WO2004053744A1

WO2004053744A1 - Evaluation system and method

Info

Publication number: WO2004053744A1
Application number: PCT/AU2003/001639
Authority: WO
Inventors: David James Lawrence; Andrew Behn; Ross Parslow; Phillip Macmahon; Michael Duggan; David Jenkins
Original assignee: BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd
Current assignee: BHP Innovation Pty Ltd
Priority date: 2002-12-10
Filing date: 2003-12-10
Publication date: 2004-06-24
Anticipated expiration: 2005-06-10
Also published as: AU2002953230A0

Abstract

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.

Description

EVALUATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FIELD OF INVENTION

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

In the past, benchmarking and evaluation of business practices have been relatively ad-hoc. Although there have been various evaluation disciplines either taught or outlined in text books, they have, on the whole, been relatively academic in their approach and annunciation and would be largely categorised as "AUDIT" style.

Furthermore, the practical implementation of the audits or evaluations, and their associated systems have largely depended on the skill of the persoπ(s) conducting the process. These skills are known to vary widely, with age, experience, and general competence.

Stiil further, there has been a general degree of difficulty associated with benchmarking. Often the analysis required for benchmarking is relatively time consuming, and prone to human error and interpretation and does not necessarily lead to rapid improvement due to closure of identified gaps to best practice. A more speedy and accurate assessment of results and a mechanism to fast track use of the results in improvement at the site of an evaluation would be considered desirable. There is a need to provide a framework in which an evaluation system and process can be undertaken so that the subject being evaluated is assessed with regard to existing processes being used, determination of how they may be improved and providing a mechanism by which exemplary processes are captured for future reference, education and use.

Any discussion of documents, devices, acts or knowledge in this specification is included to explain the context of the invention. It should not be taken as an admission that any of the material forms a part of the prior art base or the common general knowledge in the relevant art in Australia or elsewhere on or before the priority date of the disclosure and claims herein.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

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.

Preferably, the foundation elemeπt(s) are enabling practices in conducting client activities, the core activities are management practice (s) applicable to client activity and/or 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. Preferably, 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.

Preferably, the grouping of responses can be performed by any suitable method, such asihe cutting loss method.

Other aspects and preferred aspects are disclosed in the specification and/or defined in the appended claims, forming a part of the description of the invention.

In essence, 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). This is done in association with a database arrangement, an evaluation system and/or various methods as herein disclosed. 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 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. In this way 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. In addition, 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

In other words, 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.

A number of advantages accrue from the present invention, including:

1. To determine and build a hierarchical framework of business related activities at the strategic, tactical and operational level called Element Types, Elements, Sub Elements and Practices respectively for each of their business Networks across the value chain.

2. To attach one or more Questions to any of the items in the framework with respect to the various Networks.

3. To capture scores against Questions associated with the framework that is applicable to each of the Networks. The scores are to reflect the level of maturity and relative success of the efforts made to date so as to meet the intent of each Question with respect to the framework items and best practice conduct.

4. To capture a justification of the score given for a Question, this being termed the "Answer Rationale". This explains why a particular score was given.

5. To capture any identified Opportunities identified as associated with the intent of a Question associated with a framework item.

6. To capture any identified Strengths named as associated with the intent of a Question associated with a framework item that reflects good actual practices,

7. To identify and associate Good Practice Examples and/or Leading Practice Statements with a Question associated with a framework item. 8. To cite Good Practice Examples (documents) that describe or assist in learning about how to conduct Leading Practice with respect to a Question associated with a framework item and provide a means for accessing these documents. θ. To provide alt of the above functions and capabilities for a series of evaluations that are to be conducted across the globe for each of the Networks.

10. To be able to store the Questions Scores, the Answer Rationale for each score, the captured Opportunities, and Strengths for each of the Site/Network based Evaluations using a desktop application with local storage capabilities.

11. To be able to centralise (post to and save) the scores and captured information of all the Evaluations conducted into a single central BHP Billitαn database.

12. To be able to centrally update both the framework hierarchy and the Network specific Questions and their associations to it and to propagate these updates to all the desktop applications to conduct and record the results of any future (yet to be performed) Evaluations.

