Multi-Device Payment Coordination for On-Demand Delivery

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing delivery systems for construction materials and items are inefficient, leading to delays and inefficiencies due to manual processes, subjective selections, and inadequate coordination of resources, particularly in on-demand delivery scenarios such as same-day or faster delivery, and lack adequate third-party payment facilitation.

Innovation Solution

A system and method for device-based coordination of multi-party payment processes, including selecting a payer, updating orders, requesting payments, and sending confirmations, which integrates with location-based dispatch systems to optimize the selection and allocation of fulfillment centers, pullers, and drivers for efficient on-demand delivery, and facilitates third-party payment through mobile and internet-connected devices.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If manual processes are used for item delivery, then flexibility in selection is maintained, but time consumption and inefficiency increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveflexibility in selectionVSAvoidtime consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system enables automated self-service by having the delivery system automatically select fulfillment centers, allocate resources, and coordinate deliveries without manual intervention. The automated selection process compares multiple retailers based on store location, item availability, and prices to optimize delivery efficiency while maintaining flexibility through programmable decision-making.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Manual mechanical processes for item selection and delivery coordination are replaced with an automated electronic system that processes information about retailers, items, and delivery requirements. The system uses computer-based algorithms to compare retailers and make selection decisions, replacing manual comparison and decision-making processes.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Adaptability or versatility

If retailer resources are used for delivery, then existing infrastructure is utilized, but coordination capability for on-demand delivery is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveuse of existing infrastructureVSAvoidcoordination capability

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically coordinates retailer resources by continuously monitoring store locations, item availability, and delivery requirements. The automated selection process adapts to changing conditions and can reallocate resources based on real-time data, enabling on-demand delivery coordination that static systems cannot provide.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms that monitor delivery status, item availability, and resource utilization. This feedback enables continuous optimization of coordination processes, allowing the system to adjust resource allocation and delivery timing based on actual performance data and changing requirements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

3Productivity

If automated retailer selection is implemented, then objective optimization is achieved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedelivery efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The complex automated selection system is segmented into distinct functional modules: retailer data collection, item availability checking, location-based analysis, price comparison, and delivery coordination. Each module handles a specific aspect of the optimization process, making the overall complex system more manageable and easier to implement incrementally.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

4Adaptability or versatility

If third-party payment facilitation is added, then payment flexibility is improved, but process complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepayment flexibilityVSAvoidprocess complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces a payment facilitation intermediary that coordinates between third-party payers, retailers, and delivery systems. This intermediary layer handles the complexity of payment processing, authorization, and coordination, allowing payment flexibility without requiring direct complex interactions between all parties involved.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS20220005106A1Systems and methods for a multiple device communication system

Publication Date: 2022.01.06 TOMMY RUN LLC

AI summary

Systems and techniques are disclosed that provide device-based coordination of third-party payment for delivery processes. One example implementation involves receiving a request from a first device. A payer associated with the second device is selected via a feature provided on the user interface on the first application on the first device. The system sends the invitation to the second device associated with the payer. The system receives order information from the second device and updates the order based on the order information, wherein updating the order includes updating the one or more items specified to be purchased based on the order information. The system receives confirmation of the updated order from the first or the third device. The system requests payment from the second device and sends a communication to purchase the one or more items from a location associated with the third device.