers and suppliers the ability to create and run several data reports to show the performance of the suppliers. Two examples of buyer reports are included here. Buyers have the ability to choose the date parameters for a report and then run the report to show each, supplier with their scores in each of the 6 categories listed in Figures 2 and 3 and their total weighted average score during the time period 186 and 188 as illustrated inFigures 11. Figure 12 illustrates a report for the selected period for the selected vendor.

Note that the report provides data on the Net Accepted Orders 190, the Rating Unweighted for each of the categories listed above 192 and Weighted Rating 194, both Average 196 and 198. Buyers can also click on any of the data fields in the report results summary to get more details on each order and view the evaluation details on jobs completed in the past as shown in Figure 13. Parameters for individual job numbers- 200 can be observed. The parameters include Job Description 202, Vendor Name 204, Amount 206, Date Created 208, the Unweighted Rating by category 210 and Weighted Rating Total 212. Buyers can also view the performance over time of their suppliers 214 as shown in Figures 14-16. This is useful to track trends over time. Figure 14 illustrates the time frame selected 216, 218. Figure 15 illustrates monthly summaries of all vendors 220, by vendor 222, with order count 224 and Avg. Weighted Rating 226. The screen illustrated in Figure 16 allows the buyer to see details of the jobs that were evaluated by vendor name These summaries are listed by Job # 228. The Job Description 230, Vendor Name 232, Amount 234, Date and Time Created 236, Unweighted Rating by Category 238 and the Total Weighted Rating are listed for each job number within the activity period.

The suppliers will also be able to view reports on the evaluations that were given by the buyers. This allows the suppliers to view their ratings. Suppliers can choose the date parameters for the report and then run the report to see a list of all the buyers that have evaluated the supplier and their scores across each of the 6 categories and the total weighted average. Figure 17 illustrates Vendor Rating Summary 242 with a Starting Date and an Ending Date for the summary report. As shown in Figure 18 the Suppliers can also click on any of the data fields in the results summary to get more details on jobs completed in the past. The data includes the number of Jobs Rated 248, the Amount paid for the jobs rated 250 and the Average Rating by Category as well as the total Weighted Average 254. The Categories included are the same categories listed above in Figure 1; Delivery/Performance 102; Cost 104; Customer Service 106; Quality 108; Process Improvement/Innovation 110 and Other 112. The Buyer's management can use these reports to help evaluate their supplier base on a regular basis and help them make strategic decisions on what suppliers to continue to use in the future. The Buyer's management is able to view these reports within individual divisions and as well as across all divisions and see a corporate total supplier evaluation base. Buyers will be able to easily see the suppliers that are used by each division and their performance in each division as well as for the company as a whole.

Figure 18 illustrates the roles of one or more buyers 304 - 314, the roles of one or more suppliers 316 - 324 as they interface with an Internet or intranet server 302. The software for the vendor selection and evaluation system resides within the Internet server. Such a server is provided by an entity, such as Noosh that provides the vendor selection and evaluation system to one or more procurement entities. The Internet or intranet server is the hub of a network environment for the vendor selection and evaluation system. The computer program product for the system is contained within the computer program product residing on the Internet or intranet server. Figure 19 illustrates the flow of a vendor selection process. The Buyer connects his/her computer to a web page containing the software for the vendor selection and evaluation system 326. The Buyer sets parameters for the questions and weights 328 as shown above in Figure 2. The Buyer sets and reviews the supplier rating preferences 330 as shown above in Figure 3 as 142. These supplier rating preferences may use Six Sigma techniques widely used in industry.

The Buyer then selects the type of product or service to be purchased 332 as shown above in Figure 4. This is followed by the Buyer inputting the dates and quantities for purchase 334 as shown in Figure 5. The Buyer selects a group of preferred suppliers qualified to supply the desire product or service 336 as shown above in Figure 6. The Buyer can view each supplier, by name, rating and volume while they are deciding who will receive the RFQ as shown in Figure 7.

The group of preferred suppliers receive the RFQ 338 by logging onto the website noted above as responds in a response to the RFQ. After the buyer receives back estimates from the suppliers, the buyer can view each supplier's price and score and choose the best supplier 344. The system software may assist the buyer by ranking the suppliers by criteria set by the buyer.

