WO2012006700A2 - Système et procédé d'analyse et d'optimisation de la performance d'exécution d'un ou de plusieurs projets - Google Patents

Système et procédé d'analyse et d'optimisation de la performance d'exécution d'un ou de plusieurs projets Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2012006700A2
WO2012006700A2 PCT/BR2011/000219 BR2011000219W WO2012006700A2 WO 2012006700 A2 WO2012006700 A2 WO 2012006700A2 BR 2011000219 W BR2011000219 W BR 2011000219W WO 2012006700 A2 WO2012006700 A2 WO 2012006700A2
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
project
work
patent office
projects
performance
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/BR2011/000219
Other languages
English (en)
Portuguese (pt)
Other versions
WO2012006700A3 (fr
Inventor
João Gilberto Sampaio FERREIRA DA SILVA
Suzana Borschiver
Original Assignee
Instituto Nacional Da Propriedade Industrial
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Instituto Nacional Da Propriedade Industrial filed Critical Instituto Nacional Da Propriedade Industrial
Publication of WO2012006700A2 publication Critical patent/WO2012006700A2/fr
Publication of WO2012006700A3 publication Critical patent/WO2012006700A3/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Definitions

  • the present invention finds its field of application among the systems and processes for performance analysis and optimization of execution of one or more projects, specifically asset processing analysis in a company's planning area, more specifically the intellectual property area, even more specifically patent application processing analysis.
  • US Patent Application 2003/0135399 describes a process optimization system and method that includes methodologies, processes, measures, and tools for facilitating project process management throughout their life cycle, including their design, planning, and design. , execution and review after its implementation.
  • This patent application describes a subject that includes a project management system comprising four distinct processing steps in a portfolio management, value planning, custom project management and post-deployment review, and may also include governance functionality to manage the four processing steps described above.
  • US patent application US2005 / 0119959 describes an automated system for project risk optimization from the perspective of the project sponsor.
  • project, project functionalities and functionality options are defined using data from a project system and a financial system so that project results are presented as value and risk matrices for the project.
  • project sponsor. The system calculates the value for the project by identifying the selection of features that maximize the expected value of the project from the point of view of its sponsor.
  • the system described by this patent application also allows the selection of features that maximize design value with the lowest possible risk to be identified.
  • Patent application WO 2008/039741 describes a system and method for process control and management by which methods of control, management, verification, certification and communication are provided.
  • a job step is defined as a combination of a job package queue that has a processing service.
  • a work package is understood as a set of activities to be performed.
  • a project is defined as a sequence of work steps, which can be combined in several ways, in series and / or parallel among others, forming larger and more complex projects.
  • a scenario is defined as a specific selection of related projects and project steps and a specific set of parameters.
  • a workgroup is defined as one or a set of individuals on a project who perform activities of the same nature so that projects can be defined, including possible interactions between possible projects and work steps, where part of the flow of work from one project is forwarded to another.
  • Figure 2 represents the arrival of a new work package to the work step, which package enters the last position of the queue.
  • Figure 3 represents the end of work step service processing of a work package at zero position and the consequent movement of all work packages to an earlier position.
  • Figure 4 represents a project carried out in a single step.
  • Figure 5 represents a project carried out in two steps.
  • Figure 6 represents a two-step project where a percentage of the project work package input stream is completed after the first project step.
  • Figure 9 represents two dependent projects performed in several steps, where percentages of project work package input streams are completed after each step of each project.
  • Figure 11 represents the goal setting phase.
  • Figure 15 represents the goal setting phase considering a spectrum of flow pull-off percentages after each work step i of each project j.
  • Figure 17 represents the integration between the process phases.
  • Figure 18 represents a project relating to the administrative procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.
  • Figure 19 represents a project relating to the technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.
  • Figure 22 represents two dependent projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.
  • Figure 32 represents the possible patent destinations and patent applications from a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.
  • This step considers the existence of k positions, positions occupied by work packages, with position zero being the service position. A new work package that enters a step will occupy the k position, leaving the step with k + 1 work packages.
  • Figure 2 graphically represents this occupation.
  • the project definition for this patent application encompasses, but is not limited to, a project with a specified deadline and amount of work, whether or not specified, with continuous or determined time to execute, as an engineering project, as a sequence of activities performed. daily, such as the operation of post offices, such as the receipt, processing and distribution of correspondence, among others.
  • variable ⁇ symbolizes the workflow entering the single project work step and the variable ⁇ represents the work packet flow processing rate. entering the design stage.
  • the average amount of work accumulated in this work step and the average time that each work package takes to go through the queue and be processed in this work step can be described according to the theory. queues by equations 1 and 2:
  • equations 3 and 4 roughly represent the average amount of work packages accumulated in the project and the average time each work package has to go through this entire project.
  • the first fraction of equation 3 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 1 of the project
  • the second fraction of equation 3 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 2 of the project
  • the first fraction of Equation 4 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 1
  • the second fraction of equation 4 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 2.
  • equations 5 and 6 represent the processing of a two-step project, where a percentage of the workflow is completed after the first project step.
  • the first fraction of equation 5 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 1 of the project
  • the second fraction of equation 5 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 2 of the project
  • the first fraction of Equation 6 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 1
