[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2004053744A1 - Systeme et procede d'evaluation - Google Patents

Systeme et procede d'evaluation Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2004053744A1
WO2004053744A1 PCT/AU2003/001639 AU0301639W WO2004053744A1 WO 2004053744 A1 WO2004053744 A1 WO 2004053744A1 AU 0301639 W AU0301639 W AU 0301639W WO 2004053744 A1 WO2004053744 A1 WO 2004053744A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
field
database
client
responses
grouping
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Ceased
Application number
PCT/AU2003/001639
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
David James Lawrence
Andrew Behn
Ross Parslow
Phillip Macmahon
Michael Duggan
David Jenkins
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
BHP Innovation Pty Ltd
Original Assignee
BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd filed Critical BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd
Priority to AU2003291837A priority Critical patent/AU2003291837A1/en
Publication of WO2004053744A1 publication Critical patent/WO2004053744A1/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Ceased legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00—Commerce
    • G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to the field of benchmarking or evaluating business processes and systems.
  • the present Invention in one form, provides a method, system and/or apparatus which is directed to promote and/or monitor business activities and practices around core objectives in line with business expectations and goals.
  • a particular application of the present invention is in the extractive industry.
  • the present invention also applies to the manufacturing, mining or any industry where there are steps in the production or manufacturing process.
  • the present invention may be utilised to evaluate each or a combination of steps.
  • the present invention may be applied to many fields of industry where benchmarking and/or evaluation takes place. BACKGROUND ART
  • the present Invention provides, in one aspect of Invention, a database arrangement for use In an evaluation system, the database including a first field representing foundation element(s) and/or core activities, a second field representing sub element(s), and in which at least one of the second field is associated with one of the first fields.
  • the foundation eleme ⁇ t(s) are enabling practices in conducting client activities
  • the core activities are management practice (s) applicable to client activity
  • the sub element(s) are various topics associated with the first field.
  • a third field representing practices and being associated with at least the first or second fields may also be provided.
  • a layer of at least one fourth field representing leading practice statements, good practice statements and/or other information, associated with the third field may further be provided.
  • the present invention provides, in another inventive aspect, a fifth field representing 'R' and 'I' questions, being associated with at least one of the first and second fields.
  • the fifth field Is also associated with a plurality of third fields.
  • the present invention provides, in still another inventive aspect, a database including the arrangement as disclosed herein.
  • the present invenlion further provides, in an inventive aspect, an evaluation system including the database and/or database arrangement as disclosed herein. Furthermore, the present invention provides, in an inventive aspect, a method of analysing data resultant from an evaluation process, the method including the steps of obtaining responses to questions, grouping the responses by toplc(s), determining whether the grouping(s) are outside a predetermined threshold, where for those grouping(s) outside the threshold, additionally ranking the topic(s) according to predetermined criteria, and developing a project for implementation within the topic, and where for those grouping(s) not outside the threshold, additionally determining whether the topic(s) has associated with it a relatively significant strength.
  • the grouping of responses can be performed by any suitable method, such asihe cutting loss method.
  • the present invention involves applying evaluation of core activities (these being the methods of creating value and succeeding In a competitive marketplace) and foundation elements (representing the enabling practices that best support the core activities), selectively and/or In combination, to the 'value chain' (representing the business production line, such as exploration, marketing, mining, resource management, minerals extraction, processing and final production, and product sales).
  • evaluation of core activities these being the methods of creating value and succeeding In a competitive marketplace
  • foundation elements representing the enabling practices that best support the core activities
  • the 'value chain' representing the business production line, such as exploration, marketing, mining, resource management, minerals extraction, processing and final production, and product sales.
  • the present invention also applies to the manufacturing, mining or any industry where there are activities or steps in the production or manufacturing process.
  • the present invention may be utilised to evaluate each activity or step or a combination of activities or steps.
  • Questions are provided in a data base, and updated after evaluating the pertinent leading practices for the particular functional network and building on the base framework and questions already available.
  • the individual leading practices associated with the questions are tagged for the network to then recall as a question set to be used in an evaluation.
