System and method for analyzing procurement decisions and customer satisfaction

• US 5,734,890 A
• Filed: 08/22/1995
• Issued: 03/31/1998
• Est. Priority Date: 09/12/1994
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: The Gartner Group
• Original Assignee: The Gartner Group
• Inventors: Stein, David, Case, Richard H.
• Primary Examiner(s): Black, Thomas G.
• Assistant Examiner(s): Coby, Frantz
• Application Number:
  US08/518,065
• Time in Patent Office: 952 Days
• Field of Search: 364/401, 364/419, 395/605, 395/606
• US Class Current: 1/1
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/02 Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 707/99935 Query augmenting and refining, e.g. inexact access
• CPC Class Codes: Y10S 707/99936 Pattern matching access

Abstract

A decision tool and method are provided for analyzing a decision among at least two alternatives based upon a plurality of criteria. The decision tool and method allow decision table data collected from a plurality of decision makers to be accurately aggregated, compared, and disaggregated. The decision tool and method also allow for generation of a prioritized list of areas where action can have maximum impact in the mind of decision makers. This may provide a guide for optimal allocation of resources to influence the outcome of a decision. An evaluation tool and method may be used to evaluate and improve customer satisfaction based upon a similar prioritized list.

Claims

1. A decision tool for analyzing decisions by a plurality of decision makers among at least two alternatives based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by the plurality of decision makers, said decision tool comprising:

a memory containing predetermined instructions and at least two data structures, a first data structure and a second data structure;

a processing unit operatively coupled to the memory and capable of executing the predetermined instructions;

an output device operatively coupled to the memory and the processing unit;

wherein for each of the criteria, each data structure associates a measure of importance for the criterion and a rating measurement for each of the alternatives representative of the evaluation by one of the plurality of decision makers, and at least one justification for each rating measurement;

wherein the processing unit executes the predetermined instructions to;

produce a combined measurement for a group of the criteria wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon the product of average normalized importance and competitive edge for each respective criterion in the group;

rank the respective criterion in the group based upon said combined measurement;

selectively access the justifications associated with each respective criterion in the group of the criteria in accordance with the ranking of the respective criterion; and

output the selected justifications on the output device.

2. An evaluation tool for analyzing customer satisfaction among at least two alternatives based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by a plurality of customers, said evaluation tool comprising:

a memory containing predetermined instructions and at least two data structures, a first data structure and a second data structure;

a processing unit operatively coupled to the memory and capable of executing the predetermined instructions;

an output device operatively coupled to the memory and the processing unit;

wherein for each of the criteria, each data structure associates a measure of importance for the criterion and a rating measurement for each of the alternatives representative of the evaluation by one of the plurality of customers, and at least one justification for each rating measurement;

wherein the processing unit executes the predetermined instructions to;

produce a combined measurement for a group of the criteria wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon the product of average normalized importance and competitive edge for each respective criterion in the group;

rank the respective criterion in the group based upon said combined measurement;

selectively access the justifications associated with each respective criterion in the group of the criteria in accordance with the ranking of the respective criterion; and

output the selected justifications on the output device.

3. A decision tool for analyzing decisions among at least two alternatives, a first alternative and a second alternative, wherein each decision is based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by one of the plurality of decision makers, said decision tool comprising:

means for associating importance measurements and rating measurements representative of the evaluation by each of the decision makers, wherein for each decision maker an importance measurement is associated with each of the criteria and a rating measurement is associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

means for associating a plurality of rating justifications with each of the criteria;

means for normalizing the importance measurements for each decision maker;

means for averaging the normalized importance measurements to produce an average normalized importance for each of the criteria;

means for averaging the rating measurements to produce an average rating score associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

means for producing a combined measurement for each respective criterion wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon the product of the average normalized importance and competitive edge for the respective criterion;

means for ranking the criteria based upon the combined measurement for each of the criteria; and

means for accessing and outputting the rating justifications based upon the rankings of the associated criteria.

4. An evaluation tool for analyzing customer satisfaction among at least two alternatives based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by a plurality of customers, said evaluation tool comprising:

means for associating importance measurements and rating measurements representative of the evaluation by each of the customers, wherein for each customer an importance measurement is associated with each of the criteria and a rating measurement is associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

means for normalizing the importance measurements for each customer;

means for averaging the normalized importance measurements to produce an average normalized importance for each of the criteria;

means for averaging the rating measurements to produce an average rating score associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

means for producing a combined measurement for each respective criterion wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon the product of the average normalized importance and competitive edge for the respective criterion; and

means for outputting information regarding the criteria in an order based upon the combined measurement for each respective criterion.

