U.S. patent application number 13/658213 was filed with the patent office on 2013-05-02 for processing and display of service provider performance data.
This patent application is currently assigned to HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. The applicant listed for this patent is HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. Invention is credited to Sandra M. McCauley.
Application Number | 20130110589 13/658213 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 42981692 |
Filed Date | 2013-05-02 |
United States Patent
Application |
20130110589 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
McCauley; Sandra M. |
May 2, 2013 |
PROCESSING AND DISPLAY OF SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMANCE DATA
Abstract
In insurance and related industries, service providers perform
assignments such as repairing smoke or water damage. Service
provider performance data reflects how well service providers
perform their assigned tasks, and may contain subjective or
qualitative values. A number of performance criteria may be
analyzed, such as quality of service criterion, cycle time, and
customer satisfaction. Performance data related to the selected
criteria may be aggregated and quantitative values may be generated
from subjective or qualitative values. A vendor quality index (VQI)
based on the quantified data may be generated. The generated
quantitative values and VQI may be rendered on a display device or
printed on a printer to facilitate objective comparisons between
different service providers. Based on the generated quantitative
values and VQI, parameters may be adjusted that affect how the VQI
is determined, initiate electronic debits or credits to accounts
corresponding to service providers, and/or generate user
alerts.
Inventors: |
McCauley; Sandra M.;
(Burlington, CT) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; |
Hartford |
CT |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY
Hartford
CT
|
Family ID: |
42981692 |
Appl. No.: |
13/658213 |
Filed: |
October 23, 2012 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12425885 |
Apr 17, 2009 |
8321263 |
|
|
13658213 |
|
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/7.39 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/06393 20130101;
G06Q 10/06 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/7.39 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 10/06 20120101
G06Q010/06 |
Claims
1. An apparatus for determining a vendor quality index of a service
provider, the apparatus comprising: a memory device, configured to
receive service provider performance data related to services
performed by the service provider, the service provider performance
data including subjective performance data; and a processor,
configured to: select a plurality of performance criteria;
determine, for each of the plurality of performance criteria, a
quantified performance criterion value based on the service
provider performance data; and determine the vendor quality index
as a weighted sum based on the performance criterion values and a
plurality of weighting factors, wherein for at least one
performance criterion, the plurality of categories includes a first
classification that corresponds to a first predetermined range of
performance data values and a first predetermined quantitative
category value, and a second classification that corresponds to a
second predetermined range of performance data values different
from the first predetermined range of performance values and a
second predetermined quantitative category value different from the
first predetermined quantitative category value.
2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the selected performance
criteria include at least one of a quality of service criterion, a
cycle time criterion, and a customer satisfaction criterion.
3. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processor is further
configured to determine at least one of the performance criterion
values as a weighted sum based on a plurality of quantified
performance sub-criterion values and a plurality of weighting
factors assigned to the performance sub-criterion values.
4. The apparatus of claim 3 wherein the performance sub-criterion
values relate to one or more performance sub-criteria including:
actual assignment cost; assignment reinspection cost; Customer
Quality Index; audit results; Physical Damage Audit results;
periodic business review results; vendor self-assessment results;
customer response time; customer contact time; inspection time;
estimate submission time; job dispatch time; verbal report time;
written report time; Additional Living Expense results; contractor
services time; and environmental rating.
5. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processor is further
configured to determine at least one of the performance criterion
values based on record values in the service provider performance
data that exceed a target performance value.
6. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein, for at least one of the
performance criteria, the processor is further configured to:
assign each of a plurality of records in the service provider
performance data to one of a plurality of categories based on at
least one value in the record; determine, for each assigned record,
a category value corresponding to the category to which the record
is assigned; and determine the performance criterion value based on
an average of the determined category values.
7. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processor is further
configured to generate display data based on the performance
criterion values and the vendor quality index.
8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the display data represents a
page in a document, the page including: a first region indicating
assignment cost statistics for the service provider; a second
region indicating a quality of service summary for the service
provider; a third region indicating a cycle time summary for the
service provider; a fourth region indicating a customer
satisfaction summary for the service provider; and a fifth region
indicating the vendor quality index.
9. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processor is further
configured to credit or debit an account corresponding to the
service provider based on at least one of the quantitative
performance values.
10. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
processor-executable instructions stored thereon which, when
executed by at least one processor, will cause the at least one
processor to perform a method for determining a vendor quality
index of a service provider, the method comprising: receiving
service provider performance data stored in at least one memory
device, the service provider performance data related to services
performed by the service provider and including subjective
performance data; selecting a plurality of performance criteria
stored in the at least one memory device; determining, for each of
the plurality of performance criteria, a quantified performance
criterion value based on the service provider performance data;
storing the quantified performance criterion values in the at least
one memory device; determining the vendor quality index as a
weighted sum based on the performance criterion values and a
plurality of weighting factors; and storing the vendor quality
index in the at least one memory device, wherein for at least one
performance criterion, the plurality of categories includes a first
classification that corresponds to a first predetermined range of
performance data values and a first predetermined quantitative
category value, and a second classification that corresponds to a
second predetermined range of performance data values different
from the first predetermined range of performance values and a
second predetermined quantitative category value different from the
first predetermined quantitative category value.
11. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein the method
further comprises determining at least one of the performance
criterion values as a weighted sum based on a plurality of
quantified performance sub-criterion values and a plurality of
weighting factors assigned to the performance sub-criterion
values.
12. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein the method
further comprises determining at least one of the performance
criterion values based on record values in the service provider
performance data that exceed a target performance value.
13. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein, for at least
one of the performance criteria, the method further comprises:
assigning each of a plurality of records in the service provider
performance data to one of a plurality of categories based on at
least one value in the record; determining, for each assigned
record, a category value corresponding to the category to which the
record is assigned; and determining the performance criterion value
based on an average of the determined category values.
14. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein the method
further comprises: generating display data based on the performance
criterion values and the vendor quality index; and storing the
display data in the at least one memory device.
15. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein the method
further comprises performing a credit or debit on an account
corresponding to the service provider based on at least one of the
quantitative performance values.
16. A computer-implemented method for determining a vendor quality
index of a service provider, the method comprising: at least one
processor receiving service provider performance data related to
services performed by the service provider, the service provider
performance data including subjective performance data; the at
least one processor selecting a plurality of performance criteria;
the at least one processor determining, for each of the plurality
of performance criteria, a quantified performance criterion value
based on the service provider performance data; the at least one
processor determining the vendor quality index as a weighted sum
based on the performance criterion values and a plurality of
weighting factors, wherein for at least one performance criterion,
the plurality of categories includes a first classification that
corresponds to a first predetermined range of performance data
values and a first predetermined quantitative category value, and a
second classification that corresponds to a second predetermined
range of performance data values different from the first
predetermined range of performance values and a second
predetermined quantitative category value different from the first
predetermined quantitative category value.
17. The method of claim 16 wherein the method further comprises the
at least one processor generating display data based on the
performance criterion values and the vendor quality index.
18. The method of claim 17 wherein the display data represents a
page in a document, the page including: a first region indicating
assignment cost statistics for the service provider; a second
region indicating a quality of service summary for the service
provider; a third region indicating a cycle time summary for the
service provider; a fourth region indicating a customer
satisfaction summary for the service provider; and a fifth region
indicating the vendor quality index.
19. The method of claim 18 wherein the first region is positioned
in an upper left quarter of the page, the second region is
positioned in a bottom left quarter of the page, the third region
is positioned in upper right quarter of the page, the fourth region
is positioned in a bottom right quarter of the page, and the fifth
region is positioned at a bottom or a top of the paged and is
centered horizontally on the page.
20. The method of claim 16 wherein the processor is further
configured to determine at least one of the performance criterion
values as a weighted sum based on a plurality of quantified
performance sub-criterion values and a plurality of weighting
factors assigned to the performance sub-criterion values.
Description
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 12/425,885, filed Apr. 17, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
FIELD OF INVENTION
[0002] The current disclosure relates to computing systems,
apparatus, methods, and articles of manufacture for processing and
displaying service provider performance data.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Service level agreements (SLAs) and other contracts play a
significant role in the operation of many businesses. For example,
in the insurance industry, insurers may have SLAs with numerous
service providers (or vendors) who provide various desired services
to their customers when losses occur. Examples of such services may
include water damage repair and mitigation, fire and smoke damage
repair, and the like.
[0004] Service providers under an SLA are tasked to perform various
assignments based on the terms of the SLA. When a service provider
is tasked and performs an assignment, a record of that assignment
is typically generated. These assignment records may include
various information about the performance of the assignment by the
service provider, including a number of types of information such
as descriptions of the assignment, the procedures followed in
performing the assignment, costs of performing the assignment,
receipts, bills, reports produced by the service provider and/or
the assigning company, evaluations of performance and/or customer
satisfaction, etc. Because of the large number of assignments that
are performed by providers and the amount of information typically
contained in the record for each assignment, it may be difficult
for the assigning company to efficiently, yet accurately, assess
the performance of the service provider.
[0005] Even after the assigning company has identified and
separated out viable performance data from each record, it may
still be difficult to develop an overall assessment of the service
provider's performance. In many cases, much of the performance data
contained in the assignment records is of a subjective and
qualitative nature. This makes aggregating the performance data
over multiple assignments difficult. When data is successfully
aggregated, the large volume of the data presents challenges in
terms of presenting the data to users in formats that are concise
and easily comprehensible. Furthermore, the subjective and
qualitative nature of the data makes it extremely difficult to
compare the performance of different service providers,
particularly if these service providers are performing under SLAs
with different terms. This becomes ever more difficult if the
providers are performing different types of tasks (e.g. water
damage repair versus fire and smoke damage repair). Therefore,
different means of performance assessment may be necessary.
However, it would still be desirable to compare the performance of
the different service providers taking into account the differences
in their contract terms. Additionally, because of the current
verbose formats for the presentation of service provider data,
dissemination of the data requires extensive use of color
print-outs, paper, binders, and other materials that have a
negative environmental impact. Out of concern for the environment,
it would be desirable to present service provider performance data
in a compact format that optimizes the use of available
resources.
[0006] Current technologies do not meet the needs of users as
described above. Therefore, new technologies are required to
aggregate and quantify subjective performance data and to present
the performance data to users in a concise and actionable
format.
SUMMARY
[0007] Disclosed are computing systems, apparatus, methods, and
articles of manufacture for processing and displaying service
provider performance data. Service provider performance data
reflects how well service providers perform their assigned tasks,
and may contain subjective or qualitative values.
