WO2013042119A1

WO2013042119A1 - A method for performing a decision making process

Info

Publication number: WO2013042119A1
Application number: PCT/IL2012/050374
Authority: WO
Inventors: Ynon SHILD
Original assignee: My Single Point Ltd.
Priority date: 2011-09-22
Filing date: 2012-09-19
Publication date: 2013-03-28
Also published as: IL215340A0

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for performing a decision making process that enables to prioritize a list of massive values of varied entities in an environment of multiple stake and share holders using a computer, said method comprising: a) defining a gating process for actively triggering role members in order to push forward a business initiative in a traceable, auditable and accountable manner, wherein said gating process includes one or more gating stations; b) defining one or more portfolio owners for entering parameters values and prioritizing them and/or for deciding when a scenario is ready and thereby promoting said scenario to a following gating station; c) defining a constraint level and constraint values for deducting multiple perspective; d) defining at least one list of additional perspectives and for each additional perspective in said list defining the possible corresponding list of values; e) prioritizing said perspective by assigning weights for each perspective and for each value in said list, either by positioning or by pairwise comparison according to the number of said list of values, wherein prioritizing said perspective refers to a prioritizing process; f) setting a pairwise comparison matrix while adding a combo for every "view"; and g) recording every combination that is the result of the interaction of said parameters with each value of said list. For example, the parameters and values can be received from any suitable input means or interface.

Description

A METHOD FOR PERFORMING A DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to the field of portfolio management systems. More particularly, the invention relates to a method for providing the ability to prioritize a list of projects, tasks or any other item to which a resource was assigned in order to be delivered within an organizational unit.

Background of the invention

Decision makers are often puzzled when they have to choose among alternative solutions to a problem that requires multiple criteria to be satisfied, or may have a number of alternative solutions available, and the ultimate outcome is uncertain even after the final solution is chosen.

The complexity of a problem leads to the evaluation of all alternatives against all criteria. This often results in different "optimal" solutions to emerge for different criteria. Identifying the criteria available and the alternatives is often problematic as it may not be possible to consider all criteria that are relative to the decision and all alternatives available to the decision-maker. Finally, even after the identification of the criteria and alternatives and the evaluation of alternatives the problem is still puzzling as the final outcome of a specific choice is uncertain.

The subject of providing the ability to prioritize a list of projects that need to be delivered within an organizational unit, has been the heart of project and portfolio management in the last two decades, the challenge here encompasses a great amount of "quantitative properties" that affect decision making. Another challenge is that the process of assigning priority is usually done by many participants with varied levels in the organizational hierarchy, in addition most of the parameters that are in use are hard to quantify and subjective to interpretation (Such as Return On Investment, probability of risk, etc).

More over existing solutions fails to answer the argument for intransitivity of indifference, for example as described in Wikipedia with respect to the term "Pairwise comparison" at the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairwise_comparison. The term "pairwise comparison" generally refers to any process of comparing entities in pairs to judge which of each pair is preferred, or has a greater amount of some quantitative property. The method of pairwise comparison is used in the scientific study of preferences, attitudes, voting systems, social choice, public choice, and multi-agent AI systems.

To address this problem and to help decision makers to choose among alternative solutions, enhanced prioritizing tools are required.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method which is capable of prioritizing a list of projects that need to be delivered within an organizational unit.

It is another object of the present invention to provide a method which is capable of answering the argument for intransitivity of indifference.

Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent as the description proceeds. Summary of the Invention

