WO2001097067A2

WO2001097067A2 - Idea capture and evaluation

Info

Publication number: WO2001097067A2
Application number: PCT/US2001/016240
Authority: WO
Inventors: Larry Hobbs; Anne Lise Mollerus; Stephanie Marie Ringo; Andrea L. Brockman; Sheila Louise Willhoite; Dale Edward Cox; James Manfred Pierce; William J. Burns; Gregory J. Brecht; Daniel Joseph Durkin; John Hughes; Melanie Graham; Mark Allen Bauer; Pamela Feller
Original assignee: Cargill Incorporated
Priority date: 2000-06-14
Filing date: 2001-05-18
Publication date: 2001-12-20
Also published as: AU2001264701A1; WO2001097067A8; EP1295214A2; CA2412939A1

Abstract

The invention is directed to systems and techniques for capturing and evaluating ideas in a widely distributed organization, such as a global corporation. The invention allows the organization to define a hierarchical evaluation process for identifying ideas having the highest potential for success. The evaluation system includes a database to store a description and a current stage for each idea. In addition, the database stores configuration data that defines the number of evaluation stages and corresponding evaluation criteria for each stage. During evaluation, a web server generates an evaluation screen as a function of the current stage of the idea. Evaluation software executes in an operating environment of the web server and selects one or more evaluators at each stage as a function of the evaluator's area of expertise. The ideas propagate through the various evaluation stages based on whether the evaluators approve or reject the idea.

Description

IDEA CAPTURE AND EVALUATION

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to computer-implemented techniques for capturing and evaluating ideas in a distributed environment.

BACKGROUND

Large organizations, such as global companies, often face significant challenges in identifying and evaluating areas of improvement and potential growth. Notably, significant challenges arise in collecting and managing input from the myriad of sources such as customers, salespeople, field technicians, product development engineers, central research scientists and executives. Distilling the most promising ideas from these sources poses another level of challenges.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In general, the invention is directed to systems and techniques for capturing and evaluating ideas in a widely distributed organization, such as a global corporation. The invention allows the organization to define a hierarchical evaluation process for identifying ideas having the highest potential for success. The organization can tailor the hierarchical evaluation process such that at each stage the proposed idea is examined from a different business perspective, such as technical feasibility, market opportunity, logistical, legal and regulatory.

Furthermore, the organization can define the evaluation process to reflect its current business evaluation procedures and strategies, thereby automating and facilitating the identification of innovative, transformational ideas that can generate value for the organization. In one aspect, the invention is directed to an evaluation system that includes a database to store a description and a current stage for each idea. In addition, the database stores configuration data that defines the number of evaluation stages and corresponding evaluation criteria for each stage. A web server coupled to the database generates an evaluation screen, such as a web page, as a function of the current stage the idea. Evaluation executes in an operating environment of the web server and selects one or more evaluators at each stage as a function of each evaluator's area of expertise. The evaluation software modifies the current stage of the idea based on evaluation data received from the selected evaluators. According to another aspect, the invention is directed to a method for capturing and evaluating ideas in which configuration data, defining a number of evaluation stages and corresponding evaluation criteria, is stored in a database. Input data describing an idea is received over a network such as a local area network, wide area network or even the Internet. Evaluation screens, such as web pages, are generated as a function of the evaluation stage of the idea under consideration. The evaluation screen provides an interface by which an evaluator enters evaluation data. The stage of the idea under consideration is modified as a function of the evaluation data.

According to another aspect, the invention is directed to a computer- readable medium having data structures stored thereon. The data structures include an idea data structure to store a description of an idea, an evaluator data structure to store identities of evaluators authorized to evaluate the idea and a configuration data structure to store configuration data defining a hierarchical evaluation process. Various embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Figure 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system for capturing and evaluating ideas.

Figure 2 is a block diagram illustrating the idea evaluation system in further detail.

