GUI Assessment Processing System Using Tiered Data Segmentation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing systems lack efficiency in inputting, processing, and displaying data related to alternative assessment and group consensus, particularly in synthesizing diverse parameters and conserving computer resources during assessment processing.
Innovation Solution
The Definitive Pro System (DPS) provides a graphical user interface for collaborative and transparent processing of consensus data, utilizing dynamic team formation and multi-tier data transfer to efficiently input, process, and display group consensus and multi-criteria decisions, incorporating aspects like the analytic hierarchy process for parameter representation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If known systems and methods are used for alternative assessment processing, then data collection and display functions are provided, but technical efficiency and resource conservation are insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments assessment processing into multiple tiers with different levels of detail. Summary views provide aggregated data for quick overview, while detailed views are only generated and transferred when specifically requested, reducing unnecessary data processing and resource consumption while maintaining productivity.
Solution Approach 2:
The system dynamically adjusts the level of data detail and processing based on user interaction and system state. Data transfer and processing intensity are optimized in real-time, providing comprehensive processing when needed and minimal processing during routine operations, thereby improving efficiency while conserving resources.
2Loss of information
If detailed assessment data is processed and displayed comprehensively, then complete information is provided, but computer resources and data transfer requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system adds a hierarchical dimension to data presentation, organizing assessment data into multiple levels of aggregation. This allows the same comprehensive information to be accessed through different paths - either by drilling down through hierarchical levels or by requesting specific detailed views, reducing the complexity of flat data transfer while preserving information completeness.
Solution Approach 2:
The system introduces intermediate aggregated data layers between raw assessment data and final display output. These intermediaries summarize large volumes of detailed data into manageable forms for routine display, while maintaining the ability to access underlying detailed data when needed, thus reducing data transfer complexity without losing information completeness.
3Measurement precision
If multi-level parameter synthesis is performed, then comprehensive assessment results are generated, but processing complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The system segments parameter synthesis into modular processing stages, where different levels of parameters are synthesized separately and then integrated. This modular approach maintains measurement precision by ensuring each synthesis stage is accurate, while reducing overall processing complexity through systematic organization and reuse of intermediate results.
Data Source
AI summary
An apparatus is provided to interface with users to perform group assessment processing and display of results in conjunction with the selection of items. The apparatus may comprise: a communication portion; a database; and a computer processor performing processing including: (A) storing an assessment architecture; (B) interfacing with a first facilitator user to populate the assessment architecture, (C) generating, based on the decision criteria, a plurality of decision criteria pairs; and (D) interfacing, respectively, with a plurality of participant users, including: (a) outputting decision criteria pairs, in conjunction with the decision goal parameter, (b) inputting a selection of a selected decision criteria, of the output decision criteria pairs, (c) inputting, for the selection, a decision weight; (d) associating the decision weight with the particular selection; and (E) displaying response aggregated data including a collection of the selections, of the selected decision criteria, along with associated weight.