WO2009091327A1 - Performance comparison method and system - Google Patents

Abstract

A method of comparing the performance of atleast two operating entities is provided. The method comprises allotting each operating entity a number of units, said units lacking influence on a financial value of the corresponding operating entity, followed by comparing a bid unit level for a unit ofone of said operating entities, said bid unit level being made by a potential assignee, with an ask unit level for said unit, said ask unit level being made by a potential assigner, already assigned one or more units of said one operating entity,and transferring the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match.

Description

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON METHOD AND SYSTEM

Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a method for comparing the performance of at least two operating entities. Specifically, the present invention pertains to a method and a system thereof for comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, such as sports teams; competitive mammals, such as individual athletes, racing horses, racing dogs, etc.; processing plants; company divisions; etc., operating singly and/or in competition, without being specifically compared during said competition. The invention also relates to an associated computer program product and apparatus.

Background of the Invention

In the industry, companies quite fast become too large for the company board to overlook the entire company structure and identify other positive features than purely financial and economical. These other positive features may very well result in an improved long-term economical pay-off, if taken into account together with the direct economical pay-off. A first company division may for example have a lower momentary economical profit than a second company division, but a higher value in other positive features than said second company division. In the long run, it may then be more profitable for the company to invest in and/or keep the first company division.

Therefore, in the field of such operating entities, such as processing plants, company divisions, etc., there is a desire of the company board to compare the performance of such entities. Normally, this is done on production or efficiency parameters of such entities only.

Thus, the evaluation of such a comparison is limited to the comparison of the production or efficiency parameters of the entities. Therefore, short and long term expectations, comfort and well-being, traditions, loyalty, etc., will be lost in the evaluation. Furthermore, the existing comparative features are conveyed by the technical problem of only providing discontinuous comparison, such as yearly or quarterly comparison, between different entities.

In the field of other operating entities, such as sport teams, competitive mammals, such as individual athletes, racing horses, racing dogs, etc., there is an inherent desire of supporters and the public to compare the performance of such entities, in short and long term. This comparison is normally done by the creating of competitions, such as leagues, cups, races, etc., said competitions comprising a number of such entities. The entities will then compete against each other.

With regard to leagues the entities will compete against each other a predetermined number of times. A win may then be awarded with a first number of points, a draw with a second number of points, preferably less than said first number of points, and a loss with a third number of points, preferably less than said second number of points, such as zero points. The entity that has the most points in the end of the predetermined number of games will be the winner.

However, the evaluation of such competitions is limited to the comparison of the entities comprised in said league, cup, race, etc. Thus, there is little, if any, possibility to compare entities belonging to different leagues, cups, races, etc, in a continuous way.

With regard to evaluation of such league, there is thus little, if any, possibility to compare teams belonging to different leagues, such as belonging to different geographical regions. Also, an evaluation based on the creating of leagues does only rely on results from a first predetermined date, i.e. the date of the first game of the league, to a second predetermined date, i.e. the date of the last game of the league. Thus, short and long term expectations, momentary form, as well as popularity, for example due to fair play, traditions, loyalty, etc., will be lost in the evaluation. Hence, an improved method of comparing different entities, and system thereof, would be advantageous and in particular a method, and a system thereof, allowing for cross-border evaluation of entities, the inclusion of soft factors, such as expectations, comfort and well-being, momentary form, popularity, fair play, traditions, loyalty etc., would be advantageous, and especially a continuous method of comparing different entities.

Summary of the Invention

Accordingly, the present invention preferably seeks to mitigate, alleviate or eliminate one or more of the above-identified deficiencies in the art and disadvantages singly or in any combination and solves at least the above mentioned problems by providing a method of comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, comprising allotting each operating entity a number of units, said units lacking influence on a financial value of the corresponding operating entity, comparing a bid unit level for a unit of one of said operating entities, said bid unit level being made by a potential assignee, with an ask unit level for said unit, said ask unit level being made by a potential assigner, already assigned one or more units of said one operating entity, and transferring the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match. The problems are also solved by a system, a computer-readable medium and an apparatus according to the appended patent claims.

Brief Description of the Drawing

These and other aspects, features and advantages of which the invention is capable will be apparent and elucidated from the following description of embodiments of the present invention, reference being made to the accompanying drawing, in which Fig. 1 is a schematic illustration of a system according to one embodiment of the present invention.

Description of Embodiments

The following description focuses on an embodiment of the present invention applicable to a method of comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, and an associated system, computer readable medium and apparatus.