The present invention relates to a method for performing a decision making process that enables to prioritize a list of massive values of varied entities in an environment of multiple stake and share holders using a computer, said method comprising: a) defining a gating process for actively triggering role members in order to push forward a business initiative in a traceable, auditable and accountable manner, wherein said gating process includes one or more gating stations ; b) defining one or more portfolio owners for entering parameters values and prioritizing them and/or for deciding when a scenario is ready and thereby promoting said scenario to a following gating station; c) defining a constraint level and constraint values for deducting multiple perspective; d) defining at least one list of additional perspectives and for each additional perspective in said list defining the possible corresponding list of values; e) prioritizing said perspective by assigning weights for each perspective and for each value in said list, either by positioning or by pairwise comparison according to the number of said list of values, wherein prioritizing said perspective refers to a prioritizing process; f) setting a pairwise comparison matrix while adding a combo for every "view"; and g) recording every combination that is the result of the interaction of said parameters with each value of said list. For example, the parameters and values can be received from any suitable input means or interface.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the prioritizing of the perspective is performed when a list of incoming requirement, that holds all of the parameter values and is assigned to one or more portfolios, meets the requirements of a predefined prioritization process. The prioritizing process can repeat itself, wherein each portfolio owner that is located top in the hierarchy can overrule the priorities granted by inferior level portfolio owners. The prioritizing process can be executed once and a view of the prioritization is displayed for every scenario when a dominating scenario is presented according to the leading role perspective. According to some embodiments of the present invention, the prioritizing process can be terminated when the top level portfolio owner approves the priorities granted for the entire hierarchy.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the result of the interaction of parameters with the list value is explainable and the arguments that led to said result are clearly presented and can be easily amended.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method further comprises providing a computer having a memory for storing data for executing a computer software program for processing the parameters of the decision making process.

Brief Description of the Drawings

In the drawings:

Fig. 1 schematically illustrates a typical decision making process; Fig. 2 schematically illustrates a multidimensional matrix of N layer pairwise comparison, according to an embodiment of the present invention; and

Figs. 3-5 schematically illustrate embodiments of a decision making process, according to embodiments of the present invention.

Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments

The Figures and the following description relate to preferred embodiments of the present invention by way of illustration only. It should be noted that from the following discussion, alternative embodiments of the structures and methods disclosed herein will be readily recognized as viable alternatives that may be employed without departing from the principles of the claimed invention.

Reference will now be made to several embodiments of the present invention(s), examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying figures. Wherever practicable similar or like reference numbers may be used in the figures and may indicate similar or like functionality. The figures depict embodiments of the present invention for purposes of illustration only. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following description that alternative embodiments of the structures and methods illustrated herein may be employed without departing from the principles of the invention described herein.

Unless otherwise indicated, the functions described herein may be performed by executable code and instructions stored in computer readable medium and running on one or more processor -based systems. However, state machines, and/or hardwired electronic circuits can also be utilized. Further, with respect to the example processes described herein, not all the process states need to be reached, nor do the states have to be performed in the illustrated order. Further, certain process states that are illustrated as being serially performed can be performed in parallel.

Similarly, while certain examples may refer to a Personal Computer (PC) system or data device, other computer or electronic systems can be used as well, such as, without limitation, a network-enabled personal digital assistant (PDA), a smart phone (e.g., with an operating system and on which a user can install applications) and so on.

The terms, "for example", "e.g.", "optionally", as used herein, are intended to be used to introduce non-limiting examples. While certain references are made to certain example system components or services, other components and services can be used as well and/or the example components can be combined into fewer components and/or divided into further components.

In addition, while certain user inputs or gestures are described as being provided via data entry via a keyboard, or by clicking a computer mouse or button, optionally, user inputs can be provided using other techniques, such as by voice or otherwise. The example screen layouts, appearance, and terminology as depicted and described herein, are intended to be illustrative and exemplary, and in no way limit the scope of the invention as claimed.

Referring now to Fig. 1, a traditional decision making process is shown in accordance with the prior art. In a traditional decision making process, the decision (indicated by numeral 3) is based on different factors (indicated by numeral 1) and their priority. For example, the factors can be:

Strategic goals;

Customer Priority;

Delivery Priority;

Management Priority;

Risk;

Budget;

- Availability;

Requestor;

Type of Requirement;

Number of delays;

- Billability;

Regulation oriented; and etc.