  • the second fraction of equation 6 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 2.
  • the sum value of ⁇ ! and ⁇ 2 is still fixed at a value less than or equal to ⁇ , which ultimately means that the resources for carrying out the project are limited to this ⁇ value.
  • equations 5 and 6 can be generalized according to equations 7 and 8: L Equation (7)
  • ⁇ represents the input rate of new work packages entering the project
  • ⁇ P, ⁇ l Equation (9) ie the sum of the percentages of the entry rate of new work packages that are completed after each project step must necessarily be less than or equal to 1 and
  • Figure 7 shows a preferred embodiment of the invention, not limiting the scope thereof. In this example, there is only one project presented at two levels.
  • the first constraint given by equation 9 is due to the fact that the sum of the percentages for a step must naturally be less than or equal to the unit and the second constraint given by equation 10 is due to the fact that it is The condition that guarantees project stability, that is, the condition that ensures that there will not be an infinite accumulation of work packages to be processed at any stage of the project, which also ensures that the average time for total processing of a work package. work throughout the project will not be infinite. If the restriction of equation 10 is met, the solution is stable, that is, it is possible to calculate the values of L and W while if the restriction of equation 10 is not met, the values of L and W tend to infinity and the solution It is unstable.
  • Equations 9 and 10 should be applied equally to figures 4, 5 and 6, considering the specific values of P and 1 ⁇ 4 for each situation.
  • equations 7 and 8 can be subdivided so that each step of each project can be described by the following equations:
  • the values of L j , and Wjj are respectively the number of work packages in a work step ie the average time it takes for a work package to go through the entire work step i of project j, ⁇ the total flow work package that enters work step i of project j, considering both new work package flows and work package flows from other projects, and Uji the processing rate of work step i of project j.
  • the value of ⁇ ⁇ already considers the project work package withdrawals after the work steps prior to the work step i in project j, making it unnecessary to spell out the variables ⁇ j.
  • Equation (13) 2l W fl Equation (14)
  • the system and process may use either the set of equations 7 to 10 or the set of equations 11 to 15, depending on the convenience and design being analyzed.
  • the two projects are parallel and fully independent, presenting Pi and P 2 quantities of work steps that may or may not be equal, each project receiving an input rate of new work packages ⁇ where j represents project, ie either project 1 or project 2, entry rates for new work packages that may or may not be the same, where after each work step i of project j a percentage pjj of new work package input stream leaves the project, and the percentage profiles of the respective input streams leaving the projects may or may not be the same between projects.
  • all resources must be correctly divided between the processing steps of each project to meet demand and make projects efficient and each project should be treated as the project and its steps described by the equations above.
  • the designs are parallel and dependent, having amounts of work steps Pi and P 2 which may or may not be the same, each project receiving a new work package entry rate where j represents the project, ie either project 1 or project 2, new work package entry rates that may or not the same, and after each work step i of project j, a percentage pjj of the input stream of new work packages leaves the project, and the percentage profiles of the respective input streams leaving the projects may or not being the same between the projects.
  • a scenario has a specific set of parameters, namely:
  • processing rates of each stage of each project • total processing capacity, represented by the sum of all work package processing rates for each work step of all projects;
  • the first stage aims to map the working groups that will be studied in the system and will be part of the process, so that their activities can be represented by a system composed of project work steps.
  • the second stage aims to collect historical data from this work group that is being evaluated to insert in the process.
  • the first step is to determine a discretization interval for the system and process so that all data and results are calculated based on this accuracy. Then you need to look at the history of the average submission rate of new work packages for each project j, ie the number of work steps of each project, ie P j , the average work package processing rates. for each work step i, ie ujj, the total processing capacity ⁇ represented by the sum of all work packet processing rates for each work step i of all projects and the percentages of flow withdrawal after each work step i of each project j, ie pjj.
  • this history is surveyed using the possible time horizon, with as much historical data as possible from ongoing and / or similar projects. From these values, you can determine group efficiency by calculating the average processing time and average number of work packages that are in each work step of each project, and then calculating the total average amount of work packages per project. and the average total processing time per project and the total average number of work packages in the system, and it is even possible to verify that processing is feasible. All this processing is done using the equations previously presented.
  • the third and final step is goal setting, based on the results found in the previous step.
  • the first step of the goal setting step is, from the data obtained in the data collection and performance appraisal step, to generate a matrix with all possible combinations of work packet processing rates Ujj for each work step i of each project j, considering that each rate must necessarily be positive and that the total processing capacity ⁇ represented by the sum of all work packet processing rates Ujj for each work step i of all projects j must be respected.
  • the generation of this matrix depends on the discretization interval determined in the previous phase that the system and process use, which is one of the system and process input data.
  • the best result can be presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution by an optimization algorithm.
  • the full spectrum of solutions may be available for consultation.
  • the processing of the phases may be as follows:
  • o determine a discretization interval to perform the analysis; o define a time frame for collecting data from ongoing projects or similar projects;
  • o collect historical data for calculating the average work package processing rate for each work step i of each project j, o collect historical data for calculating percentages of withdrawal P j i from the average rates of submission of new work packages j from work packages after each work step i of each project j;
  • - goal setting phase which may comprise one or more or all of the following sub-phases:
  • the total processing rate ⁇ may or may not consider those steps whose average processing times of a work package (Wji) or average quantities of work packages (L j i) have been selected and set. All of these results are generated from the use of the previously presented equations and Figure 12 illustrates a possible processing.
