|Publication number||US7441197 B2|
|Application number||US 10/411,912|
|Publication date||21 Oct 2008|
|Filing date||12 Apr 2003|
|Priority date||26 Feb 2002|
|Also published as||US20050192963|
|Publication number||10411912, 411912, US 7441197 B2, US 7441197B2, US-B2-7441197, US7441197 B2, US7441197B2|
|Inventors||Mark A. Tschiegg, Linda P. Burrows, Todd A. Reinart, Peter F. Langan, Michael J. Sutherland, Mark R. Driscoll|
|Original Assignee||Global Asset Protection Services, Llc|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (27), Non-Patent Citations (4), Referenced by (38), Classifications (11), Legal Events (4)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 10/085,497 filed Feb. 26, 2002 and claims benefit of priority to provisional application Ser. No. 60/372,291 filed Apr. 12, 2002, each of which are hereby incorporated by reference to the same extent as though fully replicated herein.
Companies purchase risk management services to assess risks and exposures within relevant globally distributed properties to better assess and manage property protection and other investments, including human resources and business processes. Risk management services may include, for example, strategic planning and consulting, risk identification, loss prevention assessment and analysis surveys, safety studies, industrial hygiene studies, and capital project review and management. Source data is generally collected from the purchasing company's locations and people. The source data is processed by an extended team of globally distributed field associates, who issue evaluations and recommendations to correct property protection deficiencies; these recommendations and evaluations are generated based on consulting judgment. The source data is refreshed at each consulting engagement or at each field associate visit or via other communications. Typically, such services generate static reports for the companies. In turn, the companies must sift through lengthy, obscure, and poorly coordinated third-party evaluations of their loss control efforts and physical protection systems, in order to benefit from the reports.
Trained experts are routinely able to provide risk management services; however, recommendations (or the lack thereof) to implement risk management strategies are often faulty because the recommendations are based upon bad or incomplete data. The practice of risk management is adversely affected by the unreliability and incompleteness of information from different sources. The reading, maintenance and administration of reports, and the management of resulting action items, is both time consuming and difficult. These circumstances effectively devalue associated investments in property protection, human resources and business processes. Moreover, many companies must physically re-enter certain data from various reports into company-owned databases, in order to facilitate local manipulation of data. It is difficult or impossible, for example, to perform cost benefit analyses, or to benchmark the performance of one entity against the performance of other entities, due to lack of integrated information resources. Furthermore, due to time lag between the time when information become available and when the information can be used, there is often a failure to make timely adjustments accommodating changed business, regulatory or environmental conditions that require correspondingly appropriate risk management activity.
Expert knowledge may also be of relatively narrow scope, for example, in the case of special hazards that are relevant to a particular industry or transportation sector. It is difficult to integrate such specialized knowledge into risk management practices, particularly where the experts may work for different entities and/or the risk management knowledge resides in a plurality of experts that may deliver inconsistent results.
Certain of the following systems and methods overcome the problems outlined above and advances that art by a providing a risk management system including a seamless interface for real-time manipulation and management of risk management information over a network that accesses integrated information resources. Several other features of the risk management system are apparent within the description that follows.
In one aspect, a risk management system provides a graphical and interactive interface system for managing risk management information. A secure database stores risk management information that is accessible by authorized user access through a network. A graphics interface generates graphic data of the risk management information in response to the authorized access. Users interact with the system in an I/O context via the graphics interface to access the risk management information. The risk management information may be segmented or categorized into a plurality of risk categories, such as fire, catastrophe, construction, and loss prevention. The database may associate risk management recommendations with each risk category on a location or facility basis. The reporting engine may summarize the risk management information, for example, by reporting from the database using user-defined data filtration parameters, calculating statistics, producing counts of data fields, adding loss estimate data to represent a total exposure value, or plotting data points that associate color codes with levels of risk exposure.
In another aspect, one or more workflow process terminals connect in network with the database to provide updates to the risk management information. The terminals may for example include a computer, facsimile, telephone and scanner.
In yet another aspect, the database may include assistance data that is accessible concurrently with authorized access of the risk management information. The assistance data may for example include loss prevention and control standards and guidelines that are useful in establishing uniform risk management practices.
In yet another aspect, the system may have different levels of access authorization that afford users of unrelated entities the benefit of one another's data without breaching confidentiality of the data. A first segment of the risk management information is associated with a first company having proprietary interest in the first segment, and a second segment of the risk management information is associated with a second company having proprietary interest in the second segment. The database and interface cooperate to provide access by users of the first company to the first segment by authorized access while prohibiting access by users of the second company to the first segment. Similarly, the database and interface cooperate to provide access by the second company to the second segment by authorized access while prohibiting access by the first company to the second segment. Accordingly, in another aspect, the risk management information is segmented within the database for association with a plurality of companies having proprietary interest in, and authorized access to, one or more segments of the risk management information. Where the first company users and the second company users are in related industries or have similar locations, it is sometimes useful for the first and second users to share data for benchmarking comparison purposes. Accordingly, access security may be relaxed among those companies wishing to share data, such that data from the first company (or a group of such companies) may be statistically processed for benchmark comparison purposes and used by the second company in a way that does not reveal confidential information of the first company.
In one aspect, at least part of the risk management information is encrypted in complying with the authorized access. One or more access computers coupled in network with the graphics interface thus access the risk management information of the database by decrypting the encrypted risk management information with input of appropriate access codes.
In yet another aspect, the workflow engine, security database, and e-mail notification engine cooperate to automatically generate an e-mail when new information is posted to the risk management database. Users with authorized access to view the segment of the risk management database to which the new information has been posted receive the ‘e-mail notification’ if the user requests and self-authorizes such e-mail notification. The user may turn this function on or off at their own discretion via a standard screen within the graphic interface. The user may also change the frequency of e-mail notification at their own discretion via the same screen. The database or an email notification application may generate the email in response to authorized updates to a segment of risk management information. The email is addressed to a user at an access terminal that has the appropriate authorizations. The email may contain a hyperlink to the updated information and/or to a document loaded in association with the segment. Email may also be generated periodically to inform the user of interim updates.
In yet another aspect, the graphics interface provides one or more filter functions to manipulate the risk management information for display of graphic data at a computer networked with the graphics interface. The filter functions may for example provide user selection of one or more of the following: country, city, state, location identifier, gross site property damage values, property value, total location in square feet, percent noncombustible construction, percent of noncombustible walls and roof deck with combustible roof covering, percent of combustible roof, percent of combustible walls, percent with sprinklers, percent needing sprinklers, survey report delivery time, cost to complete, last survey date, next survey year/month due, ATC earthquake zone, sprinkler protection, water supply, surveillance, warehousing protection, other protection, management programs, impairments, smoking regulations, maintenance, employee training, new construction, insurance, pre-emergency planning, private fire brigade, hazardous materials, hot work, loss prevention inspection, fire protection inspection, hazard evaluation, housekeeping, outside contractors, FEMA flood zones, windstorm, fire department type, survey frequency, customer priority, customer status, customer intent to complete, predominant construction, customer target date, loss estimates property and time element damage percentage (maximum foreseeable, normal, and probable maximum), facility hazard ID, hazard type, hazard protection rating, hazard impact rating, # of outstanding hazard-specific recommendations, hazard maximum total loss estimates before recommendation completion, maximum hazard total loss estimate cost to complete, hazard benchmark rating, hazard type by industry, hazard type by hazard, recommendation cost to complete, recommendation total loss estimate before completion, recommendation estimated cost to complete, estimate risk reduction, and recommendation loss probability.
