US 7,433,829 B2Grant

System and method for managing global risk

Issue Date:2008-10-07

•15 Claims

•14 Drawing Sheets

Abstract

A system for tracking compliance to risk management policies for a given enterprise that provides risk status feedback on hierarchical managerial levels. The system notifies users of potential problems with non-compliance of enterprise policies set on a high level of enterprise management, and prompts the users to take steps to achieve compliance. The enterprise policies are designed to protect the enterprise from various forms of risk associated with enterprise activities. Accordingly, minimizing risk across enterprise operations, subdivisions, projects and applications produces an overall benefit of reduced liability or exposure to liability for the entire enterprise. A compliance status is provided by business groups at all levels of the enterprise, and consolidated for each management level to which the risk status is promoted. Higher level managers can view summaries of risk management status for the business divisions, and select particular statuses to view compliance among various business groups under the manager's responsibility.

Metadata

Assignee

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Inventors

Evelyn Borgia
Jodi Miller
Graham De Gottal
Christine O'Connor

Application Information

Application Number:US 10/012,934

Filing Date:2001-12-10

Priority Date:2000-12-12

Art Unit:3692

Classifications

IPC:

G06F9/44

Patent Drawings (14 sheets)

Description

Related Applications

[0001] This application is based upon and claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 60/254,847, filed on Dec. 12, 2000, to which a claim of priority is hereby made.

Background of the Invention

[0002] 1. Field of the Invention

[0003] The present invention relates to a system and method for managing global risk, and more particularly relates to a globally accessible system for evaluating variables related to risk associated with a given project or enterprise.

[0004] 2. Related Prior Art

[0005] In any given enterprise it is often desirable to evaluate the risk associated with particular activities. Risk can be determined in a number of different ways, for instance based on possible positive and negative outcomes, and can be assigned various levels of importance for a given project.

[0006] For example, an enterprise may wish to evaluate its exposure with regard to regulatory compliance. Various individuals within the enterprise having responsibility related to regulatory compliance generally prefer to have a working knowledge of the procedures in place to produce compliance, and the status of various efforts to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Whenever a new task is undertaken in a given area related to regulatory compliance, the person or persons initiating the project for completing the task may be required to assess the risk involved with implementing a solution. The persons knowledgeable about the task and goals may be required to answer questions on a questionnaire or otherwise fill out a form to evaluate the risk associated with the particular task with respect to associated regulatory requirements and for reporting purposes. The task may be evaluated for risk associated with liability to the enterprise if a customer makes a claim related to regulatory sections with which the enterprise has not complied, for example. The individuals may be asked to rate various levels of risk from low to high, and provide other indicia related to ranking of risk factors.

[0007] Another aspect of risk management relates to procedures established by the enterprise, with accompanying directives by management to comply with the procedures. A given manager responsible for a particular department may wish to establish the level of risk associated with activities in the department, and may formulate some system for evaluating and reporting risks, that can be used by lower level managers, and project managers, for instance. For example, on a periodic basis, such as quarterly, the managers for a given department might be required to communicate to upper management the various risk factors and risk evaluations that are related to computer information systems operations. Such risk factors can include security, backup procedures and data retaining procedures, for example. The risk factor related information can be provided through various forms or questionnaires for evaluating risk and risk factors associated with projects for which they are responsible. These forms and questionnaires can be compiled into reports and other summary data to provide a department manager with a fairly good idea of the level of compliance with various enterprise procedures.

[0008] Typically, if a group within the department is not in compliance with the established procedures for the enterprise, this information can be so noted in the summary or compiled data presented to the department manager. In such a case, the department manager can establish plans to bring the group into compliance, and monitor the status of the group in progressing with the plan.

[0009] The impact of evaluating the risk for a given enterprise can have serious consequences with regard to the success, or profitability of the enterprise. For example, if an enterprise is found not to be in compliance with regulatory requirements, the enterprise may be susceptible to penalties such as large fines, lawsuits, or potentially intense scrutiny by regulatory agencies. In addition, if the enterprise has established procedures that are designed to protect the enterprise from liability, or otherwise assure that levels of risk within the enterprise are minimized, the enterprise can be exposed to tremendous liability if the procedures are not properly followed. Also, the enterprise may suffer further liability if it is unable to ascertain, or provide proof of compliance with established procedures, in the context of a lawsuit, for example. Moreover, the enterprise may suffer the loss of a competitive advantage if sensitive data is compromised, for example.

[0010] Accordingly, large enterprises that may be vulnerable to a number of different types of risk typically attempt to ascertain the level of exposure to given risks at various levels within the enterprise, and minimize the exposure to risk that the enterprise may potentially suffer. In addition, the enterprise may establish a reporting system in which the degree of compliance with established procedures or regulatory requirements is readily accessible. Finally, the enterprise may wish to establish a plan to bring various groups or departments into compliance with procedures or regulatory requirements, and track the progress of the plan as the group or department moves towards compliance.

[0011] In typical enterprises, these types of reports and statuses regarding compliance with procedures or regulatory requirements to avoid risk are often somewhat haphazard, and inconsistent. For example, some managers may find the requirement of filling out forms and answering questionnaires to be an inefficient use of time, and fail to effectively complete risk assessments. Furthermore, in a department where the manager fails to take note of the potential problems caused by failing to evaluate the risk associated with the department's activities, it is often the case that other members of the department will similarly fail to complete assessments associated with risk of activities within the department.