[0008] An apparatus for determining a vendor quality index (VQI) of
a service provider on assignments tasked to the service provider
includes a performance data processor configured to receive
performance data including a plurality of records, where each
record corresponds to an assignment tasked to the service provider
pursuant to a service level agreement (SLA). The apparatus further
includes an aggregation processor configured to aggregate and
classify the performance data, a quantifying processor configured
to determine quantitative performance values based on the
aggregated performance data, and a VQI processor configured to
calculate a VQI from the quantitative performance values.
[0009] An apparatus for determining a vendor quality index (VQI) of
a service provider includes a memory device configured to receive
service provider performance data related to services performed by
the service provider; the service provider performance data
including subjective performance data. The apparatus further
includes a processor. The processor is configured to select a
plurality of performance criteria and to determine, for each of the
plurality of performance criteria, a quantified performance
criterion value based on the service provider performance data. The
processor is further configured to determine the VQI as a weighted
sum based on the performance criterion values and a plurality of
weighting factors.
[0010] A computer-readable medium has processor-executable
instructions stored thereon which, when executed by at least one
processor, will cause the at least one processor to perform a
method for determining a vendor quality index (VQI) of a service
provider. The at least one processor receives service provider
performance data related to services performed by the service
provider; the service provider performance data including
subjective performance data. Further, the at least one processor
selects a plurality of performance criteria, and determines, for
each of the plurality of performance criteria, a quantified
performance criterion value based on the service provider
performance data. And the at least one processor determines the VQI
as a weighted sum based on the performance criterion values and a
plurality of weighting factors.
[0011] A system for determining a vendor quality index (VQI) of a
service provider includes a memory device configured to receive
service provider performance data related to services performed by
the service provider; the service provider performance data
including subjective performance data. The system further includes
a processor. The processor is configured to select a plurality of
performance criteria and to determine, for each of the plurality of
performance criteria, a quantified performance criterion value
based on the service provider performance data. The processor is
further configured to determine the VQI as a weighted sum based on
the performance criterion values and a plurality of weighting
factors.
[0012] A method for determining a vendor quality index (VQI) of a
service provider includes at least one processor receiving service
provider performance data related to services performed by the
service provider; the service provider performance data including
subjective performance data. The method further includes the at
least one processor selecting a plurality of performance criteria,
the at least one processor determining, for each of the plurality
of performance criteria, a quantified performance criterion value
based on the service provider performance data, and the at least
one processor determining the VQI as a weighted sum based on the
performance criterion values and a plurality of weighting
factors.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0013] A more detailed understanding may be had from the following
description, given by way of example in conjunction with the
accompanying drawings wherein:
[0014] FIG. 1 shows an example computing system for determining the
Vendor Quality Index of a service provider on assignments tasked to
the service provider;
[0015] FIG. 2 shows a second example computing system for
determining the Vendor Quality Index of a service provider on
assignments tasked to the service provider;
[0016] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram showing the functionality of the
example computing systems of FIGS. 1 and 2;
[0017] FIG. 4 shows an example graphical depiction (or "scorecard")
of data generated by the computing systems of FIGS. 1 and 2;
and
[0018] FIG. 5 shows an example architecture for the entry of data
into a performance data database within the context of an insurance
company.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0019] When referred to hereafter, the term "processor" includes
but is not limited to a single- or multi-core general purpose
processor, a special purpose processor, a conventional processor, a
digital signal processor (DSP), a plurality of microprocessors, one
or more microprocessors in association with a DSP core, a
controller, a microcontroller, one or more Application Specific
Integrated Circuits (ASICs), one or more Field Programmable Gate
Array (FPGA) circuits, any other type of integrated circuit (IC), a
system-on-a-chip (SOC), and/or a state machine. When referred to
hereafter, the term "computer-readable storage medium" includes but
is not limited to a register, a cache memory, a read-only memory
(ROM), a semiconductor memory device such as a Dynamic Random
Access Memory (D-RAM), Static RAM (S-RAM), or other RAM, a magnetic
medium such as a flash memory, a hard disk, a magneto-optical
medium, an optical medium such as a CD-ROM, a digital versatile
disk (DVDs), or Blu-Ray disc (BD), other volatile or non-volatile
memory, or other type of device for electronic data storage. When
referred to hereafter, the term "memory device" is a device
configurable to read and/or write data to/from one or more
computer-readable storage media.
[0020] When referred to hereafter, the term "display device"
includes but is not limited to a monitor or television display, a
plasma display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), or a display based
on technologies such as front or rear projection, light emitting
diodes (LEDs), organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs), or Digital
Light Processing (DLP). When referred to hereafter, the term "input
device" includes but is not limited to a keyboard, a mouse, a
trackball, a scanner, a touch screen, a touch pad, a stylus pad,
and/or other device that generates electronic signals based on
interactions with a human user. Input devices may operate using
technologies such as Bluetooth, Universal Serial Bus (USB), PS/2,
or other technologies for data transmission.
[0021] FIG. 1 shows an example computing system 150 for determining
the Vendor Quality Index (VQI) of a service provider on assignments
tasked to the service provider. The VQI of a service provider
indicates the service provider performance in a matter that is
easily compared both to ideal performance standards and to
performance of other service providers of the same business or
organization. As described in further detail below, the VQI is a
weighted sum based on the performance criterion values and a
plurality of weighting factors. The example computing system 150
includes a processor 124, a memory device 126, and a communications
bus 130 for communications of data between components. Computing
system 150 optionally includes a number of components, including
graphics subsystem 142, network interface 122, input interface 128,
and printer driver 132. Graphics subsystem 142 may provide data to
and/or drive display device 136. Network interface 122 provides a
wired or wireless network connection over which the computing
system 150 may connect to networked printer 138 or to the Internet
140. Input interface 128 may be, for example, a wireless connection
or data port capable of receiving data from one or more input
devices. Printer driver 132 provides data to and/or drives local
printer 134.