Moreover, the graphic data may include one or more graphical reports such as a fire protection, recommendation summary, loss prevention survey report delivery, loss prevention survey report schedule, risk quality benchmarking, risk quality rating, management programs, building construction, catastrophe, active recommendations, and completion status. Additional risk analysis reports may for example include loss estimate (NLE−PML−MFL), location summary, recommendation status, recommendation cost-benefit analysis, location “snapshot”, hazard benchmarking, hazard quadrant analysis, hazard summary report, account review-MFL vs. risk quality ratings, account review-natural catastrophe, account review-recommendation status and intent, account review-risk quality categories, account review-risk quality ratings and water test results.
In one aspect, the graphics interface and database form a web server platform to generate secure web pages of the risk management information at a computer networked with the platform and with authorized access to the risk management information.
In another aspect, the database responds to inputs by a user with authorized access, at a computer networked with the database, to securely store electronic documents with the risk management information associated with the user. These electronic documents may for example include one or more of loss prevention survey results, risk summaries, and CAD diagrams. Software may convert the CAD diagrams into a format more suitable for the database. One format is a graphical format. The software may reside with the database or with a workflow application networked with the database.
The database may for example be a SQL database server. The database of one aspect responds to electronically received recommendations regarding a segment of risk management information to post the recommendations with the segment of risk management information.
In another aspect, the graphics interface accommodates input of interactive recommendations such that the recommendations may be stored with the database in association with the segment of risk management information.
In another aspect, the graphics interface provides drill-down linkage between high level summaries and low level explanatory details based upon contributing factors to one or more ratings. The graphics interface may further generate color-coded graphic data to differentiate decision-making risk management information. The color-coded graphic data may further associate different colors to different quality ratings.
One system described below provides for appending user-generated comments to one or more segments of the risk management information. The system facilitates viewing and manipulating risk management recommendations and associated valuations through the graphics interface and over the network. System integration through field-linked reporting presented on the graphical interface facilitates selectively switching between cost-benefit analyses, summaries, and status screens, through the graphics interface and over the network. Users may selectively switch between charts and values associated with recommendations, through the graphics interface and over the network.
In certain aspects, one system generates one or more of the following recommended cost-benefit analysis information through the graphics interface and over the network: total loss before implementation of a recommendation, total loss after implementation of a recommendation, property damage loss before implementation of a recommendation, property damage loss after implementation of a recommendation, business interruption loss before implementation of a recommendation, business interruption loss after implementation of a recommendation, estimated cost to complete, estimated cost to complete source, estimated probability, estimated probability source, and estimated risk reduction. The estimated risk reduction may for example include a factor of [(property loss before implementation of a recommendation+business interruption loss before implementation of a recommendation)−(property loss after implementation of a recommendation+business interruption loss after implementation of a recommendation)−estimated cost to complete].
In another aspect, recommendations may be shared between users through the interface and over the network. By way of example, the recommendations may be shared based upon access and authority levels of accounts, divisions, locations, or individuals.
One system provides for posting user-generated documents with user-authorized risk management information through the graphics interface and over the network. Another system provides for automatically emailing users with notification of modifications in a segment of risk management information, so long as the users have authorized access to the segment. By way of example, the modifications may include the posting of a new document to the segment of risk management information. New documents may be user-created, or generated by a third-party and posted by an authorized user.
In another aspect, an email server connects in network with one or more access computers. An email notification application connects in network with the database to automatically send email notification(s) to the access computers upon updates to segment(s) of the risk management information. A workflow engine application may also connect in network between the database and the email notification application, to interface between one or more access terminals and the database.
In one aspect, a system manages risk management information such that an authorized user may access graphical data representing at least part of the segment of risk management information. A database stores one or more segments of risk management information. The system augments the information within one of the segments through a workflow process terminal in network with the database. An email notification server and/or application provide for communicating email to an authorized user of the one segment to notify the authorized user of the augmented information. A workflow engine application may further interface between one or more workflow process terminals and the database. A security buffer may further couple in network between the database and an access computer of the authorized user to ensure only authorized access to the segments of information. The email may include an Internet link to the augmented information within the one segment. The buffer may automatically check with the database to ensure that a user accessing the link has authorized access to the augmented information. The system may include a graphics interface to collate risk management information from the database into a graphical display for an access computer coupled in network with the database.
In yet another aspect, a method is provided for managing risk management information, including the steps of: segmenting risk management information within a database according to access authorizations; generating graphical display of a segment of risk management information at an access computer networked with the database in response to user inputs at the computer and having appropriate access authorizations; updating the segment of risk management information in response to data inputs through a workflow process terminal; and automatically communicating email to the access computer in notification of the data inputs to the segment.
In one aspect, the step of automatically communicating includes the step of sending an Internet link to information within the segment. In another aspect, the method includes the step of automatically verifying authorizations at the database in response to user interaction with the Internet link. The step of generating graphical display may include the step of filtering the segment of risk management information in response to user-selected filtering options at the access computer.
Further aspects of the system may include a robust reporting capability that can be used to sort and filter relevant risk management data according to user-specified parameters. Generally, a reporting engine is capable of summarizing risk management information, e.g., at a location, division, or company level, or by category of risk. Detailed information in support of the summary may be accessed by drill-down selection of features from summary level reports. For example, a loss estimate summary report may be provided for all locations or filtered according to user-specified parameters. The loss estimate summary report may include a location identifier, and the graphics interface may be configured to operate in concert with the reporting engine such that onclick selection of the location identifier field provides a location snapshot report of summary information associated with that location identifier. The location summary report may contain other selectable fields, and the graphics interface is configured to operate in concert with the reporting engine such that onclick selection of the selectable field provides a pop-up report of loss estimate details. These reports facilitate improved predictive accuracy, which is achieved by comparing relevant system parameters when selecting risk management data for system data input.
In another example, the reporting engine can provide a location snapshot report that includes summary information for a particular location. The graphics interface may contain a plurality of selectable fields each allocated to providing onclick selectable pop-up reports that include expanded information relevant to a different category of the location snapshot report. The different categories may be selected from the group consisting of location documents, fire protection summary, natural catastrophe summary, other and allied protection summary, loss estimate details, customer comments, outstanding recommendations, and combinations thereof.
Other aspects of the summary reporting functionality include the graphics interface and the reporting engine being optionally interfaced to provide graphical displays, such as bar graphs or pie charts, of filtered risk management information according to user-specified parameters. The reporting engine optionally but preferably provides statistical processing of the filtered risk management information, and displays comparative statistical calculation results to the user. The resulting data is particularly useful in providing recommendations to customers, and the system may also provide a reporting and tracking mechanism subject to one or both of recommendation fulfillment and recommendation rejection.
