WO2002061549A2 - A central assessment and evaluation system and method - Google Patents
A central assessment and evaluation system and method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2002061549A2 WO2002061549A2 PCT/ZA2002/000013 ZA0200013W WO02061549A2 WO 2002061549 A2 WO2002061549 A2 WO 2002061549A2 ZA 0200013 W ZA0200013 W ZA 0200013W WO 02061549 A2 WO02061549 A2 WO 02061549A2
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- members
- dimension
- rating value
- assessment
- group
- 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
- G06Q40/04—Trading; Exchange, e.g. stocks, commodities, derivatives or currency exchange
Definitions
- THIS invention relates to a central assessment and evaluation system
- the first and second rating values may form part of assessment data
- the assessment may comprise one or more of a self assessment in
- the independent audit is preferably at least partially performed on site
- the first dimension may be reliability and the second dimension may be
- score may be multiplied by a weighting constant.
- the assessment data for each member may comprise a respective
- the credibility rating may continually be updated.
- Said user may be one of said members of the first group of members
- the user may also be provided with criteria data provided by other members.
- a processor connected to the database; an applications program running on the processor for receiving
- the system may also comprise an assessment toolkit for computing
- the toolkit may comprise a plain text score sheet and wherein a
- figure 1 is a block diagram of an assessment and evaluation
- figure 2 is a representation of members of a group of potential
- figure 3 is a diagram illustrating a step of pairing or matching a
- figure 4 is a table of parameters for each dimension and weighted
- figure 5 is a flow diagram of the steps in an assessment process
- figure 6 is a more detailed diagram of the self assessment
- figure 7 is a flow diagram of the steps in an assessment process
- figure 8 is a flow diagram of the steps in an independent audit of
- figure 9 is a flow diagram of an assessment feedback system
- figure 10 is a diagram illustrating a development path required for a
- figure 1 1 is a flow diagram of a search and selection process by
- figure 12 is a diagram illustrating the verification and updating of a
- figure 13 shows flow diagrams of possible feedback to buyers
- figure 14 shows flow diagrams of possible feedback to suppliers
- the system comprises a central database 12 comprising assessment
- the system enables a user such as a
- the supplier may be a supplier of goods such as ball bearings,
- a processor 18 front end is connected to the database 10 and
- the user may access the database from a remote site via a suitable
- communications network such as the Internet.
- supplier 14.1 is
- the supplier may relate to the reliability of a product provided by the supplier.
- the parameters are not a closed set
- At least three forms of assessments of a supplier are envisaged.
- figure 4 is completed and returned to the database for validation 50
- FIG 8 there is shown a diagram of an audit 66 of one or more of
- This third party may be the assessment database service
- the audit is performed by an actual visit to the site or
- invention is to provide feedback to suppliers 14.1 to 14.n. Based on
- the system 10 can provide a
- scores may be
- a supplier 14.4 may be provided with data
- figure 1 1 there is shown a flow diagram of an evaluation process
- Credibility ratings may typically be provided in three
- Figure 13 relates to available feedback systems
- system 12 may be utilized to advise
Abstract
A system (10) for enabling a user such as buyer (16.1) to evaluate members (14.1 to 14.n) of a group of suppliers comprises a computerized database (12). In the database there is stored for each of the mebers at least a first rating value for a first dimension (20), such as reliability and a second rating value for a second ddimension (22), such as cost effectiveness, for quantifying performance of a respective member. The system further comprises a processor front-end (18) connected to the database, An applications program running on the processor receives criteria data from the user and utilizes said first and second dimension rating values to search and select at least one member matching said criteria data. The system further comprises an assessment toolkit for use in computing the first and second rating values for each member.
Description
A CENTRAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION SYSTEM AND
METHOD
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
THIS invention relates to a central assessment and evaluation system
and method, more particularly a computerized system and method
with remote access.