[0022] Computing system 150 includes a subsystem 152 for evaluating
service provider performance data, determining the VQI based on the
performance data, generating graphical output data to display
results, and analyzing the VQI and related data. The subsystem 152
includes performance data module 100, aggregation module 102,
quantifying module 104, VQI module 106, display module 108, and
results analysis module 110. The modules 100, 102, 104, 106, 108,
110 may be implemented as software modules, specific-purpose
processor elements, or as combinations thereof. Suitable software
modules include, by way of example, an executable program, a
function, a method call, a procedure, a routine or sub-routine, a
set of processor-executable instructions, a script or macro, an
object, or a data structure. Some or all of the modules 100, 102,
104, 106, 108, 110 may be implemented as, by way of further
example, modules or sub-routines within a spreadsheet program such
as Microsoft Excel.RTM., a database program, or other type of
program. Data used by and/or generated by the modules 100, 102,
104, 106, 108, 110 may be stored in memory device 126. The
processor 124 is configurable to operate and control the operation
of the modules 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 and to control
communications between the modules 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 and
other components of computing system 150 such as the printer driver
132, graphics subsystem 142, memory device 126, network interface
122, and input interface 128.
[0023] Performance data module 100 provides performance data to
aggregation module 102. Performance data includes records
corresponding to assignments tasked to a service provider.
Performance data module 100 may obtain performance data from one or
more files stored in memory device 126, or from one or more
database management systems, additional computer-readable storage
media, or other devices (not depicted) via local interfaces and/or
network interface 122.
[0024] Performance data may be categorized according to performance
criteria used to assess the performance of the service provider,
such as quality of service, cycle times, and/or customer
satisfaction. Each performance criteria may be further defined in
terms of associated sub-criteria (or "performance categories").
Performance categories associated with quality of service may
include: an actual assignment cost category; an assignment
reinspection cost category; a Customer Quality Index (CQI)
category; one or more audit categories, related to ad hoc or
scheduled audits and/or audits such as Physical Damage Audits
(PDAs); a periodic business review category, related to business
reviews performed on a regular basis such as quarterly, yearly, or
otherwise; and a vendor self-assessment category. Performance
categories associated with cycle times may include: a customer
response time category; a customer contact time category; an
inspection time category; an estimate submission time category; a
job dispatch time category; a verbal report time category; a
written report time category; an Additional Living Expense (ALE)
category, related to the placement of homeowners in temporary
residences while their homes are repaired; and a contractor
services time category, related to measurements of whether
contractors contact the insured and begin and finish tasks in a
timely manner. A performance category associated with customer
satisfaction may include a customer satisfaction survey results
category. Additionally, performance criteria and/or performance
categories may include environmental ratings reflecting the extent
to which service providers engage in environmentally-sensitive (or
"green") practices.
[0025] Aggregation module 102 selects one or more performance
criteria from the available performance criteria, and aggregates
and classifies performance data in performance categories
associated with the selected performance criteria. The selection of
performance criteria may be performed based on one or more criteria
selection parameters. The values for the criteria selection
parameters may be based on user input received via input interface
128. The criteria selection parameters may indicate, for example,
that criteria related to terms specified (explicitly or implicitly)
in a relevant SLA should be selected. Criteria specified in the SLA
may include, for example, average cost per assignment (service
event) and average initial response time. The criteria selection
parameters may alternatively be based on types of assignments
handled by a service provider. For example, criteria selection
parameters may indicate that where a service provider performs
water damage repair services, a time cycle criteria may be
selected, but that different criteria are selected where a service
provider performs smoke damage repair services. This configuration
of criteria selection parameters would reflect that water damage
repair is frequently time-critical, and that the likelihood of
additional damage occurring during a delay in the performance of
smoke damage repair may be less. Criteria selection parameters may
additionally indicate that more or less parameters should be
selected based on user input indicating that a more or less
in-depth analysis is required.
[0026] Aggregation module 102 may organize performance data in
performance categories related to the selected performance criteria
into a table data structure. As an example, each row in the table
data structure may correspond to a record for a performance of an
assignment (service event), and each column may include performance
data for one performance category. Alternatively, different row and
column arrangements may be used. Aggregation module 102 may provide
a graphical representation of the table data structure to display
device 136. The graphical representation may be, for example, a
spreadsheet or similar representation, and may be rendered to a
user via graphics subsystem 142 and display device 136.
[0027] Quantifying module 104 determines a quantitative performance
value for each selected performance criteria. The quantifying
module 104 selects one or more quantifying procedures to use from a
set of available quantifying procedures, and generates the
quantitative performance values by applying the selected
quantifying procedures to the performance data as aggregated and
classified by aggregation module 102.
[0028] Many different procedures may be performed by quantifying
module 104 to quantify the performance criteria. Below is a list of
several example quantifying procedures. However, this list is
illustrative only and is not intended to be limiting: [0029] i)
Quantifying module 104 groups records into a number of qualitative
categories associated with the performance criteria, based on
performance data in the records. Each qualitative category
corresponds to a range of values in the performance data. By way of
example, records may indicate subjective performance rating data
for a category on a scale of possible values of 1 to 10. Records
with values from 1 to 4 may be assigned to an "unsatisfactory"
category, and records with values from 5 to 10 may be assigned to a
"satisfactory" category. The quantifying module 104 associates
"unsatisfactory" records with a quantitative value of 0, and
associates "satisfactory" records with a quantitative value of 1.