Figure 3 is a block diagram illustrating an example hierarchical evaluation process. Figure 4 is a flow chart illustrating one example implementation of a process to capture and evaluate ideas according to the invention. Figure 5 illustrates an exemplary idea capture screen. Figure 6 illustrates an exemplary evaluation screen. Figure 7 is a block diagram illustrating a computer suitable for implementing the various embodiments of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION In general, the invention is directed to systems and techniques for capturing and evaluating ideas in a widely distributed organization, such as a global corporation. The invention provides a flexible tool by which the organization can easily define a hierarchical evaluation process for identifying ideas having the highest potential for success. Figure 1 is a block diagram illustrating a system 2 for capturing and evaluating ideas. A user within the organization, such as an employee located in a regional office, interacts with submission computer 6 to describe and submit information describing an idea. For example, the user can propose an idea relating to a new product, a new technique for providing an existing service, a new product feature, a method for improving customer satisfaction or even a new business opportunity. For each idea, the user enters a variety of basic information such as a general description of the idea, the problem addressed, the date of conception, and involvement of outside parties. In addition, the user enters a variety of other information depending on the category of the idea. Submission computer 6 communicates the received information to evaluation system 8 via network 18 for evaluation. The user can be any individual that has access to system 2 including internal individuals, such as salespeople, field technicians, product development engineers, central research scientists and executives, and external individuals such as customers, and business partners. Evaluation system 8 allows an organization to define a hierarchical evaluation process having a number of evaluation stages and the criteria for evaluating the idea at each stage. For example, the organization can define the first stage so as to capture technical and feasibility information regarding the submitted idea. Progressively higher stages can be defined to capture marketing, financial, logistical and regulatory information. Typical evaluation criteria requested by evaluation system 8 includes, for example, benefit to the organization, market size, market growth, competitors, barriers to entry, raw materials requirements and potential customers.

As described in detail below, evaluation system 8 further allows the organization to define a pool of designated evaluators categorized by area of expertise. As an idea progresses through each stage of the evaluation process, evaluation system 8 selects one or more evaluators that have expertise suitable for reviewing and evaluating the information captured at the particular stage. Typical evaluators may include managers, technical directors, accountants, and in-house legal counsel. In addition, external customers and business partners may be defined as evaluators. Each evaluator interacts with an evaluation computer 10 to provide focused responses regarding the idea under consideration. In order to advance to a higher stage, each evaluator must give his or her approval for the idea. Alternatively, a voting mechanism can be utilized. If the evaluators reject the idea, evaluation system 8 archives the idea for possible later review. Submission computers 6 and evaluation computers 10 represent computing devices suitable for accessing idea evaluation system 8 via network 18. For example, submission computers 6 and evaluation computers 10 can be a personal computer, laptop computer, or even a personal digital assistant (PDA) such as a Palm™ organizer from Palm Inc. of Santa Clara, California. Submission computers 6 and evaluation computers 10 execute communication software, typically a web browser such as Internet Explorer™ from Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington, in order to communicate with idea evaluation system 8. Network 18 represents any com-munication link suitable for communicating digital data, such as a wide-area network, local area network, or the Internet. Figure 2 is a block diagram illustrating in further detail the evaluation system 8. Web servers 26 provide an interface for communicating with submission computer 6 and evaluation computer 10 via network 18. In one configuration, web servers 26 execute web server software, such as Internet Information Server™ from Microsoft Corporation, of Redmond, Washington. In another configuration, web servers 26 execute Websphere Application Server™ on a Domino™ Server from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) of Armonk, New York. As such, web servers 26 provide an environment for interacting with evaluators and idea submitters according to software modules 20, which can include Lotus scripts, Java scripts, Java Applets, Active Server Pages, web pages written in hypertext markup language (HTML) or dynamic HTML, Active X modules, and other suitable modules. Software modules 20 can generally be grouped into two categories.

Process configuration modules 28 include software modules for defining the evaluation process, including the number of evaluation stages in the hierarchy, the information required at each stage, and the type of evaluators to be selected at each stage. Capture and evaluation modules 24 include modules for capturing the required information from the submitter and presenting the information to the evaluators for review.

Software modules 20 interact with a number of databases 22 including idea database 34, evaluator database 26, configuration data 30 and archive 32. Although illustrated as separate databases, idea database 34, evaluator database 36, configuration data 30 and archive 32 may be implemented as a single database, such as a relational database management system (RDBMS), provided by one or more database servers.

Idea database 34 stores all information relating to each submitted idea including general description, stage and evaluations. Evaluator database 36 stores information for each evaluator defined by the organization including name, email address and area of expertise. Configuration data 30 stores information that defines the evaluation process defined by the organization including the number of stages, the information to capture at each stage, and the type of evaluator necessary to review the information. Archive 32 stores information for all ideas that were rejected by the evaluators.