The present invention makes use of the general concept of a stock market, i.e. the trading in form of buying and selling of shares of certain companies. The stock market is one of the most important sources for companies to raise money. This allows businesses to go public, or raise additional capital for expansion. Trades in a stock market are based on an auction market paradigm where a potential buyer bids a specific price for a share and a potential seller asks a specific price for the share. When the bid and ask prices match, a sale takes place on a first come first served basis if there are multiple bidders or askers at a given price. However, the method according to the present invention does not make use of shares, which shares affect the financial value of an entity, such as a company division, production plant, or even a sport team, organisms, such as competitive mammals, such as individual athletes, racing horses, racing dogs, etc, but instead makes use of units lacking correlation and/or influence with/on the financial value of the entity. Instead, said units are used to compare the performance of different entities, perhaps belonging to different geographical regions or countries, such as sport teams from different leagues, thus not being comparable during normal conditions. In this way short and long term expectations, momentary form, as well as popularity, for example due to fair play, traditions, loyalty, etc., and even game results, may be included in the evaluation, without directly affecting the financial value of a specific entity. In the field of operating entities in the form of processing or production plants, company divisions, etc., it will be possible for the company board to compare the performance of such entities, not only on production or efficiency parameters of such entities, but also in respect of short and long term expectations, comfort and well-being, traditions, loyalty, etc., without directly affecting the financial value of the company and/or entity.

In one embodiment of the present invention a set number of units are allotted a set number of entities, such as company divisions, processing plants, sport teams, or organisms, such as competitive mammals, such as individual athletes, racing horses, racing dogs, etc , intended to be compared. Entities 1 to n may for example be allotted a number of U units, said units being divided among persons with interest in being part of the comparative method of this embodiment. All entities 1 to n may be allotted the same number of units, or, alternatively, different entities among entities 1 to n may be allotted different number of units. The division of the U units of the entities 1 to n may for example be made equally between the persons interested in being part of the comparative method. Such persons may for example be persons with the possibility of monitoring entities 1 to n. An example of such a person is a person travelling between different company units, processing plants or production plants, such as a person being part of a managing board in respect of research and development. When the entities 1 to n are sport teams, individual athletes, racing horses, racing dogs, etc, such a person may be a supporter or other person with great interest and insight in respect of the entities 1 to n.

Fig 1 illustrates an exemplifying computer system 100, comprising a central server computer 110 with a central database 112, and a plurality of client computers 120a-102n, which are connected to the server computer 110 via a network 130. The network 130 may be of any existing type, such as Internet or a part thereof, and may be composed of an arbitrary number of sub networks that may be wireless and/or wired. Likewise, the server computer 110 and client computers 120a-102n may be implemented by any available electronic equipment with computing capabilities, including but not limited to stationary computers, work stations, lap tops, hand-held computers, personal digital assistants and mobile terminals, all equipped with appropriate operating system and application software, as is well realized by a skilled person. The database 112 may be implemented by any suitable database program executing on the server computer 110 and/or on one or more separate devices. The server computer 110 may implement the apparatus according to the invention and may contain software which can be loaded as program code or instructions from a computer readable medium and which upon execution may perform the method according to the invention.

A first person A may then log in to the computer system 100 via one of the client computers 120a-n (client computer 120a being used in the example shown in Fig 1). When connected to the computer system 100, the person A may decide that person A wants to be assigned a number of units between 1 and U for a specific entity E at a unit level X which may be a specific level value or a maximum level value. The person A may preferably place a trade inquiry on a market in the central database 112, such that other persons logged in to the computer system 100 may see the inquiry. The inquiry may for example be placed at the market if the person A believes that the specific entity E at this specific moment - based on factors not directly affecting or representing the financial value of the entity E, such as game results, short and long term expectations, momentary form, popularity, fair play, production or efficiency parameters, comfort and well-being, traditions, loyalty, etc.- has a unit level, which is too low in respect of other entities comprised in the entities 1 to n. If another person B is in possession of units in respect of the specific entity E of which person A has an interest, said person B may, if person B believes that said unit level X for said specific entity E in which person A is interested is a too high unit level, assign all or a part of person B's number of units to person A. In this way the unit level for the specific entity E has risen to X. Person A then becomes the assignee and person B becomes the assigner.

Analogously, a first person A may log in to the computer system 100 via one of the client computers 120a- 12On to trade off units in respect of an entity E already assigned to the person A. Thus, when connected to the computer system 100, the person A may decide that person A wants to trade off a number of units between 1 and P for the specific entity E at a specific unit level Y. The person A may preferably place a trade inquiry on the market in the central database 112, such that other persons logged in to the computer system 100 may see the inquiry. The inquiry may for example be placed at the market if the person A believes that the specific entity E at the moment has a unit level, which is too high in respect of other entities comprised in the entities 1 to n. If a person B disagrees with person A, and is of the opinion that level Y for said entity is a correct level, person B may place an inquiry on the market to be assigned a number of units in respect of entity E at the level Y. In this way the level for the specific entity E has fallen to Y Person A then becomes the assigner and person B becomes the assignee. Thus, trades of units in respect of entities are based on an auction market paradigm where a potential assignee bids a specific bid unit level for one or more units of a certain entity, and a potential assigner asks a specific ask unit level for one or more units of a certain entity. When the bid and ask unit levels match, a transfer takes place on a first come first served basis if there are multiple assignees or assigners at a given level. A match between bid unit level and ask unit level may mean that the bid unit level is equal to the ask unit level, or that the the bid unit level is higher than the ask unit level.