Aspects of the summary reporting capability and related statistical processing include comparisons of data between historical risk assessments and new data from survey practices. The data may be benchmarked or compared on a weighted average basis to compare users' information against normalized, average, anonymous information within the same industry, occupancy group, or product line.
Other aspects of this comparison utility include the generation of ad hoc reports that may be generated and provided to peers on the network for their use, review and comment for sharing among a community of system users.
Aspects of one system include a functionality to task peers, such as other insurance agents, with assignments, such as constructing a survey or completing tasks related to a customer survey. The system permits the peer to report survey results back to the system, seamlessly uploads the response into the risk management database, and reports the results back to the customer for review and verification.
Customers may be provided access to view and manipulate the information from a computer terminal where they are afforded the ability to view and manipulate recommendations and associated valuations. This capability is assisted by providing the customer with the ability to switch between cost-benefit analysis, summary, and status screens.
Predictive accuracy of the system may be enhanced by reconciling estimated results with actual results to assure predictive integrity of the system. A historical archive of risk management features that have been changed is a valuable aid in spotting trends, e.g., a rising or lowering percentage of total value that is replaced through fire damage where the percentage changes five percent every year.
It is further useful, in cases where ‘special hazards’ are applicable to a particular industry or production method, that some embodiments of the system include a special hazard category of risk. The special hazard category contains miscellaneous types of risks that may each be associated with an impact rating based upon how dangerous the risk or hazard could be to the operation or how critical it may be to the overall production process for a particular location. For example, the impact rating may be measured as a magnitude of potential loss. Additionally, the special hazard may be associated with a protection rating that represents risk management recommendations, such as insurance or damage control systems, that are in place to mitigate the impact rating based upon user interaction with the system to define guidelines for risk management procedures in relation to location-specific requirements. The protection rating may, for example, be measured as an ability to prevent or compensate for a magnitude of potential loss. This same strategy may be adapted for other risk categories.
The association of the impact rating and the protection rating with each special hazard permits the reporting engine to generate charts that plot the impact rating versus the protection rating. A plurality of locations may be shown as data points on a plot of this type. The X-Y coordinates may be normalized to a dimensionless scale from 1 to 10 where 10 has an equivalent value to the magnitude of potential loss. This normalization permits multiple locations to be plotted on a single plot. Additionally, filtration options may be used to accumulate impact ratings and risk prevention ratings for all locations of a particular category, e.g., all locations in a particular division. The resulting data points may then be plotted as a summary for the division. The plot may be divided into quadrants that represent relative degrees of protection, such as which hazards are well protected versus those having potentially severe impact. The quadrants may be color coded e.g., red, blue, green, yellow, to identify relative degrees of protection. The colors may be assigned to the location and used to associate relative risk for the location on other reports that do not show the quadrant. Onclicking of datapoints on the plot may produce additional reporting that provides, for example, a listing of the risk management recommendations (by status of complete or incomplete) that are in place for a location, the actual values for impact rating, and the actual value for the risk protection rating.
The database may be structured to classify any hazard within the system in a matrix of risk management classifications. By way of example, the database my contain tables allocated to risk categories, and the tables may have sub-categories. In this way, a natural catastrophe category may be subclassified into earthquake, flood, and storm hazards. The matrix may provide an association between the risk category or subcategory and values that are relevant to risk management, such as facility-specific loss values including facility property value and time element value, as well as hazard-specific loss estimates, risk quality ratings, natural catastrophe ratings, and risk quality ratings. This type of structure facilitates user-configurable reporting from the matrix, for example, by using filtration options to eliminate some data fields from consideration and/or accumulate associated values from within the data structure.
In the case of special hazards, sub-categories may be industry-specific categories including, for example, transportation, heavy industry, services, public sector, consumer products, energy, high technology, forest products, and pharmaceutical hazards. Special hazard categories may also be type categories, such as standard hazards and non-standard hazards including flammable gas-bulk storage, flammable liquids-process use, flammable liquids-storage room, heat treatment furnace, ovens/dryers, painting-automatic spray robots, painting, automatic spray rotary atomizers, drip-painting, dip-painting, painting by robotic electrostatic rotary atomizer, boiler, combustible liquids storage area, computer or data processing rooms, cooling tower, dust collector, flammable liquids and materials handling, and hydraulic systems or equipment. The industry-specific hazards may be cross-referenced against the type categories to produce cross-reference data, which may be filtered for user-selected reporting.
Reporting examples include an ability to access the risk management information to report, on a hazard-specific basis, a risk management recommendation associated with a loss estimate prior to when the risk management estimate is completed and a cost to complete the risk management recommendation. The reporting engine may access the risk management information to provide reports including a visual depiction of hazard quality by facility; and a weighted average of hazard impact, hazard protection rating, and number of hazards by facility, division, company, or operating segment. The reporting engine may provide a visual depiction of the risk management information as a pie chart or bar chart. These visual depictions may, for example, provide a count of risk management information attributes filtered by location, division, segment, or company. Filtration options may be used to show the risk management information as a bar chart that accumulates total values associated with a location, operating division, industry segment, or company.
There may also be provided a benchmarking capability that permits the user to compare, for example, the risk management performance of all divisions in a company, a plurality of locations against one another, or a plurality of companies against one another.
Data may be exported from the system, for example, as a computer readable form attached to an email. In some embodiments, exportation of data launches a spreadsheet or other analysis program that permits the user to manipulate the data outside the confines of the system
There will now be shown and described a graphical and interactive interface system that is used to manage risk management information. The system includes a secure database that contains risk management information which is accessible by authorized access through a network. A graphics interface is used to generate graphical data by reporting from the risk management information in response to the authorized access. A reporting engine is capable of summarizing risk management information to facilitate risk management decisions and recommendations. Through the equipment and processes described below, the system is shown to track expert-selected data and process this data with human interaction to build risk management recommendations. The system associates the recommendations with each major category of risk that is tracked by the system, e.g., fire, catastrophe, construction, and loss prevention. By this association, users of the system are able to seamlessly transfer between the data and the recommendations across a wide range of risk categories and risk management information. This seamless transfer capability facilitates the building of risk management recommendations. The system may also track recommendations to ascertain whether they have been implemented.
Typically, access to each secure segment 12( ) is restricted to one company that has a proprietary interest in the risk information data associated with that portion of information 12. Companies may however choose to make the information and connection available to other interested parties, outside of the facility owner's company, at their choice and discretion. Examples of the extended access may include other service providers, insurance companies, insurance brokers, vendors, contractors, and the like. As described below, once access is granted between one access computer 14 and an associated segment 12( ), a user may manipulate the data within that segment so as to isolate desired detail, prioritize activities and/or make risk quality assessments. This permissive access may be graded across different levels of access, for example, a user that controls risk management data 12(1) may choose to provide complete access and sharing of the risk management data 12(1) to other users at computers 14(2) and 14(3), or every user 14(N) on the system 10. Alternatively, the user that controls risk management data 12(1) may permit other users to access this information in ways that do not identify any particular user, in order that users of the system may share information to benchmark their respective risk management performance against that of other users.
