System and method for defining the organizational structure...

Data processing: financial – business practice – management – or co – Automated electrical financial or business practice or... – Operations research or analysis

Reexamination Certificate

Rate now

  [ 0.00 ] – not rated yet Voters 0   Comments 0

Details

C705S002000, C705S002000, C705S014270, C709S241000, C709S241000, C709S241000, C709S241000

Reexamination Certificate

active

06615182

ABSTRACT:

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates generally to evaluation tools, and more particularly to a system and method for defining the organizational structure of an enterprise in a performance evaluation system.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Evaluation tools are used to gather and record productivity and quality statistics for a business or other organization. Analysis of such information allows inefficiencies and other problems of the business to be identified and corrected. In this way, business performance is maximized.
Traditionally, evaluation tools are implemented on stand-alone systems that are unable to effectively communicate with other resources in a network environment. Other problems include the use of predefined organizational structures that cannot be modified to match the organizational structure of a business. In addition, privileges, evaluations, and reports are generally hard-coded for each evaluation tool. Such customization leads to high implementation and administration cost.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In accordance with the present invention, a performance evaluation system is provided that substantially eliminates or reduces disadvantages or problems associated with the previously developed systems. In particular, the present invention provides a performance evaluation system in which the organizational structure of an enterprise is accurately defined to custom fit quality and productivity tools to the structure of the enterprise.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the organizational structure of an enterprise is defined in a performance evaluation system by storing a plurality of user-defined levels. A user-defined hierarchy is stored for the levels. A plurality of user-defined members are also stored. Each member is associated with a level to define the organizational structure of the enterprise. The performance evaluation system may generate a user view based on the user-defined levels, hierarchy and members and the assignment of members to levels.
More specifically, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, the user-defined levels are stored by listing the levels in a first database table. In this embodiment, the user-defined hierarchy is stored in a second database table. The hierarchy includes an assignment for each lower level in the hierarchy to a higher level in the hierarchy. The user-defined members are stored by listing the members in a third database table. The members are each associated with a level by storing a user-assigned level for the members in the third database table.
Technical advantages of the present invention include providing an improved performance evaluation system. In particular, the performance evaluation system uses a web-base architecture that allows performance evaluation methodology to be standardized throughout an enterprises In addition, users can take advantage of the Internet or other network to remotely access the performance evaluation system and complete member evaluations. Members can also remotely track their progress.
Another technical advantage of the present invention includes providing a performance evaluation system that can be customized to fit the organizational structure of an enterprise. In particular, users may define levels and a hierarchy for the levels within the performance evaluation system that match that of the enterprise. As a result, quality and productivity tools are customized to fit the structure of the enterprise.
Other technical advantages will be readily apparent to one skilled in the art from the following figures, description, and claims.


REFERENCES:
patent: 4476535 (1984-10-01), Loshing et al.
patent: 4764867 (1988-08-01), Hess
patent: 5017917 (1991-05-01), Fisher et al.
patent: 5172313 (1992-12-01), Schumacher
patent: 5233513 (1993-08-01), Doyle
patent: 5241621 (1993-08-01), Smart
patent: 5321621 (1994-06-01), Sainen
patent: 5349663 (1994-09-01), Bailey
patent: 5406477 (1995-04-01), Harhen
patent: 5493489 (1996-02-01), Tamaki et al.
patent: 5500795 (1996-03-01), Powers et al.
patent: 5551880 (1996-09-01), Bonnstetter et al.
patent: 5617342 (1997-04-01), Elazouni
patent: 5630069 (1997-05-01), Flores et al.
patent: 5655118 (1997-08-01), Heindel et al.
patent: 5675745 (1997-10-01), Oku et al.
patent: 5684964 (1997-11-01), Powers et al.
patent: 5726914 (1998-03-01), Janovski et al.
patent: 5734837 (1998-03-01), Flores et al.
patent: 5784452 (1998-07-01), Carney
patent: 5799286 (1998-08-01), Morgan et al.
patent: 5809131 (1998-09-01), Ichikawa et al.
patent: 5812135 (1998-09-01), Kotchey
patent: 5909669 (1999-06-01), Havens
patent: 6088679 (2000-07-01), Barkley
patent: 6298349 (2001-10-01), Toyoshima et al.
patent: 0 587 290 (1993-07-01), None
patent: 0 644 510 (1994-09-01), None
patent: 2221068 (1990-01-01), None
patent: WO 97/31320 (1997-08-01), None
Search Report re: PCT/ US 99/ 10143, Sep. 16, 1999.
Teknekron Infoswitch Corporation, “P&Q Review!™ Productivity and Quality Performance Evaluation, Getting Started Guide,” Version 2 #151-0801-002, Jun. 1995.
Prof. Dr. A.W. Scheer and A. Hars, “From CIM to Enterprise-Wide Data Modeling,” ICCIM '91 Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Singapore, pp. 89-92, Oct. 2-4, 1991.
R.L. Katz, “Business/enterprise modeling,” IBM Systems Journal, Armonk, New York, vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 509-525, 1990.
Hunter, William C; “Internal organization and economic performance: The case of large U.S. commercial banks” Economic Perspectives (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) v19n5 pp: 10-20, Sep. 1995.*
Halachmi et al.; “Performance measurement, organizational technology and organizational design”, Work Study v43n3 pp: 19-25, May 1994.*
Louis et al., Determinants of business process reengineering success in small and large enterprises: .. , Journal of Small Business Management vol.:36 p.: 72(14p). Jan. 01, 1998.*
Hebeler et al; Unfettered leverage: the ascendancy of knowledge-rich products and processes., Business Horizons vol.: v40 Issue: n4, Jul. 1, 1997.

LandOfFree

Say what you really think

Search LandOfFree.com for the USA inventors and patents. Rate them and share your experience with other people.

Rating

System and method for defining the organizational structure... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with System and method for defining the organizational structure..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and System and method for defining the organizational structure... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

     

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3070657

  Search
All data on this website is collected from public sources. Our data reflects the most accurate information available at the time of publication.