  • a group of many leading practice statements can be associated with topics or a selection of questions that are pertinent to the business value chain.
  • the framework also allows for a selection of management practices that are foundational for building excellent businesses. Furthermore, these are also able to be populated with customized leading practice statements for the various networks.
  • there is a set hierarchy that enables the questions to be categorized under the ADRI framework for business excellence.
  • the questions can be selected to maintain the same intent but to be flavored for any client discipline
  • the present invention provides a means by which business operations in a particular industry or process are now able to be relatively self- evaluated against benchmarks and, in turn, identify areas for improvement.
  • the present invention in one form, aims to promote a standard language around core activities and management practices and that will help people on site discover leading practices and assist information sharing across activities.
  • 'client' refers to the entity or thing which is being evaluated in accordance with and/or by the present invention.
  • the 'client 1 may be a business, a person, a group of people and/or businesses, business process and or discipline, business location or site, market segments, customer base or part thereof, etc.
  • a "client activity' refers to what the client does, business or industry steps or process steps and/Or what is being evaluated.
  • a business conducts business activities or a person undertakes certain processes. These activities and/or processes are considered to be client activities.
  • FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of the evaluation system according to one aspect of invention
  • Figure 2 illustrates an arrangement of leading practice statements grouped by topic under element and/or sub element headings.
  • Figure 3 illustrates, in more detail, the relationship between the framework and leading practice statements,
  • Figure 5 network infrastructure associated with an embodiment of the present invention
  • Figure 6 illustrates a data analysis flowchart
  • Figure 7 illustrates a cutting-loss method of grouping responses as only one exemplary method of grouping responses.
  • DETAILED DESCRIPTION A General outline Referring to Figure 1, a schematic overview of the evaluation system according to one aspect of invention is illustrated. There is a framework 1 which depicts the interrelationship between various aspects for a client.
  • the framework 1 includes a client value chain 2, foundation elements 3, core activities 4, and client disciplines 5.
  • the evaluation system of the present invention compares practices across the foundation and core activities of the client activities reviewing approach, deployment, results and improvement.
  • the framework 1 enables the comparison of practices across foundation elements, core activities within the context of chosen client disciplines. The comparison is provided by rating maturity of the client against predetermined leading practice statement(s).
  • the client value chain 2 represents certain aspects of a client and/or process under evaluation. The aspects may vary according to the particular purpose of the evaluation or may vary according to the particular client being evaluated.
  • the client value chain 2 depicted represents, as an example only, a natural recourses business value chain.
  • the value chain 2 includes exploration 6, portfolio management and strategic marketing 7, resource management 8, mining extraction 9, mineral processing 10, metals processing final product 1'1 , product distribution 12 and sales 13. Obviously, other clients being evaluated would have value chains 2 representative of their particular business and/or activity.
  • the foundation elements 3 represent the various foundation elements of management practice which are applicable to the client activity.
  • the foundation elements 3 are the enabling practices which are done by the client and include relatively generic client practices which are undertaken in conducting client activities.
  • the foundation elements 3 depicted, as an example only, include values mission and vision 14, performance management 15, leadership and alignment 16, evaluation processes 17, market focus customers suppliers 16, knowledge sharing and innovation 19, planning 20, metrics and reporting 21 and improvement methodology 22.
  • other client practices being evaluated would have foundation elements representative of their particular business and/or activity.
  • the core activities represent the various more detailed elements of management practice which are applicable to the client activity.
  • the core activities 4 include relatively detailed client practices which are undertaken to create value in association with conducting client activities.
  • the core activities 4 depicted, as an example only, include HSE&C management 23, resource planning 24, production 25, maintenance 26, supply chain management 27, information management 28, project delivery 29 and support services 30.
  • HSE&C management 23 includes HSE&C management 23, resource planning 24, production 25, maintenance 26, supply chain management 27, information management 28, project delivery 29 and support services 30.
  • other client practices being evaluated would have core activities representative of their particular business and/or activity. ⁇
  • the client disciplines 5 represent the leading practice statements 31 to be applied to a particular client activity. Where a group of clients or multiple sectors of clients are to be evaluated according to the present invention, the client discipline 5 represents the leading practice statements 31 to be applied to the group or sectors of clients.