Those skilled in the art should appreciate that system 10 typically recognizes users at access computers 14, and not the physical computers. That is, system 10 recognizes authorized users who log in at any computer 14 with an appropriate user name and password.
Database 20 may further store assistance data 22 for access by users at computers 14, to facilitate risk assessments in conjunction with review and manipulation of risk management information 12. Data 22 may for example include loss prevention and control standards and guidelines.
Database 20 couples with workflow process terminals 24 illustratively grouped into a workflow process terminals section 26. Section 26 and database 20 serve to aggregate data by collaborative workflow processes to present that data at interface 16, accessible by authorized access at a computer 14. More particularly, a terminal 24 is interactive with database 20 so as to electronically communicate input from the terminal 24 to a designated risk management information segment 12( ). This communication may for example occur through a bus connection 28 and/or network 30, such as the Internet. By way of example, an input computer 24(1) may download comments and/or computer aided design (CAD) drawings relevant for risk management information segment 12(2) of database 20. In another example, a facsimile may be transmitted to a risk management information segment 12(N) via facsimile 24(2). In still another example, telephone or voice comments may be appended to information of a designated segment 12(1) through a telephone 24(3). In yet another example, a CAD drawing may be scanned into database 20 for association with a particular secure segment 12(3) via scanner 24(4). Those skilled in the art should appreciate that other data may be input to database 20 by other electronic means 24(M) as a workflow process terminal, to associate relevant data to an appropriate risk management information segment 12( ), as above.
In one embodiment, system 10 includes a workflow engine application 27 to securely communicate by and between secure database 20 and terminals 26. Workflow engine application 27 archives and incorporates updated information, including a user's view of website information provided by interface 16 and database 20. Accordingly, when a user interacts with system 10 by making a change to certain interface fields, data is updated in database 20 for transmission to remotely located persons (e.g., at terminals 24) who may review the report.
System 10 may thus control and associate inputs from any of terminals 24 to any of risk management information segments 12( ). In one embodiment, system 10 communicates email to an appropriate computer 14 indicating that a terminal 24 has input data to its associated risk management information segment 12( ). By way of example, a company with a proprietary interest in risk management information segment 12(1) may wish to be notified immediately, through one of its employees at a computer 14(3), of updated information to risk management information segment 12(1) by a terminal 24. In such an example, system 10 may send email notification to that employee when terminal 24 updates information of segment 12(1). System 10 may also generate similar email notifications on a periodic basis, e.g., monthly, weekly or daily, to summarize newly posted information within a segment 12( ). In one embodiment, an email notification to a computer 14 includes a hyperlink to information within a segment 12( ); for example, a new document posted to the segment 12( ) may be accessed immediately by interactively clicking the hyperlink via computer 14 receiving the email. Through graphical interface 16, a user may thus self-select or change the e-mail notification period, turn it on or off, or change the frequency of delivery (e.g., daily, weekly, or monthly).
As appropriate, terminals 24 may also receive information from database 20, interface 16 and/or computers 14. In one example, a user at a computer 14 may request retransmission of items of data loaded into a particular risk management information segment 12( ) by email communicated to a person at a terminal 24.
Communications between users at access computers 14 and workflow process terminals 24 may thus occur in near real-time, via graphics interface 16. When data input by a terminal 24 is associated with a particular risk management information segment 12( ), an authorized user at a computer 14 may view the risk management data of that segment 12( ), including the latest data input by a terminal 24, via a graphic display 32. Illustratively, display 32 shows graphic data 34 that may for example be viewable by one computer 14 accessing data within a particular segment 12( ). Graphic data 34 may represent the very latest digital data associated with a particular segment 12( ), including the most recent risk information input by terminals 24. In one embodiment, graphics interface 16 provides a web-based interface generating a local web page graphic 34′ for the authorized computer 14, illustratively shown with access computer 14(1). Accordingly, users of system 10, at access computers 14, have up-to-date and hands-on access to sensitive risk management information 12 for their company.
Those skilled in the art should appreciate that graphics interface 16 and database 20 may for example be constructed as a single web server platform to generate secure web graphics 34′ as the graphical interface and data communications portal between computers 14 and risk management information 12. In one embodiment, database 20 is a SQL (structured query language) database server known in the art.
System 10 also provides for storing critical documents within risk management information segments 12( ), for access by authorized computers 14. By way of example, a company with unique access to proprietary risk management information segment 12(1) may access that data through computer 14(1); that company may also download and store company critical documents to segment 12(1), such as loss prevention survey results, risk summaries, CAD diagrams, and more. A download to segment 12( ) may occur through a computer 14 or via an appropriate terminal 24. Once again, database 20 is “secure” so that only a company with authorized access, at a computer 14 or terminal 24, may view graphic data 34 and manipulate risk management information of its associated risk management information segment 12( ). Typically, access to a particular segment 12( ) is protected through encryption techniques, such as 128-bit SSL encryption, to ensure “eyes only” access to appropriate company proprietary information 12 within database 20.
In one embodiment, workflow engine application 27 includes software for converting CAD diagrams to a graphic image that may be saved within a segment 12( ) of database 20.
Display of graphic data 34 may also be manipulated by a user, with authorized access, at a computer 14. Graphic data 34 may be structured or viewed in a way selected by the user at computer 14. Graphic data 34 may for example be manipulated into a variety of risk management information reports selectable through graphics interface 16, via a computer 14, including benchmarking, outstanding recommendation summaries, and management program evaluations. System 10 is programmed with data storage and reporting logic that facilitate a wide range of risk management activities. Recommendations may be automated based upon expert-defined rules, or users of system 10 may access an integrated database to make their own decisions and recommendations. An especially useful and optional feature of the program logic in system 10 is the ability to compare one user's statistics against those of another user. Representative reports that may be generated by system 10 through interaction with interface 16 may for example include, topically:
Interface 16 is responsive to inputs at computers 14 to generate the reports or desired graphic data 34 derived from the appropriate risk management information segment 12( ). Interface 16 further responds to user inputs at computers 14 to generate tables and graphs to compare a company's facilities to outstanding recommendations associated with risk management information 12.
In one embodiment, users may interactively filter data from their respective risk management information segments 12( ) by selecting one or more risk management filters 40 of graphics interface 16.
