WO2007041875A2 - Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant - Google Patents
Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2007041875A2 WO2007041875A2 PCT/CH2005/000602 CH2005000602W WO2007041875A2 WO 2007041875 A2 WO2007041875 A2 WO 2007041875A2 CH 2005000602 W CH2005000602 W CH 2005000602W WO 2007041875 A2 WO2007041875 A2 WO 2007041875A2
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- organizational units
- scores
- computer
- specific scores
- safety
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q40/00—Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
- G06Q40/08—Insurance
Definitions
- the present invention relates to a computer system and a computer- based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant. Specifically, the present invention relates to a computer system and computer-based method for establishing a safety assessment of a process industry plant comprising multiple organizational units.
- the process industry e.g. the petrol industry
- the process industry is generally based on the cascading effect of various unit operations.
- the process industry typically relies on input/output systems where an input material is processed into an output product through sequential steps performed at a series of cascaded components of the system. Interruption at any point in the system causes the overall process to stop. Consequently, interruption of process steps causes downtime, which results in loss of production. It is therefore of general interest to reduce downtime, increase mean time between failures and prevent deterioration of equipment in the processing plants. Also in order to prevent harm of humans and environment, it is of great interest to ensure that there are no accidents in the processing plant.
- the above-mentioned objects are particularly achieved in that, for establishing a safety assessment of the process industry plant, stored in a computer are scores, wherein each score is related to a rating of an inspection, undertaken in one of the plant's organizational units with regards to one of multiple defined aspects of the plant, and/or an answer, given by a human representative of one of the plant's organizational units in response to one of a set of defined questions, each question being related to one of the aspects.
- the process industry plant includes organizational units such as top management, operation, engineering, inspection, maintenance, and/or loss prevention.
- the organizational units relate to hierarchical levels of the plant.
- the defined aspects can be seen as different safety relevant aspects of the plant and include, for example, an aspect of organization, an aspect of resources, an aspect of communication, an aspect of training, an aspect of procedures, an aspect of contingency plan, and/or an aspect of general safety.
- each of the aforementioned scores is assigned to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the aspects.
- the questions include, for example, questions related to safety awareness, safety behavior, change management, and/or human error.
- calculated in the computer are aspect-specific scores for each one of the organizational units from the scores assigned to the respective one of the organizational units and to the respective one of the aspects.
- a worst-case aspect-specific score is assigned to the particular one of the organizational units with respect to the particular aspect.
- the safety assessment is established from the aspect-specific scores of the organizational units. Calculating aspect-specific scores for each one of the organizational units and establishing the safety assessment from these aspect- specific scores make it possible to compare safety levels with regards to specific aspects directly between organizational units having different levels and areas of responsibilities and expertise. Assigning worst case aspect- specific scores to organizational units having at least one worst case score assigned to the particular aspect makes it possible to implement a rating philosophy, in which failure of basic requirements can be weighted such that they are not compensable by positive scores received for other inspections and/or questions related to the respective aspect. Clear and explicit indication of a failure of basic requirements is advantageous because any failure of basic requirements represents a latent failure, which can possibly cause incidents resulting in accidents and/or down time.
- generated by the computer is a graphical representation in one common graph of the safety assessment of a selected one of the organizational units.
- the aspect-specific scores of the selected one of the organizational units is shown in the graph such that deficiencies of the aspect-specific scores from a best-case score are visualized and such that differences between the aspect-specific scores of the selected one of the organizational units are visualized. Displaying the calculated aspect-specific scores of an organizational unit in one common graph makes possible an efficient overview of a safety assessment of an organizational unit with regards to the various (safety) aspects defined for the plant, wherein aspect-specific scores of an organizational unit can be directly compared in the graph. Without the necessity of reading a written report, departmental deficiencies concerning specific (safety) aspects are visible at one glance.
- different safety assessments are established at different points in time.
- Aspect-specific scores associated with the different safety assessments are stored in the computer assigned to data about the respective point in time.
- Generated by the computer is a graphical representation in one common graph of the different safety assessments of a selected one of the organizational units. The graphical representation is generated in one common graph such that differences are visualized between the aspect-specific scores associated with the different safety assessments of the selected one of the organizational units.
