Abstract:
A system, method and user interface for reviewing projects to ensure that specified criteria are met. The criteria may be externally mandated and/or internally required. The system and method utilize a user interface to control the creation of work packages that may be transmitted to suppliers for work to be performed domestically or globally. Uniform documentation and attachments can be created on-line using the interface of the system and method for reviewing projects so that specific benchmarks and reviews are met. Critical reviews may be a made mandatory step in the documentation process.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
         [0001]    The present invention relates to a system, method and user interface for reviewing projects so that specific benchmarks and reviews are performed during and after project development. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system, method and user interface for ensuring that both internal and external requirements and reviews are met during project development.  
         BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
         [0002]    Typically, projects, such as engineering development projects, require the project be reviewed during the development process to ensure that criteria are met. Such criteria may be imposed from external sources, or be the result of internal project or company requirements.  
           [0003]    The higher the number of people working on a project, the greater the likelihood is that a review of criteria for that project will be incomplete, inconsistent, or somehow insufficient. With regard to companies having large numbers of employees working on projects and multiple projects being developed simultaneously, there is a high likelihood that criteria will not be met completely, or that the criteria will be handled differently for each project or work group.  
           [0004]    In the development of engineering projects, there are many criteria that must be met in order to meet external requirements. Similarly, there may be a need to review an engineering project with regard to internal criteria to ensure that company mandated steps and safeguards are taken.  
           [0005]    Conventionally, such reviews or checks are not conducted in a standard fashion. Each project group may approach the criteria differently, with differing levels of completeness and degrees of information.  
           [0006]    In particular, various engineers may coordinate work projects for transmission to outside suppliers, both domestically and internationally. The transmission of such projects may not be performed according to any standard approach. The transmissions may vary from person to person. As a result, suppliers may become confused by differing communications and therefore delay starting necessary work tasks, and thereby slow down completion of the project.  
           [0007]    One criterion for such transmissions is a review of Export Control restrictions, which are United States Federal regulations for controlling, amongst other things, the transmission of technical data to a foreign national and the shipment of materials to countries under an embargo. Failure to heed Export Control restrictions can place the company in legal jeopardy. Other external restrictions also can be of concern, such as the handling of nuclear materials, which falls under the auspices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or the disposal of hazardous wastes, which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  
           [0008]    With regard to internal criteria, one example is the review of project development with to protection of intellectual property. If a product or process under development is disclosed publicly before intellectual property rights are secured, the company may be unable to obtain any protection due to the establishment of a statutory bar. Likewise, such a disclosure prohibits the company from maintaining the product or process as a trade secret.  
           [0009]    With regard to trademarks, it can also be critical to perform proper review and clearance of a potential trademark or service mark before marking goods or materials with the potential mark. Failure to do so can create serious legal ramifications. In larger companies, there is a strong likelihood that Export Control and intellectual property review are conducted differently throughout the company. Such reviews are difficult to control and coordinate, and the paperwork generated in such reviews is not maintained in a searchable database and is not archived. No electronic storage and retrieval process exists for such information.  
         BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
         [0010]    The foregoing and other deficiencies of the conventional techniques are addressed by the system, method and user interface for reviewing projects to ensure criteria are met according to the present invention.  
           [0011]    The present invention relates to a system, method and user interface for reviewing projects to ensure that specified criteria are met. The criteria may be externally mandated and/or internally required. The system, method and user interface according to the present invention can control the creation of work packages that may be transmitted to suppliers by members of the engineering community desiring to place tasks domestically or globally. Uniform documentation and attachments can be created on-line using the system and method of the present invention.  
           [0012]    During the use of the system to document development, critical reviews may be a made mandatory step in the documentation process. An archive is created for each project in to which completed mandatory documentation may be maintained. By archiving such documentation, the subsequent users can save time in preparing similar documentation by accessing the archives and copying relevant documents.  
