U.S. patent application number 09/416143 was filed with the patent office on 2001-11-15 for asynchronous network collaboration method and apparatus.
Invention is credited to FERGUSON, BRADLEY.
Application Number | 20010042056 09/416143 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 24639430 |
Filed Date | 2001-11-15 |
United States Patent
Application |
20010042056 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
FERGUSON, BRADLEY |
November 15, 2001 |
ASYNCHRONOUS NETWORK COLLABORATION METHOD AND APPARATUS
Abstract
A method implemented on a network of computers for allowing a
plurality of users to collaborate in decision making to solve a
problem, includes the steps of processing, at a central server, a
group of proposals for solving the problem, submitting the group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, and
thereafter receiving, at the central server from the plurality of
users, selections of proposals from the group of proposals.
Determining, at the central server, a narrowed group of proposals
in response to the selections of proposals, communicating the
narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of users at the remote
clients, each proposal in the narrowed group of proposals including
sets of statements, and thereafter receiving, at the central server
from one of the plurality of users, suggestions for modifying
proposals in the narrowed group of proposals, are also included.
The method also included determining, at the central server, a
modified narrowed group of proposals in response to the
suggestions, each proposal in the modified narrowed group of
proposals including a modified set of statements, submitting the
modified narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of users at
remote clients, thereafter receiving, at the central server from
the plurality of users, selections of statements from the modified
sets of statements of the modified narrowed group of proposals, and
consolidating the selection of statements into a proposed solution
for the problem.
Inventors: |
FERGUSON, BRADLEY; (PALO
ALTO, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER
EIGHTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94111-3834
US
|
Family ID: |
24639430 |
Appl. No.: |
09/416143 |
Filed: |
October 12, 1999 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
09416143 |
Oct 12, 1999 |
|
|
|
08657984 |
Jun 4, 1996 |
|
|
|
5995951 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
706/10 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
706/10 |
International
Class: |
G06N 001/00 |
Claims
I claim:
1. A method implemented on a network of computers for allowing a
plurality of users to collaborate in decision making to solve a
problem, comprising the steps of: a) processing, at a central
server, a group of proposals for solving the problem; b) submitting
the group of proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients;
thereafter c) receiving, at the central server from at least one of
the plurality of users, selections of proposals from the group of
proposals; d) determining, at the central server, a narrowed group
of proposals in response to the selections of proposals; e)
submitting the narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of
users at the remote clients, each proposal in the narrowed group of
proposals including a first set of statements; thereafter f)
receiving, at the central server from at least one of the plurality
of users, suggestions for modifying a proposal in the narrowed
group of proposals; g) determining, at the central server, a
modified narrowed group of proposals in response to the
suggestions; h) submitting the modified narrowed group of proposals
to the plurality of users at remote clients, each proposal in the
modified narrowed group of proposals including a second set of
statements; thereafter i) receiving, at the central server from at
least one of the plurality of users, selections of statements from
the second sets of statements of the modified narrowed group of
proposals; and j) consolidating the selections of statements into a
proposed solution for the problem.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving suggestions
further comprises the step of: modifying a proposal in the narrowed
group of proposals in response to another proposal in the narrowed
group of proposals.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving suggestions
further comprises the step of: modifying the proposal in the
narrowed group of proposals in response to a set of statements in
another proposal in the narrowed group of proposals.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving suggestions
further comprise the step of: adding statements to the first set of
statements to form the second set of statements.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving suggestions
further comprising the step of: modifying statements of the first
set of statements to form the second set of statements.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of submitting the group
of proposals further comprises the step of: submitting, to the
plurality of users, pairs of proposals from the group of
proposals.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving selections
of proposals further comprises the step of: receiving, at the
central server from the plurality of users, rankings of proposals
from the group of proposals; and wherein the step of determining a
narrowed group comprises the step of: determining narrowed group of
proposals in response to the rankings of the proposals.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of receiving selections
of statements further comprises the step of: receiving, at the
central server from the plurality of users, rankings of statements
from the second set of statements in the modified narrowed group of
proposals; and wherein the step of consolidating the selections of
statements comprises the step of: consolidating the selections of
statements into a working proposal in response to the rankings of
the statements.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of submitting the
modified narrowed group further comprises the step of: submitting,
to the plurality of users, pairs of statements from the modified
narrowed group of proposals.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the central server and the
remote clients communicate via an intranet.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the central server and the
remote clients communicate via a TCP/IP protocol.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: after
step h) repeating steps f)-h).
