AU2013200243A1 - Computer-based method for assessing competence of an organization - Google Patents

Abstract

Disclosed is a computer implemented system for assessing competence levels between organizational units by selecting (S3) organizational units, wherein a 5 defined set of questions is divided into different subsets that are activated or deactivated (S4) individually for the selected organizational units; determining (S7) a score related to an answer of a question, storing (S8) scores corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units; assigning the scores to the respective organizational units, wherein the stored scores are weighted based on the 10 organizational unit and the defined question; determining total scores for the organizational units; determining (S12) total weighted scores for the organizational unit; and generating (S15) a graphical representation of the competence levels. P006410D2 / 7040076_1

Description

1 COMPUTER-BASED METHOD FOR ASSESSING COMPETENCE OF AN ORGANIZATION Field of the Invention 5 The present invention relates to a computer-based method for assessing competence of an organization. Specifically, the present invention relates to a computer-based method for assessing competence levels of an organization comprising multiple organizational units. In a particular application, the present 10 invention relates to a computer-based method for assessing a competence level of an organization for a specific defined aspect of the organization. Background of the Invention 15 For any organization, be it an institution in the service industry, in the manufacturing industry, or in the government, knowing its competence level is essential for determining areas of deficiencies and opportunities for improvement, for assessing compatibility with partners, or for comparisons with competitors. The term "competence" relates to sufficiency and adequacy of quality, expertise, skill, and 20 sophistication in various aspects of an organization including aspects relating to management of resources and know-how, aspects relating to management of documentation and information, and aspects relating to processes, workflows, and organizational set-up. While there are almost as many methodologies for assessing an 25 organization as there are business consultants, the results provided by these methodologies typically consists in lengthy and complex reports. Generally, reading these reports is time consuming if not difficult. Consequently, the reports are often not read completely and the result of the assessment is not communicated clearly to representatives of the respective organization. 30 Moreover, based on such reports, it is very difficult to compare objectively assessments of different (competitive/peer) organizations. Typically, organizations comprise multiple organizational units with different levels and areas of responsibilities and expertise. Generally, conventional methods Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 2 for assessing competence of an organization fail to produce results, which make possible direct comparison of the competence levels of all organizational units involved. 5 Summary of the Invention According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a rule based expert system for automatically rating and assessing the competence levels between organizational units and automatically monitoring specific aspects of an 10 organization by detecting shortcomings and needed improvements, the system comprising a computer processor communicating with a computer memory storing a computer program configured to direct the computer processor to perform a method for assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals, each said group of individuals 15 performing a different function within the organisation, the method comprising the steps of: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; 20 determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, 25 storing scores, by the computer processor as directed by the computer program in the computer memory, the scores corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions; assigning by the computer each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the 30 stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 3 determining by the computer total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; determining by the computer total weighted scores for the organizational 5 units, each of the total weighted scores being determined by adding up weighted maximum scores assigned to the questions for each organizational unit, the weighted maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question; determining by the computer the competence levels of the organizational 10 units, scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero to a maximum competence value, by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score determined for the respective organizational unit to the total weighted score determined for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer a graphical 15 representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer. 20 According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a rule based expert system, at least part of which is performed by a computer comprising a computer processor communicating with a computer memory storing a computer program configured to direct the computer processor to perform said method, said method being for automatically rating and assessing competence of an 25 organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, each said group of individuals performing a different function within the organisation, the method comprising the steps of: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided 30 into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 4 respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, storing scores, by the computer in the computer memory, the