AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEM PROJECT MANAGEMENT

• US 20090192836A1
• Filed: 01/24/2008
• Published: 07/30/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 01/24/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Patrick Kelly
• Original Assignee: Patrick Kelly
• Inventors: Kelly, Patrick
• Application Number:
  US12/018,968
• Publication Number:
  US 20090192836A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/7.32
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0203 Market surveys; Market polls

Abstract

Test system project management processes, algorithms and software are described. The combination of the processes, algorithms and software provides a means to effectively management new the testing procedures for new product introductions from initial specification of the testing requirements all the way through implementation. The automated system allows the work to be broken down into defined sub-projects such that individual experts will have defined and documented tasks contributing to the completion of the testing regime. Tracking and evaluation algorithms are also presented. The system has been found to reduce the risk of new product introductions through thorough documentation and monitored implementation. The system also includes negotiation schema that provide optimized supplier selection to design and complete the testing system at an effective cost.

Claims

1. An automated test system program comprising:

a) an interview process comprising programmed questions and customer responses that defines specifications for a customer'"'"'s product to be tested and specifications for a required test system.

2. The test system program of claim 1 wherein the specifications include hardware and software specifications for the product and hardware and software specifications for the required test system.

3. The test system program of claim 1 further comprising a help program comprising suggested customer responses in the interview process.

4. The test system program of claim 3 where the interview process further comprises a program to modify later questions based upon responses to earlier questions.

5. The test system program of claim 4 wherein the suggested responses are categorical responses that allow later questions to be selected based upon the set of categorical responses to earlier questions.

6. The test system program of claim 1 where the interview process automatically creates a specification document.

7. The test system program of claim 1 wherein the interview process includes automatic selection of experts based upon responses to questions.

8. The test system program of claim 1 further comprising:

a) a supplier selection process to select a supplier or set of suppliers,

b) an implementation process including algorithms for a dashboard status report, and

c) an evaluation process.

9. The test system program of claim 8 where the supplier selection process includes a reverse pseudo auction negotiation process.

10. The test system program of claim 9 wherein the reverse pseudo auction includes rules limiting the maximum bid, the increment between bids and the time between bids.

11. The test system program of claim 10 wherein the increment between bids is limited to no more than 10% and the time between bids is at least 24 hours.

12. The test system program of claim 8 where the supplier selection process automatically generates a binding contract between suppliers and the customer.

13. The test system program of claim 8 wherein the supplier selection process further includes a message board available to the suppliers for project specification inquiries.

14. The test system program of claim 8 where the dashboard status report further comprises a customer commitment index.

15. The test system program of claim 14 wherein the customer commitment index is at least partially based upon whether the customer pays for expert advice.

16. The test system program of claim 8 where the specifications include milestones, validation requirements for completion of milestones, and a sign-off process for completion of milestones.

17. The test system program of claim 16 where the dashboard status report further comprises a project completion algorithm.

18. The test system program of claim 17 where the project completion algorithm weights the completion of the specifications at about 35%, completion of the implementation milestones at about 40%, completion of the validation process at about 10%, completion of test plans at about 10% and completion of the sign-off process at about 5%.

19. The test system program of claim 8 wherein the evaluation process automatically creates a database of past assessments of project success.

20. The test system program of claim 19 wherein the database includes customer ratings for overall project success, on-schedule, suppliers'"'"' technical skills, suppliers'"'"' communication skills and rankings of suppliers as to cost bids.

21. The test system program of claim 20 wherein the database information is available to the customer during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.

22. The test system program of claim 21 wherein the customer may update the database during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.

23. A networked computing system programmed to provide an automated test system program comprising:

a) an interview process comprising programmed questions and customer responses that defines specifications for a customer'"'"'s product to be tested and specifications for a required test system.

24. The computing system of claim 23 wherein the specifications include hardware and software specifications for the product and hardware and software specifications for the required test system.

25. The computing system of claim 23 further comprising a help program comprising suggested customer responses in the interview process.

26. The computing system of claim 25 where the interview process further comprises a program to modify later questions based upon responses to earlier questions.

27. The computing system of claim 26 wherein the suggested responses are categorical responses that allow later questions to be selected based upon the set of categorical responses to earlier questions.

28. The computing system of claim 23 where the interview process automatically creates a specification document.

29. The computing system of claim 23 wherein the interview process includes automatic selection of experts based upon responses to questions.