13. A computer system including a computer program for allowing a
plurality of users to collaborate in decision making of a problem,
the computer system comprising: a computer-readable memory
including: code that processes a group of proposals for solving the
problem; code that submits the group of proposals to the plurality
of users at remote clients; code that receives selections of
proposals from the group of proposals; code that determines, at the
central server, a narrowed group of proposals in response to the
selections of proposals; code that submits the narrowed group of
proposals to the plurality of users at the remote clients, each
proposal in the narrowed group of proposals including a first set
of statements; code that receives suggestions for modifying
proposals in the narrowed group of proposals; code that determines,
at the central server, a modified narrowed group of proposals in
response to the suggestions; code that submits the modified
narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of users at remote
clients, each proposal in the modified narrowed group of proposals
including a second set of statements;, code that receives
selections of statements from the second sets of statements of the
modified narrowed group of proposals; and code that consolidates
the selections of statements into a proposed solution for the
problem.
14. The computer system of claim 13, wherein the codes are written
in the Java Programming language.
15. A computer system configured to allow a plurality of users to
collaborate in decision making, the computer system comprising: a
processor for processing a group of proposals for solving a
problem; first submission means for submitting the group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients; a first
receiver for receiving, from at least one of the plurality of
users, selections of proposals from the group of proposals; first
determining means for determining, a narrowed group of proposals in
response to the selections of proposals; second submission means
for communicating the narrowed group of proposals to the plurality
of users at the remote clients, each proposal in the narrowed group
of proposals including a first set of statements; a second receiver
for receiving, from at least one of the plurality of users,
suggestions for modifying a proposal in the narrowed group of
proposals; second determining means for determining, a modified
narrowed group of proposals in response to the suggestions; third
submission means for submitting the modified narrowed group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, each
proposal in the modified narrowed group of proposals including a
modified set of suggestions;; thereafter a third receiver for
receiving, from at least one of the plurality of users, selections
of statements from the second modified set of statements of the
modified narrowed group of proposals; and consolidating means for
consolidating the selections of statements into a proposed solution
for the problem.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention relates to network collaboration. More
specifically, the present invention relates to methods and
apparatus for enabling network resource groups to collaborate in
decision making. Network resource groups include groups of users
interconnected by a common computer network.
[0002] Current approaches to problem solving have focused upon
decision making by individuals or have focused upon the principles
of discovery and intuition in order to create solutions. Such
approaches typically guide the user through a series of steps that
focus the user's attention upon conceptual solutions the user may
be overlooking. For example, one approach identifies contradictions
between objectives within a user's project and highlights them to
the user, another approach uses word association games to attempt
to spur creativity in the user, another presents unexpected
scenarios to the user to attempt to stimulate creative solutions
from the user, yet another utilizes neural networks to attempt to
generate alternative solutions to the user, and yet others guide
the user to make decisions based upon options and criteria set by
the user. Each of these approaches attempt to aid the user in
solving problems. None of these approaches, however aid groups of
users in making decisions about which solution among possible
solutions to a problem should be used.
[0003] What is needed are methods and apparatus for enabling groups
of users to collaborate in decision making.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0004] The present invention discloses methods and apparatus for
enabling groups of users to collaborate in decision making.
[0005] According to one embodiment of the present invention a
method implemented on a network of computers for allowing a
plurality of users to collaborate in decision making to solve a
problem, includes the steps of processing, at a central server, a
group of proposals for solving the problem, submitting the group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, and
thereafter receiving, at the central server from the plurality of
users, selections of proposals from the group of proposals. The
method also includes the steps of determining, at the central
server, a narrowed group of proposals in response to the selections
of proposals, communicating the narrowed group of proposals to the
plurality of users at the remote clients, each proposal in the
narrowed group of proposals including sets of statements, and
thereafter receiving, at the central server from one of the
plurality of users, suggestions for modifying proposals in the
narrowed group of proposals. The steps of determining, at the
central server, a modified narrowed group of proposals in response
to the suggestions, submitting the modified narrowed group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, each
proposal in the modified narrowed group of proposals including a
modified set of statements and thereafter receiving, at the central
server from the plurality of users, selections of statements from
the modified sets of statements of the modified narrowed group of
proposals are also included. The method also includes the step of
consolidating the selection of suggestions into a final proposed
solution for the problem.