scores 5 corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions; assigning by the computer each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based 10 on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; weighting by the computer processor said scores with weighting factors, the weighting factors being determined by the computer processor as directed by the computer program based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; 15 determining by the computer total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; and determining by the computer the competence levels of the organizational units, scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero to a 20 maximum competence value, by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score determined for the respective organizational unit to the total weighted score determined for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the 25 organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer. According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a 30 computer readable memory medium comprising a computer program for directing a computer processor to perform a method for automatically rating and assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals and automatically monitoring specific Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 5 aspects of the organization, each said group of individuals performing a different function within the organisation, the program comprising: computer program code for selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are 5 activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; computer program code for determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each 10 question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, computer program code for directing said computer processor to store scores in a computer memory, the scores corresponding to answers from each of the 15 organizational units in response to the set of questions; computer program code for directing said computer processor to assign each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and 20 the defined question assigned to the respective score; computer program code for directing said computer processor to weight said scores with weighting factors, the weighting factors being determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the question assigned to the respective score; 25 computer program code for directing said computer processor to determine total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; and computer program code for directing said computer processor to determine the competence levels of the organizational units, each of the competence levels 30 being determined by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum competence corresponding to a perfect total score; and PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 6 computer program code for directing said computer processor to generate for the automatic monitoring by the computer processor as directed by the computer program a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the 5 deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer are visualized and assessed by the computer. According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a computer implemented system for automatically rating and assessing competence of 10 an organization comprising multiple organizational units and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, the system comprising: a computer processor; and a memory storing a computer program; wherein the program comprises: computer program code for selecting organizational units, wherein a defined 15 set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; computer program code for determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by 20 rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, computer program code for directing the computer processor to store, in the 25 computer memory scores, each score being related to an answer given by a human representative of one of the organizational units in response to one of a set of questions; computer program code for directing the computer processor to assign each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective 30 one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 6a computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine 5 total weighted scores for the organizational units, each of the total weighted scores being determined by adding up maximum scores assigned to the questions, the maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question; computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine 10 the competence levels of the organizational units, each of the competence levels being determined by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 6b competence corresponding to the total weighted score calculated for the respective organizational unit; and computer program code for directing the computer processor to generate for the automatic monitoring by the computer processor as directed by the computer 5 program a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer are visualized and assessed by the computer. 