[0012] It is also the case that the tools of these risk assessment type systems are form intensive, and inconsistent between various enterprise locations, for example. It is also often difficult to track and maintain the data that can be obtained from forms related to assessment of risk. For example, forms containing information related to risk assessment must be gathered, and the information must be compiled, in order to be useful as a risk assessment tool. The transfer of paper documents within a large scale enterprise is often a difficult task, and can lead to issues involving document storage space.

[0013] Solutions to overcome the difficulties associated with paper based reporting systems for use with risk assessment often include the application of computer systems that are designed to permit a number of individuals responsible for risk assessment to enter data online. Once the data related to risk assessment is in electronic format, tasks such as data compilation, reporting and assessment can be accomplished with greatly reduced overhead and savings with regard to use of valuable resources. However, systems in which individuals enter information online related to risk assessment suffer from some of the same drawbacks as the paper based systems. For example, separate departments and locations within a given enterprise may develop their own online tools for inputting information related to risk assessment. Accordingly, it is difficult to consolidate information across departments or enterprise locations. This drawback in obtaining consistency across departments is highly noticeable when various groups, departments or locations within an enterprise continue to use a paper based risk assessment system, while other groups, departments or locations use a variety of online type systems. Consolidating information related to risk assessment in such an environment can require a tremendous amount of resources, and yet still achieve inconsistent results.

[0014] Additionally, if a group or department is not in compliance with a given protocol, devising a plan to bring the entity into compliance with a particular protocol can be problematic. Managing the progress status of any plan to achieve compliance can be troublesome and fraught with some of the same difficulties as accumulating risk assessment information in the first place. For example, the progress of the plan may be reported inconsistently, or suffer from the perception of being a low priority task. It is also difficult for department managers to obtain feedback regarding compliance with protocols, for example, in a timely manner. For example, if a given department must be in regulatory compliance within a specific date, it may be very difficult for the department manager to evaluate whether the department is on schedule for meeting the regulatory requirements.

[0015] Accordingly, a system for assessing risk on a widespread and consistent basis, that can also provide reporting, planning for compliance, assignment of responsibility and accountability and tracking of compliance plans is highly desirable. Such a system, and method for accomplishing the system, is provided by the system and method according to the present invention.

Summary of the Invention

[0016] It is an object of the present invention to overcome the drawbacks associated with the prior art.

[0017] Briefly stated, according to the present invention there is provided a system and method for determining compliance with enterprise policies and regulatory requirements as an auditing feature based on questionnaire responses that tracks steps to move towards compliance. One or more responsible parties for a given project are identified or appointed to be responsible for responding to compliance questionnaires. The parties fill in questionnaires designed to focus on various features of risk assessment for specific aspects of a given project. For example, the responsible parties for a project that includes features that require data storage and computer information system access would be asked to rate their disaster recovery readiness. The rating for disaster recovery readiness may depend upon such factors as whether information is stored off site on a regular basis, intervals in which system backups are made, robustness of computer recovery systems and so forth.

[0018] Once a questionnaire has been completed, the project can be given an overall rating of exposure to various forms of risk. Areas of risk can be acknowledged, prompting a sensitivity rating, such as severe, negligible and so forth. Once risk is acknowledged, a plan for reducing the risk or bringing the project into compliance can be formulated, and progress towards compliance can be tracked. Alternatively, an identified exposure to risk can be disclaimed through the system, which requires sign off by various higher level managers and administrators.

[0019] Once risk assessment is completed for various projects, a higher level manager can review exposure to risk on a broad perspective, and through a user interface, expand particular areas where high risk is identified as a problem. A risk category that is expanded reveals the different departments and/or projects and their associated risks or compliance statuses. The higher level manager can thus identify particular projects or activity areas where risk exposure exists.

[0020] The sensitivity of the risk factors can also be gauged and used to develop an overall risk rating. For example, a person responsible for assessing the risk related to a particular project is asked to rate the sensitivity of various hypothetical events such as competitive disclosure, financial loss or impact on perception of customers.

[0021] Requirements for compliance with regulatory demands and regulatory agencies are built into the risk management tool. Project managers and higher level managers can determine in a glance if a particular project is in compliance with regulatory guidelines. Higher level managers have broader access than lower level mangers to risk assessment information according to level of seniority. For example, a middle level manager can see all the risk assessment factors for each department/project that they manage, but can see no risk information beyond their allotted level. A high level manager can view all the information available to the mid level manager, in addition to any other manager or group for which the high level manager has responsibility. Accordingly, access to the system is provided on a secure basis that is reflective of the user's level of seniority.

[0022] The system also provides security features such as logon IDs and passwords. Access levels are assigned based on seniority or management status, and provide a mechanism for a secure review of risk exposure and compliance. Once data is entered into the system it cannot be modified unless the user has proper authorization. The system generates reports to inform persons or groups about their compliance status. A search tool is available for locating various businesses, compliance areas, risk status levels and so forth. The system can also be used for training users on risk management policies, how risks are evaluated and how paths to compliance can be determined.

[0023] The system according to the present invention thus provides immediate compliance verification, a calendar of events, allows shared best practices and corrective action plans and provides a mechanism for risk acknowledgement communicated to other members of a hierarchy. The system can be used in any hierarchical organization including such risk sensitive enterprises as military units, space missions and highly financed business endeavors.