An existing problem in trade and industry is the lack of a toolkit and
data to perform comparisons between potential suppliers according to
selectable criteria. Each prospective purchaser of a product or user of
a service has to create a own database and to do the necessary
comparisons. The databases quickly become outdated and the
comparison tools and selectable criteria are limited.
OBJECT OF THE INVENTION
Accordingly it is an object of the present invention to provide a central
assessment and evaluation system and method with which the
applicant believes the aforementioned disadvantages may at least be
alleviated.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
According to the invention there is provided a method of enabling a
user to evaluate members of a first group of members, the method
comprising the steps of:
selecting first and second dimensions for quantifying
performance of each member of the first group of members;
- for each member of the first group of members allocating a first
rating value for the first dimension and a second rating value for
the second dimension;
storing the values allocated in a computerized database;
receiving selection criteria from a user regarding a selection of
members of the first group to be made; and
utilizing the selection criteria, the first rating value and the
second rating value for at least some of the members, to enable
a selection to be made.
The first and second rating values may form part of assessment data
allocated in accordance with an assessment of each member's
performance in respect of the first and second dimensions.
The assessment may comprise one or more of a self assessment in
respect of the first and second dimensions; an assessment of the
member's performance by a customer in respect of the first and
second dimensions; and an independent audit by a third party.
The independent audit is preferably at least partially performed on site
of at least some members of the first group of members.
The first dimension may be reliability and the second dimension may
be cost effectiveness.
The allocation of the first rating value for the first dimension and the
second rating value for the second dimension may be arrived at by
summing in the case of each dimension respective scores for a
plurality of parameters relating to the dimensions respectively. Each
score may be multiplied by a weighting constant.
The assessment data for each member may comprise a respective
credibility rating.
The credibility rating may continually be updated.
Said user may be one of said members of the first group of members
and the user may be provided with feedback of assessment data
relating to the user and assessment data relating to other members.
The user may also be provided with criteria data provided by other
users of the method.
Also included within the scope of the present invention is a method of
assessing members of a first group of members, the method
comprising the steps of:
selecting first and second dimensions for quantifying
performance of each member of the first group of members;
for each member of the first group of members allocating a first
rating value for the first dimension and a second rating value for
the second dimension; and
storing the values allocated in a computerized database.
Yet further included within the scope of the invention is a system for
performing an evaluation of members of a first group of members, the
system comprising:-
a computerized database wherein there is stored for each
member at least a first rating value for a first dimension and a
second rating value for a second dimension for quantifying
performance of a respective member;
a processor connected to the database;
an applications program running on the processor for receiving
criteria data from a user and utilizing said first rating value and
second rating value for each member to search and select at
least one member matching said criteria data.
The system may also comprise an assessment toolkit for computing
said first rating value and said second rating value.
The toolkit may comprise a plain text score sheet and wherein a
plurality of parameters relating to each dimension are reflected on the
sheet, together with a respective weighting constant.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCOMPANYING DIAGRAMS
The invention will now further be described, by way of example only,
with reference to the accompanying diagrams wherein:
figure 1 is a block diagram of an assessment and evaluation
system according to the invention;
figure 2 is a representation of members of a group of potential
suppliers assessed and plotted in terms of ratings
according to first and second dimensions, namely
reliability and cost effectiveness;
figure 3 is a diagram illustrating a step of pairing or matching a
buyer's criteria with an ideal supplier profile;
figure 4 is a table of parameters for each dimension and weighted
values for each parameter in respect of each dimension;
figure 5 is a flow diagram of the steps in an assessment process
of a supplier where the supplier performs the assessment
itself;
figure 6 is a more detailed diagram of the self assessment
process;
figure 7 is a flow diagram of the steps in an assessment process
performed by a customer of the supplier;
figure 8 is a flow diagram of the steps in an independent audit of
an assessment process;
figure 9 is a flow diagram of an assessment feedback system
which is available to the suppliers;
figure 10 is a diagram illustrating a development path required for a
supplier to reach a buyer's criteria or requirements;
figure 1 1 is a flow diagram of a search and selection process by
users of the system of members of the group of potential
suppliers;
figure 12 is a diagram illustrating the verification and updating of a
credibility rating of assessment data in a database;
figure 13 shows flow diagrams of possible feedback to buyers
utilizing the system; and
figure 14 shows flow diagrams of possible feedback to suppliers
utilizing the system.