  • the present invention it is possible to analyze and optimize the total work packet processing capacity ⁇ by analyzing a spectrum of total work packet processing capacities in the work steps of each project. For this, after the matrix generation with the possible total processing capacity of work packages ⁇ , a result matrix is generated in terms of the average work package processing time per work step of each project and the average amount of work packages per work step of each project for each value of total work packet processing capacity ⁇ . After the generation of these matrices, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. In a particular aspect of the invention, the best result may be the best overall result or the best result for each total work packet processing capacity ⁇ . Figure 13 illustrates this processing.
  • a result matrix is generated in terms of average work packet processing time per work step. each project and average number of work packages per work step of each project for each value of new work package submission rates ⁇ for each project j.
  • the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation.
  • the best result in this case may be the best overall result or the best result for each set of new work package submission rates Xj for each j project.
  • Figure 14 illustrates this processing.
  • the system and process further allow for combined spectra analysis, i.e. analysis that combines total processing rate spectra ⁇ of project work steps and / or new packet send rate spectra. of work ⁇ ; for each project je / or percentages of flow withdrawal p j j after each work step i of each project je / or number of work steps P j of each project, whether or not setting the average processing time of a work package (W j i) for specific work steps or the average amount of work packages for specific steps (Ljj).
  • the results of the combined analyzes are also generated from the use of the previously presented equations.
  • a specific scenario is selected by selecting a result in terms of order package processing time and the number of work packages in the system that are the system goals, which scenario may be the same. great scenario or another alternative scenario.
  • scenario selection all system and process variables are selected and projects must operate as these variables are established.
  • a new analysis cycle should be performed through a new data collection and benchmarking to verify that the goals have been met and update the data collection to set new goals. This processing is represented in Figure 17 by index 3.
  • the integration between the phases can be done as follows: - after a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the system project types, a new data collection phase and performance evaluation. It is performed in order to verify the fulfillment of the goals and update the data collection; - After a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the project types of the system, a new preparation phase is carried out to check for changes in the working groups, projects and project stages.
  • the above-described methodology may be used to create a system for analyzing and optimizing patent application processing.
  • the flow of new work packages may be represented by the flow of new patent applications arriving for review by a patent office, depositors and clients outside the patent office, the processing of work packages by design stage by the administrative and technical procedures that generate opinions or reports such as examinations that are performed in the patent office examination steps or technical or administrative merit examination by a patent office or drafting response to an opinion or report
  • the workflow percentages that leave the project are the percentages of patent applications that reach a decision, meaning that they are either granted, denied, or are abandoned by the applicant or client outside the patent office
  • the number of project steps This can be represented by the number of times the flow of patent applications is examined, either by the patent office verifying technical or administrative merit, or by the applicant or client outside the patent office providing, for example, a response to a patent. technical or administrative opinion of the patent office, and the total examination fee, which may correspond to the total processing capacity.
  • the above filed depositor or client outside the patent office may actually represent one or more filers and / or clients outside the patent office.
  • the processing of work steps corresponds to the performance of administrative or technical procedures performed at the patent office for the generation of an opinion or report and the response by depositors or external clients to these opinions or reports generated by the patent office;
  • work package processing fees in a work step i of a project j correspond to the patent office processing fees by the patent office in performing administrative or technical procedures for the generation of opinions or reports or by depositors or external clients to provide a response to advice or reports from the patent office;
  • the total processing capacity ⁇ corresponds to the total processing capacity of the patent office or patent office only and of depositors or clients outside the patent office, as the responses of depositors or external clients to the advice or reports of the patent office patents can be selected and fixed based on a fixed average time frame or average patent application;
  • the patent application review project may also have different focuses. It may focus only on the technical examination interacting with the applicant or client outside the patent office so that the performance of examiners in relation to the technical examination, may focus only on the administrative examination, so that the last step of the project is to submit the patent application to the technical area or may focus on the full flow including filing, administrative examination. and technical exam.
  • the purely administrative, purely technical and administrative-technical focuses considering that the technical stage is later than the administrative stage, are represented in figures 18, 19, and 20.
  • the variable ⁇ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications.
  • Other variants may be present in the system and process and will be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
  • variable ⁇ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be considered in the first instance and p ⁇ represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance, but which are subject to appeal or nullity, that is, so that there is a second instance
  • first instance project in Figure 22 there may be one or more work steps and the representation of ⁇ (1- ⁇ ) as the output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various first instance project steps that are not forwarded to the second instance project.
  • variable ⁇ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be analyzed in the first instance
  • pi represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance, but which are subject to appeal or nullity, that is, so that there is a second instance proceeding
  • p 2 represents the sum of all the percentages of patent applications that are decided in the second instance, but which are subject to legal action.
