Automated aggregation and comparison of business spending relative to similar businesses

[0001] This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/331,507, entitled “Automated Aggregation and Comparison of Individual Spending Relative to Population of Similar Users,” by Jeffrey P. Zimmerman, filed on Jan. 13, 2006, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

[0002] The present invention is related to U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 11/388,414 (Attorney Docket Number 10024), for “Associating Multiple Categories with Single Payee or Payor in Financial Software Application,” filed Mar. 24, 2006, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

[0003] The present invention relates generally to systems and methods for comparing financial information of a business entity with that of others. A financial manager of a business entity may be able to learn about the general business spending of the entity, but may find it difficult to determine whether the entity is over-spending relative to other entities. Thus, it is desirable to be able to compare the spending transactions of a business entity with those of similar entities by category, by time period, and by other attributes such as payee.

[0004] One approach to allow a business entity to compare their spending transactions with those of others is to provide it with average business spending data gathered by market researchers. This approach is inadequate because many factors affect business spending, such as location of the business, type of business, demographic or geographic segments of the target customers, to name only a few. Comparing the spending of a business with average business spending makes little sense in helping the business to spot over-spending. This approach is also inadequate because businesses cannot compare their spending by category with average business spending, as the average business spending data do not provide categorized spending data. Also, market researchers tend to value such business spending information highly, and small businesses usually do not have financial resources to pay for such data.

[0005] Another approach is to provide business entities with access to a central database storing spending transactions of many business entities. This raises concerns over privacy and proprietary information. Because the spending transactions stored do not include category information, businesses cannot compare their spending by attributes such as category. Also, unless a business can limit the comparison to similar businesses, the results may not be helpful.

[0006] In various embodiments, the present invention provides methods and systems for comparing spending transactions of a target business entity by category, payee, or other attributes, with those of other business entities. The spending transactions of the target business entity are first aggregated by at least one attribute, such as category, to generate an aggregated spending amount. The aggregated spending amount is then compared with the aggregated spending amount of the collection of business entities.

[0007] In one embodiment, the target business entity can limit business entities it compares with by providing selective criteria. A central server maintains a central categorization mapping database storing a collection of payees and their corresponding categories. When the central server receives spending transactions of the target business entity, it generates categorized spending transactions, aggregates the generated spending transactions by category into aggregated spending amounts, and saves the spending transactions. The central server retrieves and aggregates spending transactions of business entities meeting the selective criteria, and compares by category with the aggregated spending amounts of the target business entity. The central server then saves the comparison result, or makes the result available to the target business entity in the form of a report.

[0008] In another embodiment, spending transactions are aggregated locally in a client computer of the business entities by generating aggregated spending amounts based on categorization mapping data downloaded from a central server. The aggregated spending amounts are then uploaded to the central server. The central server compares the received aggregated spending amounts with aggregated spending amount of business entities meeting selective criteria. The central server then saves the comparison result, or makes the result available to the target business entity in the form of a report.

[0009] FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an architecture for a system for comparing spending transactions of a business entity with those of others according to one embodiment.

[0010] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram depicting a method for comparing spending transactions of a business entity by category with those of others according to one embodiment.

[0011] One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the structures and methods illustrated herein may be employed without departing from the principles of the invention described herein.

[0012] The present invention is now described more fully with reference to the accompanying Figures. The present invention may be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be complete and will fully convey principles of the invention to those of skilled in the art.

[0013] Embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in either a personal financial software package or an accounting software package. It can be implemented as a feature of a software package, or as a feature of a web-based application or website, or as a plug-in that can be installed and used in connection with an existing software application.

System Architecture

[0014] Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a block diagram illustrating the architecture of one embodiment of a system 100 for comparing spending transactions of a business entity with those of a collection of business entities. The system 100 includes a central server 110, a profile database 120, a transaction database 130, and a central categorization mapping database 140.

[0015] The central server 110 is connected to the profile database 120, the transaction database 130, and the central categorization mapping database 140. The central server 110 and the databases 120-140 can be in a single computer, or in separate computers communicating with each other through a network. The databases 120-140 may be a relational database or any other type of database that stores data used by the central server 110.

[0016] The central server 110 receives data from the network 160, and saves the received data to the databases 120-140 based on the content of the data. The central server 110 also processes requests received from the network 160, generates queries based on the requests, submits the queries to the databases 120-140, and retrieves query results. The central server 110 generates reports based on query results and sends the reports to the network 160.

[0017] The profile database 120 stores profiles of business entities. In one embodiment, a business entity can submit its profile to the central server 110. When the central server 110 receives the profile, the central server 110 saves the profile in the profile database 120.