DESCRIPTION OF A PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION
A system for assessing, evaluating, searching and selecting a member
of a first group of members is generally designated by the reference
numeral 10 in figure 1 .
The system comprises a central database 12 comprising assessment
data relating to each member of a group of first members, such as
potential suppliers 14.1 to 14.n. The system enables a user such as a
purchaser or buyer to evaluate the potential suppliers and to search
and select one or more of the potential suppliers. According to his own
criteria. The supplier may be a supplier of goods such as ball bearings,
for example or of services.
A processor 18 front end is connected to the database 10 and
applications software running on the processor enables the users to
access the database and to perform the evaluation, search and
selection, based on the assessment data stored in the database. The
user may access the database from a remote site via a suitable
communications network such as the Internet.
As shown in figure 2, the performance of each supplier 14.1 to 14.n is
assessed in terms of two dimensions namely reliability 20 to provide
the goods and cost effectiveness 22. For example, supplier 14.1 is
rated at 2998 points out of 5000 on reliability and on 2179 points out
of 5000 on cost effectiveness. In comparison, the assessment of
supplier 14.n is much lower on reliability, but supplier 14.n is much
more cost effective. In other applications, the reliability dimension
may relate to the reliability of a product provided by the supplier.
In figure 3, an alignment between the criteria 24 of a buyer 16.1 and
an ideal supplier profile 26 is shown. In other words, buyer 16.1
would be interested in a supplier that falls within the demarcated area
26 in the two dimensional representation shown in figure 3.
As shown in figure 4, a number of parameters 28.1 to 28. n are used
to compute the rating for each of the dimensions 20 and 22. Such
parameters include cost management 28.1 , productivity 28.2,
and people management 28. n. The parameters are not a closed set
and are merely given as typical examples. The parameters may differ
from industry to industry and may also vary dynamically in accordance
with requirements and changes in a particular industry. Each
parameter is associated with a weighting constant 30 and 32 for each
of the dimensions 20 and 22 respectively and the weighting constant
may also vary as hereinbefore described.
By utilizing assessment scores for each of the aforementioned
parameters 28.1 to 28. n for each dimension 20 and 22 and also
utilizing the relevant weighting constant, the ratings 34 and 36 for
each of the dimensions are computed. These ratings are used to
represent a performance assessment 38 of a supplier such as supplier
14.1 on the two-dimensional representation in figure 2.
At least three forms of assessments of a supplier are envisaged.
These are self-assessment by the supplier, assessment by a customer
of the supplier and an independent audit by a third party. These will
now be described in more detail.
Self assessment processes are illustrated at 40 in figure 5. It may be
performed on paper as shown at 42 or online via the internet as
shown at 44. In the paper based method 42 and following an
agreement 48 between an assessment service provider 19 and a
supplier, a toolkit comprising a hard copy score sheet 46 as shown in
figure 4 is completed and returned to the database for validation 50
and enlisting. In the online process, the score sheet is completed in
electronic form 52 and sent by electronic mail to the database for
validation and enlisting. In figure 6 there is shown a more detailed
flow diagram of the self assessment process and the outputs of the
process are the self assessment data 54 and a credibility rating 56 of
the data 54, which is provided by the service provider.
In figure 7, there is shown a similar diagram for assessment processes
60 to be performed by a customer of the supplier. Again there is a
paper based process 62 and an online process 64.
In figure 8, there is shown a diagram of an audit 66 of one or more of
the aforementioned assessment processes by an independent third
party. This third party may be the assessment database service
provider 19. The audit is performed by an actual visit to the site or
plant of the supplier and an in loco inspection. As shown at 68 an
output of this audit process is an update or verification of the
aforementioned credibility rating.