  • ⁇ (1- ⁇ ) as output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various first instance project steps that are not forwarded to the second instance project.
  • Figure 26 represents this system, where ⁇ 1; ⁇ 2 and ⁇ 3 represent respectively the filing rates of new patent applications for the first and second instance and lawsuit. If the focus is only on lawsuit analysis, the system can be represented by a single project. If the focus is only on lawsuit, the system may be represented by a single project, as in Figure 21.
  • the patent office may also be part of an international community that integrates patent application review.
  • PCT Patent Cooperation Treaty
  • the first step in PCT processing is receiving by a receiving office, this must necessarily be the first project in the scenario.
  • the second step is the realization of the international search report, where part of the receiving project's output stream is directed to the international search report.
  • the third step is the realization of the international preliminary examination report, which is fed by the flow that leaves the draft international search report, since not necessarily a patent application through the PCT treaty needs to go through the realization phase. international preliminary examination report.
  • the three projects are dependent projects where part of the flow that leaves the receiving office project goes into the international search reporting project and part of the flow that comes out of the international search reporting project goes into the preliminary international reporting project, as in Figure 27.
  • variable ⁇ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications received in the reception project
  • p ! represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications leaving the receiving process and are forwarded to the filing of an international search report
  • p 2 represents the sum of all percentages of patent filing which, upon completion of the international search report , are forwarded to an international preliminary examination report.
  • the representation of ⁇ (1- ⁇ as the outflow represents in this case the sum of the outflows from the various steps in the downstream project.
  • PCT requests that are not routed to the International Search Reporting project.
  • the initial deposit of the PCT to the receiving office may be made in an office, whereas an office, not necessarily the receiving office, may be designated to be the office that will perform the international search report and subsequently an office that is not necessarily the receiving office or the office that made the international search report will be designated to carry out the international preliminary examination report
  • PCT treaty processing can be translated into a multi-office processing network and that this network can be represented in the proposed system and process as projects related to receiving, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report for offices with these capabilities.
  • each office that is part of the PCT can be analyzed and optimized by the system and process proposed by the construction of reception projects, international search report and international preliminary examination report, where each reception desk project for each office is interconnected with all international search reporting projects for all offices and each project for each international search reporting office is interconnected with all reporting projects preliminary examination of all offices in the extreme case of application of dependent projects.
  • Figure 29 illustrates this integration between PCT treaty offices into a dependent design system, where the variables ⁇ 1 ⁇ ⁇ 2 , ⁇ 3 and m represent the incoming flows of new individual patent applications from the m office reception steps. patent applications are signatories to the PCT treaty and are responsible for receiving, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report. It is important to note that not all offices necessarily have the reception, international search and preliminary examination report stages, and therefore the integration between the offices is well significant. For Figure 29, the outflows of each office were not represented, as they depend on the interaction between the offices.
  • Figure 30 illustrates PCT treaty offices in an independent project system.
  • the variables ⁇ ⁇ 5 ⁇ 2 , ⁇ 3 and m represent the incoming streams of new individual patent applications from the receiving stages of m patent offices that are parties to the PCT treaty and are responsible for receiving patent applications.
  • the outflows of each office were not represented either.
  • system and process are capable of creating a scenario of integration between the international and national phases of patent applications.
  • this office may have a patent filing process flow that is directly filed with it in the first instance without having been filed with another office previously, as processing described for the national phase may have a flow of patent applications that are filed with the office considering the existence of unionist priority, which means that part of the outflow from another national phase is forwarded to the national phase of this office, and may have part of its flow from the PCT.
  • Figure 31 illustrates this scenario where ⁇ , ⁇ 2 and ⁇ 3 represent, respectively, the flow of new patent applications that is directly filed in this office without having been filed in another office previously, the flow of patent applications that are filed. in other offices and then, through the unionist priority device, is filed in this particular office, and the flow of patent applications that comes from the PCT.
  • the project known as PI Offices represents other intellectual property offices, the PCT project the PCT treaty office network, and the PI Office project the office under consideration.
  • the variable ⁇ 3 is null.
  • the variable ⁇ 2 is null, meaning that the office only accepts direct deposits.
  • there may be one or more work steps and the representation of ⁇ , ⁇ 2 , ⁇ 3 and ( ⁇ ! + ⁇ 2 + ⁇ 3 ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the flows of output of the various stages of the respective projects.
  • This system can also be represented as an independent system, that is, where patent application flows ⁇ 2 and ⁇ 3 do not have a link in the system and process with a project from which they originate but may have their origin identified.
  • the new patent application flow ⁇ since it is a patent application flow filed directly at the office, has no link to another project.
  • Figure 32 illustrates this scenario where ⁇ , ⁇ 2 and ⁇ 3 represent, respectively, the patent application flow decided at the office that is not sent to any other office or to the PCT, the patent application flow that is forwarded to other offices through the unionist priority device, and the patent application flow that is forwarded to the PCT.
  • the project designated by PI Offices represents other intellectual property offices
  • the variable ⁇ 3 is null.
  • This system can also be represented as an independent system, that is, where patent application flows ⁇ 2 and ⁇ 3 do not have a link in the system and process with a project to which they will be sent, but can have their destination identified.
  • the patent application flow ⁇ since it is a patent application flow whose processing will not proceed, has no link to another project.