[0006] According to another embodiment of the present invention a
computer system including a computer program for allowing a
plurality of users to collaborate in decision making of a problem,
includes a computer-readable memory including: code that processes
a group of proposals for solving the problem, code that submits the
group of proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, and
code that receives selections of proposals from the group of
proposals. The computer-readable memory also includes code that
determines, at the central server, a narrowed group of proposals in
response to the selections of proposals, code that communicates the
narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of users at the remote
clients, each proposal in the narrowed group of proposals including
sets of statements, and code that receives suggestions for
modifying proposals in the narrowed group of proposals. Code that
determines, at the central server, a modified narrowed group of
proposals in response to the suggestions, code that submits the
modified narrowed group of proposals to the plurality of users at
remote clients, each proposal in the modified narrowed group of
proposals including a modified set of statements, and code that
receives selections of statements from the modified sets of
statements of the modified narrowed group of proposals are also
included. The computer-readable memory also includes code that
consolidates the selection of suggestions into a working proposal
for the problem.
[0007] According to yet another embodiment of the present
invention, a computer system configured to allow a plurality of
users to collaborate in decision making, includes a processor for
processing a group of proposals for solving a problem, first
submission means for submitting the group of proposals to the
plurality of users at remote clients, and a first receiver for
receiving, from the plurality of users, selections of proposals
from the group of proposals. The computer system also includes
first determining means for determining, a narrowed group of
proposals in response to the selections of proposals, a
communicator for communicating the narrowed group of proposals to
the plurality of users at the remote clients, each proposal in the
narrowed group of proposals including sets of statements, and a
second receiver for receiving, from one of the plurality of users,
suggestions for modifying proposals in the narrowed group of
proposals. Second determining means for determining, a modified
narrowed group of proposals in response to the suggestions, second
submission means for submitting the modified narrowed group of
proposals to the plurality of users at remote clients, each
proposal in the modified narrowed group of proposals including a
modified set of statements, and a third receiver for receiving,
from the plurality of users, selections of statements from the
modified sets of statements of the modified narrowed group of
proposals are also included. The computer system also includes
consolidating means for consolidating the selection of suggestions
into a network collaboration solution for the problem.
[0008] Further understanding of the nature and advantages of the
invention may be realized by reference to the remaining portions of
the specification and drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0009] In order to more fully understand the present invention,
reference is made to the accompanying drawings. Understanding that
these drawings are not to be considered limitations in the scope of
the invention, the presently preferred embodiments and the
presently understood best mode of the invention are described with
additional detail through use of the accompanying drawings in
which:
[0010] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system according to a
preferred embodiment of the present invention;
[0011] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a network according to a
preferred embodiment of the present invention;
[0012] FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of the preferred
embodiment of the present invention;
[0013] FIG. 4 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 290
in FIG. 3;
[0014] FIG. 5 illustrates a configuration screen display of an
embodiment of the present invention;
[0015] FIG. 6 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 300
in FIG. 3;
[0016] FIG. 7 illustrates a submission screen display of an
embodiment of the present invention;
[0017] FIGS. 8a and 8b illustrate comparison screen displays of a
preferred embodiment of the present invention;
[0018] FIG. 9 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 310
in FIG. 3;
[0019] FIG. 10 illustrates a display screen of a preferred
embodiment of the present invention;
[0020] FIG. 11 illustrates a display screen of a preferred
embodiment of the present invention;
[0021] FIG. 12 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 320
in FIG. 3;
[0022] FIG. 13 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of steps
330 and 340 in FIG. 3;
[0023] FIG. 14 illustrates a selection display screen of a
preferred embodiment of the present invention; and
[0024] FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary diagram of the preferred
embodiment of the present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS
[0025] Definitions
[0026] Research network collaboration device--a mechanical,
electronic, or computational device which manages the communication
and collaboration process between members of a research network and
retains the information produced by a research network.