Brief Description of the Drawings

[0024] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing various system components and interconnectivity according to the present invention;

[0025] FIGS. 2A and 2B show navigation paths for reviewing risk related data according to the present invention;

[0026] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating the rating procedure for various risks;

[0027] FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating operation of risk acknowledgement procedures;

[0028] FIG. 5 is an illustration of form for risk acknowledgement;

[0029] FIG. 6 is a chart illustrating an example of sensitivity ratings according to particular events related to a business;

[0030] FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating the process by which a non-compliant risk process is elevated to another level of management;

[0031] FIG. 8 is a depiction of a risk management summary display for a business group;

[0032] FIG. 9 is a chart illustrating various parameters related to risk management organized by business operation;

[0033] FIG. 10 is a chart illustrating risk management status for a subdivision of a business operation;

[0034] FIG. 11 is a flow diagram describing a process for adding a new application to the risk management system according to the present invention; and

[0035] FIG. 12 is a flow diagram showing a process for obtaining access to the system according to the present invention.

[0036] Other features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the following description of the invention that refers to the accompanying drawings.

Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments

[0037] Referring now to FIG. 1, a diagram of system components and their interconnection is shown generally as system 16. A number of users 120 are able to access system 16 through a communication network 122. Users 120 connect to a communication server 104, for which connection access is granted by a system administrator 106. An application server 108 is connected to communication server 104 and provides users 120 with formatted application information that is transmitted to users 120 through communication server 104. Application server 108 is also connected to a database server 118 that operates to access and collect data related to the application. Database server 118 is connected to, and can access, a database 116 to retrieve, store and modify application related information. Database server 118 is also connected to a tape drive 114 to permit application information to be backed up and stored for safekeeping.

[0038] Database server 118 is aware of a number of business operations or projects for which a risk management assessment can be made. Business operation 102 is shown coupled to database server 118 as an example of a business operation or project that falls under the scope of risk management system 16. Business operation 102 has associated with it business operation information resources 100, which provide data for business operation and projects within business operation 102. In a given business operation, a number of projects may be active at any given time, as illustrated by a project 110. Project 110 has associated with it project information resources 112, that provide project related data and data management. Project 110 can also have a number of applications that support the project operations, as illustrated by a project application 123. Applicant information resources 124 are accessible by application 123 as a data resource for management of application information. The system of the present invention uses application 123 as the basis for tracking system information. For example, each application is defined under a business project, which is in turn defined under a business operation. Accordingly, changes to application 123 are tracked throughout the system, and are recorded in, for example, a log file. The system provides a search function to locate various applications, and includes functions to delete applications or change information related to application 123.

[0039] Risk management system 16 assesses risk related to each application 123, and provides summary risk information for components such as application 123, project 110, and business operation 102, for example. Application server 108 provides users 120 with status of the various risks associated with business operation 102, project 110 and applications 123. The information provided to users 120 about risk associated with various applications is accessed through database server 118. Application server 108 also provides an interface for access to risk management system 16 through a display viewable by users 120 once they access the system through communication server 104.

[0040] Referring now to FIG. 2A, an illustration of views and navigation paths available to users 120 is shown. Users are registered with risk management system 16 through user registration database 20. Registration database 20 can accommodate local and global users to permit access to a login home page 22. Login home page 22 serves as a point of entry and overall frame of reference for risk management system 16. Through home page 22, users 120 can view a risk status summary for an entire business line through a business operations status display 23, presuming user 120 has been granted authorized executive level access to the system. Business operations status display 23 provides indications of levels of risk associated with various activities on a summary level for given business operations. The statuses of risks for various applications and projects are escalated, consolidated and summarized for display in status display 23. The process by which risk statuses associated with projects and applications becomes escalated, or promoted, is discussed more fully below.

[0041] If user 120 wishes to obtain details about risk indications shown in status display 23, they can make a selection to navigate to business operation subdivision status 24, for example by choosing a business operation link. Subdivision status 24 is also accessible directly from home page 22 by users with lower seniority than the user authorized for status display 23. Subdivision status 24 provides risk assessment information summarized by subdivision level for a business operation. For example, a business operation may be broken into a number of departments, each of which may have a variety of projects and applications for which a cumulative risk assessment may be made. The cumulative risk assessments are displayed in subdivision status 24. A manager responsible for a given operational subdivision can view subdivision risk status information through authorized managerial access in a subdivision status display 25. Subdivision status display 25 is also viewable by executive users with access to status display 23. Accordingly, each executive or manager has access to all risk status information associated with their management level, as well as all lower business subdivisions for which they have responsibility.

[0042] If a user selects a particular subdivision of the operation from subdivision status 24, a display of all projects that are active in the selected subdivision is provided in a project status 26. As with the upper business divisions, a project manager is given appropriate authorization to view project risk status in a project status display 27. Users with access to status displays 23 and 25 also have access to project status display 27. If the user selects a particular project displayed within project status 26, a number of applications associated with the selected project are displayed in an application status 28. Users responsible for particular applications can view an application status display 29 associated with applications for which they have been granted authorization. Individuals that have been assigned roles with respect to particular applications are displayed in an application role display 30. The roles involved with a particular application include an information owner, a project manager and so forth. An information owner has the responsibilities of being aware of applicable control policies, assessment of application security and implementation of maintenance, availability and integrity processes, for example. They are knowledgeable about application confidentiality issues, other assigned role members, and can grant authority for application access. Application status 28 also provides information related to particular applications such as the application platform and location.