10 Brief Description of the Drawings The present invention will be explained in more detail, by way of example, with reference to the drawings in which: 15 Figure 1 shows a block diagram illustrating schematically an exemplary configuration of a system for practicing embodiments of the present invention, said configuration comprising a computer with a display, a processor, a keyboard, and memory. Figure 2 shows a flow diagram illustrating an example of a sequence of 20 steps executed according to the present invention. Figure 3 shows an exemplary layout of a user interface for controlling execution of embodiments of the present invention. Figure 4 shows an example of a graphical representation of the competence levels of an organization's organizational units generated according to the present 25 invention. PfR4112 /7f4f07R 1 7 Figure 5 shows an example of a graphical representation of the competence levels of organizational units of different organizations generated according to the present invention. Figure 6 shows a flow diagram illustrating an example of a sequence of 5 steps executed according to an alternative embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments In Figure 1, reference numeral 1 refers to a computer, for example a 10 personal computer. As is illustrated schematically, computer 1 includes a display 3, at least one processor 11, memory 12 for storing data and programs, as well as a computer program product 13. The computer program product 13 comprises computer program code for controlling processor 11 so that the computer 1 executes various functions described below in more detail with reference to Figures 2,3, and 6. 15 The computer program code is stored in a computer readable medium, either in memory integrated in computer 1 or on a data carrier that can be inserted into computer 1. The computer 1 is connected via communication link 14 to printer 4. In the following paragraphs, execution of steps of the proposed method is described with reference to Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows a flow diagram 20 illustrating a possible sequence of the steps of the proposed method. Figure 3 shows a possible graphical user interface 6 for controlling execution of the proposed method and for exchanging data with computer 1. In step S1, information for identifying an organization is entered into computer 1. In user interface 6, information for identifying the organization is entered 25 as a name or code in input field 61. The organization can also be selected from a pick list. In step S2, information for identifying a person (i.e. an interviewee) is entered into computer 1. In user interface 6, information for identifying the person is entered as a name or code in input field 62. The person can also be selected from a 30 pick list. In step S3, an organizational unit of the organization specified in step S1 is selected in computer 1. In user interface 6, the organizational unit is selected by clicking one of the radio buttons 63. Each of the radio buttons 63 is assigned to one PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 8 of the organizational units. The organizational units "Management", "Underwriting", "Risk Engineering", Claims Processing", and "Re-Insurance" are included in user interface 6. In Figure 3, the organizational unit "Underwriting" is selected. Based on the person specified in step S2, the organizational unit could also be selected 5 automatically by computer 1 from a personnel list stored in memory 12 or on a data carrier inserted in computer 1. In step S4, defined subsets of questions can optionally be deactivated. In user interface 6, subsets of questions related to specific organizational aspects are deactivated or activated, respectively, by un- checking or checking one of the check 10 boxes 64, respectively. The organizational aspects "Organizational Structure", "Organizational Resources", and "Organizational Information" are included in user interface 6. Based on the organizational unit selected in step S3, subsets of questions could also be deactivated or activated, respectively, automatically by computer 1 from an organizational unit profile stored in memory 12 or on a data 15 carrier inserted in computer 1. In the example shown in Figure 3, the subset of questions related to "Organizational Resources" is deactivated for the organizational unit "Risk Engineering", i.e. persons working in risk engineering will not be exposed to questions related to organizational resources. In step S5, one or more defined questions are provided as output. In user 20 interface 6, the questions are provided in the form of text displayed in text fields 661. In the example of Figure 3, multiple questions are displayed concurrently in scroll window 66. Scroll window 66 is controlled by means of scroll bar 67. The questions could also be provided in the form of audible spoken text. The questions are stored in memory 12 or on a data carrier inserted in computer 1. As is illustrated in Table 1, 25 each question includes an identification q 1 , q 2 , ... qn and content t 1 , t 2 , ..., t. The content t 1 , t 2 , ..., t, includes alphanumeric text data, audio data, or encoded speech information. As is also illustrated in Table 1, each of the questions is assigned to one of the organizational aspects "P" ("Organizational Structure") relating to processes, 30 workflows, and organizational set-up, "R" ("Organizational Resources") relating to management of resources and know-how, or "I" ("Organizational Information") relating to management of documentation and information. Furthermore, maximum scores are assigned to each of the questions. Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 9 Specifically, for each of the organizational units "Management", "Underwriting", "Risk Engineering", Claims Processing", and "Re-Insurance", a specific maximum score ranging from "1" to "5" (or low to high) is assigned to each of the questions. 5 Question Maximum Scores Organizational Identification Content Aspect Management Underwriting Risk Claims Re-Insurance 9Engineering Processing q,"P "3" "3" "1" "5" "4" q2 t2"P "3" "3" "2" "4" "5" q3 3"P' "5" "4" "3" "3" "1" q4 t4 "4" "5" "2" "1" "3" q5 t5 "R" "1" "3" "5" "2" "3" q6 t6 "R" "5" "3" "3" "2" "2" q7 t7 "R" "3" "4" "3" "2" "5" q8 t8 "R" "3" "3" "3" "5" "5" q9 t9 "T" "3" "3" "5" "2" "2" qn tn "I" "4" "5" "3" "3" "3" Table 1 In step S6, answers are received for each of the questions provided as output in step S5. For example, the questions are received by a human interviewer. 