Evaluator database 36 stores information for a number of evaluators identified by organization for reviewing the captured information and evaluating the submitted idea. Within evaluator database 36, each evaluator is categorized based on his or her area of expertise. Process configuration modules 28 allow a user, referred to herein as a process developer, to define the evaluation process for the organization. This typically involves researching the organization's current procedures and strategies for evaluating opportunities. In addition, the process developer may research historical data and identify evaluation criteria that has been effective in evaluating new ideas. Based on this research, the process developer interacts with process configuration modules 28 to define the evaluation process. Process configuration modules 28 generate configuration data 30 in, for example, a relational database j format.

In addition, process configuration modules 28 allow the organization to define a number of mechanisms for automating the evaluation process and ensuring that ideas move through the evaluation stages. For example, using process configuration 28, the process developer can define timers for triggering electronic mail messages (emails) to remind the evaluators to review a pending idea within the evaluation process or within archive 32.

Process configuration modules 28 further allow the process developer to define a number of idea categories such that capture and evaluation modules 24 require the submitter to identify a category for each idea upon submission. Process configuration modules 28 further allow the process developer to define different capture screens at the various stages for each category. In addition, evaluator database 36 can be organized by idea category such that evaluators can be selected by idea type in addition to their area of expertise. For example, the process developer may configure evaluation system 8 such that evaluators at each stage are selected from appropriate business units, subsidiaries, or product lines.

Figure 3 is a block diagram providing a high-level illustration of an example hierarchical evaluation process 38 having four evaluation stages. At each stage, evaluators provide information and ultimately approve or reject the submitted idea. Facilitator 39 is responsible for monitoring the progress of the idea through the evaluation process 40 and ensuring that the selected evaluators provide timely input. As illustrated in Figure 3, at stage 1 the idea is evaluated for technical feasibility. Typical information captured at this example stage is raw material requirements, technical specifications, and required resources. At stage 2, the idea is evaluated according to the underlying business opportunity. Typical information captured at this stage includes the size and growth of the potential market, competition and barriers to entry. At stage 3, the idea is evaluated from a legal and regulator perspective. For example, information captured may include descriptions of patentable technologies, patents of other companies, and regulatory information. At stage 4, the organization implements a pilot project having specific goals and milestones. Based on the completion of these goals, the final evaluators, typically executives within the organization, approve or reject implementation of the proposed idea.

Figure 4 is a flow chart illustrating one implementation of a process 40 for capturing and evaluating ideas in a widely distributed organization. Initially, the process developer interacts with process configuration 28 to develop and store configuration data 30 (42). Next, evaluation system 8 receives a description of an idea from a submission computer 6 (44). More specifically, a submitter interacts with submission computer 6 and enters data describing in detail a proposed idea. Submission computer 6 transmits the data over network 18. For example, the submitter may provide the data by accessing capture and evaluation modules 24 via web servers 26 using a web browser executing on submission computer 6.

Capture and evaluation modules 24 receive the data via web servers 26 and update idea database 34 by storing the data and initializing the stored idea to the first stage.

Capture and evaluation modules 24 analyze the data relating to the newly submitted idea and select one or more suitable evaluators (46). Capture and evaluation modules 24 select the evaluators as a function of (1) the stage of the idea, (2) the idea category selected by the submitter and (3) the area of expertise of the evaluators.

After selecting the evaluators, evaluation system 8 receives input from the selected evaluators (48). More specifically, each evaluator interacts with one or more capture and evaluation modules 24, such as a capture screen defined in HTML, and inputs a variety of information. Each evaluator interacts with evaluation computer 10 and enters data in response to the detailed questions defined by capture and evaluation modules 24. Evaluation computer 10 transmits the data over network 18. For example, the evaluator may provide the data by accessing capture and evaluation modules 24 via web servers 26 using a web browser executing on evaluation computer 6. Capture and evaluation modules 24 receive the data via web servers 26 and update idea database 34 by storing the evaluation data.

In addition to providing evaluation data, an evaluator may direct evaluation system 8 to select an additional evaluator having a particular expertise. For example, a current evaluator may determine that more information is needed and that an evaluator of a particular type is needed. Evaluation system 8 selects a new evaluator according to the suggested type and receives the additional evaluation data (49).

