System and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a plurality of ideas

• US 8,494,436 B2
• Filed: 05/28/2009
• Issued: 07/23/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 11/16/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Watertown Software, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Watertown Software, Inc.
• Inventors: Morgia, Michael A., Fontana, Pat A. Jr., Morgia, Alex M., Fontana, Pat A. Sr., Roland, Ralph E., Davis, Shawn M., Piwowarski, Mark M., Gaus, John P.
• Primary Examiner(s): GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
• Application Number:
  US12/473,598
• Publication Number:
  US 20090239205A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,517 Days
• Field of Search: 434/322, 434/323, 434/350, 434/362
• US Class Current: 434/350
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/10 Services
• CPC Class Codes: G09B 7/00 Electrically-operated teaching apparatus or devices working with questions and answers mechanically operated G09B3/00; computing arrangements G06F
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/306 User profiles
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 67/535 Tracking the activity of the user network monitoring arrangements H04L43/00; recording of computer activity G06F11/34

Abstract

A system and method for algorithmic selection of a consensus from a collection of ideas is disclosed. A group of ideas is provided to a group of participants for voting. Voting may occur in a single round or in several successive rounds, optionally until a consensus idea is chosen. Typically, the votes that are cast use discrete levels, such as “approve”, “disapprove”, “positive”, “neutral” or “negative”. For ideas that receive the same votes, a differentiator may be the time spent casting the vote. A relatively long evaluation time may signal some internal conflict in the mind of the participant, when compared with a relatively short evaluation time, which may signal no such conflict. The evaluation time may be combined with the rating of the participant to form a weighted rating. Consequently, a short evaluation time of a positive rating may yield a more positive weighted rating, while a short evaluation time of a negative rating may yield a more negative weighted rating.

Claims

1. A method for rating a plurality of ideas, wherein a computer program for executing the method is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when loaded on a computer, makes the computer perform the method, said method comprising the steps of:

a. electronically distributing a first universe of ideas, divided into idea sets, to a group of participants, in parallel, wherein each participant receives at least one idea set, and wherein the universe of ideas are divided so that the number of idea sets generally equals the number of participants and wherein each idea has a substantially equal and fair probability of being viewed and voted on by an a generally equal number of participants;

b. having each participant select from their idea set, via an input device, at least one highest ranking idea;

c. establishing a threshold hurdle win rate which comprises a predetermined number against which said participant ranking for each idea are compared;

segregating the ideas which exceed said predetermined number as winning ideas and creating a first subgroup of ideas which exceed said predetermined number;

d. electronically re-distributing the first sub group of ideas to said participants, divided into second idea sets to all participants in parallel wherein each participant receives at least one second idea set;

wherein the plurality of ideas are divided so that the number of second idea sets generally equals the number of participants and wherein each idea has a substantially equal and fair probability of being viewed and voted on by an a generally equal number of participants;

whereby the number of ideas is reduced while the number of participants is generally not reduced, thereby more participants are applied to the remaining ideas;

e. having each participant select from their second idea set, via the input device, at least one highest ranking idea;

f. establishing a second threshold hurdle win rate which comprises a second predetermined number against which the participant rankings for each idea are compared;

segregating the ideas which exceed said second predetermined number as wining ideas and creating a second subgroup of ideas which exceed said second predetermined number for ranking in subsequent rounds;

g. electronically re-distributing the second subgroup of ideas to said participants, divided into third idea sets to all participants, in parallel, wherein each participant receives at least one third idea set;

wherein the third subgroup of ideas are divided so that the number of third idea sets equals the number of participants and wherein each idea has a substantially equal and fair probability of being viewed and voted on by a generally equal number of participants;

h. having each participant select from their third idea set, via the input device, at least a one highest ranking idea;

i. establishing a third threshold hurdle win rate which comprises a third predetermined number against which the participant rankings for each idea are compared;

segregating the ideas which exceed said third predetermined number as winning ideas and creating a third subgroup of ideas which exceed said third predetermined number to produce an output of at least one winning idea,

wherein each of steps (a), (d) and (g) comprises steps for generating a template for dividing plurality of ideas into groups, each groups of ideas to be distributed to each of plurality of participants by;

selecting a number of ideas per group in response to a number of participants;

denoting the number of ideas per group as m;

defining a plurality of first participants'"'"' idea numbers as the first m Main-Chowla numbers; and

recursively defining a plurality of (i+1)^th participant'"'"'s idea numbers, where i is a positive integer, as the plurality of i^th participant'"'"'s idea numbers incremented by 1 and modulo the number of ideas in the plurality; and

wherein said selecting comprises;

denoting the lesser of the number of participants and the number of ideas in the plurality as p;

providing a Mian-Chowla number a_n, the Mian-Chowla number bein the n^th integer in the Mian-Chowla sequence;

forming a quantity (2a_n−

1);

solving for n to be the largest integer that satisfies (2a_n−

1)≧

p; and

setting the number of ideas per group to be n;

whereby the program is terminated or proceeds to subsequent rounds of redistributing ideas to further increase the accuracy of the method and whereby effectively a large number of ideas is distillable by a mass participant group.

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising additional steps of:

allowing participants to identify that they disagree with a winning idea by segregating a tally of such disagreeing participants.