- calculated in the computer are total aspect-specific scores for the plant from the aspect-specific scores of the organizational units.
- generated by the computer is a graphical representation in one common graph of the safety assessment of the plant.
- the total aspect-specific scores are shown in the graph such that deficiencies of the total aspect-specific scores from a best-case total score are visualized and such that differences between the total aspect-specific scores are visualized.
- Calculating total aspect-specific scores for the plant and displaying these total scores in one common graph makes possible an efficient overview of a safety assessment of the plant with regards to the various (safety) aspects defined for the plant, wherein the total aspect-specific scores can be directly compared in the graph. Without the necessity of reading a written report, the plant's deficiencies concerning specific (safety) aspects are visible at one glance.
- data about inspections and/or answers is stored in the computer. Subsequently, determined in the computer is the rating of the inspection and/or the answer by means of an expert system from the data about inspections and/or answers. Automated rating of inspections and/or answers increases efficiency as well as consistency of the rating process.
- the present invention also relates to a computer program product including computer program code means for controlling one or more processors of a computer such that the computer executes the method for establishing the safety assessment of the process industry plant, particularly, a computer program product including a computer readable medium containing therein the computer program code means.
- Figure 1 shows a block diagram illustrating schematically an exemplary configuration of a system for practicing embodiments of the present invention, said configuration comprising a computer with a display, a processor, a keyboard, and memory.
- Figure 2 shows a flow diagram illustrating an example of a sequence of steps executed according to the present invention.
- Figure 3 shows an exemplary layout of a user interface for controlling execution of embodiments of the present invention.
- Figure 4a shows an example of a graphical representation of the safety assessment of a plant's organizational unit generated according to the present invention.
- Figure 4b shows an example of a graphical representation of the safety assessment of a plant's organizational unit at different points in time.
- Figure 5 shows a further exemplary layout of a user interface for controlling execution of embodiments of the present invention.
- reference numeral 1 refers to a computer, for example a personal computer.
- computer 1 includes a display 17, at least one processor 11 , memory 12 for storing data and programs, as well as functional modules, namely a recording module 13, a calculation module 14, an output module 15, and optionally an expert system 16.
- the functional modules are implemented as programmed software modules.
- the computer program code of the software modules is part of a computer program product and is preferably stored in computer 1 on a computer readable medium connected fixed or removably to computer 1.
- the functional modules can also be implemented fully or in part by means of hardware. The various functions of the functional modules are described below in more detail with reference to Figures 2, 3 and 5.
- the computer 1 is connected via communication link 18 to printer 4.
- Communication link 14 includes a cable and/or network connection.
- Figure 2 shows a flow diagram illustrating a possible sequence of the steps of the proposed method.
- Figure 3 shows a possible graphical user interface 6, provided by the recording module 13 and displayed on display 17, for controlling execution of the proposed method and for exchanging data with computer 1.
- Figure 5 shows a possible graphical user interface 7, provided by the output module 15 and displayed on display 17, for controlling the computer's output of established safety assessments.
- step S1 information for identifying a process industry plant is entered into computer 1.
- information for identifying the organization is entered as a name or code in input field 61.
- the organization can also be selected from a pick list, e.g. by means of a drop down list.
- step S2 information for defining an audit or safety assessment is entered into computer 1.
- This information is entered as an audit number, audit name, and/or audit date in input field 62.
- the audit or safety assessment can also be selected from a pick list, e.g. by means of a drop down list.
- stored with the information for defining an audit or safety assessment is data about the point in time (date, time) of the audit or safety assessment.
- step S3 an organizational unit of the plant specified in step S1 is selected in computer 1.
- the organizational unit is selected from drop down list 63, however, it is also possible to enter the organizational unit through an input field or by other means, e.g. radio buttons.
- the organizational units include "Top management", Operation”, “Engineering”, “Inspection”, “Maintenance”, and “Loss Prevention", for example.