[0018] The transaction database 130 stores spending transactions of business entities submitted to the central server 110. The central categorization mapping database 140 stores information mapping business entities to business categories. In some embodiments, a business entity can be related to more than one category.

[0019] The system 100 is communicatively coupled to the network 160 and client computers 150a, 150b, and 150c, as indicated by dotted lines. The network 160 may be a wired, a wireless network, or a combination thereof. The network 160 may be a public network, a private network, or a combination thereof. Examples of the network 160 include the Internet, an intranet, a cellular network, a local-area network (LAN), a wide-area network (WAN), or a combination thereof.

[0020] A client computer 150 can be used by a business entity to transmit information to the central server 110. The client computer 150 has access to information of the business entity. Such information can be stored in the client computer 150, an external storage device, or a computer accessible by the client computer 150. In some embodiments, only authorized personnel within the business entity can access the central server 110 via the client computer 150.

[0021] A client computer 150 can be associated with one or more business entities. Alternatively, a business entity can have multiple client computers 150 connected to the central server 110.

[0022] In another embodiment, a client computer 150 can be within an enterprise network of the associated business entity (also called a client network). The client network is connected to the network 160 through one or more routers and/or firewalls. There can be multiple computers on the client network functioning as a client computer 150 for the business entity.

[0023] The central server 110 and client computers 150 may be of conventional design, including a processor, an addressable memory, and other conventional features such as a display, local memory, input/output ports, and a network interface. In other embodiments one or more of the components of the central server 110 and client computers 150 may be located remotely and accessed via a network.

[0024] One skilled in the art will recognize that the system architecture illustrated in FIG. 1 is merely exemplary, and that the invention may be practiced and implemented using many other architectures and environments.

Method

[0025] Referring now to FIG. 2, there is shown a flow diagram depicting a method for comparing spending transactions of a target business entity by category with those of other business entities as specified in selective criteria in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. The steps of the process illustrated in FIG. 2 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software. In one embodiment, the steps of FIG. 2 may be performed by one or more components of the architecture shown in FIG. 1, although one skilled in the art will recognize that the method could be performed by systems having different architectures as well.

[0026] The central server 110 receives 210 a profile, spending transactions, selective criteria, and aggregative criteria from the target business entity via the client computer 150a. The profile and spending transactions are of the target business entity. In one embodiment, in order for the central server 110 to accept profile and spending transactions of a business entity, the business entity needs to subscribe to the central server 110. The subscription may require the business entity to provide its profile information.

[0027] In one embodiment, the client computer 150a sends such data to the central server 110 when authorized personnel within the business entity requests a report comparing the spending transactions of the business entity with those of subscribed business entities. Alternatively, the client computer 150a sends such data automatically and periodically (e.g., monthly) or whenever the client computer 150a is connected to the network 160, or in response to some other trigger event(s). The ability to automatically and periodically receive 210 spending transactions allows the central server 110 to maintain up-to-date spending transactions of subscribed business entities. Therefore, a target subscribed business entity can compare its spending transactions with up-to-date spending transactions of a collection of subscribed business entities. It is noted that the collection of subscribed business entities can include the target subscribed business entity.

[0028] The profile data can include any type of data, including for example business name, business address, ZIP code, annual profit, size of payroll, number of employees, tax filing status, bank, age of the business, type of the business, and/or targeted customers. Such profile data can be uploaded each time the client computer 150a uploads data. Alternatively, in one embodiment, the profile data is only uploaded once, and subsequently uploaded data can include a profile ID in lieu of some or all of the profile data.

[0029] The spending transactions include payee information, date of transaction, amount of transaction, and the like. The table below illustrates some exemplary spending transactions of a company named Small Hi-Tech Co.

	Payee	Date	Amount
	AT&T	Mar. 29, 2006	$230.30
	Staples	Mar. 24, 2006	$356.63
	Half Moon Bay Catering	Mar. 31, 2006	$273.16
	Staples	Mar. 21, 2006	$136.59
	PG&E	Mar. 21, 2006	$542.77

[0030] As shown above, Small Hi-Tech Co. paid $230.30 to AT&T for phone and Internet services on Mar. 29, 2006. It paid $356.63 and $136.59 to Staples on Mar. 21 and Mar. 24, 2006, respectively, for office supplies. Small Hi-Tech Co. spent $273.16 for food catering service from Half Moon Bay Catering. The target business entity also incurred a monthly cost of $542.77 for utility from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

[0031] Alternatively, the spending transactions may already be aggregated by time period, such as month of transaction, before being received 210 by the central server 110, as illustrated by the table below. This approach can alleviate privacy concerns of the target business entity and reduce network traffic.