[0027] Research network--a group of people or groups collaborating
in the solution of a problem or explanation of phenomena.
[0028] Statement--the elements out of which proposals are
constructed. Statements may be text as in a natural language,
symbolic formulae (such as logical formulae, mathematical formulae,
or computer code or computational formulae is any computer
language), musical notation, sound recordings or other musical or
audio format, or images (such as line drawings, graphical designs,
photographs, video images or recordings, or motion pictures of any
sort). Statements may also be commands to execute other computer
programs or to use and control peripheral devices coupled to the
computer system.
[0029] Proposal--group of one or more typically separate and
identifiable statements which contribute to: a solution of a
problem, an explanation of specified phenomena, or a creation of a
desired collaborative product.
[0030] Compilation--selection of one or more statements from one or
more proposals into a list for use in constructing a new
proposal(s).
[0031] Crossover--the combination of one or more compiled
statements to form a new proposal
[0032] Ranking--placing a list of proposals or statements into a
list in descending order from best to worst in its fitness to solve
a problem or explain phenomena and selecting a predetermined number
of these proposals or ideas to be used in the combinatorial process
of creating new proposals or in creating a synthesis.
[0033] Synthesis--selecting a predetermined number of ideas from a
predetermined number of proposals and placing them in a rank
ordered list according to their fitness to solve a problem or
explain phenomena.
[0034] Round--a round is a process of presenting proposals to
members of a research network, compiling statements from the
proposals presented, creating new proposals through crossover, and
ranking proposals or statements to determine which proposals will
proceed to the next round of consideration.
[0035] Research project--a collaborative process by members of a
research network designed to solve a particular problem or explain
particular phenomena which consists of round one, round two, round
three, and a synthesis.
[0036] Research network member--a person or group of people that is
a member of the research network.
[0037] Research team--members of a research network who collaborate
to make a proposal.
[0038] System Overview
[0039] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system 100 according to a
preferred embodiment of the present invention. System 100 includes
a monitor 110, a computer 120, a keyboard 130, a mouse 140, and a
network interface 150. Computer 120 includes familiar computer
components such as a processor 160, and memory storage devices,
such as a random access memory (RAM) 170, a disk drive 180
(optional), and a system bus 190 interconnecting the above
components.
[0040] A mouse is but one example of a graphical input device, also
known as a pointing device, a digitizing tablet is another. RAM 170
and disk drive 180 are examples of tangible media for storage of
computer programs, other types of tangible media include floppy
disks, removable hard disks, optical storage media such as CD-ROMS
and bar codes, semiconductor memories such as flash memories,
read-only-memories (ROMS), ASICs, battery-backed volatile memories,
and the like. Network interface 150 enables the user to communicate
with other users in the decision making process.
[0041] In a preferred embodiment, System 100 includes a 586-based
IBM-compatible computer, running Windows95 operating system, or a
PowerPC-based MAC-compatible computer, running MacOS, a JAVA (TM)
interpreter, such as HOT JAVA (TM) from Sun Microsystems, and
Resolution (TM) software from the inventor.
[0042] FIG. 1 is representative of but one type of system for
embodying the present invention. It will be readily apparent to one
of ordinary skill in the art that many system types and
configurations are suitable for use in conjunction with the present
invention, such as Workstations, "Network Computers" ("$500
Internet Boxes"), and other current and future Java (TM), or other
cross-platform language supported systems.
[0043] FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a network 200 according to a
preferred embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 2 illustrates
clients 210-240, central server 250 coupled to a network 260, and
central server 270 coupled to a network 280. Each client 210-240
and central servers 250 and 270 may be a computer system as
described in FIG. 1.
[0044] In the present invention, "the central server" may be a web
server (central server 250) within an enterprise (Intranet, network
250) or an external web server (central server 270) external to the
enterprise (Internet, network 280). In FIG. 2, either the central
server 250 or central server 260 may be used in the preferred
embodiment, so long as clients 210-240 have access to the web
server embodying the present invention.
[0045] In alternative embodiments, the invention may be embodied on
web server 250 and only be accessible to users 210 and 220.
Further, an embodiment may be embodied on web server 270 and only
be accessible to users 230 and 240.