  • the framework 1 provides the ability to configure, wholly or partially, leading practice statements 31.
  • the leading practice statements 31 reflect the standard against which the particular evaluation is conducted.
  • Each leading practice statement 31 reflects at least two of client value chain 2, foundation elements 3, core activities 4 and/or client discipline 5.
  • Each leading practice statement is also tagged or flagged to provide a link to its corresponding client value chain, foundation element(s), core activities and/or client discipline.
  • the consistent framework of core activities 4 and foundation elements 3 may be applied selectively to some or all of the value chain 2.
  • the leading practice statements 31 may change with the client discipline 5 selected.
  • Figure 2 illustrates an arrangement of leading practice statements grouped by topic headings, such as under element 46 and/or sub element 47.
  • the element 46 is represented in the database as a first field and the sub element 47 is represented in the database as a second field.
  • the elements 46 represented by boxes 14 to 22 correspond to at least one of the foundation elements 3 of Figure 1 and the elements 46 represented by the boxes 23 to 30 correspond to at least one of the core activities 4 of Figure 1.
  • the elements).46 have any number of sub elements 47.
  • the elements 46 may have no sub element or one or more sub elements 47 represented by boxes 32 to 35.
  • Sub element(s) 47 may have no or one or more practices 48.
  • the sub elements 48 are represented by boxes 36 to 40 and/or 41 to 45.
  • Figure 3 shows, in more detail the arrangement between elements) 46, sub elements) 47, practice(s) 48, leading practice statement(s) 31 , good practice example(s) 49 and other information 50.
  • the element(s) 46 are represented by a first field
  • sub element(s) 47 are represented by a second field
  • practice(s) 48 are represented by a third field
  • a fourth field represents any one or a combination of leading practice statement(s) 31 , good practice example(s) 49 and other information 50.
  • Figure 3 shows the relationship between various elements, practice statements and disciplines in a hierarchical arrangement. This is for illustrative purposes only. The invention may be Implemented in a hierarchical arrangement or in a relational database with appropriate tags or links as required.
  • Elements 46 and sub elements 47 reflect various topic headings.
  • the elements represent foundation elements and core activities.
  • Sub elements are various topic heading associated with respective elements. These topic headings may vary according to the application of the present invention.
  • the practices 48 have associated a number of fields 51 to 54, where 54 represents the Nth client discipline field.
  • Field 51 as shown illustrates a generic field and fields 52 to 54 illustrate various client discipline fields. There may be any number of fields.
  • Each field 51 to 54 may have none or one or more client discipline general areas. In the example shown there are three general areas, namely leading practice statements 31, other information 50 and examples 49 associated with the generic field 51 and also three fields associated with Nth client discipline filed 54. No fields are shown associated with practice field 52 or 53. There may be any number general areas.
  • the other information 50 may include any information considered relevant to the particular practice field.
  • the other Information 50 includes reference material, documentation, websites, procedure, policies, measures to measure the activity of the practice (such as KPIs), etc which is applicable to the leading practice statement.
  • the leading practice statement 31 includes various statements grouped in or linked by client disciplines as shown by fields 55 to 58.
  • the good practice examples 49 may include none, one or more current example(s) of a leading practice statement for a particular client discipline, also grouped in or linked by client disciplines as shown by fields 59 to 62. Fields 51 to 54, 55 to 58 and/or 59 to 62 do not necessarily reflect the same client discipline. Some discipline ⁇ ) may be common, but some disciplines may be different, as considered appropriate to the particular implementation of the present invention.
  • the current example of the leading practice statement is associated with the particular client discipline by an appropriate tag or reference.
  • the tag or reference is used internal of the evaluation system of the present invention so that the appropriate question or question set can associated with a client discipline and can be extracted or retrieved when required.
  • An example of the tag Is a field in the database for the client discipline so that the client discipline can be associated with the current example of a leading practice statement.
  • the evaluation process can then be conducted based on selecting a client discipline and retrieving questions developed and selected in accordance with the tagging aspect noted above.
  • the questions may be further defined on the basis of approach, deployment, results and improvement, as is considered necessary for a particular evaluation of the particular client discipline.
  • FIG. 4 illustrates a further aspect of invention.
  • each of A, D R and/or I of an ADRl analysis can be conducted at various levels within the evaluation system.
  • A represents 'Approach' to a practice
  • D represents 'Deployment' of the approach to that practice
  • R represents 'Results' from that practice
  • I represents 'Improvement' of that practice.
  • a and D are associated with the practice level 63.
  • 'A' represents a question intent based on "What is your approach to implementing this practice?".
  • ID' represents a question intent based on "How well do you deploy your approach?”.
