System and method of enterprise risk evaluation and planning

• US 20050137932A1
• Filed: 12/23/2003
• Published: 06/23/2005
• Est. Priority Date: 12/23/2003
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Lockheed Martin Corporation (Martin Marietta Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Lockheed Martin Corporation (Martin Marietta Corporation)
• Inventors: Wild, Lisa M., D'Angelo, Joseph Karl, Myers, Bradley Bernard, Woodard, David Kenneth, O'Bryne, Wei-San L., Lakitsky, Joseph David
• Application Number:
  US10/745,231
• Publication Number:
  US 20050137932A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/10
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0635 Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities

Abstract

A system and method support strategic decision making for an enterprise. Status of various aspects of the enterprise can be evaluated. Alternately, feedback can be provided as to the consequences of various courses of action.

Claims

1. An evaluation system comprising:

a database of enterprise related information;

query software for presenting an informational inquiry to the database; and

evaluation software, responsive to a presented inquiry which evaluates information in the database in accordance with predetermined criteria.

2. A system as in claim 1 where the evaluation software includes at least first and second evaluation software, where the criteria include at least first and second different respective criteria and where information in the database is evaluated in accordance with the first and second criteria.

3. A system as in claim 2 where the first criteria include a first set of multiple parameters associated with information in the database.

4. A system as in claim 3 where the enterprise related information comprises a set of computer programs.

5. A system as in claim 4 where the first set of parameters comprises parameters indicative of at least one of program technology, program functionality, program maintainability program support, availability of trained support staff, documentation, program reliability, or disaster recovery.

6. A system as in claim 5 where the first software evaluates the set of computer programs using the first set of parameters.

7. A system as in claim 6 where multi-element rating designations are applied to the results of the evaluation by the first software.

8. A system as in claim 2 where the second criteria include a second set of multiple parameters associated with information in the database.

9. A system as in claim 8 where the enterprise related information comprises a set of computer programs.

10. A system as in claim 9 where the second set of parameters comprises parameters indicative of at least one of program health, program adaptability, characteristics of user interface, assessment of data management characteristics, program security, or program integration.

11. A system as in claim 10 where the second software evaluates the set of computer programs using the second set of parameters.

12. A system as in claim 11 where multi-element rating designations are applied to the results of the evaluation by the second software.

13. A system as in claim 2 which includes third evaluation criteria.

14. A system as in claim 1 where the information in the database pertains to a plurality of programs and the software evaluates at least some of the programs in accordance with the predetermined criteria.

15. A system as in claim 2 where the information in the database pertains to a plurality of programs and the first and second software evaluate at least some of the programs in accordance with the first and second criteria.

16. A system as in claim 1 where the database comprises a relational database which incorporates enterprise related information and selected linkages therebetween.

17. A system as in claim 2 where the first criteria relate to at least one of program health, technology, program functionality or program maintainability.

18. A system as in claim 17 where the second criteria relate to at least one of program maturity, program adaptability, program security, program integration.

19. A system as in claim 17 which develops a risk profile relative to at least the first criteria.

20. A system as in claim 18 which develops first and second risk profiles relative to at least the first and second criteria.

21. A system as in claim 20 which in response to at least another inquiry presents a risk modifying plan.

22. A system as in claim 2 which includes third software for specifying a set of enterprise related properties in the database.

23. A system as in claim 22 where the first software evaluates the set of properties in accordance with the first criteria.

24. A system as in claim 23 which includes fourth software to apply multi-level ratings to the results of the evaluation by the first software.

25. A system as in claim 22 where the second software evaluates the set of properties in accordance with the second criteria.

26. A system as in claim 25 which includes fourth software to apply multi-level ratings to the results of the evaluation by the second software.

35. Software as in claim 2 where the assets comprise computer programs, the first criteria corresponds to program condition and the second criteria corresponds to program maturity.

36. Software as in claim 35 which includes a third criterion which corresponds to risk.

27. Enterprise evaluation software recorded on at least one computer readable medium comprising:

first software that evaluates enterprise assets in accordance with a first criteria; and

second software that evaluates those assets in accordance with a second, different, criteria.

28. Software as in claim 27 which provides evaluation results in accordance with at least one pre-established parameter.

29. Software as in claim 28 where the first software evaluates assets in accordance with at least one of underlying technology, asset functionality or asset maintainability.

30. Software as in claim 28 where the second software evaluates assets in accordance with at least one of asset health, asset scalability, asset adaptability, asset security, or integration.

31. Software as in claim 28 which includes third software to access a pre-established database.

32. Software as in claim 31 which includes graphical user interface software to enter queries relative to data in the database.

33. Software as in claim 29 where the second software evaluates assets in accordance with at least one of asset maturity, asset scalability, asset adaptability, asset security, or integration.

34. Software as in claim 33 which includes additional software, responsive to the evaluations, to present the evaluated assets in accordance with a third criteria.

37. A method comprising:

selecting a set of assets;

automatically evaluating the assets in accordance with first criteria; and

automatically evaluating the assets in accordance with second, different, criteria.

38. A method as in claim 37 which includes, in response to the results of the evaluations, establishing the relationship of the members of the set of assets to at least one selected category.

39. A method as in claim 38 where the establishing includes evaluating risks associated with members of the set of assets.

40. A method as in claim 38 where the members of the set of assets are associated with one of a plurality of ratings in response to the evaluations.

41. A method as in claim 37 which includes establishing multi-factor first criteria for automatically evaluating the assets.

42. A method as in claim 41 which includes assigning one of a plurality of ratings to assets of the set in response to automatically evaluating in response to the first criteria.

43. A method as in claim 42 which includes establishing multi-factor second criteria for automatically evaluating the assets.

44. A method as in claim 43 which includes assigning one of a plurality of ratings to assets of the set in response to automatically evaluating in response to the second criteria.