Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Advanced Patent Search | Web History | Sign in

Patents

Techniques for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a member of a first class of parties in a first role and a member of a second class of counterparties in a second role, are disclosed. The techniques involve supplying to at least one of the parties a series of forced choice questions so as to elicit party responses; supplying to at least one of the counterparties a series of forced choice questions so as to elicit counterparty responses; and delivering a list matching the at least one party and the at least one counterparty according to analysis of preference profiles determined using conjoint analysis of the party responses and the counterparty responses.

InventorsEileen C. Shapiro, Steven J. Mintz
Original AssigneeDecisionSorter LLC
Primary Examiner: Johnna Loftis
Attorney: Sunstein, Kann, Murphy & Timber LLP
Current U.S. Classification705/7.32; 705/7.33

View patent at USPTO
Search USPTO Assignment Database

Citations

Cited PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
US5072385Feb 19, 1991Dec 10, 1991Method for gathering and classifying items of information
US5124911Apr 15, 1988Jun 23, 1992Image Engineering, Inc.Method of evaluating consumer choice through concept testing for the marketing and development of consumer products
US5884270Sep 6, 1996Mar 16, 1999Walker Asset Management Limited PartnershipMethod and system for facilitating an employment search incorporating user-controlled anonymous communications
US5890152Sep 9, 1996Mar 30, 1999Seymour Alvin Rapaport
Jeffrey Alan Rapaport
Linda Rapaport
Personal feedback browser for obtaining media files
US5978768May 8, 1997Nov 2, 1999Computerized job search system and method for posting and searching job openings via a computer network
US6272467Jan 16, 1997Aug 7, 2001Spark Network Services, Inc.System for data collection and matching compatible profiles
US6289340Aug 3, 1999Sep 11, 2001IXMatch, Inc.Consultant matching system and method for selecting candidates from a candidate pool by adjusting skill values
US6397212Mar 4, 1999May 28, 2002Peter BiffarSelf-learning and self-personalizing knowledge search engine that delivers holistic results

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating evaluation, in connection with the procurement or delivery of products or services, in a context of at least one of (i) a financial transaction and (ii) operation of an enterprise, such context involving a first class of parties in a first role and a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:

supplying to each of the parties a series of forced choice questions so as to elicit party responses;

in a first computer process that uses conjoint analysis of the party responses, determining a party preference profile for each of the parties;

supplying to each of the counterparties a series of forced choice questions so as to elicit counterparty responses;

in a second computer process that uses conjoint analysis of the counterparty responses, determining a counterparty preference profile for each of the counterparties;
in a third computer process, for a selected party, performing bilateral analyses of the selected party's preference profile and the preference profile of each of the counterparties, by computing a closeness-of-fit value based thereon; and
in a fourth computer process, using the computed closeness-of-fit values to derive and provide a list matching the selected party and at least one of the counterparties.

2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the list is ranked according to closeness of fit.

3. A method according to claim 1, further comprising:

supplying to at least one party or counterparty co-evaluator a series of forced choice questions so as to elicit co-evaluator responses, wherein the list matches the at least one party and at least one counterparty according to a bilateral analysis of preference profiles determined using such co-evaluator responses.

4. A method according to claim 1, wherein the party responses reveal, with respect to each level of each of a first series of attributes, a utility value which indicates the value that the party places on the level of the attribute.

5. A method according to claim 4, wherein the party responses reveal the utility values without the utility values being provided explicitly.

6. A method according to claim 4, wherein the counterparty responses reveal, with respect to each level of each of a second series of attributes that complements the first series of attributes, a utility value which indicates the value that the counterparty places on the level of the attribute.

7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the counterparty responses reveal the utility values without the utility values being provided explicitly.

8. A method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the series of forced choice questions and the list is obtained from a remote server over a communication network.

9. A method according to claim 1, wherein the series of forced choice questions is supplied by making available a set of web pages providing a set of questions and permitting entry of responses thereto.

10. A method according to claim 1, wherein the party responses and the counterparty responses are provided to a remote server over a communication network.

11. A method according to claim 1, wherein the value includes an aggregated value.

12. A method according to claim 1, wherein the value includes a distance value.