       
    
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0013]    The structure, operation and advantages of a presently preferred embodiment of this invention will become apparent upon consideration of the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:  
         [0014]    [0014]FIG. 1 is a user interface log-on screen according to the present invention;  
         [0015]    [0015]FIG. 2 is an initial system welcome screen and navigation bar according to the present invention;  
         [0016]    [0016]FIG. 3 is an initial user interface selection screen, resulting from a user selecting the select SOW option in FIG. 2, according to the present invention;  
         [0017]    FIGS.  4 - 6  are the initial user interface screen, shown in FIG. 3, for choosing an existing record through different SOW selection options, according to the present invention;  
         [0018]    [0018]FIG. 7 is a user interface screen showing search results produced in response to a selection made in one of FIGS.  4 - 6 , according to the present invention;  
         [0019]    [0019]FIG. 8 is an initial user interface create SOW screen, produced in response to a user selecting create SOW in FIG. 3, according to the present invention;  
         [0020]    [0020]FIG. 9 is a user interface screen for SOW creation, according to the present invention;  
         [0021]    [0021]FIG. 10 is a user interface screen produced in response to a user selecting the SOW information option in the screen shown in FIG. 9, for entering SOW information, according to the present invention;  
         [0022]    [0022]FIG. 11 is a user interface screen presented to a user upon selection of the contacts/appendices option in FIG. 9, according to the present invention;  
         [0023]    [0023]FIG. 12 is a user interface screen presented to a user upon selection of the export control/IP checklist option in FIG. 9, according to the present invention;  
         [0024]    [0024]FIGS. 13 and 14 are flow charts illustrating a an outsourcing process performed in conjunction with the method and system of the present invention; and  
         [0025]    [0025]FIGS. 15 and 16 are flow charts of the method for reviewing projects to ensure that specified criteria are met, according to one preferred embodiment of the present invention.  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION  
       [0026]    The following discussion of the system, method and user interface of the present invention is directed to one preferred embodiment of the present invention, which is directed to export control and intellectual property protection. However, the illustrated embodiment is not intended to limit the present invention, but merely to be illustrative of one implementation of the concept. The present invention may be embodied on a computer system. A user can interact with the computer with a variety of input devices, such a keyboard and a pointing device. The pointing device may be a mouse, track ball, pen device, or similar device.  
         [0027]    The computer can operate in a networked environment where it is connected to one or more remote computers or other devices, such as a server, a router, a network personal computer, a peer device or other common network node, a wireless telephone or wireless personal digital assistant. Networking environments are commonplace in offices, enterprise-wide computer networks and home computer systems.  
         [0028]    The computer can also access a wide area network, such as the Internet. A local area network may also be used to connect to the wide area network. The present invention may also be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCS, minicomputers, mainframe computers, personal digital assistants and the like. Furthermore, the invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.  
         [0029]    The user interface described in detail below is illustrated as running in a Microsoft® Windows® environment; however, the graphical user interface can run in other environments.  
         [0030]    Referring to FIG. 1, a user interface log-on screen  50  is illustrated. Upon initialization of the system, a user is present with log-on screen  50  in order to limit access to the system to authorized users. Users are required to enter a user ID and password in user ID block  52  and password block  54 , respectively, after which the user submits this information be selecting the submit button  56 . If a user makes a mistake, the user can select the reset button  58  to reset the entries in blocks  52  and  54 .  
         [0031]    After entering an acceptable user ID and password, a user is presented with the initial system welcome screen  60  and navigation bar  62 , shown in FIG. 2. General instructions are provided in the main window  64 , and user selections are presented in the navigation bar  62 . In the illustrated embodiment the user has two choices in the navigation bar  62 , namely, select SOW option  68  and create SOW option  70 . Each of these options will be described in detail below.  
         [0032]    Selection of the select SOW option  68  in the navigation bar  62  of FIG. 2 brings up the initial user interface selection screen  72 , shown in FIG. 3. Through the initial user interface selection screen  72 , the user can select a previously enter project (termed a statement of work or SOW). The particular SOW may be chosen in multiple ways. In particular, the user may select the SOW by the type of work, by the task, or by another user. Referring to FIG. 3, the initial user interface selection screen  72  has three fields or windows; a type of work window  74 , a task window  76 , and an individual window  78 . In addition, an SOW number window  79  is provided.  
         [0033]    The results of the selection of each of the three fields,  74 ,  76 , and  78 , are shown in FIGS.  4 - 6 . Referring to FIG. 4, selection of the type of work window  74  may open a drop down screen  80  containing a list of work types. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the drop down screen  80  contains four work types; automations, design &amp; analysis, drafting, and materials testing. After the user selects one of these option, the selection is submitted by choosing the submit button  82 .  