Usually the traditional decision making process is based on a process which calculates the priority of each factor with respect (i.e., compared) to the other given factors (this stage is indicated by numeral 2). The factor with the highest priority value reflects the decision of that process. For example, a priority table (in form of a two dimensional matrix) is shown (indicated by numeral 4) in which the factor "Delivery Priority" receives the highest priority value ("3"). However, as it can be seen in Fig. 1, the traditional decision making process can be obtained only for one layer of two dimensional matrix, and therefore it is very limited. In such traditional process only one aspect determines the decision, but in many cases there are other aspects that should be taken into consideration.

The present invention relates to a method that allows N parameters of decision driving factors and X number of stakeholders with different level in the organizational hierarchy to be taken into consideration in the process of prioritizing a list of items of W different types (that can have a relation between themselves). The product is a list of 'n' parties ordered by a single index, every party in the list poses N parameters that attributed to it. An embodiment of this invention may be implemented as a computer program that could be stored on a tangible computer medium. It is envisioned that the computer program stored on the tangible computer readable medium will perform a series of steps when executed by one or more processors. The steps include: identifying at least two factors, structuring those factors into a hierarchy, identifying at least one activity, identifying at least one decision maker, collecting at least one judgment from those factors, producing at least one ratio-scaled measure from the judgment(s), producing at least one performance measure from at least one of the activities with respect to at least two of the factors, generating a rolled up performance measure from the lower levels of the hierarchy to the higher levels of the hierarchy, and communicating at least one performance measure and one rolled up performance measure. The term "factor" refers herein to an element or component of a model which may represent or identify an organizational objective and/or sub- objective. According to an embodiment of the present invention, decision making factors can be elements or components such as: strategic goals, customer priority, delivery priority, management priority, risk, budget, availability, requestor, type of requirement, number of delays, billability, regulation oriented, etc.

The term "type" refers herein to the kind of object upon which a decision is required, such as: project, business requirement, change request, releases, defects, new bids, etc.

The term "role" refers herein to an entity (e.g., a specific person, group of people, such as management, budget owner, stake holder, share holder, delivery, etc.) that is related (either directly or indirectly) to one or more of the types by one or more aspects, wherein every role has its own "weight". In this context, the weight can be a numerical value that represents the relative size or dimension or importance of a role with respect to each specific type.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method requires a set up process that comprises the following steps:

1. Setting two perspectives that are inherited from the start (compulsory) - "type" and "role";

2. Defining the gating process of the prioritization process, wherein the "gating process" is a procedure in which parameters such as predefined schedules and list of steps/tasks or approvals are assigned to the relevant predefined "Roles". The parameters can be provided by an authorized user (e.g., predefined accountable personnel) or automatically obtained from a related database. The gating process is technically a work-flow driven predefined procedure that actively triggers role members in order to push forward a business initiative in a traceable, auditable and accountable manner. For example, prioritizing a program level (such as the portfolio or number of programs grouping all the business initiatives aiming to increasing revenue for a predefined sector) in a Customer to Supplier level, than having a portfolio level managed by an authorized user, and finally the CEO or other authorized person has to approve the suggested priorities or override them;

Defining the prioritization owners for performing the following tasks:

a. entering the parameters and prioritizing it;

b. deciding when a scenario is ready and promoting it to the next gating station;

Defining the constraint level and constraint values, the constraint level will deduct another perspective. For example, if the constraints are set in the portfolio level, then it is required to prioritize the portfolios among themselves, such as budget, capacity (HR and Assets), availability, etc. The following steps 5-6 describe the prioritization process that is used for prioritizing the portfolio among themselves;

Defining a list of additional perspectives for the prioritization process (could be any number). For example: "type" - e.g., "views"; For each perspective, defining the possible list of values (e.g., list). For example, for a perspective named "requirement type" the following list of values may appear "Program", "Project", "Release", etc.;

Prioritizing each list from step 6 (either by positioning or pairwise comparison, according to the number of list values);

Setting the pairwise comparison matrix while adding a combo for every "View", e.g. a matrix in which the list of factors will be crossed with each perspective list (affected by value selected in combo mentioned above) denoting a weight / priority of every parameter per perspective, the product of this exercise denotes the weight for every parameter per perspective, for example: the list of factors (such as: strategic goals, customer priority, delivery priority, management priority) will have a value for every item from the "type" perspective (such as project, business requirement, etc.); and 9. Recording every combination that is the result of the interaction of parameters with a list value such as a "Scenario". For example, if the type is "Project" than the parameters will have certain priorities that may change when using other type, e.g., "Releases".