Accordingly, category values for the records may be determined
based on the categories to which the records have been assigned.
For example, a "unsatisfactory" record will have a category value
of 0 and a "satisfactory" record will have a category value of 1.
Quantifying module 104 then determines a sum or average of the
determined category values to derive the performance value
corresponding to the performance criteria. [0030] ii) Quantifying
module 104 determines what fraction of the records indicates that a
target value for the performance criterion was exceeded, and it
determines the performance value based on the determined fraction.
[0031] iii) Quantifying module 104 selects a subset of records that
include performance data related to the performance criterion.
Records are grouped in the subset according to a number of
qualitative categories associated with the performance criteria,
based on performance data in the records. Category values are
determined for records based on categories to which the records
have been assigned. Quantifying module 104 determines an average of
the category values to derive the performance value corresponding
to the performance criteria. [0032] iv) Quantifying module 104
selects a subset of records that include performance data related
to the performance criterion. A determination is made of the
fraction of the records in the subset of records which indicate
that a target value for the performance criterion was exceeded. The
quantifying module 104 determines the performance value based on
the determined fraction.
[0033] The selection of the quantifying procedures used to
determine quantitative performance values may be performed by the
quantifying module 104 based on one or more procedure selection
parameters. The procedure selection parameters may be based on user
input received via input interface 128.
[0034] The procedure selection parameters may indicate, for
example, that quantifying procedures should be selected based on
the format and/or content of the performance data. Performance data
may vary in format and content between the different performance
criteria, and even between different assignments for the same
performance criteria. For example, two records associated with two
different assignments may include data for different performance
categories, possibly due to different data recording practices.
Alternatively, the two records may include the same types of
performance data, but one may have extenuating circumstances that
require different treatment. For example, in SLAs for insurance
repair work, there may be significant differences between the
expectations for performance of a non-catastrophic claim versus a
catastrophic claim. In the case of a catastrophic claim, the
desired time cycles for estimating and conducting repairs may be
different than for a non-catastrophic claim. Thus, the procedure
that should be used to quantify a time cycle criteria may be
different in these two cases, and these differences would be
reflected in the procedure selection parameters
[0035] As an additional example, procedure selection parameters may
indicate that where the data available for a criterion is primarily
subjective data, such as customer satisfaction surveys, a procedure
that includes the grouping of records into a number of qualitative
categories should be used. Furthermore, procedure selection
parameters may indicate that where only a subset of the records
include performance data related to the customer service criterion,
a procedure that includes selecting only the subset of records that
include data should be used. For example, a customer service
criterion may be based on customer satisfaction surveys but
customer satisfaction survey data may be absent in many records. In
such a case, a procedure that includes selecting only the subset of
records that include data may be used, and this would be reflected
in the procedure selection parameters. Values for the procedure
selection parameters may be based on user input received via input
interface 128.
[0036] After selecting the quantifying procedures, the quantifying
module 104 uses the selected procedures to determine quantitative
performance values. VQI module 106 then determines a VQI based on
the quantitative performance values.
[0037] VQI module 106 may determine the VQI by determining a
weighting factor for each quantitative performance value,
multiplying each quantitative performance value by the
corresponding weighting factor, and summing the products of the
multiplied quantitative performance values and weighting factors.
The weighting factors may be based on user input received via input
interface 128. Weighting factors may be adjusted to focus the VQI
on aspects of performance criteria that a user has determined to be
the most important and/or to de-emphasize criteria that a user has
determined to be less important. In an example use case, a user may
set performance factors to indicate that a particular performance
criterion is very important. At a subsequent point in time, the
user may adjust the weighting factors to reflect that other
performance criteria have become of greater importance.
[0038] Display module 108 may receive the data generated by the
quantifying module 104 and VQI module 106 and generate data for the
display of the received data. The display data may be communicated
by the display module 108 to the printer driver 132 and to the
printer 134, and the printer 134 may produce a printed version of
the display data. The display data may be communicated to graphics
subsystem 142 by display module 108 to display device 136, and
display device 136 may render the display data to a user. An
example visual depiction of the display data that may be generated
by display module 108 and printed by printer 134 or rendered by
display device 136 is described in detail below with reference to
FIG. 4.
[0039] The display data generated by display module 108 may take
various forms according to various implementations of display
module 108 and computing system 150. For example, the generated
display may represent the contents of an image, one or more pages
in a document, or other visual artifact. The generated display data
may be compressed or uncompressed image data according to a format
such as Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG), Tagged Image File
Format (TIFF), Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), bitmap, or other
format. The generated display data may be data or instructions
interpretable by a window manager, desktop manager, graphical user
interface, printer driver, graphics driver, word processor,
document viewing or editing program, or other software or hardware
component related to the implementation of a user interface and/or
graphics.
[0040] Results analysis module 110 may receive the data generated
by the quantifying module 104 and/or VQI module 106 and determine
whether parameters used by the performance data module 100,
aggregation module 102, quantifying module 104, and VQI module 108
should be changed. For example, results analysis module 110 may
compare VQI values generated with respect to multiple vendors. If a
large portion of the vendors have VQI values that exceed a
threshold, the results analysis module 110 may adjust parameters
used in other modules 100, 102, 104, 106 such that generated VQI
values are lowered. Alternatively, if a large portion of vendors
have VQI values that fall short of a threshold, the results
analysis module 110 may adjust parameters used in other modules
100, 102, 104, 106 such that generated VQI values are raised.
