Abstract:
A method comprising, defining a supplier scoring tree by, receiving a function of a supplier performance, defining a first node to include the function of the supplier performance, receiving a first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, defining a second node to receive the first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, and connecting the first node to the second node with a link, outputting the defined supplier scoring tree to a display, and displaying the defined supplier scoring tree to a user for analysis of supplier performance by the user.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
       [0001]    Diverse groups within large companies interact with suppliers that provide materials and services to the groups. Each group has different interests and priorities regarding supplier performance. For example, one group may be more interested in the ability of a supplier to meet delivery deadlines, while another group may be more interested in the quality control of a supplier. 
         [0002]    Previous methods of evaluating supplier performance used worksheets with objective criteria to evaluate a supplier. The worksheets used linear functions to calculate an overall supplier performance score. Subjective criteria and non-linear functions were typically avoided. 
         [0003]    A flexible, efficient, and effective method of scoring supplier performance is desired. 
       BRIEF SUMMARY 
       [0004]    The shortcomings of the prior art are overcome and additional advantages are achieved through an exemplary method comprising, defining a supplier scoring tree by, receiving a function of a supplier performance, defining a first node to include the function of the supplier performance, receiving a first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, defining a second node to receive the first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, and connecting the first node to the second node with a link, outputting the defined supplier scoring tree to a display, and displaying the defined supplier scoring tree to a user for analysis of supplier performance by the user. 
         [0005]    An alternate method comprising, receiving a supplier scoring tree having a first node including a first function of supplier performance connected via a first link to a second node operative to receive a first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, receiving the first value, performing the first function of the first node, outputting a result of the function to a display, and displaying the result value to a user for analysis of supplier performance by the user. 
         [0006]    A system comprising, a processor operative to receive a function of a supplier performance, define a first node to include the function of the supplier performance, receive a first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, define a second node to receive the first value associated with a metric of the supplier performance, and connect the first node to the second node with a link, output the defined supplier scoring tree, and a display operative to receive and display the defined supplier scoring tree to a user for analysis of supplier performance by the user. 
         [0007]    Additional features and advantages are realized through the techniques of the present invention. Other embodiments and aspects of the invention are described in detail herein and are considered a part of the claimed invention. For a better understanding of the invention with advantages and features, refer to the description and to the drawings. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0008]    The subject matter that is regarded as the invention is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed in the claims at the conclusion of the specification. The foregoing and other aspects, features, and advantages of the invention are apparent from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which: 
           [0009]      FIG. 1  illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a scoring tree. 
           [0010]      FIG. 2  illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a supplier scoring system. 
           [0011]      FIG. 3  illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary method of computing a score from the scoring tree of  FIG. 1 . 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0012]    The detailed description explains the preferred embodiments, together with advantages and features, by way of example with reference to the drawings. 
         [0013]    Scoring suppliers using subjective and objective criteria is one method for determining the suitability of a supplier. A flexible and efficient system and method for scoring suppliers is described below. 
         [0014]      FIG. 1  illustrates an example of an embodiment of a scoring tree  100 . The scoring tree  100  visually represents a hierarchical scoring system. The scoring tree includes a variety of nodes connected with links. In the hierarchical system, higher nodes are “parents” of “child” nodes, while child nodes of the same parent node are “sibling” nodes. For example, in  FIG. 1 , the node  102  is a parent node to nodes  104  and  106 , while nodes  104  and  106  are siblings. 
         [0015]    The scoring tree  100  includes a number of different types of nodes indicated by the shape of the node. For example, the node  102  is a function node indicated by an oval. The node  108  is an input node indicated by a rounded rectangle, and the node  124  is a discrete input node indicated by a proper rectangle. The discrete input nodes may include a discrete value or a range of discrete values. The nodes are connected with links, such as, for example a link  101 . The links include numbers that may be used as a multiplier of a value (weights) from a connected node on the scoring tree  100 . The numbers included on the links may also be used as a discrete value input to a connected node. 
         [0016]    The scoring tree  100  may be designed and input by a user using a system that includes, for example, a graphical user interface.  FIG. 2  illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a system that may be used to score supplier performance. The system  200  includes a processor  202  communicatively connected to a display  204 , an input device  206 , and a memory  208 . In operation, a user may design and input a scoring tree into the system  200 . The system  200  may then receive inputs used to score a supplier, and process the scoring tree using a method that will be described below. 
         [0017]    The general operation of a scoring tree may be described by referencing the example scoring tree  100  of  FIG. 1 . The scoring tree  100  includes a node  102  labeled “supplier evaluation” representing the highest or “root node” on the scoring tree  100 . The node  104  is a function node labeled “part quality” the node  104  includes a function that is used to output a value based on the inputs to the child nodes  108  and  110 . For example, the node  108  receives an input “w” representing an average warranty cost per unit, and the node  110  receives an input “p” representing production issues cost per unit. The values from the nodes  108  and  110  are received by the node  104  and used in the function to result in a value. The value is sent to the node  102  after being multiplied by “2” as indicated in the link  101 . In a similar manner, a node  112  receives an input from a node  118 , performs a function, and sends an input to the node  106 . Nodes  120  and  122  include discrete input nodes, for example, node  124 . When a discrete input node is selected as an input, the discrete input node send a discrete value as indicated by a link. For example, if the operators available to operators needed ratio falls between 1.5 and 2.0, the discrete input node  124  is selected by a user. The value 8 is sent to a node  116  in the node  114 . The node  116  is also a discrete input node, and sends a value of 1 to the node  106 . 