After the delivery is complete, the buyer marks the job as being delivered 346 as shown in Figure 9. The buyer then completes a scorecard for each order using the criteria or perfonnance factors shown in Figure 2 348. Figure 20 illustrates the use of certain reports to assist the buyer in evaluating the performance of the suppliers. Again the buyer accesses the system via a web page for the system 350 and accesses reports documents 352. In a first report, the user, buyer or supplier selects a time interval for the report as shown in Figure 11 354. The buyer views each supplier's score in each category as well as a total weighted score 356 as shown in Figure 12 and the buyer can view details about each order and rating 358 as shown in Figure 358 as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 21 illustrates the use of a second report to assist the buyer. The buyer again accesses the system web page 360 and access reports documents 362. The buyer can evaluate the performance of one or more supplier over a period of time by first selecting the period of time under review 364 as shown in Figure 14. The selected report illustrates the perfonnance of one or more suppliers against aweighted rating for each period within the selected time 366. As above, the buyer can drive this report down to show additional detail, including the rating for each factor described above for each order 368 as shown in Figure 16.

In addition to the buyers having access to the supplier reports described above, a supplier can have access to the reports evaluating his/her performance as shown in Figures 22 and 17. The supplier gains access via the web page for the vendor selection and evaluation system 370. As with a buyer, the supplier selects thereport portion of the system 372. This gives the supplier access to each buyer's evaluation of his/her performance showing the ratings in each of the performance categories us in the system.

Each of the blocks shown in Figures 19 through 22 represent portions of the computer product installed on the Internet or intranet server shown in Figure 18. Each of the buyer and supplier computers 304-314 and 316-324 use a Web browser and the Internet or an intranet to gain access to the software within the server 302.

Figures 1-22 have been illustrative of a vendor selection and acquisition tracking system in a very specific application for illustration. The concepts discussed above are applicable to any purchasing system within an organization or multiple organizations. The procurement may be for internal use only or may as in the exemplary embodiment a procurement activity as part of a service to a clientΛuyer. The elements illustrated here, vendors, clients, internal staffs, and products can easily apply to many acquired items or services. Any multi-divisional corporation will find the techniques illustrated here useful for the global purchasing needed today. Vendors need not be local for all items. Many corporations need the advantages of low bidder purchasing, but also need the assurance that the supplier is capable of providing a quality product or service.

It will be appreciated that the present invention can also be used internally by an organization such as large corporation to more effectively manage the procurement activities that are geographically dispersed. In this form, a Buyer can facilitate the procurement activities from individual business units, clients or subsidiaries to a geographically dispersed corporate purchasing department. The purchasing activity would run on a local intranet. This method would also assist in the proper distribution of procurement costs to the appropriate business unit. The present invention can be embodied in the form of computer-implemented processes and apparatuses for practicing those processes. The present invention can also be embodied in the form of computer program code containing instructions embodied in tangible media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other computer-readable storage medium, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention. The present invention can also be embodied in the form of computer program code, for example, whether stored in a storage medium, loaded into and/or executed by a computer, or transmitted over some transmission medium, such as over electrical wiring or cabling, through fiber optics, or via electromagnetic radiation, wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention. When implemented on a general-purpose microprocessor, the computer program code segments configure the microprocessor to create specific logic circuits.

While the invention has been described with reference to preferred embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiments disclosed as the best mode contemplated for this invention, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims.

Claims

CLAIMS:What is claimed is:

1. A method for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors comprising: inputting specifications for an item or service to be acquired; ^' selecting a plurality of prospective vendors; evaluating said vendors based upon a predetermined factor; and selecting a vendor.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is delivery performance.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is customer service.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is cost.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is quality.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is process improvement or innovation.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is other.

8. The method of claim 1 wherein said predetermined factor is selected from the group consisting of delivery performance, cost, customer service, quality, process improvement and other.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein said predetermined factor has one or more questions related to said predetermined factor.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein selected vendor is rated according to responses to said questions.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein said responses to said questions are given numerical values.

12. The method of claim 11 wherein said numerical values are 1 for a Yes response, 0 for a No response and a predetermined value for a Partial response.

13. The method of claim 12 wherein said predetermined value for a partial response is 0.5.

14. The method of claim 12 wherein said numerical values are weighted in a predetermined manner.

15. The method of claim 12 wherein said numerical values are equally weighted.

16. The method of claim 1 further comprising: tracking progress of said selected vendor; and evaluating and storing, results of said selection using said predetermined factor.

17. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is delivery performance.

18. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is customer service.

19. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is cost.

20. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is quality.

21. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is process improvement or innovation.

22. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is other.

23. The method of claim 16 wherein said predetermined factor is selected from the group consisting of delivery performance, cost, customer service, quality, process improvement and other.