  • the patent application flow is entirely comprised of patent applications for which there is no interest for further processing.
  • the variables X ⁇ and ⁇ 2 represent, respectively, the patent application flow that is abandoned after analysis by the PCT system and the patent application flow that is forwarded to the patent office after analysis through the PCT system. .
  • the representation of ⁇ , ⁇ 2 , and ( ⁇ + ⁇ 2 ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various stages of the respective steps. of the projects.
  • the project called PI Offices represents intellectual property offices and the PCT project represents the PCT treaty office network.
  • the systems of figures 33 and 34 may also be represented by standalone or hybrid design systems.
  • the system of Figure 33 may be the flow of patent applications ⁇ 2 without a link in the system and process to a project from which it originates, but may have its origin identified, that is, be an independent system.
  • the new patent application flow ⁇ since it is a flow of new patent applications whose origin is direct filing, has no link to another project.
  • the patent office is considered to be only a division of an intellectual property office, and that this intellectual property office is responsible for reviewing other assets such as trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, program registration computer, technology transfer contracts, integrated circuits, the same system may be applied, whether or not there is an analysis of administrative and technical merits, the existence of at least one examination body, the existence or otherwise of one or more instances.
  • lawsuit analysis and the integration of the intellectual property office with an international asset analysis community the entire intellectual property office and all its assets can use this system and process to analyze and optimize the processing and distribution of resources. in the analysis of intellectual property assets, to make the office as a whole more efficient.
  • the example will focus on processing patent applications only by a patent examiner in a single patent office, where only the distribution of resources between examination steps will be evaluated, and the submission fee will not change. new patent applications, the number of examination steps, the percentages of decision after each examination step, and the maximum examination capacity.
  • the second phase begins by determining the time interval for data collection. For this interval, you must raise the exam fee per exam step, the number of exam steps, the total exam rate, the decision percentages after each exam step, and the new patent application submission fee for each exam.
  • first exam which is the first stage of the project, considering only the classifications of the study group.
  • the response times of the filers or clients outside the patent office will be fixed as there is a time limit for responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office to the examiners' advice.
  • the total processing fee will only refer to the work done by patent examiners, as for work of depositors or clients outside the patent office the response times to opinions will be fixed and it is desired to analyze and optimize the work performed by patent examiners.
  • the third phase then is the establishment of patent application decision time targets and average number of patent applications under examination by establishing the distribution of resources between the examination steps given a maximum processing capacity of ⁇ patent applications. It is emphasized that this maximum processing capacity of ⁇ patent applications will correspond only to the processing capacity of patent examiners and will not consider processing by depositors or clients outside the patent office.
  • a flow of new patent applications for the technical examination reaches the first examination stage at a rate of ⁇ - and is processed in the first technical examination stage by the patent examiner. is called an EP ⁇ at a rate ⁇ -
  • step DPj The depositor or client outside the patent office, represented by step DPj, processes patent applications at a ⁇ rate and, once it has processed this patent application flow, forwards this flow to the second stage of patent processing.
  • patent examiner who performs the second stage of the technical examination represented by EP 2 .
  • the value of time depositor or client's response to the patent office shall be fixed, the value of ⁇ shall be automatically fixed.
  • the patent application flow is processed at a rate of ⁇ and a 1 ⁇ 2p 2 percentage of the input stream of the first patent application step leaves the project while the rest goes on. that the opinions generated by the examiner in this second stage of examination are reviewed by depositors or clients outside the patent office in the second stage of response analysis to depositors or clients outside the patent office, represented by DP 2 .
  • a time value will be stipulated. for patent processing through these steps. Since the objective is to analyze and optimize the distribution of resources across patent office patent examination steps, the response times for steps DPi and DP 2 will be set at 4 months each, as there is a time limit. for responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office to the examiners' opinions. It is noteworthy that this time of 4 months for each step considers not only the processing by the depositor or client outside the patent office but also the time it takes to reach the examiner's hands.
  • examiner 2 With regard to examiner 2, it turns out that by printing the same total amount of resources as examiner 1, that is, even if they perform 8 patent applications per month, they are unable to process the workload they receive. is assigned, generating a continuous and growing backlog of patent office applications to be reviewed. If the backlog is infinite, the decision time of a patent application is also infinite, which means that the scenario for examiner 2 is unstable.
  • examiner 1 From the comparison of tables 1 and 2 with tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that the performance of examiner 1 can be increased to a higher value than the current one, even if not acting according to the optimal distribution of resources. In this alternative distribution, examiner 1 would have a reduction of up to 22% in the amount of patent applications under its responsibility and a reduction of up to 22% in the time it takes for an application to be granted or denied by the office or abandoned by the applicant or client. outside the patent office, without having to work too hard or have the reduced filing of new patent applications.
  • examiner 1 From the comparison of tables 1 and 2 with tables 7 and 8, it can be seen that the performance of examiner 1 can be increased to a higher value than the current one, even not acting according to the optimal distribution of resources.
  • examiner 1 would have a reduction of up to 26% in the amount of patent applications under its responsibility and a reduction of up to 26% in the time it takes for an application to be granted or denied by the office or abandoned by the applicant or client. external to the patent office while maintaining the filing rate of new patent applications and making fewer patent applications than you intuitively do, ie taking 7 exams per month through a system and process response is more efficient than taking 8 exams per month intuitively.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