Fig. 2 schematically illustrates a multidimensional matrix of N layers pairwise comparison tables (indicated by numeral 5), according to an embodiment of the present invention. Each table may include a collection of information. When at least two factors are identified, each of them can be represented as a cell in one of those tables. In this tables the each of one of the terms Asset A - Asset D reflects a specific factor.

The cells may be incorporated into a hierarchy. To help identify structural seniority, cells may be placed in various layers. Cell in one layer may be connected to another cell in a lower or higher layer.

Each table in the multidimensional matrix often contains a set of information or a combination of sets of information that can be communicated within a cluster of cells. Each cell contains a priority, which generally represents the degree of precedence an objective or activity has with respect to other objectives or activities. Often used for weighting, priorities may be derived using pairwise comparisons. In this context, pairwise comparison is a form that often expresses the intensity of dominance or preference of one cell over another with respect to a given criterion in the decision making process.

These kinds of information may be communicated in multiple ways. It may be communicated, displayed or reported numerically, textually, graphically, or using color codes or shades within a particular range as designated by an operator. It may even be communicated using a combination of these ways.

Within the hierarchy, one or more activity, displayable at the lowest level of a cluster of cells, may contribute some benefit, value and/or risk to some or all of the lowest level sub-objectives (sometimes called covering objectives). A selection mechanism may be used to specify which activity contributes to which of the covering objectives. The term activity may also be referred to as an alternative. A similar mechanism may also be used to specify which participants can evaluate and/or view the priorities of the cell and/or the activity performance. Serving as decision makers, the specified participants may render a judgment on a particular type.

Judgments may take the form of pairwise comparisons. Any judgment may be written/typed/mouse clicked. Using a judgment(s) rendered by a decision maker(s), ratio-scaled measures may be derived for the factors or types. This process is typical, for instance, in the known Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Ratio-scaled measures generally represent the relative importance of the objectives. In other words, ratio-scaled measures may prioritize objectives with respect to each other. At times, ratio-scaled measures may even represent scenarios, in which case such measures represent the relative likelihood of the scenarios. One example of a ratio-scale is 0 to 1. However, one skilled in the art will recognize that other scales may also be used. In some embodiments, collecting judgment(s) on a factor may be restricted to decision maker who has been selected to evaluate that judgment.

A performance measure of one or more activities based upon at least two factors may also be produced by using a translation function, including but not limited to a direct function, a ratings function, a step function and a utility curve. Generally, a performance measure is a measure that evaluates, indicates, calculates or ranks the result of a particular type with respect to roles and factors.

To further set a background from which to understand some embodiments of aspects of the invention, an initial context for some elements depicted by reference numerals in the figures are listed. Although not limiting, these may include initial aspects that may include, but not be limited to aspects such as: it may indicate aspects including steps in which the invention is used to process and display the impacts of the changes to funding parameters, may indicate aspects including a detailed planning step where the results of funding allocation decisions are finalized into the organization's project plan, etc.

With the foregoing, it can be understood that Figs. 3-5 schematically illustrate embodiments of an N-layer decision making process 10 based on a prioritizing process, e.g., by prioritizing the factors among themselves (as indicated by numeral 14). The multidimensional matrix of N layers enables the user to obtain the optimum decisions, resulting in optimal improvements to the type given the fiscal constraints. In those figures, the "Type" is indicated by numeral 11, the factors are indicated by numeral 12, the "Roles" are indicated by numeral 13 and the Decision is indicated by numeral 15. For example, Figs. 4 and 5 schematically illustrate some steps involved that may be used in optimizing improvements to the condition of the overall decision making process. According to an embodiment of the present invention, each of various options is prioritized as well as the factors of each option (as indicated by numeral 16), and in the same manner each of various roles is prioritized as well as the preferences of each role (as indicated by numeral 17). The decision is obtained by prioritizing the factors among themselves in such a way that the decision is based on all the affecting dimensions. That data may then be used with the invention in the decision making process to perform the analysis that might ultimately result in the optimization across multidimensional factors and roles (as schematically illustrated by a cube 18 in Fig. 5). Within the decision making process of the present invention, the following steps may be performed when performing the prioritizing:

1. The process itself takes place when the list of incoming requirement that holds all of the parameter values and is assigned to portfolios meets the predefined prioritization process;

2. There are two scenarios here

a. The first: the process repeats itself where each portfolio owner that is located top in the hierarchy can overrule the priorities granted by inferior level portfolio managers;

b. The second: the prioritization function is executed once and a view of the prioritization is displayed for every scenario when the dominating scenario is presented according to the leading role perspective. For example, the differences can be marked by coloring the requirements that vary in priority between the scenarios;

3. The process terminates when the top level portfolio owner approves the priorities granted for the entire hierarchy. Examples of parameters that can be taken into account in establishing the decision making factors: budget, capacity, strategic objectives, requestor, requestor priority, business process or service, business process, role, etc.

The following is an example for weighting numerator structure code:

- First digit— parameter identifier;

- Second digit - scenario identifier (role);

- From now every pair of digits denotes the perspective code and the weighted multiplier for the value received from the requirement. Meaning for every requirement we need per scenario to multiply the values of the parameters by the adjacent multiplier (and hold separately for every scenario).

Hence, the present invention provides a decision making process that result in users within an organization being able to more effectively make the optimal decision. The method of the present invention provides executives with a priority scenario that reflects their decision making DNA. Furthermore, the method of the present invention reduces the effect of non transitive by assigning accountabilities to those that assign a weight to factored component. Moreover, by enforcing accountability per business process there is a process of constant evaluation and correction (based on feedbacks both negative and positive) this act enforces that the process of assigning weights and pairwise comparing is scrutinized carefully.

By slicing and dicing the multiple dimensions of the complex problem, the number of comparisons drops incrementally, those allowing prioritizing of long list projects/initiatives. Since one of the parameters is the constraints of capacity/budget there is a reduction of the number of members in the list to be priorities. For example, in case of a list of 10 K elements this reduces the number of comparison because the factors are reducing the number of comparisons according to the number of factors (if N is the number of factors it is reduced to around N by 2 comparisons).

Use of the present invention for different infrastructure-centric public or private sectors may be enabled by utilizing different asset class analysis results as inputs to the decision making process and optimization apparatus and associated process.

As can be easily understood from the foregoing, the basic concepts of the present invention may be embodied in a variety of ways. In this application, the portfolio management devices are disclosed as configurations through which the results described may be achieved. They are simply the natural result of utilizing the computational devices as intended and described. In addition, while some methods are disclosed, it should be understood that these may not only be accomplished by software or configured computers but also can be varied in a number of ways. Importantly, as to all of the foregoing, all of these facets should be understood to be encompassed by this disclosure.

The discussion included in this description is intended to serve as a basic description. The reader should be aware that the specific discussion may not explicitly describe all embodiments possible; many alternatives are implicit. It also may not fully explain the generic nature of the invention and may not explicitly show how each feature or element can actually be representative of a broader function or of a great variety of alternative or equivalent elements. Again, these are implicitly included in this disclosure. Where the invention is described in device-oriented terminology, each element of the device implicitly performs a function. Apparatus claims may not only be included for the device described, but also method or process claims may be included to address the functions the invention and each element performs. Neither the description nor the terminology is intended to limit the scope of the claims that are now included or may be added to any subsequent patent application.