In another embodiment an automated trading matching is provided, wherein different trading parties, such as persons A and B, may send in their inquiries to the computerized exchange, which tries to match the inquiries with other inquiries previously received. If the inquiry cannot be matched directly, the inquiry can be stored in an inquiry book and displayed to other trading parties connected to the automated exchange. The inquiries can be displayed either indicating what trading party has placed the inquiry or not indicating what trading party has placed the inquiry. If there is no indication of what trading party has placed a particular inquiry, the anonymity according to the above may be maintained. This may however constitute a problem, since the assigner and assignee then perhaps may be the same person. One possible way that may be employed to solve this problem is to send information instructing the automated exchange not to match against inquiries from the same party.

The units are listed and traded on a central database, such as database 112 of Fig 1, configured to bring assignees and assigners of units together, which assignees and assigners may connect to the central database to exchange units. The purpose of such a central database is to facilitate the exchange of units between assignees and assigners, thus providing a virtual or real place for trading units. Preferably, the database may provide real-time trading information on the listed units, thus facilitating level overview. All in all, the central database, the server computer and the client computers from which the potential and real assignees and assigners connect to the central database create a computer system, configured to create and overview unit levels for the different entities listed on the market. Thus, assignees and assigners are electronically matched. Thus, a unit index will be created, and each entity will get a unit level, said unit level being comparable with unit levels of other entities. When a transaction is completed, i.e. when the bid and ask unit levels match for a certain entity, a transfer unit level may be registered in the central database 112 by the server computer 110, the transfer unit level being related to the value of the matching bid and ask unit levels. In case the match consists in the bid and ask unit levels being equal to each other, i.e. having the same value, the transfer unit level may be registered as this same value. In case the match consists in the bid unit level being higher than the ask unit level, the transfer unit level may be registered as the bid unit level, the ask unit level, an intermediate value such as the average value of the bid and ask unit levels, or as any combination thereof. In this way, the performance of different entities may be evaluated by comparing registered transfer unit levels for the entities which are to be evaluated, the comparison thus being affected by a number of factors, such as game results, short and long term expectations, momentary form, popularity, fair play, production or efficiency parameters, comfort and well-being, traditions, loyalty, etc., without directly affecting the financial value of said specific entity. Moreover, the use of computers also allows assignees and assigners to exchange units more or less anonymously, making it possible for co-workers, or other persons closely related to a specific entity, to affect the level of the units of a specific entity, thus rendering the level of units of that specific entity being more comparable with the level of units of another entity. Such other entity may for example be another company entity or another sports team, depending on the specific technical field.

In some embodiments, the server computer 110 and/or the central database 112 is/are operated by a commercial service provider which may collect service fees as appropriate from the participating assignees and assigners. In one or more embodi- ments, when a transaction is completed, i.e. when one or more units of an entity is transferred from an assigner to an assignee, the service provider charges at least one of the assigner and the assignee with a transaction fee. Alternatively or additionally, the service provider may collect a one-time or recurring service subscription fee from the participating assignees and assigners as potential or real users of computer system 100. The bid and ask unit levels of the units may be expressed in any suitable unit scale, such as a purely numeric scale which involves numerical integer or floating point numbers in a certain range, which may or may not have defined end values (minimum and maximum values). In some embodiments, the bid and ask unit levels of the units are expressed in a monetary currency such as EUR, GBP, USD, JPY or SEK. It is to be noticed, though, that this not mean that the units directly affect or represent a financial value of the corresponding operating entity E (such as the fiscal value, or the share value on a stock market); it merely means that a monetary currency is used as unit scale for the bid and ask unit levels used by the participating assignees and assigners to allow comparisons of the performance of at least two operating entities which are not traded in any common public stock market and for which such performance comparisons have hitherto not been possible.

In some embodiments, an economic compensation is provided to the assigner from the assignee when a transaction is completed. Said economic compensation may also be provided to the service provider from the assignee when a transaction is completed, when the assigner is the service provider. It is to be noticed, though, that such compensation does not constitute or trigger a change of ownership in any part of the corresponding operating entity E. In other words, the completion of the transaction is not to be confused with for instance the buying of a share at a public stock market, where the buyer of the share would receive a legal interest in the operating entity E by becoming a part owner thereof.