[0046] FIG. 2 is representative of but one type of network for
embodying the present invention. It will be readily apparent to one
of ordinary skill in the art that many other network configurations
are suitable for use in conjunction with the present invention.
[0047] Detailed Description
[0048] FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram of the preferred
embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 3 includes steps
290-340.
[0049] Initially a user selects a problem to be solved and solicits
initial proposed solutions from a group of network users, step 290.
These proposed solutions, like subsequent proposals, include a
number of statements. The network users are preferably coupled to
an intranet or by the Internet, as previously described.
[0050] Next, in an "Initial round," the network users submit,
review, and rank the initial proposed solutions, step 300. A
certain number of the initial proposed solutions are then selected
for further refinement and consideration, based upon the
rankings.
[0051] The selected initial proposed solutions are indicated to the
network users and the network users are solicited to update
particular initial proposed solutions, step 310.
[0052] Next, in a "Subsequent round," the network users submit,
review, and rank the proposed solutions, step 320.
[0053] As indicated in FIG. 3, steps 310-320 may be repeated any
number of times. The number of iterations may be based upon the
number of initial proposals. For example, if there are a great
number of initial proposals, paring down to a "manageable" number
of proposals may take a few iterations. In one example, starting
with five proposals, two iterations of the above steps are
performed to reduce the number of proposals to two.
[0054] After the number of proposals has been reduced to a
"manageable" number, typically two, the network users are solicited
to rank statements from within each of the remaining proposals,
step 330.
[0055] In response to the rankings, a final proposed solution is
synthesized, step 340. The final proposed solution may contain any
number of statements, consolidated from statements within
proposals.
[0056] FIG. 4 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 290
in FIG. 3. FIG. 4 includes steps 350 and 360.
[0057] Initially, a user selects a problem to be solved by network
users collaborating in decision making, step 350. The problem may
be determined by an individual such as a project manager, or by
other conventional means, such as a committee. Network users may be
individuals or a team of users.
[0058] Next, the preferred embodiment of the present invention,
embodied on a central server, solicits initial proposed solutions
from the network users, embodied at remote clients, step 360.
Preferably the central server solicits initial proposed solutions
from the entire group of network users that will collaborate in
decision making. Alternatively, however, the central server may
solicit proposals from fewer than all of the network users in
certain cases (e.g. only solicit proposals from a research and
development group).
[0059] FIG. 5 illustrates a configuration screen display of an
embodiment of the present invention.
[0060] In the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the
remote clients contact the central server, which in turn loads the
illustrated screen displays on the client side machine. Within this
configuration screen, a decision maker defines a name for the
project, and defines the number of participants in the network
collaboration group. Using well-known techniques, the project
manager specifies which users will participate by user name or
number, with another input screen (not shown). The decision maker
also specifies an amount of time given to each participant to
submit proposals, to update proposals, to rank the proposals, etc,
as will be further seen the attached figures.
[0061] FIG. 6 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 300
in FIG. 3. FIG. 5 includes steps 380-410.
[0062] In response to the described problem, each of the network
users develop and submit initial proposed solutions to the central
server, step 380. The network users may be individual users of
teams of users. At this stage, it is envisioned that initial
proposals would typically include a brief list of points or
statements, as well as supporting comments and/or justifications.
Initial and subsequent proposals, however, may be in any level of
detail for use in the present invention.
[0063] FIG. 7 illustrates a submission screen display of an
embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated, the central
server prompts the user to enter a proposal to solve the problem.
Typically the user enters statements, with comments in another
display screen.
[0064] FIG. 7 also illustrates a time remaining clock that
specifies the amount of time remaining before the proposal is due.
In one embodiment of the present invention the clock is implemented
as a Java-language applet.
[0065] Referring back to FIG. 6, after the users have submitted the
initial proposals to the central server, the central server
distributes some or all of the initial proposals to each of the
users, step 390. Alternatively, the central server may notify the
users that proposals are available for review at a particular
location, such as a web site. The central server may use any well
known notification method such as email. Preferably all of the
users are distributed a copy of each of the initial proposals.