  • 'A' and 'D' are associated with each practice.
  • 'R' represents a question intent based on "Do you measure or have trend data?”
  • 'I' represents a question intent based on "To what extent do you undertake review and improvement?”.
  • the questions themselves may vary, the intent should be the same or similar.
  • 'R' and T questions are to be associated with a group of practices 63, they are asked at the sub element level 64 and or element level 65.
  • 'R' and 'I' questions are represented in the database by a fifth field. Appropriately configured questions are stored in a database and linked or tagged to A, D R and/or I, as is necessary.
  • the 'system' in one form includes an internet based system which combines the application of ADRl analysis, in conjunction with a 'question bank' and 'master database' which is used for comparison and ranking.
  • Figure 5 illustrates an example of infrastructure architecture supporting the present invention.
  • Figure 5 shows a Data File Templates 66 and Language Packs 67 are downloaded from the web site 68 on a scheduled or on demand basis and are stored locally 69 as separata database files.
  • the language pack is preferred where the evaluation system is accessed by people having different languages. Any number of the copies of the latest data file template (called 'replicas') are taken, renamed and saved for use in the EP Evaluator 70. Preferably, either one of both Language Pack files are saved to the same sub folder called .Languages under the application's folder.
  • Data collected whilst conducting Evaluations at each site is stored in the EP Evaluator DB 72.
  • Data pursuant to an Evaluation is exported to a XML file 73 and saved locally to disk with each file reflecting the content of one Evaluation 71.
  • the XML files 73 (one or more at a time) are uploaded to the web site 68 and saved to its backend SQL Server DB 74.
  • Data In these XML files 73 is preferably incorporated into the central web site. New data file templates and language flies are updated and made available for download to all future users with installed copies of the Evaluation system.
  • This tool represented as 70 in Figure 5, is preferably portable and can stand alone without needing a connection to the internet.
  • the fool is used as a 'console' for applying the latest data (taken from the web site) by way of two databases to be used in evaluations on site.
  • the tool fits into the system by being the 'go-between' repository for data recorded at those site evaluations.
  • This additional data taken at the evaluations is then analysed and subsequently uploaded to the web site for incorporation into the central repository database that powers the web site application, as previously described.
  • the EP Evaluator tool may then be the Question bank that travels, keeps up to date, and applies this information to site based evaluations that add their own Answers and are given scores.
  • the tool also has the capacity to add additional information such as Strengths, Opportunities, follow Ups, etc Technical Summary
  • One embodiment of the Evaluation system according to the present invention employs the run time version of Microsoft® Access XP 2002 (v10) relational database management system (RDBMS) as the basis of the application. Being a runtime installation, a prior installation of Microsoft® Access is not required on the target PC. All files necessary for running the application are provided. '
  • the executable file is but one of a number of files that constitute the application set, including custom licensed ActiveX components, icons and at least a minimum of three separate database files that make up the application's installation file set.
  • the Evaluation system's main database employs preferably five or six native tables stored within the application file. Some thirty two other tables, containing a variety of information, are all linked to the application from a minimum of two other separate database files.
  • the two external database files and their tables are connected to automatically by the system.
  • One of these data base files is contained in a ⁇ l_anguages sub-folder that is preferably under the folder in which the Evaluator tool gets installed.
  • the other database file that has its tables linked may reside anywhere, as it is both created from a template file and named by the user within the application itself.
  • the Evaluator too! operates by using two set of tables taken and linked from two other external Access database files. Each is described separately in respect of its function, usage and characteristics.
  • the Data File is both created, and named whatever is required by the user. Any data file created may be re-opened at any time In the Evaluator tool. This is because the 'data file' database is what is known as a 'replica', meaning its structure and content are derived from a 'master" database.
  • the master data database is preferably named Blank.DAT and is preferably never opened directly.
  • the data file serves as a template from which any number of new data files may be created. Newly created data file databases are named as required by the user.
  • the Evaluation system links the tables from ONE 'data file' at any one time, although there may be several to choose from. Realistically only one data file need be created, as long as it is based on the latest Blank.DAT template database file.
  • neither file is ever opened directly, but rather is selected on the Login screen, after which its tables are linked.
  • 1034 file is entirely dependant on which language is being used by the user and the audience (the participants of an evaluation).
  • the numbering for naming these language based database files is preferably the same as that of the international