3. The method of claim 1 further including steps for editing ideas, comprising:

from a participant'"'"'s selection of at least one highest ranking idea allowing the participant to indicate an objection to a portion of said highest ranking idea;

tallying objections of other participants to the same objection, if the tally exceeds a predetermined trigger threshold, requesting submission of revisions to an idea from the participants;

redistributing revisions received from the participants and ranking them according to steps (a) to (e) as if the revision is an idea set.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the revision is provided by an author of the initial idea.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the author of the initial idea is a participant in the group.

6. The method of claim 3, wherein the revision is provided by the group of participants.

7. The method of claim 1 further comprising steps for eliminating duplicative ideas including the steps of:

i. querying participants for data input responsive to the question of whether the participant finds two ideas to be substantially similar;

ii. conjoining particular initial ideas that are deemed equivalent by the plurality of participants;

iii. selecting only one of said similar ideas for further grouping in successive rankings by participants.

8. The method of claim 1 further comprising:

attaching a supplemental idea to a particular initial idea; and

including a random sampling of proposed supplemental idea in each first subgroup of ideas that contains the particular initial idea and having the participants select the idea for inclusion in future voting rounds.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising steps to create a subgroup of participants from a group where the participant indicates an objection to at least one highest ranking idea, including the steps of:

allowing said participant to extract itself from any group which supports said at least one highest ranking idea and creating at least one subgroup of participants with similar objections.

10. The method of claim 3, wherein the revisions introduced by the participant is indicated by color, and wherein the idea with color indication is presented to the participants for a vote.

11. The method of claim 3, wherein the revisions are edits introduced by participant, and wherein participants vote on acceptance of the edit.

12. The method of claim 7, wherein any participant is able to propose an edit to an idea, such edits to be considered by the other participants, whereby a proposed edit is marked by the participant on at least a portion of the idea, with a marking icon;

if the percentage of participants marking a given section of text exceeds a predetermined revision trigger threshold, that edit is then given to the participants who have at least once voted on the idea in question in accordance with steps (a) to (e) as if the revision is an idea set.

13. The method of claim 1 further including steps for voting fraud detection and anti-consensus detection, comprising the steps of:

comparing a particular participant'"'"'s voting activity, to consensus choices, after a given round of voting by examining the win ratio of the participants choice versus the win ratio of ideas that were directly competing with the particular participant'"'"'s chosen idea and determining if those ideas that were passed over had a sufficiently greater win ratio and thus were far more favored by the other participants to justify negating the participant'"'"'s vote, and in such case removing the participant'"'"'s vote from future rounds of voting.

14. The method of claim 1, further including steps for voting fraud detection, comprising the steps of:

defining a win ratio as the ratio of the number of wins for a particular idea, divided by the total number of competitions that the idea is in;

calculating the pass ratios for each idea in a given competitive set;

determining the differences between the pass ratio of each idea in the competitive set and the pass ratio of the idea that the participant chooses;

setting a maximum value allowed for the differences to exceed before labeling a vote a fraud and then discarding that vote and giving the win to the highest ranked idea in that set, as determined by other participants prior votes.

15. A computer based method for rating a plurality of ideas, wherein a computer program for executing the method is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium which, when loaded on a computer, makes the computer perform the method, said method comprising the steps of:

a. electronically distributing a first universe of ideas, divided into idea sets, to a group of participants, in parallel, wherein each participant receives at least one idea set, and wherein the universe of ideas are divided so that the number of idea sets generally equals the number of participants and wherein each idea has a substantially equal and fair probability of being viewed and voted on by generally equal number of participants;

b. having each participant select from their idea set, via an input device, at least one highest ranking idea;

c. establishing a threshold hurdle win rate which comprises a predetermined number against which said participant ranking for each idea are compared;

segregating the ideas which exceed said predetermined number as winning ideas and creating a first subgroup of ideas which exceed said predetermined number;

d. electronically re-distributing the first sub group of ideas to said participants, divided into second idea sets to all participants in parallel wherein each participant receives at least one second idea set;

wherein the plurality of ideas are divided so that the number of second idea sets generally equals the number of participants and wherein each idea has a substantially equal and fair probability of being viewed and voted on by generally equal number of participants;

e. having each participant input, via the input device, a selection from their second idea set of at least a highest ranking idea;

f. establishing a second threshold hurdle win rate which comprises a second predetermined number against which the participant rankings for each idea are compared;

segregating the ideas which exceed said second predetermined number as wining ideas and creating a second subgroup of ideas which exceed said second predetermined number to produce an output of at least one winning idea,

wherein each of steps (a) and (d) comprises steps for generating a template for dividing plurality of ideas into groups, each groups of ideas to be distributed to each of plurality of participants by;

selecting a number of ideas per group in response to a number of participants;

denoting the number of ideas per group as m;

defining a plurality of first participants'"'"' idea numbers as the first m Main-Chowla numbers; and

recursively defining a plurality of (i+1)^th participant'"'"'s idea numbers, where i is a positive integer, as the plurality of i^th participant'"'"'s idea numbers incremented by 1 and modulo the number of ideas in the plurality; and

wherein said selecting comprises;

denoting the lesser of the number of participants and the number of ideas in the plurality as p;

providing a Mian-Chowla number a_n, the Mian-Chowla number being the n^th integer in the Mian-Chowla sequence;

forming a quantity (2a_n−

1);

solving for n to be the largest integer that satisfies (2a_n−

1)≧

p; and

setting the number of ideas per group to be n;

whereby the program is terminated or proceeds to subsequent rounds of redistributing ideas to further increase the accuracy of the method and whereby effectively a large number of ideas is distillable by a mass participant group.