[0066] Next, each user reviews and ranks each of the initial
proposed solutions to the problem, step 400. Based upon the user
rankings, the central server selects a number of initial proposals
that will proceed to the next round, step 410. Preferably fewer
than all of the proposed solutions proceed to the next "round"
(step 300). Alternatively, all of the proposed solutions proceed to
the next "round". It should be recognized, however, that generally
the greater the number of proposed solutions that proceed to
subsequent "rounds" the greater the amount of time it will take to
come to a final proposed solution.
[0067] FIGS. 8a and b illustrate comparison screen displays of a
preferred embodiment of the present invention. In FIG. 8a, the
central server presents a first initial proposed solution 430 next
to a second initial proposed solution 440. The user obtains further
detail on any of the statements in the outline by selecting the
statement on the display with a conventional pointing device. The
user then votes for one of the initial proposals over the other one
by using the pointing device to select the preferred initial
proposal.
[0068] In FIG. 8b, the central server presents a third initial
proposed solution 460 next to a fourth initial proposed solution
470. The central server displays pairings of the initial proposals
in a round-robin fashion, until the user has indicated the user's
preferences for all of the possible pairings of initial
proposals.
[0069] Based upon the user's votes, the central server determines
the rankings of the initial proposals. In an alternative
embodiment, the central server may simply ask the user to directly
assign a ranking to each of the proposed solutions, without the
side-by side displays illustrated above in FIGS. 8a and 8b.
[0070] In determining which initial proposals proceed to the next
step, the central server may use many different schemes based upon
the users' rankings. For example, in one embodiment, the three
initial proposals receiving the most number of first place votes
proceed to the next "round." Alternatively, the central server may
compute an average ranking value for each initial proposal, based
upon the mean, or median user ranking. Then, based upon this
average ranking value, the central server may select a number of
initial proposals having the highest average ranking value to
proceed to the next "round." Other types of schemes are easily
foreseeable and are included in alternative embodiments of the
present invention.
[0071] FIGS. 8a and b further illustrate a notebook icon 480.
Notebook icon 480 enables users to store and "borrow" ideas from
the other proposals the user has reviewed. When reviewing a
proposal, if the user likes an idea from another proposal, the user
uses a conventional pointing device, such as a mouse, to select a
statement from one of the proposals, and drags the statement to
notebook icon 480. When the user subsequently selects notebook icon
480, during any of the steps described herein, the list of the
statements saved is returned. As also illustrated, the ranking
process may have a set time limit to respond.
[0072] FIG. 9 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 310
in FIG. 3. FIG. 9 includes steps 500-540.
[0073] Initially the central server notifies each user as to the
user's highest ranked initial proposed solution that survived to
this stage, step 500. The central server then solicits the user to
update or modify that proposal, step 510.
[0074] Next, the users revise and submit updated proposals to the
central server, step 520. Typically it is envisioned that users
will borrow "good" ideas (statements) from other proposals the
users have reviewed, and incorporate them into the proposal.
Because typically more than one user will update a particular
initial proposed solution, more than one updated proposal for each
initial proposed solution will exist.
[0075] FIG. 10 illustrates a display screen of a preferred
embodiment of the present invention. The user may add new
statements via conventional means such as a computer keyboard.
Further, the user may copy ideas previously stored in notebook 550
by dragging statements onto the current proposal, and the user may
throw away statements by dragging statements onto trash can
560.
[0076] Referring back to FIG. 9, after the users have submitted
updated proposals, the central server distributes the different
updated proposals for each particular initial proposal, step 520.
Preferably the central server distributes the updated proposals for
an initial proposal only to those users that updated that
particular initial proposal, step 530. If a user is the only user
updating a particular initial proposal, the user may further update
the proposal at this stage.
[0077] Next, each user reviews the different updated proposals for
the particular initial proposed solution and then ranks the
different updated proposals, step 540. The process of ranking
different updates to the same initial proposal may occur in a
process similar to that described above. This is illustrated in
FIG. 11 as a display screen of a preferred embodiment of the
present invention.
[0078] FIG. 12 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of step 320
in FIG. 3. FIG. 12 includes steps 580-600.
[0079] Based upon the user rankings, the central server selects one
updated initial proposal as an updated proposal for each initial
proposal. The central server then distributes updated proposals to
all of the users, step 580.
[0080] After the users review each of the updated proposed
solutions, the users rank each of the updated proposals, step 590.