5. The evaluation tool of claim 4, further comprising means for associating a plurality of rating justifications with each of the criteria;

and

means for accessing and outputting the rating justifications based upon the combined measurement for the respective criterion.

6. The evaluation tool of claim 4, further comprising means for displaying a first graph representative of the average normalized importance for each of the criteria, wherein the ordering of the graph is based upon the combined measurement for each of the criteria;

and

means for displaying a second graph overlaid on the first graph, the second graph representative of the average rating score for each of the criteria.

7. The evaluation tool of claim 4, wherein said combined measurement is a measurement of leverage.

8. The evaluation tool of claim 4, wherein said means for producing the combined measurement comprises:

means for determining competitive edge of the first alternative over the second alternative for each of the criteria; and

means for determining opportunity to improve for the first alternative for each of the criteria.

9. The evaluation tool of claim 8, wherein said combined measurement for each respective criterion comprises a product of the competitive edge, the opportunity to improve, and the average normalized importance for the respective criterion.

10. The evaluation tool of claim 8, further comprising means for determining whether the competitive edge for each of the criteria is statistically significant;

and

means for filtering the criteria based upon whether the corresponding competitive edge is statistically significant.

11. The evaluation tool of claim 4, wherein the means for outputting information regarding the criteria further comprises means for displaying a graph representative of the leverage for each of the criteria.

12. A method for analyzing decisions by a plurality of decision makers among at least two alternatives, a first alternative and a second alternative, wherein each decision is based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by one of the plurality of decision makers, said method comprising the steps of:

associating in a memory importance measurements and rating measurements representative of the evaluation by each of the decision makers, wherein for each decision maker an importance measurement is associated with each of the criteria and a rating measurement is associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

associating in the memory a plurality of rating justifications with each of the criteria;

normalizing the importance measurements for each decision maker;

averaging the normalized importance measurements to produce an average normalized importance for each of the criteria;

averaging the rating measurements to produce an average rating score associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

producing a combined measurement for each respective criterion wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon a product of the average normalized importance and competitive edge for the respective criterion;

ranking the criteria based upon the combined measurement for each of the criteria; and

accessing and outputting the rating justifications from the memory based upon the rankings of the associated criteria.

13. A method for analyzing customer satisfaction among at least two alternatives based upon a plurality of criteria evaluated by a plurality of customers, said method comprising the steps of:

associating in a memory importance measurements and rating measurements representative of the evaluation by each of the customers, wherein for each customer an importance measurement is associated with each of the criteria and a rating measurement is associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

normalizing the importance measurements for each customer;

averaging the normalized importance measurements to produce an average normalized importance for each of the criteria;

averaging the rating measurements to produce an average rating score associated with each of the criteria for each of the alternatives;

producing a combined measurement for each respective criterion wherein the combined measurement includes a factor based upon a product of the average normalized importance and competitive edge for the respective criterion; and

outputting information regarding the criteria in an order based upon the combined measurement for each respective criterion.

14. The method of claim 13, further comprising the steps of associating in the memory a plurality of rating justifications with each of the criteria;

and

accessing and outputting the rating justifications from the memory based upon the combined measurement for the respective associated criterion.

15. The method of claim 13, further comprising the steps of displaying a first graph representative of the average normalized importance for each of the criteria, wherein the ordering of the graph is based upon the combined measurement for each of the criteria;

and

displaying a second graph overlaid on the first graph, the second graph representative of the average rating score for each of the criteria.

16. The method of claim 13, wherein said combined measurement is a measurement of leverage.

17. The method of claim 13, wherein the step of producing the combined measurement further comprises the steps of:

determining competitive edge of the first alternative over the second alternative for each of the criteria; and

determining opportunity to improve for the first alternative for each of the criteria.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein said combined measurement for each respective criterion comprises a product of the competitive edge, the opportunity to improve, and the average normalized importance for the respective criterion.

19. The method of claim 17, further comprising the steps of determining whether the competitive edge for each of the criteria is statistically significant;

and

filtering the criteria based upon whether the corresponding competitive edge is statistically significant.

20. The method of claim 13, wherein the step of outputting information regarding the criteria further comprises the step of displaying a graph representative of the leverage for each of the criteria.