	Payee	Date	Amount
	AT&T	March, 2006	$230.30
	Half Moon Bay Catering	March, 2006	$273.16
	Staples	March, 2006	$493.22
	PG&E	March, 2006	$542.77

[0032] As shown above, the two spending transactions incurred in March, 2006 with Staples are aggregated into one transaction.

[0033] The optional selective criteria specify what kind of business entities for the target business entity to compare with. For example, a small Silicon Valley high-tech start-up company might be compared with other high-tech business entities located in the same geographic region and having less than 30 employees. Alternatively, the selective criteria can limit the comparing group to be customers of a specific bank and/or by other criteria.

[0034] The optional aggregative criteria specify how the spending transactions should be aggregated. For example, it may be desirable to compare the spending of the target business entity by category with that of the subscribed business entities. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to only aggregate the spending transactions on time and payee. For example, it may be desirable to compare the annual spending of the target business entity on PG&E utility bills with that of the subscribed business entities who are also customers of PG&E.

[0035] The optional selective criteria and aggregative criteria can be set by authorized personnel within the target business entity in the request for a report, by the client computer 150a, or by the central server 110 based (for example) on selective criteria and/or aggregative criteria previously used to generate a report for the target business entity.

[0036] When the aggregative criteria specify the spending transactions to be aggregated by category, the central server 110 generates 220 categorized spending transactions based on the central categorization mapping database 140. The central server 110 queries the central categorization mapping database 140, retrieves categories corresponding to the payees of the spending transactions of the target business entity, and generates 220 categorized spending transactions based on the received spending transactions and the retrieved categories.

[0037] When the spending transactions of the target business entity include payees not present in the central categorization mapping database 140, the central server 110 can prompt the user (usually an authorized employee of the target business entity) to provide such information, and add such payee-category information to the central categorization mapping database 140. Alternatively, the central server 110 can check whether a profile of the payee is stored in the profile database 120. If a profile of the payee is located, the central server 110 can determine the category of the payee based on the information in the profile. In some embodiments, a payee can be mapped into more than one category. When the central server 110 processes a spending transaction having a payee associated with multiple categories, the central server 110 can prompt the user to choose a category for the spending transaction. More information about associating a payee with multiple categories can be found in the previously referenced U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/388,414 (Attorney Docket Number 10024), titled “Associating Multiple Categories with Single Payee or Payor in Financial Software Application.”

[0038] The table below illustrates an example of categorized spending transactions for Small Hi-Tech Co. based on the spending transactions illustrated earlier.

	Payee	Category	Date	Amount
	AT&T	Service	Mar. 29, 2006	$230.30
	Staples	Office Supply	Mar. 24, 2006	$356.63
	Half Moon	Service	Mar. 31, 2006	$273.16
	Bay Catering
	Staples	Office Supply	Mar. 21, 2006	$136.59
	PG&E	Utility	Mar. 21, 2006	$542.77

[0039] As shown above, the payee AT&T and Half Moon Bay Catering are associated with the Service category, Staples is associated with the Office Supply category, and PG&E is associated with the Utility category.

[0040] The central server 110 aggregates 230 the spending transactions of the target business entity according to the aggregative criteria. The aggregative criteria include aggregation by time, by category, or by other attributes, such as payee. The table below illustrates the resultant exemplary data of Small Hi-Tech Co. after aggregating 230 the categorized spending transactions by category.

		Aggregated Spending
	Category	Amount of March 2006
	Utility	$542.77
	Office Supply	$493.22
	Service	$503.46

[0041] As shown above, the central server 110 aggregates 230 the spending transactions of Small Hi-Tech Co. with AT&T and Half Moon Bay Catering because both of them are in the Service category. Two transactions with Staples are aggregated in the Office Supply category, and the transaction with PG&E is in the Utility category.

[0042] In another embodiment, the aggregation 230 of the spending transactions is performed at the client computer 150a before the central server 110 receives 210 the spending transactions. Such aggregation 230 can be by time, by payee, or by other attributes such as category.

[0043] When the spending transactions are aggregated 230 by category, the client computer 150a stores a local categorization mapping database, generates categorized spending transactions based on the local categorization mapping database, and aggregates the categorized spending transactions by category in a process similar to the one for the central server 110 described above. The client computer 150a then uploads the aggregated spending amounts to the central server 110.

[0044] The local categorization mapping database can act as a persistent store of categorization mapping data that is periodically synchronized with the central categorization mapping database 140. Alternatively, the local categorization mapping database can be used as a temporary local store of information downloaded from the central server 110 and kept only for a short period of time, such as during a session.