30. The computing system of claim 23 further comprising:

a) a supplier selection process to select a supplier or set of suppliers,

b) an implementation process including algorithms for a dashboard status report, and

c) an evaluation process.

31. The computing system of claim 30 where the supplier selection process includes a reverse pseudo auction negotiation process.

32. The computing system of claim 31 wherein the reverse pseudo auction includes rules limiting the maximum bid, the increment between bids and the time between bids.

33. The computing system of claim 32 wherein the increment between bids is limited to no more than 10% and the time between bids is at least 24 hours.

34. The computing system of claim 30 where the supplier selection process automatically generates a binding contract between suppliers and the customer.

35. The computing system of claim 30 wherein the supplier selection process further includes a message board available to the suppliers for project specification inquiries.

36. The computing system of claim 30 where the dashboard status report further comprises a customer commitment index.

37. The computing system of claim 36 wherein the customer commitment index is at least partially based upon whether the customer pays for expert advice.

38. The computing system of claim 30 where the specifications include milestones, validation requirements for completion of milestones, and a sign-off process for completion of milestones.

39. The computing system of claim 38 where the dashboard status report further comprises a project completion algorithm.

40. The computing system of claim 39 where the project completion algorithm weights the completion of the specifications at about 35%, completion of the implementation milestones at about 40%, completion of the validation process at about 10%, completion of test plans at about 10% and completion of the sign-off process at about 5%.

41. The computing system of claim 30 wherein the evaluation process automatically creates a database of past assessments of project success.

42. The computing system of claim 41 wherein the database includes customer ratings for overall project success, on-schedule, suppliers'"'"' technical skills, suppliers'"'"' communication skills and rankings of suppliers as to cost bids.

43. The computing system of claim 42 wherein the database information is available to the customer during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.

44. The computing system of claim 43 wherein the customer may update the database during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.

45. A computer readable memory device upon which is encoded a computer program to implement an automated test system comprising:

a) an interview process comprising programmed questions and customer responses that defines specifications for a customer'"'"'s product to be tested and specifications for a required test system.

46. The memory device of claim 45 wherein the specifications include hardware and software specifications for the product and hardware and software specifications for the required test system.

47. The memory device of claim 45 further comprising a help program comprising suggested customer responses in the interview process.

48. The memory device of claim 47 where the interview process further comprises a program to modify later questions based upon responses to earlier questions.

49. The memory device of claim 48 wherein the suggested responses are categorical responses that allow later questions to be selected based upon the set of categorical responses to earlier questions.

50. The memory device of claim 45 where the interview process automatically creates a specification document.

51. The memory device of claim 45 wherein the interview process includes automatic selection of experts based upon responses to questions.

52. The memory device of claim 45 further comprising:

a) a supplier selection process to select a supplier or set of suppliers,

b) an implementation process including algorithms for a dashboard status report, and

c) an evaluation process.

53. The memory device of claim 52 where the supplier selection process includes a reverse pseudo auction negotiation process.

54. The memory device of claim 53 wherein the reverse pseudo auction includes rules limiting the maximum bid, the increment between bids and the time between bids.

55. The memory device of claim 54 wherein the increment between bids is limited to no more than 10% and the time between bids is at least 24 hours.

56. The memory device of claim 52 where the supplier selection process automatically generates a binding contract between suppliers and the customer.

57. The memory device of claim 52 wherein the supplier selection process further includes a message board available to the suppliers for project specification inquiries.

58. The memory device of claim 52 where the dashboard status report further comprises a customer commitment index.

59. The memory device of claim 58 wherein the customer commitment index is at least partially based upon whether the customer pays for expert advice.

60. The memory device of claim 52 where the specifications include milestones, validation requirements for completion of milestones, and a sign-off process for completion of milestones.

61. The memory device of claim 60 where the dashboard status report further comprises a project completion algorithm.

62. The memory device of claim 61 where the project completion algorithm weights the completion of the specifications at about 35%, completion of the implementation milestones at about 40%, completion of the validation process at about 10%, completion of test plans at about 10% and completion of the sign-off process at about 5%.

63. The memory device of claim 52 wherein the evaluation process automatically creates a database of past assessments of project success.

64. The memory device of claim 63 wherein the database includes customer ratings for overall project success, on-schedule, suppliers'"'"' technical skills, suppliers'"'"' communication skills and rankings of suppliers as to cost bids.

65. The memory device of claim 64 wherein the database information is available to the customer during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.

66. The memory device of claim 65 wherein the customer may update the database during the interview process, the supplier selection process, the implementation process and the evaluation process.