[0043] Each application has associated with it a number of policies for handling technology and information as provided on an enterprise basis. An example of an information policy provides the requirements for disaster recovery preparedness, including business continuity. The policy may require a plan accessible to a crisis team for recovery, for instance, with the plan being placed in a repository and periodically updated and tested. The level of compliance with the policies associated with a given application provides the associated level of risk for the application. For example, if a policy provides for the privacy of information for certain sensitive applications, a small degree of compliance with the policy may create a large amount of risk. As policies are created, updated or deleted, affected applications must be reevaluated for risk assessments pertinent to the policy changes.

[0044] The policies involved with an application selected from application status 28 are shown in a policy status 31. Policy status 31 provides a summary view of the policies associated with the selected application, and the present status of the policies with regard to risk assessment is shown in a policy status display 32. For each policy, a given application can be in compliance or not in compliance, as discussed in more detail below. If a given application is not in compliance with a policy, an indication is provided in policy status display 32. The users responsible for assessing risk of non-compliant applications, as designated in application role display 30, are required to provide a risk acknowledgement for the policy, as indicated in a policy risk acknowledgement 33. The responsible user is asked in policy risk acknowledgement 33 to provide a path for obtaining compliance, or to obtain approval and acknowledgement of the issues associated with continuing non-compliance. A discussion of the factors involved in completing risk acknowledgement for a given policy is provided in greater detail below.

[0045] Referring now to FIG. 2B, a diagram of risk assessment related to regulatory requirements is shown. As with the general business risks associated with the diagram in FIG. 2A, users of the risk management system are first registered to be able to access the system. Users can be located locally, or on a remote, global basis as indicated by user registrations 18, 19. Once a user logs into the system, a list of various business operations is displayed, as indicated in business operation status 42. Business operation status 42 shows a list of business operations, and provides a business operation status display 43. Business operation status display 43 shows a summarized set of risk assessment factors associated with regulatory compliance status. Depending on the user's access permissions, a login to the system can place the user at a level equivalent to that of home page 22 or project status 26, for example. In any case, it should be apparent that business operation status 42 can be merged with any of the entry screens according to access permission levels, so that both regulatory and business related risk statuses can be displayed on one screen.

[0046] Among the risk factors that are displayed is an indication of compliance with federal regulations or requirements. The user can select a regulatory risk status associated with a given business operation from business operation status 42. Once the user selects a regulatory status related to a particular business operation, a regulator compliance display 41 is provided for viewing. Each subdivision in regulatory compliance display 41 has several risk assessment components, for which summary indications of levels of risk are displayed. Each subdivision has a technology compliance status 34, a business compliance status 35 and a corrective action status 36. Each status 34-36 indicates levels of compliance with risk management policies, in addition to the corrective action status for a given subdivision. The status indicators can be selected for further detailed examination of the status and its derivation. For example, selecting technology compliance status 34 produces a technology question/response display 38.

[0047] If a given business operation is in compliance with federal regulations, the regulatory indicator displayed in business operation status 42 reflects a positive status as a compilation of responses to risk questionnaires. The risk questionnaires can be viewed as shown by technology question/response display 38, a business question/response display 39 and corrective action plan status 40. Displays 38, 39 show questions related to assessing risk for given activities within a particular subdivision and business operation that affect the state of compliance with federal regulatory requirements. The responses to the questions posed in displays 38, 39 are yes/no type questions, for example, with attendant comments discussing the response. For example, a positive risk assessment can be obtained even if a risk assessment question is answered in the negative, and the comment section describes procedures put in place to obtain compliance. When the risk management assessor reviews the questionnaire, she can assign a status of compliant, non-compliant or “warning” for the particular subdivision. Accordingly, a technology or business display 38, 39 having negative responses for compliance, together with compliance plans deemed inappropriate by a reviewer, results in a non-compliant indication for a subdivision.

[0048] Selecting corrective action status 36 produces corrective action plan status 40, which outlines a path for obtaining compliance with regulatory requirements. If a risk management review results in the decision that the corrective action plan is inadequate, the compliance indicator for the particular subdivision will indicate non-compliance. If the corrective action plan is acceptable after risk management review, the compliance status for the subdivision indicates compliance with regulatory requirements.

[0049] It should be apparent that while various breakouts of organization structures are shown and described according to the present invention, many types of organizational structures are possible. The present invention works equally well, for example, if an organization is arranged as a partnership or limited liability corporation. In addition, an organization structure that is “flat,” or with only very few levels of managerial structures can benefit from the present invention. It should also be apparent that while the regulatory requirements discussed above are based on federal regulations, any type of regulatory or other agency requirements can be used as compliance goals.

[0050] Technology and business questionnaires that make up and result from displays 38, 39 are also time/date stamped with the author of the questionnaire responses noted. Information related to the author of the response is also available, such as the business division and operation to which they belong, and contact information. For each of the business operations, the executive or manager in charge of the business operation is able to display regulatory compliance status for the business operation on a summary level, as indicated with a business operation status display 43. Status display 43 is limited to access by the particular executive or manager responsible for the business operation for which the risk status is provided. The executive or manager for the business operation is authorized to view status display 43 by virtue of providing the appropriate logon information when accessing the system initially.

[0051] Similarly, a subdivision executive or manager can view only the regulatory compliance risk status for their particular subdivision through a regulatory status display 37. Regulatory status display 37 provides a compilation of risk compliant statuses for the various projects and applications associated with the subdivision for which the manager or executive has responsibility. Similarly, business operation status display 43 provides a compilation of risk compliant status for a business operation that includes all subdivisions within the business operation. Accordingly, an executive or manager with authorization to access status display 43 also has access to risk status view 37, associated with particular subdivisions under the business operation.

