AUTOMATED FEATURE-BASED ANALYSIS FOR COST MANAGEMENT OF DIRECT MATERIALS

• US 20110060601A1
• Filed: 11/12/2010
• Published: 03/10/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 03/09/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: KPIT Infosystems incorporated
• Original Assignee: KPIT Infosystems incorporated
• Inventors: Holland, Breet, Elck, Stephen G., Stacklin, J. Alan
• Application Number:
  US12/945,696
• Publication Number:
  US 20110060601A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/1.1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0283 Price estimation or determination
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 99/00 Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass

Abstract

A system and method for managing costs of a target part is presented, The system and method entails five steps, First, the system and method provides features characteristics information of the target part. Second, system and method provides financial information related to the target part. Third, the system and method provides purchasing demand information related to the target part. Fourth, the system and method analyzes the features characteristics data, financial information, and purchasing demand information. Finally, the system and method compares the target part should cost to a supplier'"'"'s price of the target part to determine cost saving opportunities.

Claims

1. A method of evaluating a capability of one or more suppliers of a part, the method comprising:

receiving values of each of a plurality of feature characteristics of a part;

receiving, a range of values for each of the plurality of feature characteristics for one or more suppliers;

comparing each feature characteristic value of the part with the range of feature characteristic values for the one or more suppliers; and

determining a fit rating for each of the one or more suppliers based on the comparison, the fit rating indicating the capability of each of the one or more suppliers.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of feature characteristics comprises at least one of:

a physical characteristic of the part;

a financial characteristic of the part; and

a purchasing demand characteristic of the part.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the physical characteristic of the part comprises at least one of:

height;

volume;

surface area;

heat treatment; and

tensile properties.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining the fit rating comprises calculating a percentage of feature characteristics within the range of values for each of the one or more suppliers.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising calculating the average percentage above a target cost for each of the one or more suppliers.

6. The method of claim 5, further comprising determining a best supplier for the part among the one or more suppliers based on the fit rating and the average percentage above target cost of each of the one or more suppliers.

7. A method of evaluating a capability of one or more suppliers of a part, the method comprising:

determining values for feature characteristics for at least one part;

calculating a range of supplier values for each feature characteristic for each part;

comparing the feature characteristic values, for the at least one part with the range of supplier values; and

determining, a fit rating based on the comparison, the fit rating indicating the capability of one or more suppliers.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the feature characteristics comprise at least one of:

a physical characteristic of the part;

a financial characteristic of the part; and

purchasing demand characteristic of the part.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the physical characteristic of the part comprises at least one of:

height;

volume;

surface area;

heat treatment; and

tensile properties.

10. The method of claim 7, wherein the step of determining the fit rating comprises calculating a percentage of feature characteristics within the range of supplier values.

11. The method of claim 7, further comprising calculating the average percentage above a target cost for each of the one or more suppliers.

12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining a best supplier for the part based on the fit rating and the average percentage above target cost of each of the one or more suppliers.

13. A computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for performing a method for managing costs of a target part, the method comprising:

receiving values of each of a plurality of feature characteristics of a part;

receiving a range of values for each of the plurality of feature characteristics for one or more suppliers;

comparing each feature characteristic value of the part with the range of feature characteristic values for the one or more suppliers; and

determining a fit rating for each of the one or more suppliers based on the comparison, the fit rating indicating the capability of each of the one or more suppliers.

14. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the plurality of feature characteristics includes at least one of;

a physical characteristic of the part;

a financial characteristic of the part; and

purchasing demand characteristic of the part.

15. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the physical characteristic of the part comprises at least one of:

height;

volume;

surface area;

heat treatment; and

tensile properties.

16. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, further comprising displaying a fit rating for each of the one or more suppliers.

17. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the step of determining the fit rating comprises calculating a percentage of feature characteristics within the range of values.

18. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, further comprising calculating the average percentage above a target cost for each of the one or more suppliers.

19. The computer-readable medium of claim 18, further comprising determining a best supplier for the part based on the fit rating and the average percentage above target cost of each of the one or more suppliers.

20. The computer-readable medium of claim 19, further comprising indicating the best supplier for the part on a display.