10 The answers could also be received and stored by computer 1 in the form of data. For example, answer date includes text entered into an input field (not illustrated) of user interface 6, or audio or encoded speech information entered by means of a microphone, audio processor, and speech processor. Pfnlf lnRf2 /7f4fl7R 1 10 Question Organizational Person Score Identification Unit q1 Management P1 '3" q2 Management P1 "4" q12 Underwriting P1 2" Risk P " q27 Management p1 5 q27 ClP1 "m Processing qa.1 Re-Insurance Pt "4" qn Re-Insurance Pt '3" Table 2 In step S7, the answers received in step S6 are rated. In user interface 6, for answers received in step S6, scores ranging from low ("1 ") to high ("5") can be 5 assigned manually to the respective questions. In the example of Figure 3, scores are entered by clicking one of the radio buttons 65 assigned to the questions. For example, the answer received for the question listed at the top of scroll window 66 was rated with a medium ("3") score. Answer data stored by computer 1 in step S5 could also be rated automatically by the computer 1, for example by means of a 10 rules based expert system. In step S8, computer 1 stores the scores assigned to answers received for specific questions in memory 12. As is illustrated in Table 2, each score is assigned to the question q 1 , q 2 , ..., qn for which the particular answer was received. Moreover, information for identification of the person Pi, P2, ... , Pn providing the answer and the 15 organizational unit represented by that person is assigned to each score. Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 11 If it is determined in step S9 that there are more questions to be provided as output, the next activated question or set of questions is provided in step S5. Otherwise, if there are no more questions to be provided and if scores have been assigned to all questions for answers provided thereto, the method continues in 5 step S10. In step S10, it is determined whether further persons are to be included in the assessment of organizational competence or whether processing of the collected data should continue in step S1 1. In user interface 6, this decision can be controlled by the user, for example the interviewer, by means of the command buttons 68. For 10 example, further persons can be added by clicking the "NEW" command button or calculation of the competence of the organizational unit can be initiated by clicking the "PROCESS" command button. At any time entered data can be stored by clicking the "STORE" command button or ignored by clicking the "CANCEL" command button. 15 Additional functions, for example functions for accessing and managing stored information related to a specific organization, organizational unit, or person, can be invoked by control means such as pull down menus or command buttons not illustrated in Figure 3. Particularly, it is possible to add further persons, organizational units, or organizations at any point in time. The decision of step S10 20 could also be taken automatically by the computer 1 as soon as the data for all persons in a personnel list has been recorded, for example. Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 12 Organizational Organizational Total Total Competence Organization Aspect Unit Weighted Score Level Score Company A "P" Management 464 248 53 Company A "P" Underwriting 336 276 82 Company A "P" E Risk 308 236 77 Engineering Company A "P" PrCessing 256 178 70 Company A "P" Re-Insurance 289 210 73 Company A "P" Organization 1653 1148 69 Company A "R" Management 288 210 73 Company A "R" Underwriting 332 234 70 Company A "R" Risk 320 177 55 Engineering 3217 Company A "R" PrCessing 420 299 71 Company A "R" Re-Insurance 374 219 59 Company A "R" Organization 1734 1139 66 Company A "I" Management 410 147 36 Company A "I" Underwriting 320 257 80 Company A IEng peering 285 191 67 Company A Ill Claims 36338 Processing 386 323 84 Company A "I" Re-Insurance 294 221 75 Company A "I" Organization 1695 1139 67 Company A Total Management 1162 605 52 Company A Total Underwriting 988 767 78 Company A Total Risk 913 604 66 Engineering Company A Total Claims 1062 800 75 Processing 16 0 Company A Total Re-Insurance 957 650 68 Company A Total Organization 5082 3426 67 Company Z Total Organization 5082 3852 76 Table 3 In step S11, computer 1 calculates and stores the total score for the organizational unit selected in step S3. The total score of an organizational unit is Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 13 calculated in computer 1 by adding up all scores assigned in step S8 to the organizational unit. For example, as is illustrated in Table 3, the total score for the organizational unit "Management" of the organization "Company A" amounts to 605. 5 Preferably, in step S11, the total score of an organizational unit is calculated individually for the various organizational aspects. For example, as is illustrated in Table 3, the total score of the organizational unit "Management" for the organizational aspect related to organizational information ("I") amounts to 147. As is illustrated in Table 3, in step S1 1, further total scores can be calculated and stored, 10 for example the total score of an organization for a specific aspect or the overall total score of the organization ("Company A": 3426, "Company Z": 3852). In step S12, computer 1 calculates and stores the total weighted scores for the organizational unit selected in step S3. The total weighted score of an organizational unit is calculated in computer 1 by adding up all maximum scores (see 15 Table 1) assigned to the activated questions and to the organizational unit. Preferably, in step S12, the total weighted score of an organizational unit is calculated individually for the various organizational aspects. For example, a total weighted score (410 in Table 3) for the organizational unit "Management" is calculated specifically for the organizational aspect related to organizational 20 information ("I"). One skilled in the art will understand