[0052] Referring now to FIG. 3, a flow diagram for determining the status of risk indicators for providing a state of health for a business operation, subdivision, project and so forth is shown. The process of determining a state of health is identified in step 50 and begins in step 51 with obtaining and identifying compliance related information for a given application. While the invention is illustrated in FIG. 3 as being oriented toward applications, it should be apparent that the other types of risk related activities are contemplated. For example, the activities associated with a business operation, subdivision or project are also contemplated. In addition, activities related to various aspects of business are considered to be available for application of the present invention. For example, marketing, sales, research and engineering activities are all considered to be within the purview of risk assessment according to the present invention.

[0053] Pertinent applicable business and technology control policies are obtained and applied comparatively to determine whether the criteria for the control policies is met by the state of the compliance information associated with the application in step 52. Any risk acknowledgement information, including approved responses and status of compliance plans, is also obtained in step 52. The critical business aspects and sensitivity related to various portions of the application are obtained and applied in step 53. Criticality ratings for the various risk related aspects of the application are discussed in more detail below. The sensitivity of an application is also discussed in determining how much risk to assign various applications, and when non-compliance is escalated to a higher managerial level.

[0054] In step 54, a self-assessment questionnaire response is obtained, consisting of a series of questions that must be answered with appropriate responses to produce compliance. It should be apparent that the assessment can be conducted interactively online, for example, but is not to be considered so limited. For example, the assessment can be accomplished through the use of paper forms, or a combination of paper and electronic media. After the assessment, the process then proceeds to a decision step 55 in which a determination is made as to whether the application in question has been assessed for risk compliance. If an assessment has not been completed, the process branches from decision step 55 to a pending approval indicator 56. Pending approval indicator 56 indicates that further entry is required for one or more inputs, or that the application has not passed completely through the assessment and approval process. If an assessment has been made, decision step 55 branches to a comparison step 57, in which the status of compliance is determined based on applicable control policies and self-assessment of application sensitivity and criticality.

[0055] In decision step 58 a determination is made on whether the application is in compliance, either by meeting all the requirements of the applicable control policies in the various risk assessments, or by having an approved process or plan in place to achieve compliance. If the application is compliant, decision step 58 branches to compliant indicator step 59. Compliant indicator step 59 provides a visual indication that is displayed to the user to show that the particular application is in compliance with the guidelines established by the control policies.

[0056] If the application is not in compliance as determined in decision step 58, the process branches to decision step 60, where a determination is made on whether the institution of a new policy has prevented a particular application from being in compliance. If a new policy, or an amendment to an existing policy, has prevented compliance, the process branches to incomplete step 61, in which a visual indicator identifying the risk assessment as incomplete is displayed to the user. The process continues after incomplete step 61 to input step 65, in which the user can be prompted for additional input, or completion of policy questions that remain unanswered. Once the input or answers to policy questions are obtained, the process for determining the state of health with regard to risk assessment can be initiated from the beginning to obtain a further compliance indication result.

[0057] If a new policy or amendment to a current policy has not been made, as determined in decision step 60, the process continues with decision step 62, which determines whether a risk acknowledgement has been approved. Risk acknowledgement approval is needed when the strictures of a control policy have not been met and the risk is either deemed to be acceptable because of various issues of practicality, or a plan to achieve compliance has been formulated or is in progress. A risk management assessor reviews areas of non-compliance and the associated risk acknowledgements to provide approval if appropriate. If a risk acknowledgement is not appropriate for approval, decision step 62 branches to indicator step 63 in which an indication of critical lack of compliance is annunciated. Indicator step 63 provides a visual display to the user to inform them that they are (1) not in compliance and (2) have a non-approved risk acknowledgement. If a risk acknowledgement has been made and approved by a risk management assessor, decision step 62 branches to a warning indicator step 64. Warning indicator step 64 provides the user with a visual display showing that a risk exists because of non-compliance with one or more control policies, but the risk is either deemed acceptable for one or more reasons, or an approved plan is in place to achieve compliance.

[0058] It should be apparent that while the user is presented with a visual indication of risk status as a result of the process shown in FIG. 3, the status need not be a visual indication, but rather can be any kind of indicia that informs the user about the level of risk for a given application. For example, risk indications can be in the form of audible warnings or in a printed format. While the preferred embodiments of the present invention provides status indicators of different color, namely, green for compliant, amber for warning, red for critical, blue for incomplete and gray for pending approval, the present invention should not be considered to be so limited in general. For example, an indication of risk status based on indicators of varying shape can be used to inform users of risk status on electronic devices that do not have color displays. Alternately, a color and shape indication can be used in combination to permit the present system to be used in a number of platforms in a flexible manner. Numerous other forms of indicators should be apparent to those skilled in the art, which are not mentioned here for the sake of brevity, but should nevertheless be considered to be within the scope of the present invention.

[0059] Referring now to FIG. 4, a flow diagram of a process for obtaining risk acknowledgement is shown. The risk acknowledgement process begins at process identifier 70 and continues to decision step 71, in which an assessment of the critical nature of the application is made. If the application is not deemed to be highly critical, decision step 71 branches to result step 72, which indicates that no risk acknowledgement is needed and no compliance issues are raised. If result step 72 is reached, the risk status is essentially a non-event that is not promoted to higher levels of management or included in risk status summaries or compilations.