By way of a first example,
The system of one embodiment provides for a variety of filtering options. By way of example, the following Table 1 is a non-limiting list of filters, and potential field values, based upon current data fields in use, that may be applied to certain reports generated with the system of
Current Data Fields Filtering Risk
Interactive Display Fields at Graphics
Management Information 12
Interface 16 and/or Computer 14
Text Box enabling multiple entry of
values separated by a delimiter
Total location in square feet
Noncombustible construction, %
Noncombustible walls and roof
deck with combustible roof
covering, % overall
Combustible roof and/or walls,
% with sprinklers
% needing sprinklers
Survey report delivery time
Estimated annual risk avoidance
Cost to complete
Last survey date
Selection via a popup window
Next survey year/month due
showing a calendar with
ATC earthquake zone
Selectable list options: Excellent,
Good, Fair, Poor and not-evaluated,
enabling selection of multiple options
Private fire brigade
Loss prevention inspection
Fire protection inspection
FEMA flood zones
Selectable list with 5 options:
A, B, C, A&B, NE, enabling
selection of any one
Selectable list with 5 options:
L, M, H, H&M, NE, enabling
selection of any one
Fire department type
Selectable list with 3 options:
enabling selection of any one
Selectable list with options:
6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 0 (months)
Selectable list with options: active,
done/verified complete, abeyance
under evaluation, delayed/on-hold,
in-progress, and complete
Selectable list options:
Automatic sprinklers - supplement,
Special hazard protection
Automatic sprinklers - install
Water supply/manual suppression
Management direction - implement,
Rec. ID #
Selectable list containing year of
Customer Target Completion
Selection via a popup window
showing a calendar with
Customer intent to complete
Selectable list with options:
To Do (>3 years)
To Do (<1 year)
To Do (<=3 years)
Selectable list with options:
Noncombustible - high fire resistance
Noncombustible - moderate fire
In one embodiment, system 10 of
Data table 500A,
Initiation point 600A may be accessed, for example, from graphic 50 shown in
The report 604 includes a “Location ID” bar that may be user-onclick selected 606 for further processing on path B. If in processing step 602, the account is determined to have division, system 10 produces a Risk Quality Benchmarking All Divisions Graph” 608. Elements of the graph 608 may be user selected to trigger additional processing, for example, by onclick selection of Division name in the graph axis 610, for return to workflow, by opening the division file cabinet 612. Onclick selection 614 of a Division bar within the graph 608 produces a Risk Quality Benchmarking Division Graph 616 that leads to additional processing on path A. Onclick selection 618 of an “Average All Locations” bar within graph 608 provides further processing on path B. Initiation point 600C produces graph 616 and further processing on path A.
System 10 processes data elements from data table 500A to produce the risk quality benchmark reports and graphs 604, 608, 616, 700, 710, 724, 726, 730, 732, 734, 736, 810, 822, 900, 924, and 926. Data I/O and processing algorithms for this purpose may be designed by those skilled in the art of risk quality benchmarking.
Data table 500B,
Data table 500C,
Data table 500D,
Data table 500E,
Initiation 2000 occurs, for example, by onclick selection of an “Active Recommendations” bar on the workflow application, which produces a bar graph 2002 that sorts the elements of data table active recommendations and completions of recommendation status (completed or incomplete) sorted by location. Onclick selections 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 of fields from the graph 2002 provide drill-down detail. Onclick selection 2004 of a field captioned “Total Active Recommendations (Shown Below By Category)” delivers drill-down on path H. Onclick selection 2006 of a field captioned “Total Active Recommendations Completed Since January 1st” delivers drill-down on path J. Onclick selection 2008 of an incomplete active recommendations bar in bar graph 2002 delivers drill-down on path L. Onclick selection 2010 of a completed recommendations bar in bar graph 2002 delivers drill-down on path K.
Initiation 2012 occurs from the Workflow Application by onclick selection of a field captioned “Active Recommendations Status By Type.” System 10 accesses data table 500E to sort active recommendations by status and type. The reporting results are reflected in bar graph 2014. Onclick selections 2004 and 2006 may be made from fields that are identical to one another on bar graphs 2002 and 2014. Onclick selection 2016 of any category on bar graph 2014 permits drill-down processing on path H. An additional initiation 2018 may occur from the Workflow Application Bar graph and produce by onclick selection of a field captioned “Recommendations Summary,” which facilitates drill-down processing on path I in like manner with selection 2004.
Alternative initiation 2114 occurs by drill-down from other reporting features, such as onclick selection of a “Recommendations Summary” field for a specified division on a Benchmark Drill-Down-Other Report. Alternative initiation 2114 delivers a Recommendations Summary Table report 2116 for a specified division wherein all locations presented in the table are sorted by Division, then by Location ID, then by Status=Active, then by Status=Done.
Another alternative initiation 2118 from the Benchmark Drill-Down-Other report occurs by onclick selection of a specific Location ID. Initiation 2118 delivers a Recommendations Summary Table report 2120 for the specified Location ID wherein fields presented in the table are sorted by Status=Active, then by Status=Done.
Onclick selection 2102 of Location ID from any of Recommendation Summary Tables 2100, 2106, 2108, 2110, 2112, 2116, or 2118 returns 2104 the user to the Workflow Application and opens the location snapshot.
Data table 500F,
Initiation 2200 occurs from the Workflow Application by onclick selection of a field captioned “Loss Prevention Survey Report,” which delivers a loss prevention survey graph 2202 including a count of completed surveys sorted by the number of days to delivery for the last survey. Graph 2202 contains data from reporting operations on data table 500F. Onclick selections 2204, 2206 of fields from graph 2202 provide drill-down processing. Onclick selection of the axis title “Count of Completed Surveys” or a button labeled “Show Data Table” delivers report 2208, which contains a loss prevention survey schedule showing all locations sorted in ascending order by Last Survey: # of days to delivery, then by location ID. Onclick selection 2206 of a color bar on graph 2202 leads to downstream processing on path O. Alternative initiation 2210 occurs from the Workflow Application by onclick selection of a field captioned “Loss Prevention Survey Report,” which delivers a loss prevention schedule table 2212 including all locations sorted in ascending order by oldest next due compared to the current date. Onclick selection 2214 of Location ID # from table 2212 returns 2216 the user to the Workflow Application and opens the location snapshot.
Data table 500G,
With further regard to
The submission of new data for risk management information 12 through workflow process terminals 26 may also generate automated email message notifications. Specifically, upon receipt of the new data through a terminal 24( ), email notification application 95 may generate the email notification for a user at an access computer 14 through email server and network 90. The e-mail is automatically generated by email notification application 95 to notify users with appropriate access to the new data or document, as identified by database 20.
System 10 may further include a security buffer 96 that interfaces between network 18 and graphics interface 16, as shown between buses 98A, 98B. Buffer 96 verifies a user's access authority by comparing the user's identity with the authorization list associated with a particular risk information segment 12( ). Accordingly, when a user clicks on an email link to updated information within database 20, buffer 96 may provide access security for the updated information.
A document may be posted to database 2520 for a customer viewing on the World Wide Web; this also engages the e-mail notification 2514, informing all authorized users who (a) have access to view that document and (b) have chosen to subscribe to e-mail notification that they have new information to view on the website. Preferably, the email notification 2514 provides a direct link (e.g., a html link) to the newly posted information 2516; information 2516 may for example take the form of a loss prevention survey.
