Performance rating of a business

• US 20080312988A1
• Filed: 06/14/2007
• Published: 12/18/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 06/14/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: AKZO Nobel Coatings International BV (Nouryon BV)
• Original Assignee: AKZO Nobel Coatings International BV (Nouryon BV)
• Inventors: Knapp, David, Sillay, Michael, Trapp, Steven
• Application Number:
  US11/818,459
• Publication Number:
  US 20080312988A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/0639 Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06395 Quality analysis or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0201 Market modelling; Market analysis; Collecting market data

Abstract

Method for performance rating of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client computers linked to the server computer by a communication network, the method including defining performance metrics related to performance of the business entity; defining desired weighting for each metric; obtaining performance data for the business entity for each metric; defining a rating scale for each metric, wherein the rating scale for at least one performance metric is determined based on statistical data derived from a plurality of comparative business entities; comparing the performance data for the business entity to the rating scale for each metric; and deducing a performance rating for the business entity on the basis of the comparison between the performance data and the rating scale, and the desired weighting, for each metric.

Claims

1. A method for performance rating of a business entity using a server computer and one or more remote client computers linked to said server computer by a communication network, said method comprising:

(a) defining a plurality of performance metrics related to performance of said business entity;

(b) defining desired weighting for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(c) obtaining performance data for said business entity for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(d) defining a rating scale for each performance metric, wherein the rating scale for at least one performance metric is determined based on statistical data derived from a plurality of comparative business entities for said at least one performance metric;

(e) comparing said performance data for said business entity to said rating scale for each performance metric; and

(f) deducing a performance rating for said business entity on the basis of the comparison between said performance data from said business entity and said rating scale, and said desired weighting, for each performance metric.

2. A method according to claim 1, wherein step (f) comprises the steps of:

(g) determining an unweighted metric rating for each performance metric on the basis of the comparison between said performance data from said business entity and said rating scale for each performance metric;

(h) calculating a weighted score for each performance metric on the basis of said desired weighting and said unweighted metric rating; and

(i) calculating said performance rating for said business entity on the basis of all weighted scores.

3. A method according to claim 2, wherein said business entity is a service business entity.

4. A method according to claim 3, wherein said service business entity is a collision repair shop.

5. A method according to claim 4, wherein said plurality of performance metrics includes at least two metrics selected from the group consisting of weighted repair severity, percent supplemented, number of supplements, ratio of parts as percentage of sales, alternative parts percentage, ratio of repairs to replacements, PCI (percent of estimates passing chosen insurer'"'"'s audit profile), reinspection results, closed claim compliance, CSI (consumer survey information), days late, severity weighted cycle time, repair quality index, CIC “

Class A”

criteria qualification and manufacturer approved repair.

6. A method according to claim 4, wherein said client is selected from the group consisting of said business entity, another collision repair shop, consumer, insurance agent, insurance claims personnel, auto dealership, fleet administrator and other stakeholder involved in the collision repair process.

7. A method according to claim 6, wherein said client is said business entity.

8. A method according to claim 2, wherein said rating scale is determined based on statistical data derived from a plurality of comparative business entities for each performance metric.

9. A method according to claim 8, wherein outlying, extraneous or extrinsic data points are excluded from said statistical data prior to making said determination.

10. A method according to claim 8, wherein said rating scale is a graduated scale ranging from 1 to 10 proportionate with a range of values for each metric, ranging from a least desired value to a most desired value, wherein said range of values is based on statistical analysis of performance data obtained from said plurality of comparative business entities.

11. A method according to claim 10, wherein said values corresponding to 1 and 10 on the rating scale are calculated as functions of the standard deviation of the performance data obtained from said plurality of comparative business entities, with the proviso that if said calculated values fall outside of an actual performance limit, then the value will be set to that actual performance limit.

12. A method according to claim 11, wherein the calculated value corresponding to 1 on the rating scale is equal to two standard deviations below the median value of the performance data and the calculated value corresponding to 10 on the rating scale is equal to one standard deviation above the median value.

13. A method according to claim 10, wherein said values corresponding to 1 and 10 on the rating scale are calculated as functions of a percentage of difference from selected data points from said performance data or functions of said performance data from a percentage of said comparative business entities.

14. A method according to claim 13, wherein the values for the highest and lowest 10% of said comparative business entities are disregarded and the value corresponding to 1 on the rating scale is equal to the least desired value from the remaining business entities and the value corresponding to 10 on the rating scale is equal to the most desired value from the remaining business entities.