that step S12 can be executed at an alternative point in time. For example, the total weighted score of the organizational units specific for the various organizational aspects can be calculated and stored as a preparatory step prior to execution of step S1. In step S13, computer 1 calculates and stores the competence level of the 25 organizational unit selected in step S3. The competence level of the organizational unit is calculated in computer 1 by scaling the total score of the organizational unit calculated in step S11 to a scale of competence ranging from zero to maximum competence (e.g. 0-100). The maximum competence corresponds to the weighted total score calculated for the organizational unit in step S12. For example, the overall 30 competence level of the organizational unit "Management" is calculated by scaling the total score of 605 to a scale of competence from 0 to 100, whereby the maximum competence corresponds to the weighted total of 1162, so that the overall competence level of the organizational unit "Management" amounts to Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 14 (100/1162)*605=52 (see Table 3). Preferably, in step S13, the competence level of the organizational unit is calculated individually for the various organizational aspects. For example, for the organizational unit "Management", a competence level is calculated specifically for the organizational aspect related to organizational 5 information (100/410*147=36). In step S14, it is determined whether further organizational units are to be included in the assessment of organizational competence or whether processing of the collected data should continue in step S15. In user interface 6, this decision can be controlled by the user, for example the interviewer, by means of the command 10 buttons 68, as was discussed in the context of step S10. In step S15, computer 1 generates graphical representations 7,8 of the competence levels calculated and stored in step S13. The graphical representations 7, 8 are displayed by computer 1 on display 3 or reproduced as a printed report 5 on printer 4. Preferably, the competence levels calculated for the different organizational 15 units are displayed in one common graph so that deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence are visualized and so that differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized. As is illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, the graphical representation 7,8 is preferably in the form of a so-called spider diagram. However, the graphical representation could also 20 be in an alternative form, for example in the form of a bar chart. Referring to the examples shown in Figures 4 and 5, the competence levels of the organizational units "Management", "Underwriting", "Risk Engineering", Claims Processing", and "Re-Insurance" are presented in a pentagon-shaped spider diagram, each of the vertices being assigned to one of the organizational units. 25 Scales are drawn from the center point to the vertices, the numeric values of the scales being indicated in the vertical scale 72,82. In Figures 4 and 5, the perimeter 73,83 indicates the maximum competence level (100). In the example, line 71,81 represents the competence levels of the organizational units of "Company A" with respect to the aspect of organizational information (see bold values in Table 3). 30 Referring to Figure 5, the graphical representation 8 includes the competence levels of the organizational units of two organizations. Specifically, outlined by line 81, the graphical representation 8 shows the competence levels of the organizational units of "Company A" as shown in Figure 4, and, outlined by line PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 15 84, the graphical representation 8 shows the competence levels for the corresponding organizational units of another organization. If the competence level of an organizational unit is below a defined threshold, computer 1 indicates opportunities of improvement. For example, if the 5 competence level of the organizational unit "Management" with respect to the aspect of organizational information is below 50, computer 1 indicates steps and areas of possible improvements. Computer 1 determines the steps and areas of possible improvements depending on the scores assigned to the questions related to the respective organizational aspect. Generally, questions with assigned low scores will 10 determine the steps and areas of possible improvements. For example, computer 1 retrieves the steps and areas of possible improvements from a table stored in memory 12. Preferably, the steps and areas of possible improvements are determined by means of an expert system. As is illustrated in Figure 6, in an alternative embodiment, in step S8', the 15 scores assigned to answers received for specific questions are weighted with weighting factors before being stored in memory 12. The weighting factors are determined by computer 1 based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score. For example, the weighting factors are determined from a table containing weighting factors assigned to organizational units and to 20 questions q 1 , qz, ..., qn. In the alternative embodiment, in step S12', the total weighted score of an organizational unit is calculated by adding up the weighted scores calculated in step S8'. In step S13', computer 1 calculates and stores the competence level of the organizational unit selected in step S3. In the alternative embodiment, in step S13', the competence level of the organizational unit is 25 calculated by scaling the total weighted score of the organizational unit calculated in step S12' to a scale of competence ranging from zero to maximum competence. The maximum competence corresponds to the perfect total score achievable for the questions activated for the respective organizational unit. Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1