Again, based upon the users' rankings, the central server selects a
number of updated proposals to proceed to the next step, step
620.
[0081] FIG. 13 illustrates a more detailed flow diagram of steps
330 and 340 in FIG. 3. FIG. 13 includes step 620-650.
[0082] Initially the central server notifies the users which
proposed solutions reach this stage, step 620. Next each user
reviews statements from each of the remaining proposed solutions
and selects statements for the "final" proposal, step 630.
Preferably the user selects some but not all of the statements. In
a preferred embodiment, the central server makes the users rank the
statements, as was previously described.
[0083] FIG. 14 illustrates a selection display screen of a
preferred embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated, the
central server prompts the user to select some but not all of the
statements. Preferably, the user uses the mouse to select a
statement, and to drag the statement to synthesis icon 660.
[0084] Referring back to FIG. 13, based upon the users selections,
the central server selects a predetermined number of statements for
the "final" proposed solution, step 640. The number of statements
may vary from one to all of the statements. The number of
statements in this proposal is user definable, depending upon
application.
[0085] Finally, the central the central server distributes the
final proposed solution to the users, step 650. It is envisioned
that the "final" proposed solution produced by network
collaboration may simply be a working proposal for further study or
a proposal for implementation.
[0086] FIG. 15 illustrates an exemplary diagram of the preferred
embodiment of the present invention. As illustrated, in the initial
round the central server receives five initial proposed solutions.
From these five initial proposed solutions, the central server
selects three proposals for further refinement, in response to the
users rankings. Next, the users update each of the three proposals,
and the central server distributes the three updated proposals to
all of the users. The users then update and rank the three updated
proposals. Once two updated proposals remain, the users select
statements from the two updated proposals for synthesis. The
central server processes the users' rankings of the statements and
then synthesizes a final proposed solution.
[0087] Conclusion
[0088] In the foregoing specification, the invention has been
described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof.
Many changes or modifications are readily envisioned. For example,
the number of proposals proceeding to subsequent rounds may be
varied, depending on how quickly a decision is to be made, the
users that the central server distributes proposals to, or that the
central server takes rankings from may be different in each round,
and the specific programming languages, network environment, and
network configuration may be changed, among other changes. Further,
in other embodiments, particular users may have "veto" power over
proposals or statements within proposals and in other embodiments,
statements can be voted upon at different stages.
[0089] The presently claimed invention applies to almost any area
of decision making imaginable. For example, the proposals could be
bids placed by contractors for a building contract or bids for the
sales price of an object, commodity, or object as in an auction. In
this case, the narrowing and refinement of proposals may be
dictated by the judgments of the seller rather than the ranking of
the bidders.
[0090] Also one can easily imagine the case that the proposals need
not be limited to text alone. The proposals may consist of images
or designs which are presented for the purpose of the collaborative
designing, for example, advertisements, such as color schemes,
layouts, textual or pictorial content, theme, etc., commercial
designs such as logos, packaging, slogans, ergonomic design, etc.,
building design such as requirements, floorplans, aesthetic
elements, etc. Alternatively, the proposal could be audio such as
spoken text, sampled sounds, or musical notation or recorded music
in the form of a audio samples, in "RealAudio" format, for example,
or a MIDI file, etc. for the purpose of collaborative musical
composition and/or analysis. Further the proposal could include
images coordinated with audio for collaborative multimedia design,
such as narration or accompanying music to a slideshow or a movie
clip in the form of digital audio or video, or edit decision list
(EDL) files including synchronization codes in SMTE or VITC format,
for example, for controlling peripherals coupled to a computer.
[0091] The proposals could also consist of computational code in a
computer language or any form of symbolic representation. Other
examples of possible proposals are mathematical or logical formulae
used in collaborative mathematical or logical problem solving.
These examples are illustrative of the many types of collaborative
projects and the various media that can be used in the proposed
process. To reiterate, the presently claimed invention applies to
almost any area of decision making imaginable. Further, having the
central server maintain a list of actions taken by the users during
the entire process may provide useful data.
[0092] The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be
regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense. It
will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes
may be made thereunto without departing from the broader spirit and
scope of the invention as set forth in the claims.
* * * * *