         [0018]      FIG. 3  illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary method for calculating a total score from a scoring tree. For exemplary purposes,  FIG. 3  will be described in reference to the example scoring tree  100  (of  FIG. 1 ). The method begins at the start block. In block  302  the current node is set as the root node (node  102  of  FIG. 1 ). Block  304  determines whether the current node is scored with ranges of values, i.e., the current node includes possible ranges of inputs, for example, the node  114  includes ranges of inputs (“simple,” “medium,” and “complex”). Since the current node ( 102 ) is not scored with ranges of values, the method progresses to block  306 . The current node ( 102 ) is not a leaf, so in block  308 , the current node is changed to equal the left most unscored child, node  104 . The current node  104  is not scored with a range of values in block  304  and is not a leaf in block  306 , so the current node is changed to equal the left most unscored child, node  108 . The current node ( 108 ) is not scored with ranges of values, but is a leaf as determined in block  306 . A determination of whether the current node ( 108 ) is scored with ranges of values is repeated in block  310 . In block  312 , since the current node ( 108 ) is not scored with ranges of values, the node score is equal to the input criteria “w” of the current node ( 108 ). Block  314  determines whether the current node ( 108 ) includes an unscored sibling node. The current node ( 108 ) includes an unscored sibling (node  110 ). The current node is changed to left most unscored sibling (node  110 ) in block  316 . The current node  110  is processed in a similar manner to the node  108  as described above. 
         [0019]    In block  314 , the method determines that the current node ( 110 ) does not include an unscored sibling. In block  318  the method determines that the parent node ( 104 ) is a function of the children (nodes  108  and  110 ). The parent node ( 104 ) score is calculated using the children (nodes  108  and  110 ) scores as inputs in block  320 . In block  322  the method determines whether the parent node ( 104 ) is the root node. Since the parent node ( 104 ) is not the root node, the current node is changed to equal the parent node ( 104 ) in block  324 . 
         [0020]    In block  314 , the method determines that the current node ( 104 ) has an unscored sibling node, node  106 . The current node is changed to the left most unscored sibling node ( 106 ) in block  316 . In block  304  the current node ( 106 ) is not scored with ranges of values. Since the current node ( 106 ) is not a leaf node, the nodes  112  and  118  are processed in a similar manner as the nodes  104  and  108  are processed above. Once node  112  is scored, the current node is changed to equal the node  114  (that is an unscored sibling of the node  112 ) in block  316 . 
         [0021]    Since the current node ( 114 ) is determined in block  304  to be scored with ranges of values, children are removed that are not children of the range in which input criteria fall. For example, if the operators available to operators needed ratio is 1.6, all of the children of the current node ( 114 ) that do not satisfy the range criteria are removed. Thus, the child node  120  is removed in block  326 . Since the current node ( 114 ) is not a leaf node as determined in block  306 , the current node is changed to equal the left most unscored child node (node  122 ). The current node ( 122 ) is scored with a range of values, but has no children to remove, so the method moves from block  304 , through block  326  to block  306 . The current node ( 122 ) is determined to be a leaf in block  306 . Since the current node ( 122 ) is determined in block  310  to be scored with a range of values the node score equals the value on the link  103  leading into the range in which the criteria fall as shown in block  328 . I.e., since the ratio is 1.6, falling in the range of node  124 , the value “8” on the link  103  is used as the score of the current node ( 122 ). In block  314  the current node ( 122 ) is determined to not have an unscored sibling node (since the sibling node  120  was removed above for not being of the range of inputs). The parent node ( 114 ) is determined to be a function of the children in block  318 , and the parent node ( 114 ) score is calculated using the children scores “8” from the current node ( 122 ) in block  320 . The parent node ( 114 ) is not the root as determined in block  322 . In block  324 , the current node is changed to equal the parent node ( 114 ). 
         [0022]    In block  314 , the current node ( 114 ) does not have an unscored sibling, and the parent node ( 106 ) is not a function of the children nodes, as determined in block  318 . In block  330 , the parent node ( 106 ) is calculated weighing the children scores with link weights. I.e. the parent node ( 106 ) score equals the score of the node  112  multiplied by “1” (from the link  105 ) added to “8” (from the link  103 ) multiplied by 1 (from the link  107 ). In block  322 , since the parent node ( 106 ) is not the root node, the current node changes to equal the parent node ( 106 ) in block  324 . 
         [0023]    In block  314  the method determines that the current node ( 106 ) does not have an unscored sibling node. (The node  104  has been scored as described above.) The parent node ( 102 ) is not a function of the children nodes (nodes  104  and  106 ), as determined in block  318 . Block  330  calculates the parent node ( 102 ) score weighing the children node scores with link weights in a similar manner as described above. 
         [0024]    Block  322  determines that the parent node ( 102 ) is the root node, and the score of the parent node ( 102 ) is equated to the final score in block  332 . The method ends once block  332  is complete. 
         [0025]    The technical effects and benefits of the above described embodiments provide a flexible, efficient, and effective method of scoring supplier performance. 
         [0026]    The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises” and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof. 
         [0027]    The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of all means or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or act for performing the function in combination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. 
         [0028]    The technical effects and benefits of the above described embodiments provide a flexible, efficient, and effective method of scoring supplier performance.