Claims (26)

1. A rule based expert system for automatically rating and assessing the competence levels between organizational units and automatically monitoring 5 specific aspects of an organization by detecting shortcomings and needed improvements, the system comprising a computer processor communicating with a computer memory storing a computer program configured to direct the computer processor to perform a method for assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different groups of 10 individuals, each said group of individuals performing a different function within the organisation, the method comprising the steps of: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; 15 determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, 20 storing scores, by the computer, the scores corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions; assigning by the computer each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based 25 on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; determining by the computer total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; determining by the computer total weighted scores for the organizational 30 units, each of the total weighted scores being determined by adding up weighted maximum scores assigned to the questions for each organizational unit, the weighted maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question; PfR4112 /7f4f07R 1 17 determining by the computer the competence levels of the organizational units, scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero to a maximum competence value, by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score determined for the respective organizational unit to the total 5 weighted score determined for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the 10 competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer.

2. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein the questions relate to defined aspects of the organization, wherein the computer program directs 15 the computer processor to perform the further steps of: determining the total scores of the organizational units for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the scores assigned to the respective organizational unit and to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization: 20 determining the total weighted scores of the organizational units for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the total weighted scores being determined by adding up the maximum scores assigned to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization; and determining the competence levels of the organizational units for the 25 specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the competence levels being determined by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum competence corresponding to the total weighted score calculated for the respective organizational unit and the specific one of the defined aspects of the 30 organization.

3. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein the computer program directs the computer processor to perform the further step of: Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 18 generating the graphical representation enabling simultaneous visualization of the competence levels, deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and differences between the competence levels of the organizational units. 5

4. A rule based expert system according to claim 3, wherein the computer program directs the computer processor to perform the further steps of: determining competence levels and storing said competence levels in the computer memory for the organizational units of more than one organization; and 10 generating a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels of organizational units of more than one organization, enabling differences between the competence levels of different organizations to be visualized. 15

5. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein the computer program directs the computer processor to perform the further steps of: selecting one of the organizational units; dividing the defined set of questions into different subsets; activating or deactivating the different subsets individually for the selected 20 organizational unit; and excluding deactivated subsets in determining the competence levels of the organizational units.

6. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein the computer 25 program directs the computer processor to perform the further steps of: storing in the computer memory data about answers from each of the organizational units; and determining by an expert system the score related to an answer by rating the data about the respective answer. 30

7. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein included in the specific aspects of the organization are an aspect of organizational resources relating to management of resources and know how, an aspect of organizational PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 19 information relating to management of documentation and information, and an aspect of organizational structure relating to processes, workflows, and organizational set up. 5

8. A rule based expert system according to claim 1, wherein an insurance company is used as the organization, and wherein included in the organizational units are a management unit, an underwriting unit, a risk management unit, a claims processing unit, and a re insurance unit. 10

9. A rule based expert system, at least part of which is performed by a computer comprising a computer processor communicating with a computer memory storing a computer program configured to direct the computer processor to perform said method, said method being for rating and assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different 15 groups of individuals and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, each said group of individuals performing a different function within the organisation, the method comprising the steps of: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated 20 individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included 25 in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, storing scores, by the computer, the scores corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions; assigning by the computer each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the 30 stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score ; weighting by the computer said scores with weighting factors, the weighting factors being determined by the computer processor as directed by the computer PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 20 program based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; determining by the computer total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to 5 the respective organizational unit; and determining by the computer the competence levels of the organizational units, scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero to a maximum competence value, by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score determined for the respective organizational unit to the total 10 weighted score determined for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels , the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the 15 competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer.