Parameters that may be changed by the results analysis module 110
include the performance value criteria, performance value
sub-criteria, and weighting factors used by the other modules 100,
102, 104, 106.
[0041] Additionally, results analysis module 110 may perform
electronic commerce or banking functionality based on data received
from the quantifying module 104 and/or VQI module 106. Data
indicating previous payments made to service providers may be
available to results analysis module 110 in memory device 126
and/or via network interface 122. Payments to service providers may
be contingent upon subsequent VQI, performance criteria values,
and/or performance sub-criteria values, and rules that correlate
performance to compensation may be stored in memory device 126.
Results analysis module 110 may determine that, based on the
compensation rules and the data received from the quantifying
module 104 and/or VQI module 106, a debit or credit should be made
against the account of a service provider. Results analysis module
110 may then initiate an electronic transaction to perform the
determined debit or credit. For example, if results analysis module
110 determines that a service provider has exceeded a required VQI
or service performance criteria or sub-criteria, the results
analysis module 110 may initiate the payment of a bonus to the
service provider. If the results analysis module 110 determines
that a service provider has been overcompensated for work
performed, the results analysis module 110 may initiate a debit on
the account of the service provider. The results analysis module
110 may initiate the credit or debit via network interface 122 by
utilizing a technology such as Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or
other appropriate service or protocol.
[0042] Further, results analysis module 110 may analyze data
received from the quantifying module 104 and/or VQI module 106
based on triggers, and alert users when a triggering event occurs.
For example, a trigger may be set based on whether a service
provider exceeds a required VQI, one or more performance criteria
values, or one or more performance sub-criteria values.
Alternatively, a trigger may be set based on whether a number of
service providers have a required VQI, one or more performance
criteria values, or one or more performance sub-criteria values.
When a trigger condition exists, results analysis module 110 may
generate an alert email to send to a user indicating that the
trigger condition has been met. Alternatively, results analysis
module 110 communicate with display module 108 to generate display
data indicating that the trigger condition has been met. A
corresponding alert may then be displayed to a user on display
device 136. A user may use the alerts, for example, as a basis for
renegotiating terms of an SLA with one or more service
providers.
[0043] Computing system 150 may be implemented, for example, in a
computer, System-on-a-Chip, or other computing or data processing
device or apparatus. The processor 124 is configurable to execute
instructions specifying the functionality of the modules 100, 102,
104, 106, 108, 110 as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The
instructions may be stored in memory device 126 and/or in one or
more additional computer-readable storage media (not depicted).
[0044] FIG. 2 shows a second example computing system 250 for
determining the VQI of a service provider on assignments tasked to
the service provider. The example computing system 250 of FIG. 2
includes a subsystem 252 for evaluating service provider
performance data, determining the VQI based on the performance
data, and generating graphical output data to display results.
Subsystem 252 includes: aggregation processor 202; quantifying
processor 204 coupled to aggregation processor 202; VQI processor
206 coupled to quantifying processor 204; display processor 208
coupled to quantifying processor 204 and VQI processor 206; and
results analysis processor 210 coupled to display processor 208,
VQI processor 206, and quantifying processor 204. The various
processors 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210 described with reference to
FIG. 2 may be embodied in separate elements. Alternatively, two or
more of the processors may coexist within a single processor
element. Computing system 250 may optionally include input
interface 228, and may optionally be in communication with memory
device 226, display device 236, and printer 214.
[0045] The input interface 228 and processors 200, 202, 204, 206,
208, 210 perform the same or similar functions as described above
with reference respectively to the corresponding input interface
128 and modules 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 of FIG. 1. The
performance data processor 200 may provide performance data to
aggregation processor 202. The aggregation processor 202 may select
one or more performance criteria from the available performance
criteria. The aggregation processor 202 may then aggregate and
classify the performance data in performance categories associated
with the selected performance criteria. The quantifying processor
204 may select one or more quantifying procedures to use from a set
of available quantifying procedures. The quantifying processor 204
may then generate the quantitative performance values by applying
the selected quantifying procedures to the performance data as
aggregated and classified by aggregation processor 202. VQI
processor 206 may determine the VQI by determining a weighting
factor for each quantitative performance value, multiply each
quantitative performance factor by the corresponding weighting
factor, and sum the products of the multiplied quantitative
performance factors and weighting factors. Display processor 208
may receive the data generated by the quantifying processor 204 and
VQI processor 206 and generate display data representing the
received data. The display data created by the display processor
208 may be stored in memory device 226, rendered by display device
236, or printed by printer 214. An example visual depiction of the
display data that may be generated by the display processor 208 is
described in detail below with reference to FIG. 4. The results
analysis processor 210 may adjust parameters used in other
processors 200, 202, 204, 206, initiate electronic debits or
credits to accounts corresponding to service providers, and/or
generate alerts based on trends in generated VQIs and other
data.
[0046] Computing system 250 may be implemented, for example, in a
computer, System-on-a-Chip, or other computing or data processing
device or apparatus. The processors 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210
are configurable to execute instructions specifying the
functionality of the processors 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210 as
described above. The instructions may be stored in ROMs or flash
memories in the processors 200, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210 in memory
device 226, and/or in one or more additional computer-readable
storage media (not depicted).