Upon receiving evaluation data from all of the evaluators, each evaluator must specifically approve or reject an idea. If the evaluators rejected the idea, capture and evaluation modules 24 archive the idea data from idea database 34 to archive database 32. In order to facilitate future re-evaluation, all evaluation data is archived including the reason why the evaluators rejected the idea. Electronic mail messages are sent to facilitator 39 reminding him or her of the archived ideas. If the evaluators approve the idea, capture and evaluation modules 24 determine whether the idea has reached the final stage (52). If not, capture and evaluation modules 24 update idea database 34 to advance the idea to the next stage and select new evaluators for another round of evaluation (54). If the idea has reached the last stage, capture and evaluation modules 24 update idea database to reflect that the current idea has traversed the evaluation hierarchy and has been approved for implementation.

Figure 5 illustrates an exemplary idea capture screen 60 used by submitters to describe the details of their ideas. Web servers 26 communicate idea capture screen 60 to submission computers 6 for data input. For example, idea capture screen 60 can be defined in hypertext markup language (HTML) for capturing data via a web browser.

Idea capture screen 60 includes a number of input areas for objectively capturing information relating to the idea. For example, in input area 62, the submitter enters his or her name, manager' s initials and a brief description of the idea. In addition, the submitter provides a more detailed description, potential roadblocks and whether the idea relates to either a new product or an existing product. In input area 64, the submitter selects a business function and a business unit that the idea will most impact. Input area 66 indicates the stage and general status of the idea. Using configuration modules 28, the process developer can customize idea capture screen 60 to capture other data.

Figure 6 illustrates an exemplary evaluation screen 70 used to evaluate an idea. Web servers 26 communicate evaluation screen 70 to evaluation computers 10 for data input. For example, evaluation screen 70 can be defined in hypertext markup language (HTML) for capturing data via a web browser.

Evaluation screen 70 provides a summary 72 of the data entered by the submitter. In addition, evaluation screen 70 includes a number of input areas in which the evaluator supplies relevant information. For example, a first evaluator may supply market information relating in input area 74. A second evaluator may supply technical information in input area 76. Using configuration modules 28, the process developer can create similar evaluation screens for each stage of the evaluation hierarchy. The inventive idea evaluation techniques and systems described herein can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Furthermore, the invention can be implemented in a computer program tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor within an operating environment of a programmable system.

Figure 7 illustrates a programmable computing system (system) 100 that provides an operating environment suitable for implementing the techniques described above. The system 100 includes a processor 112 that in one embodiment belongs to the PENTIUM^® family of microprocessors manufactured by the Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California. However, the invention can be implemented on computers based upon other microprocessors, such as the MIPS^® family of microprocessors from the Silicon Graphics Corporation, the POWERPC^® family of microprocessors from both the Motorola Corporation and the IBM Corporation, the PRECISION ARCHITECTURE^® family of microprocessors from the Hewlett-Packard Company, the SPARC^® family of microprocessors from the Sun Microsystems Corporation, or the ALPHA^® family of microprocessors from the Compaq Computer Corporation. In various configurations, system 100 represents any server, personal computer, laptop or even a battery-powered, pocket-sized, mobile computer known as a hand-held PC or personal digital assistant (PDA).

System 100 includes system memory 113, including read only memory (ROM) 114 and random access memory (RAM) 115, which is connected to the processor 112 by a system data/address bus 116. ROM 114 represents any device that is primarily read-only including electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, etc. RAM 115 represents any random access memory such as Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory. Within the system 100, input/output bus 118 is connected to the data/address bus 116 via bus controller 119. In one embodiment, input/output bus 118 is implemented as a standard Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus. The bus controller 119 examines all signals from the processor 112 to route the signals to the appropriate bus. Signals between the processor 112 and the system memory 113 are merely passed through the bus controller 119. However, signals from the processor 112 intended for devices other than system memory 113 are routed onto the input/output bus 118.

Various devices are connected to the input/output bus 118 including hard disk drive 120, floppy drive 121 that is used to read floppy disk 151, and optical drive 122, such as a CD-ROM drive that is used to read an optical disk 152. The video display 124 or other kind of display device is connected to the input/output bus 118 via a video adapter 125.

Users enter commands and information into the system 100 by using a keyboard 140 and/or pointing device, such as a mouse 142, which are connected to bus 118 via input/output ports 128. Other types of pointing devices (not shown) include track pads, track balls, joysticks, data gloves, head trackers, and other devices suitable for positioning a cursor on the video display 124.

System 100 also includes a modem 129. Although illustrated as external to the system 100, those of ordinary skill in the art will quickly recognize that the modem 129 may also be internal to the system 100. Network interface 153 or modem 129 are typically used to communicate over a network (not shown), such as the global Internet, using either a wired or wireless connection. Software applications 136 and data are typically stored via one of the memory storage devices, which may include the hard disk 120, floppy disk 151, CD-ROM 152 and are copied to RAM 115 for execution. In one embodiment, however, software applications 136 are stored in ROM 114 and are copied to RAM 115 for execution or are executed directly from ROM 114.