- the organizational units relate to hierarchical levels of the plant, for example top management, middle management, supervisors, foremen, workers, etc. In the example shown in Figure 3, the organizational unit "Top Management" is selected.
- step S4 a person (i.e. an interviewee) of the organizational unit, selected in step S3, is selected in computer 1.
- the person is selected from drop down list 64.
- the drop down list is populated by computer 1 based on the plant, selected in step S1 , and the organizational unit, selected in step S3.
- step S5 one or more defined questions are provided as output.
- the questions are provided in the form of text displayed in text fields 661.
- multiple questions are displayed concurrently in scroll window 66.
- Scroll window 66 is controlled by means of scroll bar 67.
- the questions could also be provided in the form of audible spoken text. It is also possible to produce a printed output of the questions on printer 4.
- the questions are stored in memory 12 or on a data carrier inserted in computer 1.
- each question includes an identification q.,, q 2 , ..., q ⁇ , q, +1 q,, q j+1 , ..., q n and content ⁇ t 2 , ..., t,, t i+1 , ..., Ij, t j+1 , ..., t n .
- , t j+1 , ..., t j , t j+1 , ..., t ⁇ includes alphanumeric text data, audio data, or encoded speech information.
- the content of the questions is related to issues such as safety awareness, safety behavior, change management, and human error.
- each of the questions is assigned to one of several safety relevant aspects defined for the plant: aspect of organization, resources, communication, training, procedures, contingency plan, and general safety.
- step S6 answers are received for each of the questions provided as output in step S5.
- the questions are received by a human interviewer.
- the answers could also be received and stored by computer 1 in the form of data.
- answer date includes text or codes entered into an input field (not illustrated) of user interface 6, or audio or encoded speech information entered by means of a microphone, audio processor, and speech processor.
- step S7 the answers received in step S6 are rated.
- scores ranging from low ("0") to high (“4") can be assigned manually to the respective questions.
- the answers are rated depending on whether the question indicates that in the respective plant's organizational unit proactive process safety management is being followed (best score), that process safety management is being driven by current experiences (first level score), that accepted process safety management practices are being followed (second level score), that basic (safety) requirements are being met (third level score), or that the basic requirements are not being met (worst level score).
- scores are entered by clicking one of the radio buttons 65 assigned to the questions.
- the answer received for the question listed at the top of scroll window 66 was rated with a second level score ("2").
- Answer data stored by computer 1 in step S5 could also be rated automatically by the computer 1 , for example by means of rules based expert system 16.
- step S8 computer 1 stores in memory 12 the scores assigned to the answers received for the questions. As is illustrated in Table 3, each score is assigned to the question q-i, q 2 , ..., q n and safety relevant aspect for which the particular answer was received. Moreover, information for identification of the person p-i, p 2 , ..., pt providing the answer and the organizational unit represented by that person is assigned to each score.
- step S9 If it is determined in step S9 that there are more questions to be provided as output, the next activated question or set of questions is provided in step S5. Otherwise, if there are no more questions to be provided and if scores have been assigned to all questions for answers provided thereto, the method continues in step SIO.
- step S10 it is determined whether further persons are to be included in the safety assessment of the plant's organizational unit or whether processing of the collected data should continue in step S11.
- this decision can be controlled by the user, for example the interviewer, by means of the command buttons 68.
- the command buttons 68 For example, by clicking the "NEW” command button further persons can be added or by clicking the "PROCESS" command button initiated is the calculation of aspect-specific scores for the organizational unit as well as the calculation of total aspect-specific scores for the plant.
- At any time entered data can be stored by clicking the "STORE” command button or ignored by clicking the "CANCEL” command button.
- Additional functions for example functions for accessing and managing stored information related to a specific plant, audit, organizational unit, or person, can be invoked by control means such as pull down menus or command buttons not illustrated in Figure 3. Particularly, it is possible to add further persons, organizational units, plants, or audits at any point in time. Based on a personnel list, for example, the decision of step S10 could also be taken automatically by the computer 1 , as soon as the data for all persons of the organizational unit has been recorded.
- step S11 calculation module 14 of computer 1 calculates and stores the aspect-specific scores for the organizational unit selected in step S3.