Responses to email notification 2514 may be received and processed by a response analysis application 2518, which uses the responses to automatically update the secure database 2520. The secure database 2520 may, for example, take the form of database 20 and graphics interface 16 shown in
Database 2520 may for example be accessed through interactive interface 16 (
A new status is verified at status verification 2530 by the remotely located field associate at the next survey 2502. At step 2532, if the user changes the status to “complete,” the field associate verifies an appropriate completion, or rejects the completion and refreshes the status. If the recommendation is appropriately completed, the issue is closed and the status is “verified complete”—inactivating the recommendation, removing it from the queue, and reflecting appropriate completion on other data aggregation reports. If the recommendation is not completed according to proper guidelines, or according to user satisfaction, then the status is rejected and returned to a full active state with the field associate's comments appropriately logged. Information is updated via the rec builder at step 2538 and at the completion of the next survey, whereinafter the cycle of
Onclick selections 2622, 2624, 2626, 2628 and 2630 of predetermined fields from report 2620 instigate downstream processing options. Onclick selection 2622 of a field captioned “Next/Previous Sub-recommendation” scrolls 2632 up or down through line items of report 2620. Onclick selection 2624 of a field captioned “Previous/Next Sub-recommendation” scrolls 2634 through line items of report 2620 in opposite direction to that caused by onclick selection 2632. Onclick selection 2626 of a field captioned “View Full Recommendation Text” opens report 2620 to display the full text in an exportable PDF file format. Onclick selection 2628 of a field captioned “Email a Copy” creates an exportable file including the contents of report 2620 (or a subset of those contents) as an email attachment that may be sent to an addressee of the user's choice. Onclick selection 2630 of a field captioned “Edit Recommendation Details” opens 2638 a data entry screen that permits the user to interactively edit data stored in data table 500E and other relevant data. The user may choose to save 2640 the revised data, which closes 2642 the data entry screen and displays the updated information on report 2620. Alternatively, the user may elect to cancel 2646 data entry, which closes 2648 the text entry screen without updating report 2620.
A robust account summary reporting engine capability arises from the foregoing data input and processing. This reporting permits improved creation, management, modification and tracking of recommendations that an agent may make to a customer for the adjustment of insurance coverage, e.g., according to risk assessment and survey practices, or on the basis of comparative data for a given location.
Data table 500H,
Drill-down functionality from the loss estimate summary report 2702 is achieved by onclick selection 2704 of a “Details” field allocated to a specific location ID# to produce a pop-up report 2706 that contains data, such as the loss scenario and estimates description that were input to arrive at and justify the loss estimates. Onclick selection 2708 of the Location ID # field directs the user to the location snapshot report 2710.
As shown in
All reports 2904, 2910, 2914, 2918, 2922 may be interactively edited for adjustment or modification, as deemed desirable by the user. The user can seamlessly switch from any of these reporting functions by onclicking of a “Back” button (not shown) on reports 2904, 2910, 2914, 2918, 2922 for return to the location snapshot report 2800. In the same manner, onclick selection 2924 of a back button 2814 (
Data fields for the location summary report 2800 are shown in
1) proposed data elements against other data elements across facilities, surveys, and recommendations; and
2) multiple data elements from one source aggregated through a statistical analysis formula of the users' choosing against comparable normalized data elements from other sources.
Fire loss estimate reporting initiates 3102 with user selection of options 3204, 3206 and onclick selection of the generate report button 3208. The resulting fire loss estimate report 3200 contains a bar graph 3210 that summarizes data according to the selected sort criteria 3202 for a plurality of locations in location axis 3212. The bars 3214 are each composed of two sections including a maximum property damage loss estimate portion 3216 and a time delay loss estimate portion 3218.
Onclick selection 3104 of any element from the location bar 3212 causes a display 3106 of the location snapshot report 2800 . . . Mouse-over movement 3108 on a property estimate portion 3216 produces a tool tip 3110 displaying information that includes the numbers upon which the estimate is based. The description of the estimate, and expert tips on how the value can be applied or used. Similarly, mouse-over movement 3112 on the time element estimate 3218 produces a tool tip 3114. Onclick selection 3116 on either portion 3216, 3218 may further produce a loss estimate summary report with column headings as shown in
In some contemplated embodiments, onclick selection of the generate report button 3208 produces an additional graphical report of statistically processed data, such as a bar graph 3300 shown in
The aforementioned functionalities, which are made available by the reporting engine 27, permit the user to utilize user-specified or company-specified weighted averages to compare users' information against normalized, average, anonymous information within the same industry, occupancy group, or product line. The normalized, average, anonymous information may, for example, be stored in the database 20 and filtered through filters 40( ) using software on computers 14( ), as shown in
In operation, users can manipulate recommendation cost benefit analysis information to reconcile the informational content of database 20 with actual events. This provides improved predictive accuracy by comparing, for example, total loss estimates before damage occurs versus actual total loss after damage occurs; property damage loss estimates before damage occurs versus actual property damage loss after damage occurs; business interruption loss estimates before loss occurs versus actual business interruption loss after loss occurs; estimated cost to complete repairs (by estimate source) versus actual cost to complete; estimated probabilities of loss (by source) or percentages of cost versus actual probabilities of loss or percentage cost. Customers can also be provided with estimated risk reduction numbers which, for example, represent statistically based comparators, such as:
(1) Risk reduction=[(property loss before+business interruption loss before)−(property loss after+business interruption loss after)−Estimated Cost to Complete].
Along similar lines, trends in database content inaccuracies may be used as a predictive tool by logging and archiving historical adjustments any information that is adjusted by these processes, for example, historical probability and estimated cost to complete numbers.
When system 10 is used to provide a recommendation, users are available to asses the recommendation by viewing the impact upon the facility's overall risk quality rating or sub-rating of completing a particular recommendation based upon parameters developed to assess these factors if the recommendation is adopted. The recommendations are automatically prioritized according to which ones have the highest impact according to these parameters.
When customers are permitted to access computers 14( ) directly, they can enter any of the information that an agent would enter, such as entry of a dollar value representing their total insurance premium dollars for property insurance that is factored against the weighted averages for estimated losses to allocate their total premium dollars to individual facilities. The weighted average may be factored, for example, as a percentage of the property damage value of the individual facility; the business interruption damage value of the facility; the insured value of the facility; or a subjective rating of 1-10 (called a user's ‘tilt’) to quantify the overall value of the facility.
In one embodiment, the structure of database 20 permits users to assign tasks to peers. Tasks include providing recommendations to specified clients for specified locations and assigning a survey completion date. Calendar-based tracking of the assignments and individuals Are monitored in a standardized report that identifies, survey type (name), target date, and current status (accepted, rejected, completed, delayed, etc.). A user can create customized reports that contain questions and discrete and/or open-ended criteria on behalf of a customer. These are linked to the risk information database 20 and email server 90. Remotely located associates or network peers may be tasked to collect information at the customer's request, for example, when the associate inspects a customer's facilities. Database 20 can be structured to contain customer-specific customized templates for the associate's entry of information into a client-side database for seamless uploading into the risk management database 20 facilitated either by email server 90 or a web-based interface to network 18 for delivery of the information collected by the remotely located field associate. Alternatively, a customer can access one of computers 14( ) to provide information, such as recommendations and associated valuations, switching seamlessly between cost-benefit analysis, summary, and status screens.
Each location within system 10 may be exposed to risk from special hazards that arise due to the nature of activity at the location or environmental factors. Data table 500J,
The reports 3402, 3404, 3406 are filtered to represent data within the specified scope selected by initiation 3400. Onclick selection 3408 of any location element on location bar 3500 in the Industry Hazard Index Report 3402 drills-down to an Industry Hazard Identifier Report 3404′ that is identical to Industry Hazard Identifier Report 3404, except it is filtered for data pertaining only to that particular location. Onclick selection 3410 of a graphical hazard representation on report 3404, e.g., diamond 3600 representing a single hazard, produces a Hazard Details Report 3412 (see
Onclick selection 3418 of a graphical hazard representation on report 3404, e.g., diamond 3600 representing a single hazard, produces a Hazard Details Report 3412″ (see
Onclick selection 3424 of any cell in the facility ID column 3700 delivers a Hazard Details Report 3412′″ for that hazard.