Le but de ce système et de ce procédé est de réaliser l'analyse et l'optimisation de la performance d'exécution d'un ou de plusieurs projets, notamment le traitement d'actifs dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle, et plus particulièrement les demandes de brevets. Un ou plusieurs projets sont définis et structurés et des données historiques spécifiques compilées, ce qui permet d'évaluer la performance d'exécution de l'ensemble de projets sur la base du temps moyen pour le traitement complet d'un lot de travaux et de la quantité moyenne de lots à traiter. Plus l'efficacité du projet est élevée, plus le temps moyen et la quantité moyenne de lots en traitement seront réduits. Lesdits système et procédé peuvent en outre s'appliquer à des offices de propriété intellectuelle, améliorant l'efficacité du traitement, ainsi qu'à des demandes de brevet, des enregistrements de marques, des enregistrements de programmes informatiques, des dessins industriels, des indications géographiques, des contrats de transfert de technologie, des circuits intégrés, etc. Plus spécifiquement, dans les brevets, l'analyse et l'optimisation peuvent s'appliquer aux procédures administratives, techniques ou à la fois administratives et techniques d'un office, à l'intégration entre différents offices, ainsi qu'aux offices ayant adhéré au Traité de coopération en matière de brevets, avec possibilité d'analyser et d'optimiser, à partir d'une simple procédure, tout le flux international de demandes de brevets par les différents offices dans le monde.
PCT/BR2011/000219 2010-07-15 2011-07-14 Système et procédé d'analyse et d'optimisation de la performance d'exécution d'un ou de plusieurs projets WO2012006700A2 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
BRPI1004029-3A BRPI1004029A2 (pt) 2010-07-15 2010-07-15 sistema e processo para análise e otimização de desempenho de execução de um ou mais projetos
BRP/1004029-3 2010-07-15