- Table 4 shows an example of aspect-specific scores calculated for all the organizational units of the plant defined in step S1.
- the aspect-specific scores of an organizational unit are calculated in computer 1 by adding up all scores for a safety relevant aspect assigned in step S8 to the organizational unit.
- the aspect-specific score is adjusted (divided) by the number of persons interviewed in an organizational unit. However, if any answer to a question was rated with a worst case score ("0"), the aspect-specific score for the organizational unit is set to the worst case score for the safety related aspect assigned to the respective question.
- step S12 calculation module 14 of computer 1 calculates and stores the plant's total aspect-specific scores for its organizational units.
- the total aspect-specific scores of a plant are calculated in computer 1 by adding up for each safety relevant aspect the respective aspect-specific scores of the plant's organizational units as calculated and stored in step S11.
- Table 5 shows an example of total aspect-specific scores calculated for the plant defined in step S1.
- a worst-case score is assigned to a total aspect-specific score of the plant, if a respective worst-case aspect specific score is assigned to just one (or more) of the plant's organizational units.
- step S13 it is determined whether further organizational units are to be included in the safety assessment or whether processing of the collected data should continue in step S14.
- this decision can be controlled by the user, for example the interviewer, by means of the command buttons 68, as was discussed in the context of step S10.
- step S14 output module 15 of computer 1 generates graphical representations of the safety assessment based on the aspect-specific scores determined in steps S1 to S12.
- the safety assessment of an organizational unit or a plant, respectively is established by the aspect-specific scores of the organizational unit or the total aspect-specific scores of the plant, respectively.
- the graphical representations are displayed by computer 1 on display 17 or reproduced as a printed report 5 on printer 4.
- the safety assessment(s) are displayed in one common graph so that deficiencies of the (total) aspect-specific scores from the best-case score are visualized and so that differences between the safety relevant aspects are visualized for the organizational units as well as the plant.
- the graphical representation is preferably in the form of a so-called spider or radar diagram.
- the graphical representation could also be in an alternative form, for example in the form of a bar chart.
- FIG. 4a and 4b presented are in a hexagon-shaped spider (radar) diagram the aspect-specific scores for the safety relevant aspects of organization, resources, communication, training, procedures, contingency plan, and general safety.
- Each of the vertices is assigned to one of the safety relevant aspects.
- Identical or aspect-specific scales are drawn from the center point 20, indicating a worst-case score, to the vertices.
- Perimeter 21 indicates the best-case score.
- the filled-in shape 2 represents the audit or safety assessment with the aspect-specific scores of one of the organizational units or with the total aspect-specific scores of the plant.
- the displayed audit or safety assessment indicates a worst-case score for the safety aspect of procedures and a best-case score for the safety aspect of training.
- line 2' represents an example of an audit or safety assessment at a different point in time, e.g. at a later point in time.
- computer 1 Based on the aspect-specific scores, computer 1 generates graphs of the safety assessment for each of the plant's organizational units. Based on the total aspect-specific scores, computer 1 generates a graph of the safety assessment of the plant. For example, the safety assessments are displayed in display 17 on user interface 7.
- computer 1 shows in the selection field of the drop down list 71 the identification of the plant selected in step S1.
- computer 1 selects radio button 73a assigned to drop down list 71 and displays a graph of the current safety assessment of the selected plant in graphic window 75. If safety assessments have not been completed for all the plant's organizational units, computer 1 shows in the selection field of the drop down list 72 the identification of the organizational unit selected in step S3.
- computer 1 selects the radio buttons 73b assigned to drop down list 72 and displays a graph of the current safety assessment of the selected organizational unit in graphic window 75.
- User interface 7 makes it possible for a user to select the audit or safety assessment to be displayed in the graphic window 75.
- radio button 73a assigned to drop down list 71 displayed are safety assessments for the overall plant selected in drop down list 71.
- radio button 73b assigned to drop down list 72 or by selecting one of the organizational units from drop down list 72 displayed are safety assessments for the organizational unit selected in drop down list 72. If there are multiple audits or safety assessments stored for the plant for different points in time, by checking the appropriate check boxes 74, one or more of the audits are selected to be displayed.