An important benefit of the system and method according to the
invention is to provide feedback to suppliers 14.1 to 14.n. Based on
the assessment data in the database, the system 10 can provide a
supplier with its own assessment data on any one or more of at least
four levels. These levels are a single or one dimensional rating figure
based on the aforementioned ratings on the two dimensions, the two
dimensional rating, the scores for each of the aforementioned
parameters 28.1 to 28. n and a fourth is on an even more detailed level
where scores for various components (not shown) influencing a
parameter are provided. For example, in the case of the parameter
quality management shown at 28.4 in figure 4, scores may be
provided for the following components: whether quality is checked at
source; whether there is a dedicated person looking after quality; ISO
registrations; statistical monitoring etc. Not only is it possible to
provide a supplier with feedback on his own assessment but also to
provide him with data relating to industry comparisons as shown at 72
and also buyer requirements as shown at 74.
Referring now to figure 10, a supplier 14.4 may be provided with data
relating to a development path 76 from a present perhaps undesirable
assessment position as shown at A, to a position B which overlaps
with the requirements of buyers in that industry.
In figure 1 1 , there is shown a flow diagram of an evaluation process
80 that will be performed by a prospective buyer 16.1 to 16.n utilizing
the applications programs and database 12, to search and select a
suitable supplier, or suppliers. At 82 the criteria 24 (shown in figure
3) of the buyer are captured. The best fit suppliers are listed at 84
and at 86 they are evaluated, for example by perusing one or more of
the aforementioned four levels of assessment data. The process is
repeated at 88 until a suitable supplier is selected at 90.
In figure 12, there is shown a self-explanatory diagram 94 and factors
92.1 to 99. n that are taken into account continually to update and
verify a credibility rating of assessment data relating to a specific
supplier. Credibility ratings may typically be provided in three
categories namely high, medium and low as shown at 96.
Other uses of the system and method are illustrated in self-explanatory
figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 relates to available feedback systems
and methods 98 to a buyer to make him aware of new supplier
entrants into the industry as shown at 100, significant changes in the
assessment or profile of his key suppliers as shown at 102 and the
reaching or non-reaching of specified development targets at key
suppliers, as shown at 104.
ln figure 14, feedback systems and methods 106 to suppliers are
illustrated. For example, the system 12 may be utilized to advise
suppliers of new competitors in the industry as shown at 108, to
advise suppliers of significant changes in key partners as shown at
1 10 and to advise a supplier on own development targets as shown at
1 12 and also illustrated in figure 10.
Claims
1 . A method of enabling a user to evaluate members of a first
group of members, the method comprising the steps of:
selecting first and second dimensions for quantifying
performance of each member of the first group of
members;
for each member of the first group of members allocating
a first rating value for the first dimension and a second
rating value for the second dimension;
- storing the values allocated in a computerized database;
receiving selection criteria from a user regarding a
selection of members of the first group to be made; and
utilizing the selection criteria, the first rating value and
the second rating value for at least some of the members,
to enable a selection to be made.
2. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first and second
rating values form part of assessment data allocated in
accordance with an assessment of each member's performance
in respect of the first and second dimensions.
3. A method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the assessment
comprises one or more of a self assessment in respect of the
first and second dimensions; an assessment of the member's
performance by a customer in respect of the first and second
dimensions; and an independent audit by a third party.
4. A method as claimed in claim 3 wherein the independent audit
is at least partially performed on site of at least some members
of the first group of members.
5. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first dimension is
reliability and the second dimension is cost.
6. A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the allocation of the
first rating value for the first dimension and the second rating
value for the second dimension are arrived at by summing in the
case of each dimension respective scores for a plurality of
parameters relating to the dimensions respectively.
7. A method as claimed in claim 6 wherein each score is multiplied
by a weighting constant.
8. A method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the assessment data
for each member comprises a respective credibility rating.