As seen in
The following definitions in Table 2 may be useful in understanding terminology described above:
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Geographical location of an account location
A six digit number that is assigned to each location
Description of the Special Hazard as the customer
identifies it, eg: Paint Booth 1.
Type refers to the type of the special hazard, eg
Refers to the status of the special hazard such as
“Active”, “Inactive” or “Unknown”. Inactive can mean
temporarily or permanently inactive.
One of four areas of a scatter chart (Industry Hazard
Quadrant I: Protection Rating < 7 & Impact rating >= 7
Quadrant II: Protection Rating >= 7 & Impact
rating >= 7
Quadrant III: Protection Rating < 7 & Impact rating < 7
Quadrant IV: Protection Rating >= 7 & Impact rating < 7
Quantification of the impact that a loss or incident
involving the special hazard will have on the overall
operations at the location into a rating ranging from 1 to
10, (1 signifying the least impact and 10 signifying an
extremely high impact on the operations).
Quantification of the protection of the special hazard and
includes sprinkler protection, special extinguishing
systems etc. into a rating ranging from 1 to 10 (0-3 poor;
4-6 fair; 7-9 good; 10 excellent)
A measure between 1.0(Poorest) and 10.0 (Best) of the
overall “risk quality” of the special hazards at a location
with a status of “Active”. Industry Hazard Index Ratings
(0-3.9 poor; 4.0-6.9 fair; 7.0-9.9 good; 10.0 excellent).
The special hazard index rating is calculated used the
I.H. Index Rating = [(P1 * I1) + (P2 * I2) + (P3 * I3) + . . .
(Pn * In)]/(I1 + I2 + I3 . . . + In)
P = Protection rating I = Impact rating
Note: Special hazards with a status of “Inactive” or
“Unknown” are not included in the index calculation.
Filtering functionality provides the ability to select and
narrow reports based on specific criteria. Functionality
incorporated to this tool also allows the user to save the
filters for future use at an individual or account level.
Sorting is the process of ordering information based on
entered parameters (field names, ascending, descending).
Sorting functionality provides the ability to arrange data
in order (increasing or decreasing) based on parameters
selected by the user.
The Risk Quality Rating Summary report compares the
ratings of several risk management programs and
physical protection features for a location. The rating is
on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best rating and 1
being the poorest rating. Ratings are coded in Red (Poor),
Yellow (Fair), Green (Good) and Blue (Excellent) This
visual representation allows a customer to quickly
identify deficiencies which are affecting the Quality
Rating for an account, division or location. Additionally,
the user can efficiently identify outstanding actions that
can be taken to improve deficiencies.
A single graphical report that displays the risk quality
rating that is calculated from a weighted average of
various loss prevention features for the entire account or
divisions and locations of an account. The report is titled
as follows: Risk Quality Benchmarking
Several tabular reports that display loss prevention data
and evaluation for a division and/or locations of an
account. The reports are titled as follows: Building
Construction Summary, Catastrophe Summary, Fire
Protection Summary, Management Programs Summary,
and Risk Quality Ratings Summary.
Several graphical and tabular reports that categorize and
prioritize “recommendations” for a division and/or
locations of an account. The reports are titled as follows:
Active Recommendation by Type, Active
Recommendation Completion Status, and
Two graphical and tabular reports that track the
timeliness of report delivery and the schedule of previous
and upcoming surveys for a location of an account. The
reports are titled as follows: Loss Prevention Survey
Report Delivery and Loss Prevention Survey Schedule.
Refers to a recommendation made by a service
representative (or other risk manager) to eliminate or
minimize deficiencies in the physical protection or
management loss prevention programs at a location
Since certain changes may be made in the above methods and systems without departing from the scope of the invention, it is intended that all matter contained in the above description or shown in the accompanying drawing be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. For example, the processes described above as occurring on a single compute or server may occur across a distributed network of such computers or servers. It is also to be understood that the following claims are to cover all generic and specific features of the invention described herein, and all statements of the scope of the invention which, as a matter of language, might be said to fall there between.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US5852819||30 Jan 1997||22 Dec 1998||Beller; Stephen E.||Flexible, modular electronic element patterning method and apparatus for compiling, processing, transmitting, and reporting data and information|
|US6005560||14 Jul 1997||21 Dec 1999||Quark, Inc.||Multi-media project management and control system|
|US6023694||29 Jun 1998||8 Feb 2000||Timeline, Inc.||Data retrieval method and apparatus with multiple source capability|
|US6026397||22 May 1996||15 Feb 2000||Electronic Data Systems Corporation||Data analysis system and method|
|US6366299||16 May 2000||2 Apr 2002||Verizon Laboratories Inc.||Multidimensional information visualization using attribute rods|
|US6473080||9 Mar 1999||29 Oct 2002||Baker & Taylor, Inc.||Statistical comparator interface|
|US6631382||31 Jul 2000||7 Oct 2003||Timeline, Inc.||Data retrieval method and apparatus with multiple source capability|
|US6785728||23 Mar 2000||31 Aug 2004||David S. Schneider||Distributed administration of access to information|
|US20020087705||29 Dec 2000||4 Jul 2002||Smyth Brian Frank||System and method for managing contracts|
|US20020099586||20 Nov 2001||25 Jul 2002||National Britannia Group Ltd.||Method, system, and computer program product for risk assessment and risk management|
|US20020133504||29 Oct 2001||19 Sep 2002||Harry Vlahos||Integrating heterogeneous data and tools|
|US20020138318 *||12 Oct 2001||26 Sep 2002||David Ellis||Integrative risk management system and method|
|US20020147671 *||15 Aug 2001||10 Oct 2002||Sloan Ronald E.||Financial portfolio risk management|
|US20020184088||30 Apr 2001||5 Dec 2002||Ari Rosenberg||System and method for the presentation of advertisements|
|US20020198750 *||21 Jun 2001||26 Dec 2002||Innes Bruce Donald||Risk management application and method|
|US20030004967 *||29 Jun 2001||2 Jan 2003||International Business Machines Corporation||System and method for personnel management collaboration|
|US20030014287 *||2 Jul 2001||16 Jan 2003||Dell Products, L.P.||Continuity of supply risk and cost management tool|
|US20030036087||15 Aug 2002||20 Feb 2003||Affymetrix, Inc. A Corporation Organized Under The Laws Of Delaware||Method, system, and computer software for the presentation and storage of analysis results|
|US20030037063 *||10 Aug 2001||20 Feb 2003||Qlinx||Method and system for dynamic risk assessment, risk monitoring, and caseload management|