  • LCID Language Code Identifier 1031 is number for the US English language standard, with 1034 being the number for the Spanish language. As new languages are required in the future, additional database files for these can be produced and added to the Evaluator file suite.
  • a reliable connection to the web site server is required for integrating the Evaluator client tool with the web site application.
  • Connectivity enables the exchange of files necessary to integrate the Evaluator tool with the web site. This connectivity is required for various purposes, including:
  • Responses to the question(s) 75 may be a maturity rating 76, for example a maturity rating from 0 to 5, which can be displayed as such or alternately as a percentage from 0% to 100%.
  • the meaning attributed to the value of the rating 76 may be customised to the particular evaluation process being undertaken.
  • qualitative responses 77 to the questions are also captured and stored for use in the analysis described below.
  • the qualitative responses may for example be strengths and opportunity statement(s) associated with a particular question.
  • the rankings and qualitative responses may be stored in a database 86.
  • the further analysis 80 seeks to identify those maturity ratings which have a deviation above a predetermined threshold. In other words, the user may select the margin of deviation from an 'acceptable' rating score, and those responses which sit outside that deviation can be identified appropriately.
  • the topics are ranked according to further criteria 81 specified by the user, For example, the user may specify a ranking according to priority, the effort needed to be expended in addressing the topic, the business impact of the topic, and/or any other suitable criteria as appropriate to the particular evaluation.
  • a development plan 82 may be created or adopted for implementation of the topics identified as meeting the user's criteria, such as those topics with the highest ranking.
  • the topics which do not exceed the threshold may also be further analysed. If the topic has identified a relatively significant strength, then a good practice example embodying that significant strength can be updated 84 into the database 86. If no significant strength is identified, then the evaluation process of that topic may be terminated 85.
  • numeral 78 indicates the step of grouping responses.
  • any one of a number of methods of evaluating, grouping and/or reviewing the responses can be used in order t ⁇ facilitate grouping, and in association with a predetermined criteria, such as a look-up table.
  • Figure 7 illustrates the use of a 'cutting-loss' method as applied to the step of grouping responses by topic.
  • the method involves visualising each response or a number of responses by topic.
  • a device 87 is constructed (visualised) based on the responses.
  • the device 87 has segments 88 in each of the arms 89.
  • the segments represent topic(s) or grouped responses, in this example and this will obviously vary if other grouping methods are used.
  • the responses are 'grouped' into each 'arm' by topic, and the visualisation of the device provides a visual indication of where strengths and weakness appear.
  • segment 90 is only partially completed, as indicated by the shaded area. This would show some weakness or need for further attention, review or further investigation.
  • segment 91 is more completed. Segment 92 has no indication of responses.
  • the degree to which each segment is visually indicated is predetermined, and/or determined by a biasing means, such as a look-up table.
  • a biasing means such as a look-up table.
  • the shading as visualised in segments 90, 91 and 92 is determined both by the responses obtained as well as a 'bias' provided by the look-up table 1 above. It can be seen that a segment 90 is biased at a rate of 50%, segment 81 is biased at a rate of 70%, and segment 92 is biased at a rate of 0%. That means that 50% of responses are indicated in segment 90, 70% of responses are indicated in segment 91 and no responses are indicated in segment 92.
  • the degree of bias can be set, predetermined or configured in accordance with the particular use to which the present invention is applied. It can also be seen that the grouping of topics, and in association with a bias can be applied to any method (known or in the future) useful in grouping responses by topic.
  • a nail and a screw may not be structural equivalents in that a nail employs a cylindrical surface to secure wooden parts together, whereas a screw employs a helical surface to secure wooden parts together, in the environment of fastening wooden parts, a nail and a screw are equivalent structures.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Finance (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention relève du domaine de l'étalonnage ou de l'évaluation de processus et de systèmes commerciaux. Dans une variante, la présente invention concerne un procédé, un système et/ou un appareil permettant de promouvoir et/ou de contrôler les activités et les pratiques commerciales autour d'objectifs fondamentaux conformes à des attentes et buts commerciaux. La présente invention trouve son application notamment dans l'industrie extractive. Elle peut également être appliquée à l'industrie manufacturière, minière ou à toute industrie dans laquelle le processus de production ou de fabrication s'effectue par étapes. L'invention peut servir à évaluer chaque étape ou une combinaison d'étapes. Elle peut être appliquée à de nombreux secteurs industriels faisant appel à l'étalonnage et/ou à l'évaluation.
PCT/AU2003/001639 2002-12-10 2003-12-10 Systeme et procede d'evaluation Ceased WO2004053744A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU2003291837A AU2003291837A1 (en) 2002-12-10 2003-12-10 Evaluation system and method