[0047] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram showing the functionality of the
subsystems 152, 252 of computing systems 150, 250 of FIGS. 1 and 2.
The aggregation module 102 or aggregation processor 202 select 300
the performance criteria to be quantitatively assessed. The
quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204 determine 302
procedures to use to quantify performance values associated with
the selected performance criteria. The quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 apply 303 the determined procedure to the
performance data to quantify the performance values. The VQI module
106 or VQI processor 206 assign 304 a weighting factor to each
selected performance criteria. The VQI module 106 or VQI processor
206 determine 305 a weighted sum of the quantified performance
values to determine the VQI. The results analysis module 110 or
results analysis processor 210 may analyze 306 generated VQIs and
other data, and may determine to adjust operational parameters,
initiate electronic transactions with service provider banks,
and/or generate alerts based on trends in the generated VQIs and
other data. The display module 108 or display processor 208 may
generate 306 graphics data including the performance values and the
VQI.
[0048] FIG. 4 shows an example depiction 400 of display data (also
referred to as a "scorecard") that may be produced by the display
module 108 or display processor 208 of FIGS. 1 and 2. The example
scorecard 400 is separated into four quadrants 402, 404, 406, and
408 and includes VQI section 410 centered at the bottom of
scorecard 400.
[0049] First quadrant 402 of scorecard 400 includes assignment cost
statistics for the service provider. Assignment cost statistics
shown in the first quadrant 402 include the number (net) of
assignments, the total amount spent, and average job cost. The
table shown in first quadrant 402 shows these cost statistics
broken down according to quarters in the year and also shows a
yearly total for each statistic.
[0050] Second quadrant 404 of scorecard 400 includes a quality of
service summary for the service provider. The second quadrant 402
summarizes the procedure used by the quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 to quantify a quality of service
criterion for this service provider, and also shows a weighted
performance value 414 and weighting factor 412 for this performance
criterion.
[0051] As illustrated in second quadrant 404, the value for the
quality of service criterion would be determined by quantifying
module 104 or quantifying processor 204 based on weighted averages
for values of two performance categories, namely reinspection
results and customer quality index (CQI) results. In scorecard 400,
the weighting factors for these two performance categories are each
50%, although different weighting factors may be used.
[0052] The value for the reinspection results performance category
would be generated by the quantifying module 104 or quantifying
processor 204 by comparing parameters that indicate the actual cost
of performing assignments charged by the service provider and the
reinspection costs determined by a claims adjuster. The quantifying
module 104 or quantifying processor 204 would assign a standard
reinspection value to records where the net deviation between the
actual cost and the reinspection cost of an assignment is less than
or equal to a defined percentage, i.e. a standard reinspection
result. Otherwise, the quantifying module 104 or quantifying
processor 204 would assign an unsatisfactory reinspection value to
the record. As shown in this example, the value for the
reinspection result performance category is based on the net
deviation, up or down, between the actual cost and the reinspection
cost, not just net increases.
[0053] The defined percentage used by the quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 for the net deviation may be based on a
number of factors including, but not limited to: the average cost
of each assignment; the type of service provided by the service
provider under an SLA; whether an assignment is designated as a
catastrophe or a non-catastrophe; the length of time that the
service provider has performed such assignments; or the number of
such assignments the service provider has performed. Based on such
factors, the defined percentage for the net deviation may often be
in the range of about 3% to about 10%. In example scorecard 400 of
FIG. 4, the defined percentage is 9%.
[0054] The quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204
would determine an average of the reinspection values to quantify
the reinspection results. In example scorecard 400, the standard
reinspection value is +1 and the unsatisfactory reinspection value
is -1. In this example, an unsatisfactory reinspection value of -1
makes the final reinspection value very sensitive to unsatisfactory
results.
[0055] The quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204
would determine the CQI results shown in quadrant 404 by grouping
CQI values into three performance categories: standard CQIs;
unsatisfactory CQIs; and marginal CQIs. In scorecard 400, CQI
results were scored from 1.0 to 3.0 in half point increments. The
quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204 would group
CQIs 1.0 and 1.5 as unsatisfactory, 2.0 and 2.5 as marginal, and
3.0 as standard. In this example, the standard CQI value is +1, and
the unsatisfactory CQI value is -1. Values for the marginal CQIs
are not shown; however, the example determination shown in quadrant
404 reflects that the marginal CQI value may be considered as being
zero, and that the overall CQI calculation may be considered as
being an average of the CQI values of all of the assignments.
[0056] Third quadrant 406 of scorecard 400 shows a weighted cycle
time performance value 418 that would be determined by quantifying
module 104 or quantifying processor 204. The cycle time criterion
value 418 is based on three performance categories: customer
response time; job dispatch time; and verbal report time. Other
cycle time performance categories (such as a customer contact time,
an inspection time, an estimate submission time, or a written
response time) may also be included. The quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 would determine a complying fraction of
the service provider assignments, i.e. those assignments for which
the corresponding record indicates that the corresponding target
value for the cycle time was exceeded. The quantifying module 104
or quantifying processor 204 would then average the complying
fractions for the three cycle time performance categories to
determine the cycle time performance value, which is then
multiplied by weighting factor 416 (30%) to determine weighted
cycle time performance value 418 in example scorecard 400.