10. A rule based expert system according to claim 9, wherein the questions relate to defined aspects of the organization, wherein in the computer the total 20 scores of the organizational units are calculated for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the total scores being calculated by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit and to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, and wherein in the computer the competence levels of the organizational units are calculated for the specific one of 25 the defined aspects of the organization, each of the competence levels being calculated by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum competence corresponding to a perfect total score for the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization. 30

11. A computer implemented system for rating and assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, the system comprising: Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 21 a computer processor; and a memory storing a computer program; wherein the program comprises: computer program code for selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are 5 activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; computer program code for determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each 10 question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, computer program code for directing the computer processor to store, in the computer memory scores, each score being related to an answer given by a human 15 representative of one of the organizational units in response to one of a set of questions; computer program code for directing the computer processor to assign each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting 20 factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; 25 computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine total weighted scores for the organizational units, each of the total weighted scores being determined by adding up maximum scores assigned to the questions, the maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question; 30 computer program code for directing the computer processor to determine the competence levels of the organizational units, each of the competence levels being determined by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 22 competence corresponding to the total weighted score calculated for the respective organizational unit; and computer program code for directing the computer processor to generate for the automatic monitoring by the computer processor as directed by the computer 5 program a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer are visualized and assessed by the computer. 10

12. A computer implemented system according to claim 11, wherein the questions relate to specific aspects of the organization, wherein the computer program directs the computer processor to perform the further steps of: determining the total scores of the organizational units for a specific one of 15 the aspects of the organization, each of the total scores being determined by adding up the scores assigned to the respective organizational unit and to the specific one of the aspects of the organization: determining the total weighted scores of the organizational units for a specific one of the aspects of the organization, each of the total weighted scores 20 being determined by adding up the maximum scores assigned to the specific one of the aspects of the organization; and determining the competence levels of the organizational units for the specific one of the aspects of the organization, each of the competence levels being determined by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale 25 of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum competence corresponding to the total weighted score calculated for the respective organizational unit and the specific one of the aspects of the organization.

13. A computer implemented system according to claim 11, wherein the 30 computer program directs the computer processor to perform the further step of: generating a graphical representation enabling simultaneous visualization of the competence levels, deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1 23 competence, and differences between the competence levels of the organizational units.

14. A computer implemented method, substantially as described herein with 5 reference to any one of the embodiments, as that embodiment is shown in the accompanying drawings.

15. A computer implemented system, substantially as described herein with reference to any one of the embodiments, as that embodiment is shown in the 10 accompanying drawings.

16. A computer readable memory medium comprising a computer program for directing a computer processor to perform a method for assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units corresponding to different 15 groups of individuals, each said group of individuals performing a different function within the organisation, substantially as described herein with reference to any one of the embodiments, as that embodiment is shown in the accompanying drawings.

17. A computer-based method for automatically rating and assessing 20 competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, the method comprising: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; 25 determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, 30 storing scores, in a memory device of a computer, corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions, the organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals, and each of the different groups performing a different function within the organization; Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 24 assigning, in the computer, each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score; 5 calculating, in the computer, total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being calculated by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; calculating, in the computer, weighted total scores for the organizational units, each of the weighted total scores being calculated by adding up weighted 10 maximum scores assigned to the questions for each organizational unit, the weighted maximum scores each depending on the respective organizational unit and the respective question; and calculating, in the computer, the competence levels of the organizational units that are scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero 15 to a maximum competence value by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score calculated for the respective organizational unit to the weighted total score calculated for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer processor as directed by the computer program a graphical representation in one common graph 20 of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels , the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized and assessed by the computer. 25

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the questions relate to defined aspects of the organization, wherein the computer the total scores of the organizational units are calculated for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the total scores being calculated by adding up the scores assigned to the respective organizational unit and to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, 30 wherein in the computer the weighted total scores of the organizational units are calculated for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the weighted total scores being calculated by adding up the weighted maximum scores assigned to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, and wherein Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 25 in the computer the competence levels of the organizational units are calculated for the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the competence levels being calculated by scaling the total scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the 5 maximum competence corresponding to the weighted total score calculated for the respective organizational unit and the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization.