|US20030112234||28 Oct 2002||19 Jun 2003||Brown Bruce Leonard||Statistical comparator interface|
|US20030120589 *||20 Jun 2002||26 Jun 2003||The Police Foundation||Method and apparatus for risk analysis management and quality of service analysis|
|US20030135554||16 Jan 2002||17 Jul 2003||Bellotti Victoria M.E.||Systems and methods for integrating electronic mail and distributed networks into a workflow system|
|US20030160818 *||26 Feb 2002||28 Aug 2003||Tschiegg Mark A.||Risk management information interface system and associated methods|
|US20030191780||4 Apr 2003||9 Oct 2003||Georg Heger||Computer system and method for the search statistical evaluation and analysis of documents|
|US20030229509 *||14 Apr 2003||11 Dec 2003||William Hall||Risk management system|
|US20040015422||31 Oct 2000||22 Jan 2004||Glick Donald L||Ministry specialized insurance transaction object oriented system and method|
|US20050021288||30 Apr 2004||27 Jan 2005||Willink Robin Daniel||Method for obtaining the distribution of a function of many random variables|
|1||*||Beroggi et al., Operational Risk Management, Engineering and Technology Management, 1998. Pioneering New Technologies: Management Issues the Third Millennium, IEMC '98 Proceedings, International Conference on Oct. 11-13, 1998 pp. 447-451.|
|2||Selections from Web Risk Management website, including homepage page, Web Risk ManagerTM Modules page, Web Risk Manager News page, and attached brochure, [online] [retrieved on Sep. 5, 2006], [retrieved from the Internet at URL: <http://www.webriskmanagement.com/home.asp>, copyrighted material dated 2002-2006, 9 pages total.|
|3||U.S. Appl. No. 10/815,099, filed Mar. 30, 2004, entitled "Strategies for Managing Recommendations.".|
|4||U.S. Appl. No. 60/372,291, filed Apr. 12, 2002, entitled "Risk Management Information Interface System and Associated Methods.".|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US7769608 *||3 Aug 2010||Allstate Insurance Company||Systems and methods for optimizing property risk ratings|
|US7802194 *||21 Sep 2010||Sap Ag||Business query language|
|US7860893 *||9 Dec 2008||28 Dec 2010||Alluviam Llc||Computerized hazardous material response tool|
|US7861161 *||19 Jun 2001||28 Dec 2010||Microstrategy, Inc.||Report system and method using prompt objects|
|US7933879||26 Apr 2011||Alluviam Llc||Computerized hazardous material response tool|
|US8046245||22 Jun 2010||25 Oct 2011||Allstate Insurance Company||Systems and methods for optimizing property risk ratings|
|US8150879||29 Aug 2008||3 Apr 2012||Red Hat, Inc.||Building custom dimension trees|
|US8190443||29 May 2012||Alluviam Llc||Computerized hazardous material response tool|
|US8266534 *||11 Sep 2012||Microsoft Corporation||Collaborative generation of meeting minutes and agenda confirmation|
|US8370167||5 Feb 2013||Bryant Consultants, Inc.||System and method of performing an engineering-based site development and risk assessment process|
|US8489545 *||18 Mar 2010||16 Jul 2013||Norman Ritchie||System and method for creating and maintaining pre-task planning documents|
|US8504393 *||7 Sep 2011||6 Aug 2013||State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company||Systems and methods for grid-based insurance rating|
|US8600959||17 Mar 2011||3 Dec 2013||Alluviam Llc||Computerized hazardous material response tool|
|US8676613 *||27 Mar 2013||18 Mar 2014||State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company||Methods for grid-based insurance rating|
|US8706537 *||16 Nov 2012||22 Apr 2014||Medidata Solutions, Inc.||Remote clinical study site monitoring and data quality scoring|
|US8738407 *||27 Mar 2013||27 May 2014||State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company||Computer readable medium containing a set of computer readable instructions for grid-based insurance rating|
|US8738408 *||27 Mar 2013||27 May 2014||State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company||Methods for grid-based rating insurance products using a programmed computer system|
|US8832601||31 May 2008||9 Sep 2014||Red Hat, Inc.||ETL tool utilizing dimension trees|
|US8874502 *||29 Aug 2008||28 Oct 2014||Red Hat, Inc.||Real time datamining|
|US8914418||30 Nov 2008||16 Dec 2014||Red Hat, Inc.||Forests of dimension trees|
|US9141686||8 Nov 2012||22 Sep 2015||Bank Of America Corporation||Risk analysis using unstructured data|
|US20060237386 *||17 Apr 2006||26 Oct 2006||Ouzonian Gregory A||Stylus Lanyard for Use in a Corrosive Environment Conditions|
|US20080189655 *||7 Jun 2007||7 Aug 2008||Nir Kol||Business Query Language|
|US20090006982 *||28 Jun 2007||1 Jan 2009||Microsoft Corporation||Collaborative generation of meeting minutes and agenda confirmation|
|US20090119338 *||9 Dec 2008||7 May 2009||Greg Ouzounian||Computerized hazardous material response tool|
|US20090222326 *||7 May 2009||3 Sep 2009||John Bryant||Multidiscipline site development and risk assessment process|
|US20090300533 *||31 May 2008||3 Dec 2009||Williamson Eric J||ETL tool utilizing dimension trees|
|US20100057684 *||29 Aug 2008||4 Mar 2010||Williamson Eric J||Real time datamining|
|US20100057756 *||29 Aug 2008||4 Mar 2010||Williamson Eric J||Creating reports using dimension trees|
|US20100057764 *||4 Mar 2010||Williamson Eric J||Building custom dimension trees|
|US20100257213 *||18 Mar 2010||7 Oct 2010||Norman Ritchie||System and method for creating and maintaining pre-task planning documents|
|US20100280862 *||5 Apr 2010||4 Nov 2010||John Bryant||System and method of performing an engineering-based site development and risk assessment process|
|US20100332545 *||18 Aug 2008||30 Dec 2010||Ouzounian Gregory A||Computerized Hazardous Material Response Tool|
|US20110145689 *||16 Jun 2011||Microsoft Corporation||Named object view over multiple files|
|US20110191307 *||4 Aug 2011||Alluviam Llc||Computerized Hazardous Material Response Tool|
|US20120066005 *||7 Sep 2011||15 Mar 2012||State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company||Systems and methods for grid-based insurance rating|
|US20130024773 *||5 Jan 2012||24 Jan 2013||Infosys Limited||System and method for summarizing interactions|
|US20140053069 *||16 Aug 2012||20 Feb 2014||Sap Ag||Identifying and mitigating risks in contract document using text analysis with custom high risk clause dictionary|
|U.S. Classification||715/741, 706/38, 707/999.009, 707/999.102|
|International Classification||G06F17/00, G06F3/00, G06Q40/00|
|Cooperative Classification||G06Q40/08, Y10S707/99939, Y10S707/99943|
|27 Aug 2007||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION, KANSAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:TSCHIEGG, MARK A.;BURROWS, LINDA P.;REINART, TODD A.;ANDOTHERS;REEL/FRAME:019752/0194;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050415 TO 20070517
|26 Nov 2007||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: GLOBAL ASSET PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC, CONNECTICUT
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:020154/0436
Effective date: 20071126
|18 Apr 2012||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|23 Mar 2016||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 8