9. A method as claimed in claim 8 wherein the credibility rating is
continually updated.
10. A method as claimed in claim 2 wherein said user is one of said
members of the first group of members and wherein the user is
provided with feedback of assessment data relating to the user
and assessment data relating to other members.
1 1 . A method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the user is one of said
members of the first group of users and wherein the user is
provided with criteria data provided by other users of the
method.
12. A method of assessing members of a first group of members,
the method comprising the steps of:
selecting first and second dimensions for quantifying
performance of each member of the first group of
members; for each member of the first group of members allocating
a first rating value for the first dimension and a second
rating value for the second dimension; and
storing the values allocated in a computerized database.
13. A system for performing an evaluation of members of a first
group of members, the system comprising:-
a computerized database wherein there is stored for each
member at least a first rating value for a first dimension
and a second rating value for a second dimension for
quantifying performance of a respective member;
a processor connected to the database;
an applications program running on the processor for
receiving criteria data from a user and utilizing said first
rating value and second rating value for each member to
search and select at least one member matching said
criteria data.
14. A system as claimed in claim 13 comprising an assessment
toolkit for computing said first rating value and said second
rating value.
5. A system as claimed in claim 13 wherein the toolkit comprises a
plain text score sheet and wherein a plurality of parameters
relating to each dimension are reflected on the sheet, together
with a respective weighting constant.
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZA200103847 | 2001-01-31 | ||
| ZA2000/3847 | 2001-01-31 |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| WO2002061549A2 true WO2002061549A2 (en) | 2002-08-08 |
| WO2002061549A3 WO2002061549A3 (en) | 2012-03-01 |
Family
ID=25589159
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/ZA2002/000013 WO2002061549A2 (en) | 2001-01-31 | 2002-01-31 | A central assessment and evaluation system and method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| WO (1) | WO2002061549A2 (en) |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP2000934A1 (en) * | 2007-06-07 | 2008-12-10 | Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. | A reputation system for providing a measure of reliability on health data |
| US8713481B2 (en) | 2006-05-05 | 2014-04-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Navigational cube for matching vendor offerings to service provider requirements |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5734890A (en) * | 1994-09-12 | 1998-03-31 | Gartner Group | System and method for analyzing procurement decisions and customer satisfaction |
| US5999908A (en) * | 1992-08-06 | 1999-12-07 | Abelow; Daniel H. | Customer-based product design module |
| US6141653A (en) * | 1998-11-16 | 2000-10-31 | Tradeaccess Inc | System for interative, multivariate negotiations over a network |
| US6405175B1 (en) * | 1999-07-27 | 2002-06-11 | David Way Ng | Shopping scouts web site for rewarding customer referrals on product and price information with rewards scaled by the number of shoppers using the information |
-
2002
- 2002-01-31 WO PCT/ZA2002/000013 patent/WO2002061549A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US5999908A (en) * | 1992-08-06 | 1999-12-07 | Abelow; Daniel H. | Customer-based product design module |
| US5734890A (en) * | 1994-09-12 | 1998-03-31 | Gartner Group | System and method for analyzing procurement decisions and customer satisfaction |
| US6141653A (en) * | 1998-11-16 | 2000-10-31 | Tradeaccess Inc | System for interative, multivariate negotiations over a network |
| US6405175B1 (en) * | 1999-07-27 | 2002-06-11 | David Way Ng | Shopping scouts web site for rewarding customer referrals on product and price information with rewards scaled by the number of shoppers using the information |
Non-Patent Citations (4)
| Title |
|---|
| 'B2eMarkets and Open Ratings Collaborate to Improve Strategic Sourcing.' PR NEWSWIRE January 1900, pages 1 - 2 * |
| GREGG KEIZER.: 'How to pick the best products, shop for the best prices, and close the deal-- all online.' PC WORLD vol. 19, no. 1., January 2001, ISSN 07378939 page 133 * |
| 'Open Ratings and Idapta Team to Deliver Unbiased Supplier Information to eMarketplace Participants.' PR NEWSWIRE January 1900, pages 1 - 3 * |