[0057] Fourth quadrant 408 of scorecard 400 includes a weighted
customer satisfaction performance value 422 that would be generated
by the quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204 based on
the results of customer satisfaction surveys. In this example, not
every customer has completed a survey, and so not every record
includes this performance data. Thus, the quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 would identify a subset of the records
that include customer satisfaction data, and then would determine a
customer service value based on a fraction of records from the
identified records that indicate that a specified customer
satisfaction level was met. The quantifying module 104 or
quantifying processor 204 may use this fraction as the quantified
customer satisfaction criterion, which is then multiplied by
weighting factor 420 (20%) to calculate weighted customer
satisfaction performance value 422 in this example.
[0058] In example scorecard 400, the VQI is presented in VQI
section 410, which is centered at the bottom of the scorecard.
Different locations to display the VQI may be used, although the
VQI section may be located in a position chosen to draw attention
to the VQI. Thus, the VQI section may be located either at, or
near, either the top of the scorecard or the bottom of the
scorecard, separate from the four quadrants of other
information.
[0059] As noted above, the VQI is a weighted average of the various
performance values associated with the performance criteria. In the
example of FIG. 4, these weighting factors are: quality of service
weighting factor 412 (50%) for the quality of service criterion;
cycle time weighting factor 416 (30%) for the cycle time criterion;
and customer satisfaction weighting factor 420 (20%) for the
customer satisfaction criterion. However, other weighting factors
may be used. In many situations, the weighting factor assigned the
quality of service criterion may be in the range of about 33% to
about 60%; the weighting factor assigned to the cycle time
criterion may be in the range of about 20% to about 40%; and the
weighting factor assigned to the customer satisfaction criterion
may be in the range of about 10% to about 25%.
[0060] In FIG. 4, the quantifying procedures used by the
quantifying module 104 or quantifying processor 204 to quantify the
performance criteria are determined such that the resulting
performance values are normalized to be less than 1. When the
weighting factors total to 1, this may have the effect, as seen in
FIG. 4, that the VQI may be presented as a percentage where 100%
represents ideal performance. The parameters described above, such
as the percentage for net deviation, the values for classifying
reinspections and CQIs, and the weighting factors, may be based on
input from a user received via input interfaces 128, 228.
[0061] As seen in FIG. 4, the scorecard 400 may be rendered on a
single page. This concise format has the advantage of allowing a
user to ascertain important information regarding a service
provider at a single glance. The example scorecard 400 shows, for
example, the total volume and costs of assignments performed by the
service provider 402, the weighted values for three service
criteria 414, 418, 422, as well as the VQI 410.
[0062] FIG. 5 shows an example architecture for the entry of data
into a performance data database 500 within the context of an
insurance company 550. The database 500 of FIG. 5 may be used, for
example, as a source of performance data for the example computing
systems 150, 250 of FIGS. 1 and 2, and may be in communication with
performance data module 100 or performance data processor 200.
[0063] Data providers 552 direct the communication of performance
data to the insurance company 550, and the data providers 552
include but are not limited to policy holders 502, adjusters 504,
and service providers 506. A policy holder 502 may communicate
information to the insurance company 550 such as how well a service
provider 506 has met cycle times. An adjuster 504 may communicate
information to the insurance company 550 such as the anticipated
cost for the performance of an assignment (the "reinspection cost")
and the actual cost for an assignment charged by a service provider
506. A service provider 506 may communicate information to the
insurance company 550 such as invoices and descriptions of the
procedures used in performing assignments.
[0064] The communication of data may be performed by the data
providers 552 in electronic form through an electronic
communications network such as the Internet 508. This communication
is performed, for example, through devices such as a computer 520
and/or a hand-held computing devices 522 operated by the data
providers 552. Data may be received at the insurance company 550 at
one or more data intake servers 514. The data intake servers may
include, for example, a web server and/or application server that
serves a web application to allow the data providers 552 to enter
data via a web form. Alternatively, the data intake server may
receive data from custom data entry client applications operated by
the data providers 552. The data intake server 514 may be
implemented on a single computer or multiple computers. Other data
may be delivered by the data providers 552 through non-electronic
delivery 510. Non-electronic delivery 510 may be accomplished, for
example, through the transmission of information verbally via
telephone or through physical hardcopies via mail or direct
delivery. When data is delivered in a non-electronic form, the data
must be converted into an electronic format before it may be added
to the database 500. Converting to an electronic form may be
performed using one or more electronic conversion devices 512. For
example, data may be entered manually into a computer 516 via one
or more input devices. Additionally, conversion devices such as a
scanner 518 may be used. A scanner 518 may implement technology
such as Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and may generate text
and/or image data based on the physical materials provided by the
data providers 552.
[0065] After data is converted using electronic conversion devices
512 or received at the data intake server 514, the data may be
additionally modified or supplemented prior to or after its entry
in the performance database 500. For example, additional data
fields such as a subjective customer quality index (CQI) may be
added to the data. CQI values may be based on factors such as
whether procedures were followed properly during performance of the
assignment.
[0066] The database 500 may be implemented differently according to
the requirements of insurance company 550. For example, the
database 500 may be one or more flat files, spreadsheets,
structured files, relational database management systems (RDBMSs)
or other data storage programs. The database 500 may operate on a
single computer, multiple computers, and/or in a dedicated data
center.
[0067] Although the features and elements described above with
reference to FIGS. 1-5 are described in particular combinations,
each feature or element may be used alone without the other
features and elements or in various combinations with or without
other features and elements.
* * * * *