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2012006700A2 true WO2012006700A2 (fr) 2012-01-19
WO2012006700A3 WO2012006700A3 (fr) 2013-10-10

Family

ID=45469837

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/BR2011/000219 WO2012006700A2 (fr) 2010-07-15 2011-07-14 Système et procédé d'analyse et d'optimisation de la performance d'exécution d'un ou de plusieurs projets

Country Status (2)

Country Link
BR (1) BRPI1004029A2 (fr)
WO (1) WO2012006700A2 (fr)

Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0660210A2 (fr) * 1993-12-23 1995-06-28 British Aerospace Public Limited Company Méthode et appareil pour la test, la supervision et l'amélioration de l'efficacité d'un procédé de fabrication
US5890131A (en) * 1996-04-19 1999-03-30 Skymark Corporation Project organization and optimization tool and method of use thereof
WO2002050699A1 (fr) * 2000-12-20 2002-06-27 University Of Toledo, The Procede reposant sur une approche hierarchique pour l'evaluation et l'amelioration de la productivite des systemes de production
US20030135399A1 (en) * 2002-01-16 2003-07-17 Soori Ahamparam System and method for project optimization
WO2004044807A1 (fr) * 2002-11-07 2004-05-27 Singapore Institute Of Manufacturing Technology Procede pour estimer un delai de production d'un processus
US20050119959A1 (en) * 2001-12-12 2005-06-02 Eder Jeffrey S. Project optimization system
WO2008039741A2 (fr) * 2006-09-25 2008-04-03 Mark Business Intelligence Systems, Llc. Système et procédé d'optimisation du traitement de projets et d'optimisation de flux de travail.