24. The method of claim 16, wherein said predetermined factor has one or more questions related to said predetermined factor.

25. The method of claim 24, wherein selected vendor is rated according to responses to said questions.

26. The method of claim 25 wherein said responses to said questions are given numerical values.

27. The method of claim 26 wherein said numerical values are 1 for a Yes response, 0 for a No response and a predetermined value for a Partial response.

28. The method of claim 27 wherein said predetermined value for a partial response is 0.5.

29. The method of claim 27 wherein said numerical values are weighted in a predetermined manner.

30. The method of claim 27 wherein said numerical values are equally weighted.

31. A system for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors comprising; a computer with a web browser for inputting specifications for an item or service to be acquired; a web server for selecting a plurality of prospective vendors from which to choose; said web server for evaluating said vendors based upon a predetermined factor; and said web server assisting in the selection of a vender.

32. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is delivery performance.

33. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is customer service.

34. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is cost.

35. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is quality.

36. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is process improvement or innovation.

37. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is other.

38. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor is selected from the group consisting of delivery performance, cost, customer service, quality, process improvement and other.

39. The system of claim 31 wherein said predetermined factor has one or more questions related to said predetermined factor.

40. The system of claim 39 wherein selected vendor is rated according to responses to said questions.

41. The system of claim 40 wherein said responses to said questions are given numerical values.

42. The system of claim 40 wherein said numerical values are 1 for a Yes response, 0 for a No response and a predetermined value for a Partial response.

43. The system of claim 42 wherein said predetermined value for a partial response is 0.5.

44. The system of claim 42 wherein said numerical values are weighted in a predetermined manner.

45. The system of claim 44 wherein said numerical values are equally weighted.

46. The system of claim 31 further comprising: said web server for tracking progress of said selected vendor; said web server for evaluating and storing results of said selection using said predetermined factor; and said computer connected to said web server for displaying said predetermined factor and said evaluation of said selected vendor.

47. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is delivery performance.

48. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is customer service.

49. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is cost.

50. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is quality.

51. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is process improvement or innovation.

52. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is other.

53. The system of claim 46 wherein said predetermined factor is selected from the group consisting of delivery performance, cost, customer service, quality, process improvement and other.

54. The system of claim ,46 wherein said predetermined factor has one or more questions related to said predetermined factor.

55. The system of claim 54 wherein selected vendor is rated according to responses to said questions.

56. The system of claim 55 wherein said responses to said questions are given numerical values.

57. The system of claim 56 wherein said numerical values are 1 for a Yes response, 0 for a No response and a predetermined value for a Partial response.

58. The method of claim 57 wherein said predetermined value for a partial response is 0.5.

59. The method of claim 57 wherein said numerical values are weighted in a predetermined manner.

60. The method of claim 57 wherein said numerical values are equally weighted.

61. A network environment for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors, including: a computer system having stored computer code, said computer code being executable and comprising: computer readable program code for causing a computer to receive and store specifications for an item or service to be acquired; computer readable program code for causing the computer to receive and store a selection of prospective vendors; computer readable program code for causing the computer to evaluate said vendors based upon said predetermined factor; and computer readable program code for causing the computer to select a vendor.

62. The network environment of claim 61, including: a computer system having stored computer code, said computer code being executable and further comprising: computer readable program code for causing the computer to track progress of said selected vendor; and computer readable program code for causing the computer to evaluate and store results of said vendor selection using said predetermined factors.

63. A computer program product for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors, said computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied in said medium, said computer program product having: computer readable program code for causing a computer to receive and store specifications for an item or service to be acquired. computer readable program code for causing the computer to receive and store a selection of a predetermined quantity of prospective vendors; computer readable program code for causing the computer to evaluate prospective vendors based upon said predetermined factor; and computer readable program code for causing the computer to select a vendor.

64. The computer program product of claim 63, further including: a computer system having stored computer code, said computer code being executable and further comprising: computer readable program code for causing the computer to track progress of said selected vendor; and computer readable program code for causing the computer to evaluate and store results of said vendor selection using said predetermined factor.

65. A system for selection and tracking performance of one or more vendors comprising: means for inputting specifications for an item or service to be acquired; means for selecting a plurality of prospective vendors; means for evaluating said vendors based upon a predetermined factor; and means for selecting a vendor.

66. The system of claim 65 further comprising: means for tracking progress of said selected vendor; and means for evaluating and storing results of said selection using said predetermined factor.