13. To be able to provide all of the above capabilities in multiple languages by using a unified methodology for the translation of all static and dynamic data to enable to same tool to be used globally for recording the results of the Evaluations wherever they may be conducted.

14. To provide a browser based tool to inspect, modify and create new Questions and their associations to a configurable hierarchical framework.

15. To provide a browser based tool to allow for the entry of the translations to all terms used in the application suite from one language into another as required.

16. To give centralised access to the links for best practice references and documents that assist in achieving best practice as required. Throughout the specification, 'client' refers to the entity or thing which is being evaluated in accordance with and/or by the present invention. For example, the 'client¹ 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. Throughout the specification, a "client activity' refers to what the client does, business or industry steps or process steps and/Or what is being evaluated.

For example, a business conducts business activities or a person undertakes certain processes. These activities and/or processes are considered to be client activities.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

Further disclosure, objects, advantages and aspects of the present application may be better understood by those skilled in the relevant art by reference to the following description of preferred embodiments taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

Figure 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 4 illustrates ADRI analysis,

Figure 5 network infrastructure associated with an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 6 illustrates a data analysis flowchart, and

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. In Figure 1, 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. Obviously, 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. Obviously, other client practices being evaluated would have core activities representative of their particular business and/or activity. δ

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. B. Database

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. In the database, 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 and 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. For example, 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. For example, 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.

In one aspect of 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.

Figure 4 illustrates a further aspect of invention. In this aspect, it has been realised that each of A, D R and/or I of an ADRl analysis can be conducted at various levels within the evaluation system. Conventionally, A represents 'Approach' to a practice, D represents 'Deployment' of the approach to that practice, R represents 'Results' from that practice and I represents 'Improvement' of that practice.

In this aspect, 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?" and 'I' represents a question intent based on "To what extent do you undertake review and improvement?". Although the questions themselves may vary, the intent should be the same or similar. In this aspect, where '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. C. Network Infrastructure System Architecture

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. Schematically, 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. After connecting to the web site, 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. Evaluator Tool

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.

Application Specifications

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.

System Architecture Overview

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.

(a) Blank.DAT & Data Files

One of these external databases from which tables are linked is termed the "Data File". It 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.

(b) Language Subfoider Files

The other of the external database files that supply linked tables is the

1031.MDB, or the 1034.MDB or as many other xxxx.MDB database files as there are language options available in the Evaluation Process. These files are preferably in a \Languages subfoider which created upon installation immediately beneath the folder that contains the EP Evaluator client application file.

Preferably, neither file is ever opened directly, but rather is selected on the Login screen, after which its tables are linked. The choice as to whether the user should select the 1031 as opposed to a

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

Language Code Identifier (LCID). 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.

Images

A hard location setting is also applied to the \! mages subfoider which is also created upon installation immediately beneath the folder that contains the Evaluator client application file. I Image files are stored in this sub-folder and are all used to augment some of reports available in the application. System Requirements

The following hardware and operating system specifications are recommended, as only one preferred embodiment for running the Evaluator tool with a reasonable level of performance. (a) Operating System

Windows 95, 98, 98 Second Edition, NT 4 Workstation/Server, Windows 2000 (all versions) and Windows XP (all versions). It is recommended that Windows 2000 be used wherever possible for improved and more reliable performance.

(b) Hardware

Systems with at least a Pentium II @ 266 MHz+ with a minimum 32Mb RAM can be used, however a Pentium 111 with 128Mb RAM can also be used.

As with any of the modem Windows based applications, the more RAM a PC has, and the faster the CPU within it, so the performance of the application will improve.

(c) Connectivity

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:

• uploading the saved Evaluation based XML data files that contain the Scores for the individual evaluation question sets,

• downloading the latest data file (Blank.DAT), and • obtaining updated Language Packs as they are released with notification of this being posted and viewable on the web site.

PCs that are to run the Evaluator tool will thus all require a 56K modem connection if no ADSL, T1 or other broadband connection is available at the time when the required file exchanges need to take place. D Evaluation

Question(s) are selected according to the description above. Questiσn(s) are answered on a group basis, that is two or more people forming a cross functional group. This cross functional group facilitation style ensures the benefits of education, team building, shared understanding around gaps against the standard and updated corporate knowledge.

