1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to procuring technical services from contractors and, more particularly, to a Web based skills matching application that facilitates the procurement process for technical services contractors.
2. Background Description
Considerable attention has been devoted to improving the methods used to procure components and hardware in manufacturing many products, including for example automobiles and computers. Recently, these processes have migrated to the Internet allowing for fast, efficient and cost-effective procurement from a variety of suppliers. However, the procurement of services, and especially technical services, has not received the same attention. The process is still a matter of advertising, using third party employment services and other intermediaries. Responses are slow and there is the possibility when working through third parties that requests are incomplete or inaccurate, resulting in responses that do not meet the requirements. Since the technical services required may be for an immediate although temporary need, some better way needs to be developed in order to timely respond to a specific need for technical services.
It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a tool that allows a user, such as a hiring manager, to communicate requirements to technical service suppliers in a way that significantly reduces the process time and improves the accuracy of requests sent to suppliers.
According to the invention, there is provided a Skills Matching Application (SMA) which is accessed from a Requisition/Catalog (REQ/CAT) application, which may be either a Web-based application or a standalone application. A user who needs to request a technical contractor accesses the REQ/CAT application (or goes directly to the SMA Universal Resource Locator (URL)) which brings the user to the SMA Web site. The SMA application, after requiring a password and profile (for first time access) to be entered, takes the user through a series of screens which prompts the user to enter a Statement of Work (SOW) and complete a skills detail checklist for each of the technical skills requested. Some of the information required to be entered are the following:
The suppliers, when they receive an e-mail request, access the Web site database to view the request details. Suppliers can also use the e-mail notifications and attachments to load into their local systems. Each supplier has the option of accessing the SMA Web site or generating and transmitting a batch interface to SMA to submit candidates and appending resumes as appropriate. The supplier provides a response to the SOW by responding to the entries with the candidate's skills, experience, etc. The supplier enters the candidate's name and wage (if different from the agreed to rate for that region or skill).
The requestor will receive an e-mail notification each time the supplier submits a candidate. The requester then accesses the SMA Web site and views the supplier responses and associated resumes and can either accept or reject each candidate submitted but cannot accept more than the number of candidates requested. Once the requester accepts the candidate(s), the request is considered closed and the request is archived after the next SMA batch process is complete. The requestor then submits the candidate(s) to the REQ/CAT Web site where it is assigned to a requisition. The requester then completes the requisition (i.e., adding travel and other related expenses, etc.) and then moves through the requisition approval process. When the SMA is used as a standalone application, the requester uses the tool to source the contractor requirement and then would go to the requisition system to complete the transaction.
Once the requisition is approved in the REQ/CAT Web site, it is sent on to SAP procurement system for conversion to a purchase order and transmission to a supplier. Status changes, i.e., submitted, pending, sent to REQ/CAT, and Approved (in REQ/CAT Web site), and purchase order (PO) number from SAP are reflected in the status field on the SMA database.
In addition to the process defined here, the SMA application supports a Renewal, Known Candidate and “Submit Requisition Directly to REQ/CAT Web” process. The renewal process is used to “renew” a technical subcontractor who is already working for the company. Known items are the candidate(s) name(s) and supplier. These requests are only sent to the supplier who is already providing the candidate(s). The Known Candidate function is used to send a request to a supplier for a candidate that has already been identified. The “Submit Requisition Directly to REQ/CAT Web” process is used when the requester knows the candidate(s) name(s), the supplier and the rate to be charged. These requests are not sent to suppliers; rather, the request when completed is sent directly to the REQ/CAT Web site.
The foregoing and other objects, aspects and advantages will be better understood from the following detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention with reference to the drawings, in which:
Referring now to the drawings, and more particularly to
As shown in
The SMA application has the capability to identify suppliers as primary, secondary, tertiary, etc., for each skill. The SMA application will send the request immediately to the primary and after a predetermined number of days to the secondary, and so on. The number of days between e-mail notifications are variables which can be changed by the SMA application administrator. The requester can cancel the request at any time, in which case and e-mail is sent to all suppliers who were previously sent a notification of the request. In general, e-mail notifications are sent to suppliers when the requester performs any action against the request and vice versa.
The suppliers then access the Web site database to view the request details. Suppliers can also use the e-mail notifications and attachments to load directly into their local systems. Each supplier can access the SMA Web site 103 to respond to the request or respond directly. A supplier reviews the requirements and then submits candidates back to the requester. The supplier provides a candidate(s) by accessing the SMA Web site, submitting candidate(s) and appending a resume(s) as appropriate or directly from the supplier internal system.
The requester views the supplier responses and associated resumes. The requester can either accept or reject each candidate submitted, but cannot accept more than the number of candidates requested. The RCW/CAT approval process in block 104 is invoked when a candidate has been selected for an assignment and the requester management approval process is started to complete the requisition. Block 105 represents the “SAP Procurement Process”. SAP is the system that completes the requisition process and transmits the Purchase Order (PO) to the supplier for billing and payment. The linkage with the REQ/CAT Web application and the supplier is shown in more detail in
In addition to the process described above, the SMA supports two other processes. The first of these is the submission of a request to a specific supplier. This is the situation mentioned above in the description of
While the invention has been described in terms of a single preferred embodiment, those skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5117353 | Stipanovich et al. | May 1992 | A |
5576951 | Lockwood | Nov 1996 | A |
5862223 | Walker et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
6049776 | Donnelly et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6249282 | Sutcliffe et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266659 | Nadkarni | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272467 | Durand et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289340 | Puram et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6370510 | McGovern et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385620 | Kurzius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6408337 | Dietz et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6675151 | Thompson et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
20010034630 | Mayer et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010039508 | Nagler et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042000 | Defoor, Jr. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042038 | Phatak | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020026452 | Baumgarten et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020046074 | Barton | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055870 | Thomas | May 2002 | A1 |
20020072946 | Richardson | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020111958 | Hartman et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020152316 | Dietz et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030009437 | Seiler et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20050010467 | Dietz et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
11338881 | Dec 1999 | JP |
2000057213 | Feb 2000 | JP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020095300 A1 | Jul 2002 | US |