| 'Perfect and Open Ratings Form Alliance to Provide Critical Supplier Performance Ratings to Private Exchanges and Net Markets Business Wire' January 1900, pages 1 - 3 * |
Cited By (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US8713481B2 (en) | 2006-05-05 | 2014-04-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Navigational cube for matching vendor offerings to service provider requirements |
| US10108990B2 (en) | 2006-05-05 | 2018-10-23 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for matching vendor offerings to service provider requirements |
| US10733640B2 (en) | 2006-05-05 | 2020-08-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Matching vendor offerings to service provider requirements |
| EP2000934A1 (en) * | 2007-06-07 | 2008-12-10 | Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. | A reputation system for providing a measure of reliability on health data |
| WO2008149300A1 (en) * | 2007-06-07 | 2008-12-11 | Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. | A reputation system for providing a measure of reliability on health data |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| WO2002061549A3 (en) | 2012-03-01 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Riggins et al. | Interdependent benefits from interorganizational systems: Opportunities for business partner reengineering | |
| Şen et al. | Pre-selection of suppliers through an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and max-min methodology | |
| US20070150398A1 (en) | Investor sentiment barometer | |
| Rosli | Determinants of small and medium enterprises performance in the Malaysian auto-parts industry | |
| US20070250330A1 (en) | Sourcing controller | |
| US7398227B2 (en) | Methods, systems, and computer for managing purchasing data | |
| KR102033408B1 (en) | Method for providing information and relaying transactions of building materials and equipment together with price and performance | |
| US20060059031A1 (en) | Risk management | |
| US20080005058A1 (en) | System and method for optimizing allocation of resources | |
| KR102451735B1 (en) | Service system and method for providing customized bidding information for overseas public procurement based on artificial intelligence and machine learning | |
| US20080255896A1 (en) | System and method for aiding a buyer to create a supplier scorecard | |
| KR101448290B1 (en) | Bid consulting system for using distribution chart of expert's successful bid prediction and method thereof | |
| US20170083973A1 (en) | Assigning business credit scores using peer-to-peer inputs on an open online business social network | |
| KR101944062B1 (en) | Platform and method for automatically configuring ipo teams | |
| US20230376806A1 (en) | System and method for determining a pattern for a successful opportunity and determining the next best action | |
| US8204772B2 (en) | Customer service experience comparative landscape tool | |
| KR20180062546A (en) | System for recommanding type of business | |
| KR20170098375A (en) | Method and system of Intermediation for Expert | |
| WO2002061549A2 (en) | A central assessment and evaluation system and method | |
| Mansar et al. | BPR implementation: A decision-making strategy | |
| US20030028394A1 (en) | Computer system and method for automatically determining a customer price | |
| Madhlambudzi et al. | Stakeholder identification and salience in purchasing: an empirical study from UK hospitals | |
| ZA200207826B (en) | A central assessment and evaluation system and method. | |
| Ferreira et al. | An approach based on risk to dimensioning virtual organizations | |
| KR101968981B1 (en) | Business method of BAT Production based on internet platform |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EC EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NO NZ OM PH PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT TZ UA UG US UZ VN YU ZA ZM ZW |
|
| AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZM ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GQ GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
| WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2002/07826 Country of ref document: ZA Ref document number: 200207826 Country of ref document: ZA |
|
| 121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
| REG | Reference to national code |
Ref country code: DE Ref legal event code: 8642 |
|
| 122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase | ||
| 32PN | Ep: public notification in the ep bulletin as address of the adressee cannot be established |
Free format text: NOTING OF LOSS OF RIGHTS PURSUANT TO RULE 69(1) EPC - NON-PAYMENT OF THE NATIONAL BASIC FEE AND THESEARCH FEE |
|
| 122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase | ||
| NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: JP |
|
| WWW | Wipo information: withdrawn in national office |
Country of ref document: JP |