- displayed is the safety assessment based on the most recent audit for the plant or organizational unit, respectively. In the example shown in Figure 5, selected for display are the safety assessments based on the first and second audits for the organizational unit "Engineering" of the plant "Process Industry Plant X”.
- scores can also be assigned to specific items associated with (safety) inspections.
- safety in addition to data about questions there is also stored and displayed data about inspections, with definitions of inspection items related to one of the safety relevant aspects.
- data about answers in addition to data about answers there is also entered and stored data about inspection results. Consequently, scores are assigned also to inspection items and organizational units, and aspect-specific scores are calculated also based on scores assigned to inspection items.
- computer 1 indicates opportunities for improvement. For example, if the aspect-specific score of the organizational unit "Engineering" with respect to the aspect of "Procedures" is insufficient, as shown in Figure 5, computer 1 indicates steps and areas of possible improvements.
- Computer 1 determines the steps and areas of possible improvements depending on the scores assigned to the questions related to the respective safety aspect. Generally, questions with assigned low scores will determine the steps and areas of possible improvements.
- computer 1 retrieves the steps and areas of possible improvements from a table stored in memory 12.
- the steps and areas of possible improvements are determined by means of an expert system.
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (7)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/CH2005/000602 WO2007041875A2 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
JP2008534844A JP5336850B2 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for safety assessment of process industry plants |
US12/089,575 US8374908B2 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
AU2005337411A AU2005337411A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
AU2012216586A AU2012216586A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2012-08-31 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
AU2015202866A AU2015202866A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2015-05-26 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
AU2017201643A AU2017201643A1 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2017-03-09 | Automated expert-system and method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/CH2005/000602 WO2007041875A2 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2007041875A2 true WO2007041875A2 (en) | 2007-04-19 |
Family
ID=36265327
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/CH2005/000602 WO2007041875A2 (en) | 2005-10-14 | 2005-10-14 | Computer system and computer-based method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US8374908B2 (en) |
JP (1) | JP5336850B2 (en) |
AU (4) | AU2005337411A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2007041875A2 (en) |
Families Citing this family (9)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8200527B1 (en) * | 2007-04-25 | 2012-06-12 | Convergys Cmg Utah, Inc. | Method for prioritizing and presenting recommendations regarding organizaion's customer care capabilities |
US8274510B2 (en) * | 2008-11-07 | 2012-09-25 | Autodesk, Inc. | Method and apparatus for visualizing a quantity of a material used in a physical object having a plurality of physical elements |
US8805707B2 (en) | 2009-12-31 | 2014-08-12 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | Systems and methods for providing a safety score associated with a user location |
US9558520B2 (en) | 2009-12-31 | 2017-01-31 | Hartford Fire Insurance Company | System and method for geocoded insurance processing using mobile devices |
US9031892B2 (en) | 2012-04-19 | 2015-05-12 | Invensys Systems, Inc. | Real time safety management system and method |
US20140046734A1 (en) * | 2012-08-09 | 2014-02-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | Proactive service performance management |
WO2014115327A1 (en) * | 2013-01-28 | 2014-07-31 | 株式会社野村総合研究所 | Company evaluation device and method |
US20140258305A1 (en) * | 2013-03-06 | 2014-09-11 | Tremus, Inc. D/B/A Trustfactors, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing contextual trust scores |
JP7050597B2 (en) * | 2018-07-02 | 2022-04-08 | 株式会社ゼロナイズ | Safety culture fostering support system |
Family Cites Families (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JPH10124583A (en) * | 1996-10-23 | 1998-05-15 | Nec Corp | Device and method for evaluating real job condition |
JP2002245201A (en) * | 2001-02-14 | 2002-08-30 | Hitachi Ltd | Method of diagnosing job |
US20040088329A1 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2004-05-06 | United States Postal Service. | Methods and system for collecting, tracking, and analyzing safety and health related information |
