Method and apparatus for facilitating evaluation of business opportunities for supplying goods and/or services to potential customers

• US 5,627,973 A
• Filed: 03/14/1994
• Issued: 05/06/1997
• Est. Priority Date: 03/14/1994
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Moore Business Forms Inc.
• Original Assignee: Moore Business Forms Inc.
• Inventors: Armstrong, Hugh E., Vaughan, Suzanne M., Lynch, Gregory T., Bailey, Brad B., McMahon, Judith A., Schweinzger, Gregory C., Schweinzger, Karen L.
• Primary Examiner(s): Weinhardt, Robert A.
• Application Number:
  US08/209,471
• Time in Patent Office: 1,149 Days
• Field of Search: 364/401, 364/402, 364/419.01, 364/419.2, 364/401 R, 434/323, 434/353, 434/354
• US Class Current: 705/7.32
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0203 Market surveys; Market polls

Abstract

A method and apparatus for evaluating business opportunities for supplying goods and services (such as business forms and services) to potential customers takes a quantative approach that allows a user to evaluate a potential customer'"'"'s needs, and the user'"'"'s ability to supply those needs, to see what the area of opportunity for the user to supply that need is. Calculations can also be made comparing the user'"'"'s ability to fulfill the needs to some absolute standard, to also determine an area of emerging technology. A series of questions relating to the customer'"'"'s level of sophistication for predefined business techniques in a number of different categories are inputted into a computer, as well as the responses, and weights and values are assigned to the question responses to indicate a level of sophistication for each possible response of each business technique for each separate category. The user'"'"'s capability of supplying the potential customer'"'"'s needs are also evaluated and this data is inputted into a second computer which calculates, taking into account the weights and values, for each separate category a potential customer'"'"'s score, the user'"'"'s score, and the area of opportunity (which is the difference between the customer'"'"'s score and the user'"'"'s score). Then using a computer controlled printer, the calculations are printed out in graphical form on a sheet of paper, along with other human readable indicia, from which an evaluation of the opportunity, as well as a tool to close a business deal, are supplied.

Claims

1. A method of determining business opportunities for supplying goods and/or services to potential customers, comprising the steps of:

(a) in a first computer having an input element and a storage device, inputting and storing in the storage device a series of questions relating to the level of sophistication of a potential customer'"'"'s predefined business techniques in a plurality of different categories;

(b) collecting responses to the series of questions from step (a) and inputting and storing in the storage device the responses into the first computer;

(c) assigning and storing numerical weights and values to the question responses so as to indicate a level of sophistication for each possible response of each business technique for each separate category;

(d) determining a user'"'"'s score which reflects the user'"'"'s capability of supplying goods and/or services to the potential customer related to the potential customer'"'"'s predefined business techniques;

(e) inputting and storing the data from steps (b), (c) and (d) into a second computer having an input element, a storage device and a processor;

(f) using the processor of the second computer, taking into account the stored weights and values, to determine for each separate category a potential customer'"'"'s score, the user'"'"'s score, and an area of opportunity which is the difference between the potential customer'"'"'s score and the user'"'"'s score; and

(g) using a computer controlled printer, printing out in graphical form on sheet material the determinations from of step (f).

2. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein step (f) is practiced by calculating, and is further practiced to also calculate an area of emerging technology, which is the difference between the user'"'"'s score and a predetermined optimum score;

and wherein step (g) is further practiced to also print out the area of emerging technology for each category.

3. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the goods and/or services to be supplied are paper and electronic business forms and related services;

and wherein steps (a)-(d) are practiced with at least three of forms design, forms control, forms procurement, forms warehousing and distribution, forms inventory management, and accounts payable, as separate categories.

4. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein steps (a) and (c) are practiced by:

grouping each category of questions by elements, sub-elements and points, and wherein some of the questions are limited to one choice while others include "choose all that apply";

assigning values at the point level when a response is limited to one choice, and assigning values to combinations of points when a response is "choose all that apply"; and

assigning weights at the sub-element and element levels.

