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 deriving in a first computer process using conjoint analysis, from responses to forced choice questions, such responses attributable to each party and to each counterparty, a preference profile for each such party and counterparty; and analyzing in a second computer process the preference profiles of the parties and the counterparties to derive a list by which parties and counterparties are matched according to preferences determined by conjoint analysis of responses of both the parties and the counterparties to forced choice questions.

Inventors: Eileen C. Shapiro, Steven J. Mintz
Original Assignee: DecisionSorter LLC
Primary Examiner: Catherine Tarae
Secondary Examiner: Johnna Loftis
Attorney: Bromberg & Sunstein LLP
Current U.S. Classification: 705/7.32; 705/37; 707/E17.109

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
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
US20010010041Dec 19, 2000Method for new product development and market introduction
US20010044739Dec 19, 2000NDEX SYSTEMS INC.System and method for creating a true customer profile

Referenced by

Citing PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
US7750909May 16, 2006Jul 6, 2010Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc.		Ordering artists by overall degree of influence
US7774288May 16, 2006Aug 10, 2010Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc.		Clustering and classification of multimedia data
US7831619May 30, 2007Nov 9, 2010International Business Machines CorporationMethod of and system for maximizing the return rate of dynamic inquiries into a population
US7840568May 16, 2006Nov 23, 2010Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc.		Sorting media objects by similarity
US7961189May 16, 2006Jun 14, 2011Sony Corporation
Sony Electronics Inc.		Displaying artists related to an artist of interest

Claims

1. A 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 member of a first class of parties in a first role and a member of a second class of counterparties in a second role, the method comprising:

a. deriving in a first computer process using conjoint analysis, from responses to forced choice questions, such responses attributable to each party and to each counterparty, a preference profile for each such party and counterparty;

b. analyzing in a second computer process the preference profiles of the parties and the counterparties to derive a list by which parties and counterparties are matched according to preferences determined by conjoint analysis of responses of both the parties and the counterparties to forced choice questions.

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

3. A method according to claim 1, wherein deriving the preference profile for a particular party or counterparty comprises:

obtaining responses from such party or counterparty; and

deriving the preference profile from said responses.

4. A method according to claim 1, wherein deriving the preference profile for a particular party or counterparty comprises:

obtaining responses from at least one party or counterparty co-evaluator; and

deriving the preference profile from said responses.

5. A method according to claim 4, wherein responses are obtained from each of a plurality of co-evaluators, and wherein deriving the preference profile from the responses comprises deriving a single set of utility functions for the plurality of co-evaluators based on the responses of the plurality of co-evaluators.

6. A method according to claim 5, wherein deriving a single set of utility functions for the plurality of co-evaluators comprises:

deriving a set of utility functions for each of the co-evaluators; and

averaging the utility functions for each of the co-evaluators according to a predetermined averaging scheme.

7. A method according to claim 1, wherein deriving the preference profile for a particular party or counterparty comprises:

obtaining first responses from such party or counterparty;

deriving a preliminary preference profile from said first responses;

obtaining second responses from at least one party or counterparty co-evaluator;

deriving a co-evaluator preference profile from said second responses;
comparing the preliminary preference profile with the co-evaluator preference profile to determine a difference; and
selecting one of the preliminary preference profile and the co-evaluator profile as the preference profile for the party or counterparty based on the difference.

8. A method according to claim 1, wherein the responses for each party 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.

9. A method according to claim 8, the responses for each counterparty 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.

10. A method according to claim 9, wherein said analyzing is performed using a measure of distance between a set of utility values created with respect to the first series of attributes and a set of utility values created for the second series of attributes.

11. A method according to claim 8, wherein the responses for each party reveal the utility values without the utility values being provided explicitly.

12. A method according to claim 9, wherein the responses for each counterparty reveal the utility values without the utility values being provided explicitly.

13. A method according to claim 1, wherein the preference profile of each party associates, with each level of each of a first series of attributes, a utility value to indicate the value which the party places on the level of the attribute.

14. A method according to claim 13, wherein the preference profile of each counterparty associates, with each level of each of a second series of attributes that complements the first series of attributes, a utility value to indicate the value which the counterparty places on each level of the attribute.

15. A method according to claim 1, wherein the responses are obtained over a communication network.

16. A method according to claim 15, wherein the responses are obtained by making available, via a server, a set of web pages providing a set of questions and permitting entry of responses thereto.

17. A computer readable storage medium containing instructions which when loaded into a digital computer establish an apparatus 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, such instructions which when executed by the digital computer cause the computer to perform:

a. a first computer process using conjoint analysis for deriving, from responses to forced choice questions, such responses attributable to each party and to each counterparty, a preference profile for each such party and counterparty;

b. a second computer process for analyzing the preference profiles of the parties and the counterparties to derive a list by which parties and counterparties are matched according to preferences determined by conjoint analysis of responses of both the parties and the counterparties to forced choice questions.

18. Apparatus 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, the apparatus comprising:

a. conjoint analysis means for deriving, from responses to forced choice questions, such responses attributable to each party and to each counterparty, a preference profile for each such party and counterparty;

b. matching means for analyzing the preference profiles of the parties and the counterparties to derive a list by which parties and counterparties are matched according to preferences determined by conjoint analysis of responses of both the parties and the counterparties to forced choice questions.

19. Apparatus according to claim 18, wherein responses attributable to a particular party or counterparty are obtained from such party or counterparty.

20. Apparatus according to claim 18, wherein responses attributable to a particular party or counterparty are obtained from at least one party or counterparty co-evaluator.

Drawings