[0060] If it is determined in decision step 71 that a particular control policy is applicable to the given application, decision step 71 branches to proceed to decision step 73, in which a determination of compliance with applicable control policies is made. As discussed above, compliance with control policies takes into account application activities and assessments, as well as application sensitivity. If the application complies with the various applicable control policies, decision step 73 branches to result step 74, in which an indication of control policy compliance is set. This risk status indication set in result step 74 may be promoted to higher levels of management if the application, project, subdivision, etc. is identified as highly critical or highly sensitive, as discussed more fully below.

[0061] If the result of decision step 73 is that various aspects of the application do not comply with control policies, decision step 73 branches to proceed to decision step 75. This path through the flow diagram shown in FIG. 4 is exercised if the person responsible for assessing compliance of an application provides a negative answer in response to control policy related questions. A negative response to a control policy question indicates that the given application or project, etc. is not in compliance with one or more applicable control policies. Once the user submits a negative response, they are prompted to view another application with a similar platform in which risk acknowledgement or compliance processes are already in place.

[0062] Accordingly, in decision step 75 the user is allowed to select whether another compliant process should be considered. If the user wants to consider another available compliance process, also referred to as a best practice, decision step 75 branches to result step 76, in which the user can obtain a copy of the available compliance process. The copy of the compliance process is used in a process for risk acknowledgement and providing a plan to achieve compliance with the appropriate control policy. If the user chooses to adopt the processes available in result step 76, the compliance process continues to decision step 73, in which the application is again checked for compliance.

[0063] If the user chooses not to use available compliance processes to achieve compliance, decision step 75 branches to a series of risk acknowledgement related processes beginning with an application information step 77. Step 77 begins the process of risk acknowledgement by accepting information about the application including such items as the owner of the application or information, the business operation, the control policy that is the subject of the risk acknowledgement and so forth. Once all the background information related to the application and the noncompliance is gathered, the process proceeds to a step 78 in which the application and aspect of the application related to the control policy is rated for sensitivity. A sensitivity rating can be obtained from an aggregation of several sensitivity rating assessments. For example, the user can rate the application, or aspect of the application related to the control policy as: highly sensitive, sensitive, internal public and not applicable.

[0064] After providing a sensitivity rating in step 78, the process proceeds to an impact rating in step 79. The impact rating relates to potential outcomes for various types of abrogations of the control policy. For example, possible impact ratings include, on a scale from high impact to low impact: catastrophic; severe; moderate; and low. Following the impact rating, the process continues to step 80, in which the user is asked to rate the occurrence probability of a risk related event impacting the application related to non-compliance with the associated control policy. Selections for probability can be, for example: high; medium; and low. Once the rating factors in steps 78, 79 and 80 are entered, the procedure continues with step 81.

[0065] In step 81, the user is asked to justify the reasons for risk acknowledgement and enter information that can be transferred to a risk management assessor for review. The process then continues to step 82 in which the user is asked to input information related to compensation and control procedures that can reduce the risk of non-compliance with the control policy. Again, this information is input in a format that can be transferred to a risk management assessor for review. The process then continues with step 83, in which the user is asked to input information related to implementation of a plan to bring the application into compliance with the particular control policy. As with steps 81 and 82, the user inputs information in a format that can be transferred to a risk management assessor for review.

[0066] Once a user enters all of the information related to risk acknowledgement in steps 77-83, the risk acknowledgement information is submitted for review and approval in step 84. While the risk acknowledgement information is pending approval in step 84, any user accessing the risk status is presented with a visual indicator of the risk acknowledgement status to indicate that approval is still pending, and the approval period has not yet expired.

[0067] While the risk acknowledgement information is pending approval, a risk management assessor can review the risk acknowledgement information in decision step 85 and decide whether to approve the risk acknowledgement. Decision step 85 also represents a default decision that occurs if the period during which approval is pending expires, indicating that no approval has been granted. Accordingly, decision step 85 branches to step 86 if approval has been granted, and branches to step 87 if approval is not granted for the risk acknowledgement information. In step 86, a warning indicator displayed to the user indicates approval of the risk acknowledgement information. A warning indication informs the user that the application is not in compliance with control policies, but that an approved risk acknowledgement response is in place. Step 87 also provides a visual indication to the user, in this case indicating that the application is not in compliance with one or more control policies, and no approved corrective action plan is in place. Accordingly, the indicator produced in step 87 is considered a critical indicator for the level of risk associated with non-compliance in the particular application. Once a risk acknowledgement response is in place, the user can renew the response if a time limit is set for compliance, for instance, and an assessor approves the risk acknowledgement renewal. In addition, once a risk acknowledgement is approved, a notification is sent to all other members assigned to roles associated with the particular application. Other notifications to the members having a role in the risk assessment process can include a thirty day warning prior to expiration of a risk acknowledgement approval period, and a warning that a corrective action plan is due to expire.

[0068] The processes shown and described in FIGS. 3 and 4 are related to each other in that FIG. 3 shows how compliance level indicators are determined, while FIG. 4 shows how risk acknowledgement indicators are produced. FIG. 4 is a more detailed description of the manner in which risk is assessed for a particular application, project, etc. related to risk acknowledgement. FIG. 3 integrates risk acknowledgement status in an overall indication of risk status for an application, project and so forth.

