OPERATOR PERFORMANCE REPORT GENERATION

• US 20150199637A1
• Filed: 01/14/2014
• Published: 07/16/2015
• Est. Priority Date: 01/14/2014
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Deere & Company
• Original Assignee: Deere & Company
• Inventors: Pfeiffer, Dohn W., Blank, Sebastian
• Granted Patent: US 9,892,376 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06393 Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/02 Agriculture; Fishing; Forestry; Mining

Abstract

A set of data indicative of sensed parameters on an agricultural machine is evaluated against a reference data set to obtain an evaluation value indicative of how the set of data compares to the reference data. A performance score is generated based on the evaluation value and indicates a performance of a given operator in operating the agricultural machine. An operator performance report is generated based on the performance score.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

receiving a first set of data, corresponding to a given operator, based on sensor signals indicative of sensed parameters, sensed on an agricultural machine while the given operator is operating the agricultural machine;

evaluating the first set of data against a reference data set to obtain an evaluation value indicative of how the first set of data compares to the reference data set;

generating a performance score based on the evaluation value, corresponding to the given operator, indicative of a performance of the given operator in operating the agricultural machine; and

generating an operator performance report based on the performance score.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein evaluating the first set of data against the reference set comprises:

evaluating the first set of data against historical reference data for the given operator.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the given operator works for an organization and wherein evaluating the first set of data against the reference set comprises:

evaluating the first set of data against historical reference data for other operators in the organization.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein evaluating the first set of data against the reference set comprises:

evaluating the first set of data against historical reference data for other operators that have a threshold performance score.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein evaluating comprises:

classifying the first set of data into one of a plurality of performance classes based on how the first set of data compares to the reference data set.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein receiving the first data set comprises:

receiving a plurality of data subsets, each data subset indicative of operator performance in one of a plurality of corresponding performance categories.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6 wherein evaluating comprises:

evaluating each of the data subsets against reference data for the corresponding performance category to obtain an evaluation value corresponding to each performance category.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein evaluating comprises:

evaluating each of the data subsets against reference data for the corresponding performance category to obtain a plurality of different evaluation values corresponding to at least some of the performance categories.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 7 wherein generating the performance score comprises:

generating a performance score for each of the performance categories based on the evaluation value for each of the performance categories.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating the performance score comprises:

generating a composite performance score, indicative of overall operator performance of the given operator, based on the performance scores generated for each performance category.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10 and further comprising:

generating operator recommendations based on the performance scores for each performance category, the operator recommendations being indicative of operational changes to improve the performance scores.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a productivity performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of productivity while operating the agricultural machine.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a logistics performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of logistics while operating the agricultural machine.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a fuel economy performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of fuel economy while operating the agricultural machine.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a harvested material loss performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of harvested material loss.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a harvested material quality performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of harvested material quality.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating a performance score for each of the performance categories comprises:

generating a power utilization performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of power utilization while operating the agricultural machine.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 and further comprising:

generating an uptime information indicative of activity of the given operator in terms of uptime while operating the agricultural machine.

19. The computer-implemented method of claim 9 wherein generating the operator performance report comprises:

generating the report with an operator identifier section identifying the given operator, a performance score overview section displaying a plurality of the different performance scores, and a plurality of performance score detail sections each displaying detailed information for a corresponding performance score displayed in the performance score overview section.

20. A computer system, comprising:

a data evaluation layer that receives first data indicative of sensed operating parameters, sensed while a given operator operates a given agricultural machine, the evaluation layer generating an evaluation value indicative of an evaluation of the first data against a set of reference data;

a pillar score generation layer that receives the evaluation value and generates a performance pillar score, based on the evaluation value, indicative of a relative performance level of the given operator, relative to a performance level represented by the set of reference data; and

a report generator component that generates an operator performance report for the given operator based on the performance pillar score.

21. The computer system of claim 20 wherein the performance pillar score generation layer comprises:

a plurality of different pillar score generators, each generating a different performance pillar score indicative of the relative performance of the given operator, in a given one of a plurality of different performance categories, relative to a performance level represented by the set of reference data in the given performance category.

22. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the report generator generates the operator performance report to show the performance pillar scores for the given operator.

23. The computer system of claim 21 and further comprising:

a composite score generator that generates a composite performance score indicative of an overall performance of the given operator, in operating the given agricultural machine, relative to the performance level represented by the set of reference data, based on the performance pillar scores for the given operator.

24. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the data evaluation layer comprises:

a plurality of evaluation components, each evaluating a subset of the first data against corresponding reference data in the set of reference data, and each evaluation component providing a corresponding evaluation value related to one of the plurality of different performance categories.

25. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of different pillar score generators comprise:

a productivity score generator that generates a productivity performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of productivity.

26. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of different pillar score generators comprise:

a power utilization score generator that generates a power utilization performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of power utilization.

27. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of different pillar score generators comprise:

a fuel economy score generator that generates a fuel economy performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of fuel economy.

28. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of different pillar score generators comprise:

a material loss score generator that generates a material loss performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of material loss.

29. The computer system of claim 21 wherein the plurality of different pillar score generators comprise:

a material quality score generator that generates a material quality performance score indicative of a performance of the given operator in terms of material quality.