         [0034]    A drop down window  84 , shown in FIG. 5, appears when a user selects a SOW using the task window  76 . In the illustrated example shown in FIG. 5, the drop down window  84  contains four types of tasks, namely, ANSYS—Airfoil Vibration, ANSYS—FEM modeling &amp; Analysis, Combustion design, and Piping System Design.  
         [0035]    [0035]FIG. 6 illustrates a drop down window  86 , which appears when a user selects the individual window  78 . The drop down window  86  contains a list of people that have previously entered SOWs.  
         [0036]    Selection using the type of work window  74 , the task window  76 , the individual window  78 , or the Sow number window  79 , produces a search results screen  88 , shown in FIG. 7. The search results include all SOWs that match the selected field in the chosen drop down window. Each matching result may be displayed with information matching the fields in windows  74 ,  76 , and  88 . In addition, the each matching SOW may have an SOW number that is also displayed in the results screen  88  of FIG. 7.  
         [0037]    When a user wants to begin a new project, the project should be reviewed for any internal any external requirements. In the embodiment represented by FIGS.  1 - 12 , these reviews are the export control review and the intellectual property protection review. In this instance, the user selects the create SOW option  70  in the navigation bar  62 , shown in FIG. 2, and a create SOW screen  90  is presented, as shown in FIG. 8. The create SOW screen  90  has multiple field that user should complete before a SOW is created.  
         [0038]    These fields include the user&#39;s last and first names  92  and  94 , phone number  96 , address  98 , department  100 , component  102 , project title  104 , and originator facsimile number  106 . When the user has finished filling out the foregoing fields, the matter is submitted by selecting the submit button  108 .  
         [0039]    After the submit button  108  has been selected the user is presented with the user interface screen for SOW creation  110 , shown in FIG. 9. The SOW creation screen includes the navigation bar  62  and a welcome screen  112 . While all of the screens after the user interface log-on screen  50  include the navigation bar  62 , screens  60 ,  72 ,  88 , and  90  have only the two choices, select SOW option  68  and create SOW option  70  in the navigation bar  62 .  
         [0040]    On the other hand, screen  110  includes the navigation bar  62 , but the navigation bar  62  has additional choices. These choices include Header information option  114 , SOW Information option  116 , Contacts/Appendices option  118 , Export control/IP Checklist option  120 , Finished option  122 , Delete option  124 , and View SOW option  126 .  
         [0041]    The welcome screen  112  provides the user with instructions concerning using the navigation bar during the SOW creation process. As the use enters information concerning a new project, the user can view all previously entered information by selecting the SOW Information option  116 . When a user had completed entering all the information concerning a new project the SOW is completed by selecting the Finished option  122 . A print out of the SOW is obtained by selecting the View SOW option  126 .  
         [0042]    When the user selects the SOW Information option  116 , a SOW Information user interface screen  127  is presented as shown in FIG. 10. The first item of information that should be entered is the type of work, which is entered in field  128 . If the new project is of a similar nature to a previous project, the user can initiate field  128  as a drop down screen and select from the previous projects. On the other hand, if the new project is unlike previous projects, the user may manually enter the project type.  
         [0043]    The next field is the type of task field  130 , which can be completed in the same manner as field  128 . The data entered into both fields  128  and  130  is accessible through the select SOW option  68  in the navigation bar  62 . A not to exceed hours field  131  is provided so that the user may designate a maximum number of hours for the project.  
         [0044]    The SOW information screen  110  has additional fields  132 - 138 . Field  132  provides a location for the entry of the project objective, which should be a brief statement clarifying the purpose of the project. Field  134  is a work scope field that may contain an explanation of the work to be completed with reference to drawings and sketches. The vendor deliverables field  136  may contain reports, design study summaries, files, drawings, test results, hardware lists, etc. Schedule option  138  may contain the start and finished dates, proposal date, kick-off date, milestone date, review dates, final review date, and completion date.  
         [0045]    Selection of the Contacts/Appendices option  118  from the navigation bar  62  brings up the contacts/appendices screen  140 , shown in FIG. 11. Screen  140  contains a contact field  142 , into which the user may a responsible individual&#39;s name. Similarly, fields  144 ,  146 , and  148  are provided for the user to enter phone number, facsimile number, and email address for the individual listed in field  142 . Additional contacts may be added into the Other Contacts field  150 , and corresponding communication channels in field  152 . Upon completion, of the fields  142 - 152 , the information is submitted to the system by selecting the submit button  154 .  