[0045] The central server 110 saves 240 the profile received 210 from the client computer 150a in the profile database 120, and saves 240 the spending transactions in the transaction database 130. For privacy purposes, the central server 110 can be configured to save only the aggregated spending transactions, unless the target business entity chooses otherwise. This approach can alleviate proprietary information leakage concerns of the target business entity. The central server 110 can also be configured to save the selective criteria and/or aggregative criteria.

[0046] The central server 110 identifies 250 profiles in the profile database 120 meeting the selective criteria, and retrieves spending transactions from the transaction database 130 corresponding to the qualified profiles.

[0047] For each qualified profile, the central server 110 aggregates 260 the corresponding retrieved spending transactions into aggregated spending amounts based on the aggregative criteria. The central server 110 then derives 260 a set of representative aggregated spending amounts from the aggregated spending amounts corresponding to all qualified profiles. The representative aggregated spending amounts can be, for example, an average (a median, or a sum) of aggregated spending amounts corresponding to all qualified profiles. One skilled in the art will recognize that other forms of aggregation can be used for generating meaningful aggregated data for comparison purposes.

[0048] The central server 110 compares 270 the aggregated spending amounts of the target business entity with the representative aggregated spending amounts, generates 280 a report based on the comparison result, and then makes 290 the report available to authorized personnel within the target business entity and/or others.

[0049] Alternatively, the central server 110 compares 270 the aggregated spending amounts of the target business entity not only with the representative aggregated spending amounts, but also with the average spending amounts of all subscribed business entities. The table below illustrates an example of a generated report based on such comparison.

		Average of San Francisco Bay
		Area high-tech companies	General
	Amount for	with less than 30 employees	Average for
Category	March 2006	for March 2006	March 2006
Utility	$542.77	$500.76	$230.93
Office	$493.22	$600.63	$327.34
Supply
Service	$503.46	$230.03	$102.68

[0050] Alternatively, the central server 110 compares 270 the aggregated spending amounts of the target business entity as percentages of its total spending with those of business entities meeting the selective criteria. The table below illustrates an example of a generated report based on such comparison.

		% of Total	Average of San Francisco Bay
		Spending	Area Staples customers with
	Payee	in 2006	less than 30 employees for 2006
	PG&E	4.25%	2.16%
	Staples	4.16%	5.63%

[0051] Alternatively, the central server 110 can send comparison results to the client computer 150a, and the client computer 150a generates the report locally. Also, instead. of making 290 the report available to authorized personnel within the target business entity, the central server 110 can save the report and/or the comparison result.

[0052] When the profile database 120 and the transaction database 130 are initially set up, there may not be enough spending transactions to conduct any meaningful comparisons. Thus, in one embodiment, the central server 110 uses general spending data to compare by category with financial data of the target business entity. Such general average data can include, for example, general spending data for each category.

[0053] The above method can also be applied for a business entity to compare its payroll information, tax information, and other financial information such as profit and gross income, with those of other business entities. Such comparisons can help the business entity identify its strengths and weaknesses and improve its performance accordingly.

[0054] The present invention has been described in particular detail with respect to one possible embodiment. Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced in other embodiments. First, the particular naming of the components, capitalization of terms, the attributes, data structures, or any other programming or structural aspect is not mandatory or significant, and the mechanisms that implement the invention or its features may have different names, formats, or protocols. Further, the system may be implemented via a combination of hardware and software, as described, or entirely in hardware elements. Also, the particular division of functionality between the various system components described herein is merely exemplary, and not mandatory; functions performed by a single system component may instead be performed by multiple components, and functions performed by multiple components may instead performed by a single component.

[0055] Some portions of above description present the features of the present invention in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on information. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those of skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. These operations, while described functionally or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs. Furthermore, it has also proven convenient at times, to refer to these arrangements of operations as modules or by functional names, without loss of generality.

[0056] Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the above discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “determining” or “displaying” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.

[0057] Certain aspects of the present invention include process steps and instructions described herein in the form of an algorithm. It should be noted that the process steps and instructions of the present invention could be embodied in software, firmware or hardware, and when embodied in software, could be downloaded to reside on and be operated from different platforms used by real time network operating systems.

[0058] The present invention also relates to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored on a computer readable medium that can be accessed by the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, the computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.

[0059] The algorithms and operations presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose systems may also be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these systems will be apparent to those of skill in the, along with equivalent variations. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language. It is appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the present invention as described herein, and any references to specific languages are provided for invention of enablement and best mode of the present invention.

[0060] The present invention is well suited to a wide variety of computer network systems over numerous topologies. Within this field, the configuration and management of large networks comprise storage devices and computers that are communicatively coupled to dissimilar computers and storage devices over a network, such as the Internet.

[0061] Finally, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the inventive subject matter. Accordingly, the disclosure of the present invention is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the following claims.