15. A method according to claim 10, wherein said values corresponding to 1 and 10 on the rating scale are each calculated by different methods selected from the group consisting of a function of the standard deviation of the performance data, a function of a percentage of difference from selected data points from said performance data and a function of said performance data from a percentage of said comparative business entities, with the proviso that if a calculated value falls outside of an actual performance limit, then the value will be set to that actual performance limit.

16. A method according to claim 10, wherein said plurality of comparative business entities includes said business entity.

17. A method according to claim 10, wherein said step of obtaining performance data from said plurality of comparative business comprises uploading said performance data from one or more remote comparative business computers linked to said server computer by a communication network.

18. A method according to claim 10, wherein said step of obtaining performance data from said plurality of business entities comprises uploading said performance data from one or more remote third party verification computers linked to said server computer by a communication network.

19. A method according to claim 10, wherein said desired weighting is a number representing a percentage of the total desired weighting for all metrics of said plurality of performance metrics, with the proviso that the sum of all desired weightings is 100.

20. A method according to claim 10, wherein said step (g) of determining an unweighted metric rating comprises identifying where said performance data from said business entity falls on said rating scale relative to said range of values derived from said plurality of comparative business entities.

21. A method according to claim 20, wherein said step (h) of calculating said weighted score comprises multiplying said desired weighting by said unweighted metric rating divided by 10.

22. A method according to claim 21, wherein said step (i) of calculating said performance rating comprises determining the sum total of all weighted scores.

23. A method according to claim 2, wherein said step (c) of obtaining performance data for said business entity comprises uploading said performance data on a periodic basis from one or more remote business entity computers linked to said server computer by a communication network.

24. A method according to claim 2, wherein said step (c) of obtaining performance data for said business entity comprises uploading said performance data on a periodic basis from one or more remote third party verification computers linked to said server computer by a communication network.

25. A method according to claim 1, wherein said business entity is certified prior to receiving said performance rating.

26. A computer implemented system for performance rating of a business entity, comprising:

a processor for receiving and transmitting data; and

a memory coupled to said processor, the memory having stored therein sequences of instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of;

(a) defining a plurality of performance metrics related to performance of said business entity;

(b) defining desired weighting for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(c) obtaining performance data for said business entity for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(d) defining a rating scale for each performance metric, wherein the rating scale for at least one performance metric is determined based on statistical data derived from a plurality of comparative business entities for said at least one performance metric;

(e) comparing said performance data for said business entity to said rating scale for each performance metric; and

(f) deducing a performance rating for said business entity on the basis of the comparison between said performance data from said business entity and said rating scale, and said desired weighting, for each performance metric.

27. A computer implemented system according to claim 26, wherein said business entity is a collision repair shop and said plurality of performance metrics includes at least two metrics selected from the group consisting of weighted repair severity, percent supplemented, number of supplements, ratio of parts as percentage of sales, alternative parts percentage, ratio of repairs to replacements, PCI (percent of estimates passing chosen insurer'"'"'s audit profile), reinspection results, closed claim compliance, CSI (consumer survey information), days late, severity weighted cycle time, repair quality index, CIC “

Class A”

criteria qualification and manufacturer approved repair.

28. A computer-readable medium whose contents cause a computer system to determine a performance rating of a business entity by performing the steps of:

(a) defining a plurality of performance metrics related to performance of said business entity;

(b) defining desired weighting for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(c) obtaining performance data for said business entity for each performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics;

(d) defining a rating scale for each performance metric, wherein the rating scale for at least one performance metric is determined based on statistical data derived from a plurality of comparative business entities for said at least one performance metric;

(e) comparing said performance data for said business entity to said rating scale for each performance metric; and

(f) deducing a performance rating for said business entity on the basis of the comparison between said performance data from said business entity and said rating scale, and said desired weighting, for each performance metric.

29. A computer-readable medium according to claim 28, wherein said business entity is a collision repair shop and said plurality of performance metrics includes at least two metrics selected from the group consisting of weighted repair severity, percent supplemented, number of supplements, ratio of parts as percentage of sales, alternative parts percentage, ratio of repairs to replacements, PCI (percent of estimates passing chosen insurer'"'"'s audit profile), reinspection results, closed claim compliance, CSI (consumer survey information), days late, severity weighted cycle time, repair quality index, CIC “

Class A”

criteria qualification and manufacturer approved repair.