[0069] Referring now to FIG. 5, a chart for use with entering information related to risk acknowledgement is shown. The form in FIG. 5 is an electronic format form that can be filled out by a user online. The form, shown generally as a form 99, includes a section 90 identifying the type of risk acknowledgement information entered on the form. The type of risk acknowledgement information includes new, permanent, renewal and review information. A section 91 of form 99 provides information related to the application or information for which the risk assessment is conducted. These items of information include the information or application owner, the business operation, department names, applicable policy identifiers and so forth. Section 92 is provided for ranking sensitivity of the information or application. The sensitivity rankings in section 92 include highly sensitive, sensitive, internal, public and not applicable.

[0070] Section 93 permits the user to select an entry for potential impact of activities associated with non-compliance of the identified control policy. Potential impact entries selectable by the user include: catastrophic, severe, moderate and low. Section 94 allows the user to select a likely probability of occurrence for risk related events. For example, if an event occurred that the identified control policy is formulated to prevent, and this particular application is likely to incur the same type of risk events, the probability might be ranked high. Selections available for the user to rank the probability of occurrence are high, medium and low.

[0071] The remaining sections of form 99 are open entry style sections that allow the user to enter information that is generally applicable to risk acknowledge. For example, in section 95 the user is asked to input a statement describing the reasons for the risk acknowledgement. In section 96, the user can enter information describing controls and procedures that can compensate for non-compliance, or reduce the resulting risk from non-compliance. In section 97, the user is requested to discuss the background of the potential impact of non-compliance for the application or information. Section 98 allows the user to input a description of an implementation plan that is structured to achieve compliance with policy controls applicable to the information or application.

[0072] Referring now to FIG. 6, a sample chart available to a user for rating risk is shown. Chart 129 has a number of rows related to questions that can assist in rating the application or information for risk sensitivity. The chart, as with FIG. 5, is available online, so that the user can make entries in electronic format and transfer the document to a reviewer. The user fills in the chart by assigning severity ratings for risk categories identified as DISCLOSED, MODIFIED and REPUDIATED. The user assigns a severity rating to each column associated with each of the questions in these several rows. For example, in response to question 2, in the second row, the user may rate disclosure as severe, modification as moderate, and repudiation as catastrophic.

[0073] Once all the entries in the chart have been completed, the user can submit the form for use with the risk status process. For example, a highly sensitive application, as determined through chart 129, which is not in compliance with one or more control policies, is assigned a risk factor indication of critical. The critical risk factor indication may supersede the controls in place for risk acknowledgement, if the application is indicated as being extremely sensitive in several areas, for example.

[0074] Referring now to FIG. 7, a flow diagram of promotion of a risk status through various managerial levels is shown. As discussed above, applications with sensitivity ratings that are very high have risk status indicators that are promoted to upper managerial levels for a manager risk status summaries. The process is identified in step 130, which continues with decision step 131. Decision step 131 makes the determination as to whether the application or information is critical to a particular project, business subdivision, or business operation, for example. If the application or information is not critical, decision step 131 branches to step 133, which prevents promotion of the risk status associated with the application to another managerial level. If the application is indicated as critical in decision step 131, a branch to decision step 132 is executed. Applications that are under development are not considered critical for this purpose, nor highly sensitive, and will not have their risk status promoted. Once an application is in actual production use, it will be susceptible to risk status promotion.

[0075] In decision step 132, a determination is made about whether the application has been rated highly sensitive in combination with non-compliance of one or more control policies. If a compliance status indicator shows critical, or indicates non-compliance, or if an application is rated as being sensitive and it has a risk status associated with it indicating a warning, then decision step 132 branches to promotion step 134. In step 134 the relevant risk statuses are promoted to the next managerial level. A manager of a business subdivision, for example, can view a risk status display composed of a compilation of risk statuses for various projects and applications associated with the business subdivision that is within his managerial purview. Accordingly, when a risk status is promoted to a managerial level, such as the level associated with a subdivision manager, step 134 serves to present appropriate statuses for the various projects and applications associated with the subdivision.

[0076] Referring now to FIG. 8, a high level display 159 shows a high level manager risk status view. In display 159, a senior business executive responsible for a major business operation can view the top level status of compliance and risk management for the business operation. In display 159, a number of selection elements 157 provide the business executive with options for reviewing risk and compliance for various levels of the business operation. Risk and compliance status elements for the top level of the business operation are shown in an indicator section 158. As illustrated in section 158, the business operations are shown as being in compliance with applicable policies, non-compliant, in progress, compliant with compensating controls in place, unassigned or not applicable. A warning indicator is shown under the heading “Managing Risk”, for instance. This indicator shows that an instance of non-compliance exists at a lower level with a low sensitivity level, or an approved risk acknowledgement procedure is provided for a non-compliant feature. As discussed above, the business executive can select the warning indicator to be provided with a display expanding the compilation that has resulted in the warning indicator in section 158. Section 158 also shows YES/NO indicators for both “Corrective Action Plan” and “Risk Acknowledgement” headings. These indicators reflect the logic used to determine when an indicator to the left should be promoted.

[0077] Referring for a moment to FIG. 2A, the view shown in display 159 is equivalent to that available in status display 23. Accordingly, a senior business executive can access a top level status display once they have logged into home page 22, and are recognized as a senior business executive, responsible for this particular business operation.

