API Pricing via Cognitive Comparative Benchmarking

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current API pricing methods are static and human-driven, leading to under-monetization for enterprises and overspending for consumers due to lack of dynamic benchmarking and quality-based pricing adjustments, with no standard mechanism for automatically determining API ratings or adjusting metering policies based on demand and relevance.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method for attribute-based API comparative benchmarking that determines pricing using weighted averages of benchmark confidence scores from similar APIs, incorporating feedback and ratings, and dynamically adjusts pricing parameters through machine learning for quality and relevance evaluation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of manufacture

If static and human-driven pricing methods are used for APIs, then pricing simplicity is maintained, but revenue maximization and consumer spending optimization are compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepricing simplicityVSAvoidrevenue maximization
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables APIs to self-price by automatically determining pricing based on their own attributes, performance metrics, and market conditions. The pricing mechanism autonomously evaluates API quality, demand, and competitiveness without requiring manual human intervention, thus achieving both simplicity and revenue optimization

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts pricing parameters based on multiple variables including API quality metrics, market demand, feature sets, and performance benchmarks. By continuously modifying pricing parameters in response to changing conditions, the system maximizes revenue while maintaining simplicity through automated parameter optimization

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Productivity

If dynamic benchmarking and quality-based pricing adjustments are implemented, then revenue maximization and spending optimization are improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improverevenue maximizationVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates continuous feedback loops where pricing decisions are automatically adjusted based on performance metrics, market responses, and benchmarking data. This feedback mechanism enables dynamic pricing optimization without manual intervention, achieving complex pricing strategies through automated feedback-driven adjustments

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs a universal pricing framework that handles multiple pricing dimensions (quality-based, demand-based, feature-based) through a single integrated mechanism. This multi-functional approach consolidates complex pricing logic into one system that can simultaneously evaluate multiple factors without requiring separate manual processes for each

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Measurement precision

If automated determination of API ratings and metering policy adjustments is implemented, then pricing accuracy and competitiveness are improved, but measurement and evaluation difficulty increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepricing accuracyVSAvoidevaluation difficulty
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces manual human evaluation and rating processes with automated computational mechanisms. Algorithms automatically assess API quality, performance, and market value by analyzing objective metrics and data, eliminating the subjectivity and complexity of human judgment while achieving precise and consistent pricing accuracy

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Data Source

PatentUS10503569B2Feature-based application programming interface cognitive comparative benchmarking
Publication Date: 2019.12.10 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION
  • US10503569B2 patent drawing
  • US10503569B2 patent drawing
  • US10503569B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Attribute-based application programming interface (API) comparative benchmarking is provided. In response to determining that a target API maps to an existing API classification based on attributes of the target API, a weighted average of benchmark confidence scores of other APIs in a same class as the target API is determined. A benchmark confidence score is determined for the target API based on feedback, reviews, and ratings. The benchmark confidence score of the target API is compared with the weighted average of benchmark scores. An attribute-based API classification mapping is updated based on the comparison. Pricing for the target API is determined based on a weighted average of API pricing across the other APIs in the same class as the target API.