19. The method according to claim 17, wherein the calculating the competence 10 levels includes calculating and storing competence levels for the organizational units of more than one organization, and the generating includes generating a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels of organizational units of more than one organization, so that differences between the competence levels of different organizations are visualized. 15

20. The method according to claim 19, further comprising: selecting one of the organizational units; and dividing the set of questions into different subsets, wherein the different subsets are activated or deactivated individually for the selected organizational unit, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included in calculating 20 the competence levels of the organizational units.

21. The method according to claim 19, further comprising: storing data about answers from each of the organizational units; and determining with an expert system the score related to an answer by rating the data about the respective 25 answer.

22. The method according to claim 19, wherein the questions relate to defined aspects of the organization and included in the defined aspects of the organization are an aspect of organizational resources relating to management of resources and 30 know-how, an aspect of organizational information relating to management of documentation and information, and an aspect of organizational structure relating to processes, workflows, and organizational set-up. Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 26

23. The method according to claim 19, wherein an insurance company is used as the organization, and wherein included in the organizational units are a management unit, an underwriting unit, a risk management unit, a claims processing unit, and a re-insurance unit. 5

24. The method according to claim 19, further comprising deciding whether an additional individual from a particular organizational unit is provided with the set of questions. 10

25. A computer-based method for automatically rating and assessing competence of an organization comprising multiple organizational units and automatically monitoring specific aspects of the organization, the method comprising: selecting organizational units, wherein a defined set of questions is divided into different subsets, and the different subsets are activated or deactivated 15 individually for the selected organizational units in the computer; determining a score related to an answer of a question of a subset by means of an automated expert system of the computer by rating the data about the respective answer, wherein a score is assigned to each question of an activated subset by means of the computer, and wherein deactivated subsets are not included 20 in calculating the competence levels of the organizational units, storing scores, in a memory device in a computer, corresponding to answers from each of the organizational units in response to a set of questions, the organizational units corresponding to different groups of individuals, and each of the different groups performing a different function within the organization; 25 assigning, in the computer, each of said scores to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the defined questions, wherein the stored scores are weighted with weighting factors determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the defined question assigned to the respective score ; weighting, in the computer, said scores with weighting factors, the weighting 30 factors being determined by the computer based on the organizational unit and the question assigned to the respective score; Pfn1R41n2 /7f4l7R 1 27 calculating, in the computer, total scores for the organizational units, each of the total scores being calculated by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit; and calculating, in the computer, the competence levels of the organizational 5 units, that are scaled to a scale of competence defined by a numerical range of zero to a maximum competence value by multiplying the maximum competence value by a ratio of the total score calculated for the respective organizational unit to the weighted scores calculated for the respective organizational unit; and generating for the automatic monitoring by the computer processor as 10 directed by the computer program a graphical representation in one common graph of the competence levels calculated for the organizational units, so that the competence levels, the deficiencies of the competence levels from the maximum competence, and the differences between the competence levels of the organizational units are visualized, so that deficiencies of the competence levels 15 from the maximum competence are visualized and assessed by the computer.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the questions relate to defined aspects of the organization, wherein in the computer the total scores of the organizational units are calculated for a specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of 20 the total scores being calculated by adding up the weighted scores assigned to the respective organizational unit and to the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, and wherein in the computer the competence levels of the organizational units are calculated for the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization, each of the competence levels being calculated by scaling the total 25 scores of the respective organizational unit to a scale of competence reaching from zero to a maximum competence, the maximum competence corresponding to a perfect total score for the specific one of the defined aspects of the organization. DATED this 16 th Day of January 2013 30 SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY Patent Attorneys for the Applicant SPRUSON&FERGUSON PnnR41n2 /7f4l7R 1