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU2002953230A AU2002953230A0 (en) 2002-12-10 2002-12-10 Evaluation system and method
AU2002953230 2002-12-10

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2004053744A1 true WO2004053744A1 (fr) 2004-06-24

Family

ID=30004316

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/AU2003/001639 Ceased WO2004053744A1 (fr) 2002-12-10 2003-12-10 Systeme et procede d'evaluation

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (1) AU2002953230A0 (fr)
WO (1) WO2004053744A1 (fr)

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN114693264A (zh) * 2022-03-31 2022-07-01 湖南省交通运输厅交通建设造价管理站 工程项目造价数据测定方法、系统、介质、设备及终端

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO1997031320A1 (fr) * 1996-02-22 1997-08-28 Cullen Egan Dell Limited Systeme de management strategique
WO1999059093A1 (fr) * 1998-05-08 1999-11-18 E-Talk Corporation Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO1997031320A1 (fr) * 1996-02-22 1997-08-28 Cullen Egan Dell Limited Systeme de management strategique
WO1999059093A1 (fr) * 1998-05-08 1999-11-18 E-Talk Corporation Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances

Cited By (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN114693264A (zh) * 2022-03-31 2022-07-01 湖南省交通运输厅交通建设造价管理站 工程项目造价数据测定方法、系统、介质、设备及终端

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU2002953230A0 (en) 2003-01-02

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Gyimah et al. Success versus failure prediction model for small businesses in Ghana
Kurtzke et al. Analytics capability in marketing education: A practice-informed model
Griffiths et al. New Directions in Library and Information Science Education. Final Report.
US10115077B2 (en) System for facilitating management and organisational development processes
US8340991B2 (en) Method and system for flexible modeling of a multi-level organization for purposes of assessment
US8180042B2 (en) Agent communications tool for coordinated distribution, review, and validation of call center data
US20190385469A1 (en) Matching a job profile to a candidate
Burnett et al. The strategic role of knowledge auditing and mapping: An organisational case study
Rathmel et al. Tools, techniques, and training: Results of an e-resources troubleshooting survey
Druery et al. Are best practices really best? A review of the best practices literature in library and information studies
US20180260820A1 (en) System device and process for an educational regulatory electronic tool kit
US11587190B1 (en) System and method for the tracking and management of skills
US20110173052A1 (en) Enhanced Knowledge Management
Koloniaris et al. Survey-based investigation, feature extraction and classification of Greek municipalities maturity for open source adoption and migration prospects
Butt Result-oriented e-government evaluation: Citizen's perspective
WO2004053744A1 (fr) Systeme et procede d'evaluation
WO2023248822A1 (fr) Procédé, système de traitement d'informations et programme
AU2003291837A1 (en) Evaluation system and method
Kanprasert et al. Design, development, and implementation of an automized information system for community college officers
Finamore et al. A comparative analysis of two computer science degree offerings
Lupinek Comprehensive visualizations for the historical analysis of issue tracking systems in software engineering education
Amaro DevOps Capabilities and Metrics
KOSGEY An evaluation model for determining quality in academic websites
Enegide The Role of Enterprise Architecture Artifacts in Strategic Planning for Digital Transformation
Goldfedder Finding Your Purpose: Project Deliverables

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BW BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EC EE EG ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NI NO NZ OM PG PH PL PT RO RU SC SD SE SG SK SL SY TJ TM TN TR TT TZ UA UG US UZ VC VN YU ZA ZM ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): BW GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZM ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IT LU MC NL PT RO SE SI SK TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GQ GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 2003291837

Country of ref document: AU

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase
NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: JP

WWW Wipo information: withdrawn in national office

Country of ref document: JP