JP2004280228A (en) * | 2003-03-13 | 2004-10-07 | Railway Technical Res Inst | Accident-preventing safety attitude diagnostic system |
JP2004302501A (en) * | 2003-03-28 | 2004-10-28 | Aioi Insurance Co Ltd | Safety measure analysis device, safety measure diagnosis device, safety measure progress management device and program |
US7958001B2 (en) * | 2004-04-28 | 2011-06-07 | Swiss Reinsurance Company | Computer-based method for assessing competence of an organization |
US7324905B2 (en) * | 2005-05-11 | 2008-01-29 | Robert James Droubie | Apparatus, system and method for automating an interactive inspection process |
-
2005
- 2005-10-14 JP JP2008534844A patent/JP5336850B2/en active Active
- 2005-10-14 WO PCT/CH2005/000602 patent/WO2007041875A2/en active Application Filing
- 2005-10-14 US US12/089,575 patent/US8374908B2/en active Active
- 2005-10-14 AU AU2005337411A patent/AU2005337411A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2012
- 2012-08-31 AU AU2012216586A patent/AU2012216586A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2015
- 2015-05-26 AU AU2015202866A patent/AU2015202866A1/en not_active Ceased
-
2017
- 2017-03-09 AU AU2017201643A patent/AU2017201643A1/en not_active Withdrawn
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
AU2017201643A1 (en) | 2017-03-30 |
US8374908B2 (en) | 2013-02-12 |
AU2005337411A1 (en) | 2007-04-19 |
JP5336850B2 (en) | 2013-11-06 |
US20090073171A1 (en) | 2009-03-19 |
AU2015202866A1 (en) | 2015-06-18 |
AU2012216586A1 (en) | 2012-09-20 |
JP2009512036A (en) | 2009-03-19 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7958001B2 (en) | Computer-based method for assessing competence of an organization | |
AU2017201643A1 (en) | Automated expert-system and method for assessing the safety of a process industry plant | |
US8989886B2 (en) | System and method for identifying process bottlenecks | |
US6463441B1 (en) | Incident analysis and solution system | |
US7708196B2 (en) | Modular web-based ASP application for multiple products | |
US20030065613A1 (en) | Software for financial institution monitoring and management and for assessing risk for a financial institution | |
US20120253891A1 (en) | Computer-Implemented Generation Of Roadmap Visualizations | |
US20080034258A1 (en) | Fault management apparatus, fault management method, fault management program and recording medium recording the same | |
US11640161B2 (en) | Systems and methods for measuring and reporting enterprise performance and making process improvements | |
WO2005114509A1 (en) | Information processing system | |
JP2005134938A (en) | Enterprise credit rating system and enterprise credit rating program | |
CN115691044A (en) | Dynamic risk assessment early warning method, system and device | |
CN113434575B (en) | Data attribution processing method, device and storage medium based on data warehouse | |
Embrey | Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human error in risk assessment | |
US20090177534A1 (en) | System for performing personnel evaluations and computer program thereofor | |
JP4991086B2 (en) | Information processing system, information processing program, and information processing method | |
AU2010200771A1 (en) | Computer-based method for assessing competence of an organisation | |
Wiedenmann et al. | Proactive disruption impact assessment in manufacturing supply networks | |
Shakatreh et al. | The role of financial vigilance in predicting possible financial distress among foreign banks | |
US20160098652A1 (en) | Method and system for the management and evaluation of potential events | |
JP2010165384A (en) | Information processing system, information processing program, and information processing method | |
JP2011034598A (en) | Information processing system, information processing method, and information processing program | |
JP3639466B2 (en) | Manufacturing workplace evaluation method and system | |
JP2002329045A (en) | Tool for analizing corporate management | |
EP3806010A1 (en) | Audit support system, audit support server device, audit support terminal, audit support program, and audit support method |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2005337411 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2008534844 Country of ref document: JP |
|
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: DE |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2005337411 Country of ref document: AU Date of ref document: 20051014 Kind code of ref document: A |
|
WWP | Wipo information: published in national office |
Ref document number: 2005337411 Country of ref document: AU |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 12089575 Country of ref document: US |
|
122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase |
Ref document number: 05791362 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A1 |