         [0046]    Selection of the Export control/IP checklist option  120  in the navigation bar  62  brings up the Export control/IP checklist screen  160  illustrated in FIG. 12. Screen  160  steps the user through a series of questions to ensure that the export control and intellectual property protection requirements are met. Some examples of these questions are shown in the main window  162 . In this example, the user is asked if the project involves the release of technology or software to an embargoed or restricted country, does the project involve gas turbine gas path parts, does the project involve export controlled software, and has the proposed supplier signed a non-disclosure agreement. By requiring all users, who are responsible for a project to utilize the present system and method, uniform compliance with the export control and intellectual property requirements can be achieved.  
         [0047]    With regard to intellectual property requirements, the questions presented in screen  160 , may include, for example:  
         [0048]    Has a patentability review been performed? 
         [0049]    If the project involves potentially patentable subject matter, have all inventors been identified? 
         [0050]    Has any public disclosure or offer for sale occurred? And if so when, and to whom, and under what circumstances? 
         [0051]    Are any future disclosures to anyone outside of the project group expected, and if so, when, to whom, and under what circumstances? 
         [0052]    Does the project involve trademarked goods or services? 
         [0053]    Have all employees working on the project signed employee contracts requiring them to assign the rights to any inventions to the company? 
         [0054]    Does the project relate to any previously patented inventions, and if so are they assigned to the same company? 
         [0055]    All of the questions presented on screen  160  are intended to ensure that Federally imposed export control laws are complied with, and that in the course of the project, all potentially protectable intellectual property is protected.  
         [0056]    Quite often it is necessary to outsource one or more parts of an engineering project. When such outsourcing occurs, it is important that the project be kept under control to ensure that the externally mandated requirements and internal requirements are complied with. Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, flow charts illustrating an outsourcing process performed in conjunction with the system and method of the present invention is illustrated. The flow charts assume that organizational resources, the complexity of the project, the business strategy, the technical scope/objective, the project schedule, and an approved supplier list, have all be determined and are available as inputs to the system.  
         [0057]    In step  200  the need work to be performed is identified. In step  202  a determination is made whether to outsource the work. If the work is not to be outsourced, the responsible internal group performs the task in step  204 . If a determination is made in step  202  that the work identified in step  200  is to be outsourced, the responsible internal engineering lead is identified, and the technical requirements are defined in step  206 . After the technical requirements are identified in step  206 , CTQ&#39;s (or issues critical to quality) are identified in step  208 , and evaluation criteria are established in step  210 .  
         [0058]    After step  210 , an SOW is prepared using the system, method and user interface of the present invention, in step  212 . The SOW is a revision-controlled document containing a description of the work to be performed and the prescribed results and format. The SOW is archived and available for revisions or duplication. A copy of the SOW is delivered to the vendor RFQ (Request for Quotation) list in step  214 .  
         [0059]    After step  206 , the project is reviewed with regard to the export control requirements and intellectual property requirements, in step  216 , through the system and method of the present invention. The results of step  216  are sent to step  212 . The results of step  216  are also sent to step  218  where the supplier list is reviewed. A part of step  218  is to review the task to ensure that proprietary agreements and related patent protection steps have been followed, using the system and method of the present invention.  
         [0060]    Next, a determination is made in step  220  whether the supplier is an existing and capable long-term contract source. If the answer is yes then the project specifics are agreed upon in step  222 . If the answer is no, then A determination is made whether new suppliers are needed in step  224 . If the answer is no than the RFQ list of viable suppliers is created in step  226 , and the step  214  is then followed.  
         [0061]    If the answer in step  224  is yes, then new suppliers are identified in step  228 , and in step  230  a buy decision is made. If a buy is not to be made then qualifications and document results are performed in step  232 , and the process proceeds to step  226 . If the answer is yes then the purchase is made.  
         [0062]    After step  232 , as shown in FIG. 14, the qualifying organization is required to maintain qualification records in step  234 . Furthermore, after step  214 , vendor questions are resolved in step  236 , and a pre-bid meeting is held in step  238 . After step  238 , quotes are received and evaluated in step  240 . Proposals are negotiated with the vendors in step  242 , and an EI (Engineering Instruction) is issued in step  244 . In step  246 , a contract is awarded and a PO (Purchase Order) is issued.  
