Determining Lease Quality

• US 20090125347A1
• Filed: 11/14/2007
• Published: 05/14/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 11/14/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Bank of America Corp.
• Original Assignee: Bank of America Corp.
• Inventors: Mau, David G., Becker, Robert G., Volz, Guy H.
• Application Number:
  US11/939,852
• Publication Number:
  US 20090125347A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06393 Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes

Abstract

Leases and other types of agreements may be evaluated based on factors including time to delivery, cost of the agreement and/or quality of agreement. According to one or more aspects, the quality of an agreement may be judged based on the rights and/or provisions obtained in the lease. In one example, points may be awarded for each category (e.g., time, cost and/or quality) based on goals that are met. The points may be totaled and combined to form a composite lease quality score or index. A commission for a partner entity procuring the lease may be determined based on the composite lease quality score or index. For example, if the lease quality index is in a median range, the standard or average commission may be awarded. However, if the lease quality index is at least one standard deviation greater than the median, a higher commission may be awarded.

Claims

1. A method comprising:

receiving contract information including one or more contract provisions;

comparing the contract information to a plurality of evaluation criteria, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria is associated with at least two of;

time parameters, cost parameters and quality parameters; and

determining a composite quality index based on the comparison of the one or more contract provisions and the set of evaluation criteria.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a commission based on the determined composite quality index.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the contract information includes a time needed to obtain the contract and wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes an average time needed to obtain a contract.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein a first evaluation criteria is weighted differently than a second evaluation criteria.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the contract information is associated with a lease agreement.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes the existence of termination rights.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria are defined, at least in part, on market data.

8. One or more computer readable media storing computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform a method comprising:

receiving contract information including one or more contract provisions;

comparing the contract information to a plurality of evaluation criteria, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria is associated with at least two of;

time parameters, cost parameters and quality parameters; and

determining a composite quality index based on the comparison of the one or more contract provisions and the set of evaluation criteria.

9. The one or more computer readable media of claim 8, further comprising instructions for determining a commission based on the determined composite quality index.

10. The one or more computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the contract information includes a time needed to obtain the contract and wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes an average time needed to obtain a contract.

11. The one or more computer readable media of claim 8, wherein a first evaluation criteria is weighted differently than a second evaluation criteria.

12. The one or more computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the contract information is associated with a lease agreement.

13. The one or more computer readable media of claim 12, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes the existence of termination rights.

14. The one or more computer readable media of claim 8, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria are defined, at least in part, on market data.

15. An apparatus comprising:

a processor; and

memory configured to store computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising;

receiving contract information including one or more contract provisions;

comparing the contract information to a plurality of evaluation criteria, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria is associated with at least two of;

time parameters, cost parameters and quality parameters; and

determining a composite quality index based on the comparison of the one or more contract provisions and the set of evaluation criteria.

16. The apparatus of claim 15, further comprising determining a commission based on the determined composite quality index.

17. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the contract information includes a time needed to obtain the contract and wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes an average time needed to obtain a contract.

18. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein a first evaluation criteria is weighted differently than a second evaluation criteria.

19. The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the contract information is associated with a lease agreement.

20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the plurality of evaluation criteria includes the existence of termination rights.