Responses to the question(s) 75, in one embodiment, 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. These ratings and responses tα questions may be stored in the Evaluation tool.

In a further embodiment, 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.

E. Data analysis The responses tα the questions are grouped 78 in element and sub element topics. The maturity rating of each response, grouped in each topic is then averaged and optionally (for the purposes of illustration) displayed or plotted

79 as selected by the user. For example a bar graph may be used to display the rated topics. These plotted results can then be further analysed. 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. Once identified, 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. F. Grouping Responses

Referring to Figure 6, again, numeral 78 indicates the step of grouping responses. In accordance with a further aspect of invention, it has been realised by the Inventor that any one of a number of methods of evaluating, grouping and/or reviewing the responses can be used in order tα facilitate grouping, and in association with a predetermined criteria, such as a look-up table.

For example, 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. For example, 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. On the other hand, segment 91 is more completed. Segment 92 has no indication of responses.

In accordance with this aspect of invention, the degree to which each segment is visually indicated (for example shaded) is predetermined, and/or determined by a biasing means, such as a look-up table. For example, in Table 1 below;

Node degree segment

13.2.1 50% 90 14.3.7 70% 91

15.2.7 0% 92

Referring to Figure 7 again, 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. As the present invention may be embodied in several forms without departing from the spirit of the essential characteristics of the invention, it should be understood that the above described embodiments are not to limit the present invention unless otherwise specified, but rather should be construed broadly within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims. Various modifications and equivalent arrangements are intended to be included within the spirit and scope of the invention and appended claims. Therefore, the specific embodiments are to be understood to be illustrative of the many ways in which the principles of the present invention may be practiced. In the following claims, means-plus-function clauses are intended to cover structures as performing the defined function and not only structural equivalents, but also equivalent structures. For example, although 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.

Claims

THE CLAIMS DEFINING THE INVENTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. 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 elements), wherein at least one of the second field is associated with one of the first fields.

2. A database arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the foundation elements) are enabling practices in conducting client activities.

3. A database arrangement as claimed in claim 1 or 2, wherein the core activities are management practice (s) applicable to client activity,

4. A database arrangement as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 3, where the sub element(s) are various topics associated with the first field.

5. A database arrangement as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the association of the second field with the first field is provided by a flag, tag, link or pointer.

6. A database arrangement as claimed in any one of claims 1 to 5, further Including a third field representing practices and being associated with at least the first or second fields.

7. A database arrangement as claimed in any one claims 1 to 6, further including a layer of at least one fourth field representing leading practice statements, good practice statements and/or other information, associated with the third field.

8. A database arrangement as claimed in claim 7, wherein the association between the at least one third field and the fourth field is by client discipline.

9. A database arrangement as claimed in any one of claims 3 to 8, further including a fifth field representing "R" and 'I' questions, the fifth field being associated with at least one of the first and second fields.

10. A database arrangement as claimed in claim 9, wherein the fifth field is also associated with a plurality of third fields.

11. A database including the arrangement as claimed In any one of claims 1 to 10.

12. An evaluation system including the database of claim 11.

13. A method of analysing data resultant from an evaluation process, the method including the steps of; obtaining responses to questions, grouping the responses by topϊc(s), determining whether the grouping(s) are outside a predetermined threshold, for those groupiπg(s) outside the threshold, additionally ranking the topic(s) according to predetermined criteria, and developing a project for implementation within the topic, and for those grouping(s) not outside the threshold, additionally determining whether the topic(s) has associated with it a relatively significant strength.

14. A method as claimed In claim 13, further for those grouping(s) not outside the threshold, including the step of updating a database with a good practice example reflecting the relatively significant strength.

15. A method of grouping responses In accordance with a topic, the method comprising the steps of: determining a grouping of responses in accordance with a topic, and biasing at least one of the responses In accordance with a predetermined bias.

16. A method as claimed in claim 15. wherein the bias is provided in association with a look-up table.

17. A computer program product including: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code and computer readable system code embodied on said medium for analysing data, resultant fro an evaluation process, within a data processing system, said computer program product including: computer readable code within said computer usable medium for analysing data according to claim 13 or 14.

18. A database arrangement as herein disclosed.

19. A method as herein disclosed.