         [0063]    After steps  220  and  246 , the design effort is started and a schedule is finalized in step  248 . A system for evaluating the suppliers&#39; performance is determined in step  250 . Next detailed technical data is provided to the vendor in step  252 , and the vendor executes the project according to the SOW, in step  254 . Next, ongoing project management is conducted in step  256 , and deliverables are received from the vendor in step  258 . The value of the deliverables, imported from global suppliers, is established in step  260 , after which the deliverables are evaluated in step  262 . A determination is made in step  264  whether the deliverables are satisfactory. If yes a process invoice is issued in step  266 . If the answer in step  264  is no the process continues to step  268  where a determination is made whether the SOW needs to be changed. If the answer in step  268  is no then step  254  through  264  are repeated. If the answer in step  268  is yes the SOW is amended in step  270 , and the process repeats from step  242  through step  264 .  
         [0064]    [0064]FIGS. 15 and 16 are flow chart of the method for reviewing projects to ensure that specified criteria are met, according to one preferred embodiment of the present invention. These criteria are the same questions set forth in the Export control/IP checklist  160 . In step  300  a determination is made whether the project involves the release of technology or software to an embargoed or restricted country. If the answer is yes the system informs the user that the information must be reviewed for export in step  301 . If the answer is no the process continues to step  302 .  
         [0065]    In step  302  a determination is made whether the project involves gas turbine gas path parts. If the user&#39;s answer is do not know, the project needs to be reviewed. If, the answer is yes then step  304  is executed where a determination is made whether the project contains material or processing technology. If the answer is yes the system informs the user that the information must be reviewed for export in step  306 . The process then proceeds through the following decision steps:  
         [0066]    Does the project involve cooled airfoils or shrouds in an average gas path temperature? (Step  308 )  
         [0067]    Does the project involve uncooled airfoils or shrouds in an average gas path temperature? (Step  310 )  
         [0068]    Does the project involve turbine bucket tip active clearance control? (Step  312 )  
         [0069]    Does the project involve cooling holes with a diameter less than 0.030 inches and L/D greater than 4, and an incident angle less than 25 degrees? (Step  314 )  
         [0070]    Does the project involve airfoils or shrouds made from directionally solidified or single crystal alloy with 400 hr. S-R life at 1000 degrees C. and 200 MPS? (Step  316 )  
         [0071]    Does the project involve components from 600 degrees F., organic composites, metal matrix composites (MMC) ceramic metal composites (CMC) or intermetallic or intermetallic-reinforced composites? (Step  318 )  
         [0072]    Does the project involve coating processes such as PVD, CVD and low-pressure plasma spray? (Step  320 )  
         [0073]    Does the project involve hot gas path design practice? (Step  322 ).  
         [0074]    If the answers in any of steps  308  through  322  is yes, then the user that the information must be reviewed for export  
         [0075]    In step  324  a determination is made whether the project involves export controlled software. In step  326  a determination is made whether the proposed supplier signed a non-disclosure agreement. In step  328  a determination is made whether there is potential for the supplier to develop patentable ideas while performing the proposed tasks. If the component, for which external engineering services are planned, has any internal patentable ideas, a determination is made whether the appropriate patent disclosure forms have been filed with the appropriate patent offices in step  330 . Step  329  requires a determination whether outside suppliers have existing patent protection relating to the project. Step  330  involves determining that the project will not infringe third party patent rights. Next, step  331  involves determining if patent applications have been filed for the project. In step  332  a determination is made whether required intellectual property identification has been added to all necessary items. In step  334  a determination is made whether the system user has been requested to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  
         [0076]    While the foregoing embodiment is directed to the specific implementation of an export control review scheme and an intellectual property review, the present invention is not intended to be limited to just these developments. The system, method and user interface of the present invention is equally applicable to reviews, such as nuclear regulatory commission regulations, atomic energy restrictions, EHS (Environmental Health Safety) review, Hazardous materials review, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) requirements, European Union (EU) requirements, military specification compliance, building/zoning requirements, any special industry requirements such as ASME or ANSI, and any special government requirements such as equal opportunity employment or hiring.  
         [0077]    Having described embodiments of the system and method and user interface for reviewing projects so that specific benchmarks and reviews are performed during and after project development according to the present invention, it is believed that other modifications, variations and changes will be suggested to those skilled in the art in view of the description set forth above. It is therefore to be understood that all such variations, modifications and changes are believed to fall within the scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.