The economic compensation may be channeled through the service provider of the server computer 110 and/or central database 112, wherein a monetary amount may be transferred from an account associated with the assignee to an account associated with the assigner or service provider. Such accounts may be accounts administered by the service provider in the central database 112, or external accounts administered e.g. by banks or other financial institutes. In some embodiments, the service provider provides virtual payment within the computer system 100, wherein participating assignees and assigners may buy electronic money or markers from the service provider, use such electronic money or markers to give economic compensation to the assigner when a transaction is completed, and sell such electronic money or markers to the service provider at a desired time in exchange of real money or another form of electronic money. The service provider may charge a commission fee for such transactions of electronic money or markers. For embodiments where the bid and ask unit levels of the units are expressed in a monetary currency, the economic compensation given to the assigner by the assignee when a transaction is completed may advantageously be given in this monetary currency, advantageously in the amount given by the transfer unit level.

The invention can be implemented in any suitable form including hardware, software, firmware or any combination of these. The invention may be implemented as computer software running on one or more data processors and/or digital signal processors. The elements and components of an embodiment of the invention may be physically, functionally and logically implemented in any suitable way. Indeed, the functionality may be implemented in a single means, in a plurality of means or as part of other functional means. As such, the invention may be implemented in a single means, or may be physically and functionally distributed between different means and processors.

Although the present invention has been described above with reference to specific embodiments, it is not intended to be limited to the specific form set forth herein. Rather, the invention is limited only by the accompanying claims and, other embodiments than the specific above are equally possible within the scope of these appended claims.

In the claims, the term "comprises/comprising" does not exclude the presence of other elements or steps. Furthermore, although individually listed, a plurality of means, elements or method steps may be implemented by e.g. a single unit or processor.

Additionally, although individual features may be included in different claims, these may possibly advantageously be combined, and the inclusion in different claims does not imply that a combination of features is not feasible and/or advantageous. In addition, singular references do not exclude a plurality. The terms "a", "an", "first", "second" etc do not preclude a plurality. Reference signs in the claims are provided merely as a clarifying example and shall not be construed as limiting the scope of the claims in any way.

Claims

1. A method of comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, comprising allotting each operating entity a number of units, said units lacking influence on a financial value of the corresponding operating entity, comparing a bid unit level for a unit of one of said operating entities, said bid unit level being made by a potential assignee, with an ask unit level for said unit, said ask unit level being made by a potential assigner, already assigned one or more units of said one operating entity, and transferring the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match.

2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising registering a transfer unit level related to the value of the bid and ask unit levels, when the bid and ask unit levels match.

3. The method according to claim 2, further comprising evaluating the performance of said at least two operating entities by comparing registered transfer unit levels thereof.

4. The method according to claim 1, 2 or 3, wherein said at least two operating entities are selected from the group consisting of sport teams, organisms, company divisions, or processing plants.

5. The method according to claim 4, wherein said at least two operating entities are sport teams, individual athletes, racing horses, or racing dogs.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein said at least two operating entities are sport teams from different leagues.

7. The method according to any preceding claim, wherein the bid and ask unit levels are expressed in a monetary currency.

8. The method according to any preceding claim, further involving charging at least one of said assigner and said assignee with a service fee.

9. The method according to claim 8, wherein said charging with a service fee includes charging at least one of said assigner and said assignee with a transaction fee when transferring the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match.

10. The method according to claim 8 or 9, wherein said charging with a service fee includes collecting a one-time or recurring service subscription fee from potential assignees and assigners of units of said operating entities.

11. A system for comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, the system comprising a server computer, (110), a database (112) and a plurality of client computers (120a-n), the server computer being adapted for allotting, in said database, each operating entity a number of units, said units lacking influence on a financial value of the corresponding operating entity, comparing a bid unit level for a unit of one of said operating entities, said bid unit level being made by a potential assignee by means of any of said client computers, with an ask unit level for said unit, said ask unit level being made by a potential assigner by means of any of said client computers, said potential assigner already being assigned one or more units of said one operating entity, and transferring, in said database, the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match.

12. A computer readable medium having stored thereon program code, which is loadable into a processor of a computer and executable to perform the method according to any of claims 1-10.

13. An apparatus for comparing the performance of at least two operating entities, the apparatus comprising means for allotting each operating entity a number of units, said units lacking influence on a financial value of the corresponding operating entity, means for comparing a bid unit level for a unit of one of said operating entities, said bid unit level being made by a potential assignee, with an ask unit level for said unit, said ask unit level being made by a potential assigner, already assigned one or more units of said one operating entity, and means for transferring the unit from the assigner to the assignee when the bid and ask unit levels match.