Patent Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0660210A2 (fr) * 1993-12-23 1995-06-28 British Aerospace Public Limited Company Méthode et appareil pour la test, la supervision et l'amélioration de l'efficacité d'un procédé de fabrication
US5890131A (en) * 1996-04-19 1999-03-30 Skymark Corporation Project organization and optimization tool and method of use thereof
WO2002050699A1 (fr) * 2000-12-20 2002-06-27 University Of Toledo, The Procede reposant sur une approche hierarchique pour l'evaluation et l'amelioration de la productivite des systemes de production
US20050119959A1 (en) * 2001-12-12 2005-06-02 Eder Jeffrey S. Project optimization system
US20030135399A1 (en) * 2002-01-16 2003-07-17 Soori Ahamparam System and method for project optimization
WO2004044807A1 (fr) * 2002-11-07 2004-05-27 Singapore Institute Of Manufacturing Technology Procede pour estimer un delai de production d'un processus
WO2008039741A2 (fr) * 2006-09-25 2008-04-03 Mark Business Intelligence Systems, Llc. Système et procédé d'optimisation du traitement de projets et d'optimisation de flux de travail.

Non-Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
BOSE, SANJAV K.: 'Open and Closed Network of MlMlm Types Queue', [Online] 2002, Retrieved from the Internet: <URL:http://www.iitg.emet.in/skbose/qbook/Slide_Set_14.PDF> [retrieved on 2013-06-08] *
'Introduction to Probability Models.', 2007, ACADEMIC PRESS, BOSTON, USA deel ROSS, SHELDON M. *
SAMPAIO, JOAO GILBERTO ET AL.: 'Analysis of Patent Examination Effort Distribution based on the Queuing Theory' J. TECHNOL. MANAG. INNOV. vol. 3, no. 4, November 2008, ISSN 0718-2724 pages 1 - 16 *

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2012006700A3 (fr) 2013-10-10
BRPI1004029A2 (pt) 2012-04-10

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Jian et al. Simulation optimization for a large-scale bike-sharing system
Karsten et al. Resource pooling and cost allocation among independent service providers
US20120109873A1 (en) Admission control in cloud databases under service level agreements
CN110097248A (zh) 基于流立方技术的商户评级方法、装置、设备及存储介质
Kuhn et al. Job stability, earnings dynamics, and life-cycle savings
Talby et al. Governance of an agile software project
Gobbi et al. A kernel search for a patient satisfaction-oriented nurse routing problem with time-windows
Sun et al. Regulating a public transit monopoly under asymmetric cost information
WO2012006700A2 (fr) Système et procédé d&#39;analyse et d&#39;optimisation de la performance d&#39;exécution d&#39;un ou de plusieurs projets
Fitzenberger et al. Unemployment, labor market transitions, and residual wage dispersion
Jacobovic Regulation of a single-server queue with customers who dynamically choose their service durations
Chen et al. An optimization-and-simulation framework for redesigning university campus bus system with social distancing
Narman et al. h-DDSS: Heterogeneous dynamic dedicated servers scheduling in cloud computing
Bai et al. Understanding the benefit of being patient in payment channel networks
Desai et al. From LVTS to Lynx: Quantitative assessment of payment system transition in Canada
Sauvé et al. On the risk exposure and priority determination of changes in IT service management
Hajdu Two Scheduling Models, One Project: Are Models Applicable in Case of Real Projects?
Makhijani et al. Quest: Queue simulation for content moderation at scale
Wang et al. Data-driven integrated home service staffing and capacity planning: stochastic optimization approaches
Raz et al. Fairness considerations of scheduling in multi-server and multi-queue systems
Shaffiei et al. An optimized intelligent automation for university shuttle bus driver scheduling using mutual swapping and harmony search
Better et al. Simulation Optimization: Improving decisions under uncertainty
Honnappa et al. Strategic arrivals into queueing networks
Chen et al. Examination of possible progress of Japanese pension system using an agent-based model
Stojić et al. Modelling evaluation of railway reform level using fuzzy logic

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 11806161

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A2

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 11806161

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A2