5. A method as recited in claim 4 comprising the further step of assigning each element from one to three trigger points, including at least one of a current situation trigger, an opportunity trigger, and a great job trigger;

and wherein step (f) is also practiced to compare the trigger value or values to the customer responses.

6. A method as recited in claim 3 wherein steps (a) and (c) are practiced by:

grouping each category of questions by elements, sub-elements and points, and wherein some of the questions are limited to one choice while others include "choose all that apply";

assigning values at the point level when a response is limited to one choice, and assigning values to combinations of points when a response is "choose all that apply"; and

assigning weights at the sub-element and element levels.

7. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the forms control category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 30-40% for a forms control function element, about 15-25% for a forms file element, about 5-15% for a forms numbering element, about 15-25% for a forms catalog element, about 1-10% for a requisitions element, and about 5-15% for an obsolete item identification, resolution, and prevention element.

8. A method as recited in claim 7 wherein for the forms control category said step of assigning weights at the sub-element level is practiced by:

assigning for said forms control function sub-elements a weight of about 55-65% for a sub-element related to existing procedures for forms control activities, about 15-25% to a sub-element relating to assigned responsibilities for forms control functions, and about 15-25% for a sub-element related to a training program for forms control personnel;

assigning for said forms file element about 5-15% for a sub-element relating to if forms file exists, about 25-35% for a sub-element relating to which of specific elements are included in the forms file, and about 55-65% for a sub-element relating to updating of the forms file;

assigning for said forms numbering element about 55-65% for a sub-element relating to the existence of a forms numbering system, and about 35-45% for a sub-element relating to the responsibility for forms numbering;

assigning for said forms catalog element about 5-15% for a sub-element relating to the existence of a forms catalog, about 25-35% for a sub-element relating to the characteristics of forms listed in the forms catalog, about 15-25% for a sub-element relating to how the forms catalog is distributed, and about 35-45% for a sub-element relating to how often the forms catalog is updated;

assigning for said requisitions element about 40-60% for a sub-element relating to the number of line items per requisition, and about 40-60% for a sub-element relating to the maximum number of lines on the most commonly used requisition form or forms; and

assigning for said obsolete item identification, resolution and prevention element a significant weight for a sub-element relating to tools for identifying and remedying obsolete forms.

9. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the forms design category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 5-15% for a forms composition element, about 35-45% for a forms analysis element, about 20-30% for a business systems analysis element, and about 20-30% of a manufacturing capabilities and standard specifications element.

10. A method as recited in claim 9 wherein for the forms design element said step of assigning weights at the sub-element level is practiced by:

assigning for said composition element sub-elements a weight of about 5-20% for a sub-element relating to the existence of an in place forms composition program, about 25-35% for a sub-element relating to which entities are responsible for the approval of new forms and revisions, about 10-20% for a sub-element relating to how proofs are obtained, about 10-20% for a sub-element relating to awareness of graphic standards, and about 5-15% for a sub-element relating to awareness of postal or shipping regulations;

assigning for said forms analysis element sub-elements a weight of about 40-60% for a sub-element relating to the existence of a present forms analysis function, and about 40-60% for a sub-element relating to how the forms analysis function is presently performed;

assigning for said business systems analysis element a significant weight for a sub-element relating to if and how the business analysis system is presently being performed; and

assigning for said manufacturing capabilities and standard specifications element about 25-45% for a sub-element relating to the present awareness and utilization of industry standards, and about 55-75% for a sub-element relating to the present awareness of industry capabilities.

11. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the procurement category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 50-70% for a procurement process element, about 30-40% for a reorder process element, and about 1-20% for an environmental policy element.

12. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the warehousing/distribution category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 30-40% for a warehouse facility characteristics element, about 30-40% for a requisition process element, about 10-20% for a distribution methods element, and about 10-20% for an inventory turns element.

13. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the inventory management system category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 5-15% for a characteristics element, about 5-15% for an access element, about 1-25% for a system software security element, about 20-40% for a features element, about 5-15% for a customer service element, and about 20-40% for a reports element.

14. A method as recited in claim 6 wherein for the accounts payable category said step of assigning weights at the element level is practiced by assigning a weight of about 45-65% for an accounts payable procedures element, and about 35-55% for an accounting procedures element.

15. A method as recited in claim 4 wherein step (f) is practiced by calculating sufficient information to print a three dimensional bar graph;

and wherein step (g) is practiced by printing a three-dimensional bar graph having differently shaded or colored areas for a potential customer'"'"'s score and the user'"'"'s score for each category and for each element within a category, each bar extending in a y-axis between zero and a maximum value, each bar identified by human readable indicia along an x-axis, and a numerical value corresponding to the graphical representation provided within at least some of said differently shaded or colored areas for at least some of said bars.

16. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein step (a) is practiced using a lap top computer as the first computer, and wherein steps (a)-(f) are practiced using with the first and second computers software for providing screen representations, including a plurality of screen-displayed indicia, guiding inputting of data and selection of options.

17. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein step (g) is also practiced to print out analysis information in non-graphical human readable form along with the graphical material.

18. A method as recited in claim 1 comprising the further step (h) of using the printed determinations from step (g) to determine the business opportunity to supply goods and/or services to potential customers.

19. Apparatus for determining business opportunities for supplying goods and/or services to potential customers, comprising:

a portable first computer means including a keyboard and a disc drive for inputting a series of questions relating to the level of sophistication of a potential customer'"'"'s predefined business techniques in a plurality of different categories, and for inputting responses to said questions;

a second computer means including a keyboard and disc drive for inputting in machine readable form data from said first computer means, including said responses to said questions, assigned numerical weights and values, and data regarding the user'"'"'s capability of supplying goods and/or services to the potential customer related to the potential customer'"'"'s predefined business techniques; and

including means for calculating, taking into account said weights and values, for each separate category a potential customer'"'"'s, score, the user'"'"'s score, and an area of opportunity which is the difference between the potential customer'"'"'s score and the user'"'"'s score; and

a computer controlled printer controlled by said second computer means for printing out in human readable form on sheet material the calculations performed by said second computer means.

20. A method of evaluating business opportunities for supplying goods and/or services to potential customers comprising the steps of:

(a) in a first computer having an input element and a storage device, inputting and storing in the storage device a series of questions relating to the level of sophistication of a potential customer'"'"'s predefined business techniques in a plurality of different categories;

(b) collecting responses to the series of questions from step (a) and inputting and storing in the storage device the responses into the first computer;

(c) assigning weights and values to the question responses so as to indicate a level of sophistication for each possible response of each business technique for each separate category;

(d) inputting and storing the data from steps (b) and (c) into a second computer having an input element, a storage device and a processor;

(e) using the processor of the second computer to calculate, taking into account the weights and values for each separate category, a potential customer'"'"'s score;

(f) using a computer controlled printer, printing out on sheet material the information from step (e) in human readable form; and

(g) using the printed information from step (f), evaluating the potential customer'"'"'s needs.

21. A method as recited in claim 20 wherein the goods and/or services to be supplied to potential customers are paper business forms and related services, and wherein steps (a) through (c) are practiced with at least four of forms design, forms control, forms procurement, forms warehousing and distribution, forms inventory management, and accounts payable, as separate categories.

22. A method as recited in claim 20 wherein steps (a) and (c) are practiced by:

grouping each category of questions by elements, sub-elements and points, and wherein some of the questions are limited to one choice while others include "choose all that apply";

assigning values at the point level when a response is limited to one choice, and assigning values to combinations of points when a response is "choose all that apply"; and

assigning weights at the sub-element and element levels.