1.  Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a system and method for identifying excellent performance of individuals within a profession.  More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for data searching and mining operations to provide an objective indication of peer recognition and/or professional achievement. 
2.  Discussion of the Related Art
Awarding professional achievement through peer recognition is known.  Professionals generally nominate colleagues within their profession via a balloting process.  Balloting processes can be conducted in a variety of ways, including anonymous balloting, in person balloting, paper balloting, computer balloting, and the like.  In some instances, results of the balloting process are reviewed by a group of professionals through a peer review process.  In the peer review process, a sub-group of the profession gathers to vote on the candidates nominated through the balloting process. 
While these types of selection processes can provide useful information about performance of individuals within a profession, there are several problems with these processes.  There are concerns that individuals will nominate themselves in the hope of being selected as an excellent performer within a profession.  For example, one physician may nominate herself as an excellent performer in a particular medical practice area in order to attain marketing and/or other financial advantages over her competitors.  Some of the known balloting processes prohibit professionals from nominating themselves during the balloting process. 
Despite prohibitions against self-nominations during the balloting process, there are also concerns that groups of professionals may collaborate to nominate one another during the balloting process.  For example, one law firm may collaborate with another law firm to nominate lawyers from the other law firm in exchange for nominations of lawyers working in their firm.  Based on the foregoing, there is a need for additional rules and monitoring of the balloting process. 
In some instances, there can be problems defining a particular profession and/or a sub-group within a profession.  For example, some lawyers practice in the areas of family law and criminal defense law.  Their peers in each of the areas may not be aware of their efforts in the other practice area.  Alternately, their peers may confuse their work in one area with their work in the other area.  This could result in a professional being nominated and selected as an excellent performer in one area based on their performance in another, unrelated area.  Alternately, attorneys splitting their time between two areas of law may not be adequately recognized for excellent performance in both areas because their peer groups may be slightly different in each area.  Thus, there is a need for objective definition of professions and/or sub-groups within a profession.  There is also a need for evaluation of professionals based on all of the activities in which they are professionally engaged. 
There are often problems with the subjectivity of criteria defining excellent performance within a profession.  This can be exacerbated by open balloting processes that are not based on a defined set of criteria for nominations.  For example, when determining excellent performance within the field of dentistry, some dentists may heavily weigh the number of patients serviced by a dental office in a given time period while other dentists may place greater weight on the type of technology employed by a dental office when rendering services to patients.  Based on the foregoing, there is a need for objective, well-defined criteria for determining excellent performance within a profession and/or profession sub-group. 
There are also problems with information used to determine whether an individual is currently an excellent performer within a profession.  These problems are magnified for repeat selection processes, such as monthly, semi-annual, and/or annual nominations for excellent performance within a profession.  For example, an accountant may be nominated by his peers for his performance during the course of his 25-year career, notwithstanding the fact that he was selected as an excellent performer for previous years and, during the present selection year he did not exhibit excellent performance.  Accordingly, there is a need for a system and method for identifying excellent performance of professionals that is based on current information and/or a combination of current and historical information. 
There can also be problems with peer review of professionals nominated for excellent performance within a profession.  These problems can include the bias and subjectivity issues previously discussed with regard to the balloting process.  Another problem might be lack of current information about candidates incorporating changes from the time of balloting to the peer review process.  For example, between the balloting process and the peer review process, a professional might move away from the geographical area for which the selection is occurring.  Another example might be a change in the professional's career, such as an attorney accepting a judicial appointment, thereby barring her eligibility for selection.  Thus, there is a need for monitoring and evaluation of the results of various stages in a selection process.