It should also be understood that a variety of changes may be made without departing from the essence of the invention. Such changes are also implicitly included in the description. They still fall within the scope of this invention. A broad disclosure encompassing both explicit embodiment(s) shown, the great variety of implicit alternative embodiments, and the broad methods or processes and the like are encompassed by this disclosure and may be relied upon when drafting the claims for any subsequent patent application. It should be understood that such language changes and broader or more detailed claiming may be accomplished at a later date. With this understanding, the reader should be aware that this disclosure is to be understood to support this and any subsequently filed patent application that may seek examination of as broad a base of claims as deemed within the applicant's right and may be designed to yield a patent covering numerous aspects of the invention both independently and as an overall system.

Further, each of the various elements of the invention and claims may also be achieved in a variety of manners. Additionally, when used or implied, an element is to be understood as encompassing individual as well as plural structures that may or may not be physically connected. This disclosure should be understood to encompass each such variation, be it a variation of an embodiment of any apparatus embodiment, a method or process embodiment, or even merely a variation of any element of these. Particularly, it should be understood that as the disclosure relates to elements of the invention, the words for each element may be expressed by equivalent apparatus terms or method terms— even if only the function or result is the same. Such equivalent, broader, or even more generic terms should be considered to be encompassed in the description of each element or action. Such terms can be substituted where desired to make explicit the implicitly broad coverage to which this invention is entitled. As but one example, it should be understood that all actions may be expressed as a means for taking that action or as an element which causes that action. Similarly, each physical element disclosed should be understood to encompass a disclosure of the action which that physical element facilitates. Regarding this last aspect, as but one example, the disclosure of a step such as "varying" should be understood to encompass disclosure of a variation element— whether explicitly discussed or not— and, conversely, were there effectively disclosure of a "variation element", such a disclosure should be understood to encompass disclosure of a step of "varying" and even a "means for varying" Such changes and alternative terms are to be understood to be explicitly included in the description.

The aforementioned embodiments of the present invention provides a method for prioritizing a multidimensional list of projects, tasks or any other item to which a resource was assigned.

While some embodiments of the invention have been described by way of illustration, it will be apparent that the invention can be carried into practice with many modifications, variations and adaptations, and with the use of numerous equivalents or alternative solutions that are within the scope of persons skilled in the art, without departing from the spirit of the invention or exceeding the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for performing a decision making process that enables to prioritize a list of massive values of varied entities in an environment of multiple stake and share holders using a computer, said method comprising:

a. defining a gating process for actively triggering role members in order to push forward a business initiative in a traceable, auditable and accountable manner, wherein said gating process includes one or more gating stations ;

b. defining one or more portfolio owners for entering parameters values and prioritizing them and/or for deciding when a scenario is ready and thereby promoting said scenario to a following gating station;

c. defining a constraint level and constraint values for deducting multiple perspective;

d. defining at least one list of additional perspectives and for each additional perspective in said list defining the possible corresponding list of values;

e. prioritizing said perspective by assigning weights for each

perspective and for each value in said list, either by positioning or by pairwise comparison according to the number of said list of values, wherein prioritizing said perspective refers to a

prioritizing process;

f. setting a pairwise comparison matrix while adding a combo for every "view"; and

g. recording every combination that is the result of the interaction of said parameters with each value of said list.

2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the prioritizing of the perspective is performed when a list of incoming requirement, that holds all of the parameter values and is assigned to one or more portfolios, meets the requirements of a predefined prioritization process.

3. A method according to claim 2, wherein the prioritizing process repeats itself, wherein each portfolio owner that is located top in the hierarchy can overrule the priorities granted by inferior level portfolio owners.

4. A method according to claim 2, wherein the prioritizing process is executed once and a view of the prioritization is displayed for every scenario when a dominating scenario is presented according to the leading role perspective.

5. A method according to claim 2, wherein the prioritizing process is terminating when the top level portfolio owner approves the priorities granted for the entire hierarchy.

6. A method according to claim 1, wherein the result of the interaction of parameters with the list value is explainable and the arguments that led to said result are clearly presented and can be easily amended.

7. A method according to claim 1, wherein the parameters values are received from an input interface.

8. A method according to claim 1, further comprising providing a computer having a memory for storing data for executing a computer software program for processing the parameters of the decision making process.