In general, the operating system 135 executes software applications 136 and carries out instructions issued by the user. For example, when the user wants to load a software application 136, the operating system 135 interprets the instruction and causes the processor 112 to load software application 136 into RAM 115 from either the hard disk 120 or the optical disk 152. Once one of the software applications 136 is loaded into the RAM 115, it can be used by the processor 112. In case of large software applications 136, processor 112 loads various portions of program modules into RAM 115 as needed.

The Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) 117 for the system 100 is a set of basic executable routines that have conventionally helped to transfer information between the computing resources within the system 100. Operating system 135 or other software applications 136 use these low-stage service routines. In one embodiment system 100 includes a registry (not shown) that is a system database that holds configuration information for system 100. For example, the Windows^® operating system by Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington, maintains the registry in two hidden files, called USER.DAT and SYSTEM.DAT, located on a permanent storage device such as an internal disk.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A method comprising: storing configuration data defining a number of evaluation stages and corresponding evaluation criteria; receiving input data describing an idea; generating an evaluation screen as a function of a current evaluation stage of the idea, wherein the evaluation screen provides an interface to receive evaluation data for the respective evaluation criteria of the current stage; and modifying the current stage of the idea as a function of the evaluation data.

2. The method of claim 1 further including selecting one or more evaluators from a database of evaluator information, wherein the evaluator information includes identities and areas of expertise for the evaluators.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the evaluation data indicates whether each evaluator approves or rejects the idea.

4. The method of claim 3 further including repeating the steps of generating the evaluation screen and modifying the current stage if the evaluators approve of the idea.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein receiving input data describing an idea includes categorizing the idea into one of a number of user-configurable categories.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein selecting the evaluators includes selecting the evaluators as a function of the idea's category.

7. The method of claim 1 further including storing the input data describing the idea in a database.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the input data includes presenting a web page to a web browser over a packet-based network.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein displaying a capture screen includes communicating a web page to a web browser over a packet-based network.

10. The method of claim 1 further including communicating configuration screens to a web browser over a packet-based network such that the user can configure the number of stages in the evaluation process.

11. The method of claim 2 further including communicating configuration screens to a web browser over a packet-based network such that the user can configure the selection of evaluators at each stage by defining necessary areas of expertise at each stage.

12. A computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon to cause a programmable processor to perform the method of claim 1.

13. A computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon to cause a programmable processor to perform the method of claims 2 through 11.

14. A computer-readable medium having data structures stored thereon comprising: an idea data structure to store a description of an idea; an evaluator data structure to store identities of evaluators authorized to evaluate the idea; and a configuration data structure to store configuration data defining a hierarchical evaluation process.

15. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the evaluator data structure stores an area of expertise for the evaluator.

16. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the configuration data structure stores a data value defining the number of stages within the evaluation process.

17. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the configuration data structure stores evaluation criteria for each stage of the evaluation process.

18. A system comprising: a database to store idea data and configuration data, wherein the configuration data defines a number of evaluation stages and corresponding evaluation criteria for each stage; and a web server to generate an evaluation screen as a function of a current evaluation stage of one of the ideas, wherein the evaluation screen provides an interface to receive evaluation data for the evaluation criteria of the current stage.

19. The system of claim 18, wherein the web server updates the current stage of the idea as a function of the evaluation criteria.

20. The system of claim 18, wherein the web server is configured to store the evaluation data in the database.

21. The system of claim 18, wherein the database is configured to store identities of evaluators to provide the evaluation data, and further wherein the identities are organized within the database by areas of expertise.

22. The system of claim 18, wherein the evaluation data indicates whether each evaluator approves or rejects the idea.

23. The system of claim 19, further including evaluation software executing in an operating environment of the web server, wherein the evaluation software selects one or more evaluators at each stage as a function of the evaluator' s are of expertise.

24. The system of claim 20, wherein the idea data includes user-configurable categories.

25. The system of claim 23, wherein the web server generates configuration screens by which a user can configure the number of stages in the evaluation process.

26. The system of claim 24, wherein the web server is configured to communicate the configuration screens to a web browser over a packet- based network such that the user can configure the selection of evaluators at each stage by defining necessary areas of expertise at each stage.