[0078] Referring now to FIG. 9, views of consolidated risk management displays are shown. The displays illustrate the linking facility between a business operation, a division and groups within a division hosing various applications. The displays, shown generally as displays 139, 149 and 159, provide a status view of control policy compliance related to various aspects of a business operation. Tabs 157 can be selected to display a technology risk management state of health, technology risk awareness reports or application information. Link selectors 141 provide the user with access to various portions of the general system such as a start screen (home), feedback, signout, and so forth. The status of compliance with regard to various subdivisions for a business operation is shown in chart 125. A column 142 of chart 125 displays managers related to a particular subdivision within the business operation. Column 143 describes the subdivision for which the managers listed in column 142 have responsibility. Column 144 displays indicators related to compliance with federal regulations. Round circles in column 144 indicate compliance (preferably colored green in practice), while down arrow indicators show non-compliance (preferably colored red in practice). Accordingly, the business subdivision labeled “Regional Banking Group” is indicated as being not in compliance with federal regulations.

[0079] Referring for a moment to FIG. 8, column 145 illustrates the status of compliance with regard to risk management. Warning symbols in column 145 (see FIG. 8) are shown as diamonds (preferably colored amber in practice). Accordingly, the first entry in column 145 is not in compliance, while the fourth and last entries indicate a warning for compliance. The third entry in column 144 shows an example of a business subdivision in compliance with regulatory requirements. Column 146 shows whether a corrective action plan is in place for each of the business subdivisions. The same indications of compliance, warning and non-compliance are used to provide indications for each of the entries in columns 144, 145. The entries in columns 146, 147 provide a YES/NO indication to mark the status of the business subdivisions with respect to corrective action plans and risk acknowledgement.

[0080] Column 147 shows the status of risk acknowledgement for the various business subdivisions. As illustrated in chart 125, the first two entries of column 147 indicate yes and no, respectively, for risk acknowledgement. The first entry is paired with an indication of non-compliance in columns 144, 145, meaning that a lower level business operation lacks compliance and does not have a satisfactory corrective action plan or risk acknowledgement. The second entry in columns 146, 147 is paired with an indication of in progress, meaning that a lower level business operation has a non-compliant application, but has compensating corrective action in place, even though the risk acknowledgement is negative.

[0081] Referring again to FIG. 9, the various displays 139, 149 and 159 are available to the business managers indicated in column 142, and the various lower level managers responsible for subdivisions, projects or applications can only view display 139 or 149, appropriate to their permission level. For example, if the business manager indicated in the last entry in column 142 wishes to see the underlying statuses for the federal compliance indicator in the first row of column 144, she can select the lower level link, indicated as an underline in the title of the corresponding entry in column 143. The business operation manager can thus view the status of risk with regard to the various subdivisions, as indicated in chart 126 of display 139. For example, if the manager selects the first entry in column 143 of chart 126, a view such as that shown in display 149 is provided. In chart 127 of display 149, the status of various subdivisions for the selected business operation is provided. As can be seen in chart 127, only one entry indicates a status of non-compliance. Upon promotion of these statuses to the next higher managerial level, such as that shown in the first row in display 139 of FIG. 9, the status indicators appear as being non-compliant. If the indicators in chart 127 showed non-compliance, or showed a warning status because of a high sensitivity rating, they would be promoted to the next higher managerial level and be displayed as warning or non-compliant indicators, depending on their sensitivity, in chart 126.

[0082] Tabs 157 permit the user to select an application for update or review of the risk status. A user can request to add, modify or delete an application, and accordingly change the associated risk status. Selection of a particular application for review allows the user to see all the applicable policies for that application, and the status indicators regarding the policy compliance. For example, each policy associated with an application is listed, and each entry in the list has an indicator that provides an assessment status at a glance, such as compliant, non-compliant, pending, not applicable, and so forth. The listed policies can be selected to review responses to policy questions and ratings for application sensitivity and criticality. If a policy is added, changed or deleted, the affected user or person assigned a risk related role with respect to the application receives a notification. The user can then access the policy directly to review the changes and respond to new risk rating criteria.

[0083] If an application has an outside vendor related component, for example if a third party furnishes a portion of the application functionality, any risks related to the outside vendor can be incorporated into the system. For example, if the vendor breaches a contract term, discloses confidential material, or provides inadequate support for the supplied components, these factors can be incorporated into an application risk assessment and rated according to severity. In addition, if an outside vendor wishes to take part in the risk assessment, they can receive feedback on the effectiveness of a corrective action plan, or receive specifications for achieving policy compliance, for example. It should be apparent that many other types of vendor interaction are contemplated by the present invention, with the main focus being coordination of risk assessment and corrective action plans.

[0084] Referring to FIG. 2A, reports 21 are also available for providing aggregated information based on several criteria. For example, a report can be generated to summarize risk statuses by each policy in a business operation. Alternately, reports can summarize risk related to corrective action plans or risk acknowledgement. These reports can be very useful to upper levels of management in a hierarchically organized enterprise, since policies can be evaluated easily for compliance, and informed decisions on funding initiatives can be made at the highest levels. The report information is also exportable in a number of formats for simple cross platform transfer and use.

[0085] Referring now to FIG. 10, a display of policies is provided with compliance indicators. Each policy is in the form of a hyperlink that the user can select to immediately jump to a status of their responsibility for that policy. For example, a project manager can select the “Network Security” policy that has a warning indicator, and review the portions of the policy that represent risks related to implementation of the project she manages. The manager can review the procedures in place directly from the policy link screen, and input procedures or responses to overcome the risk. FIG. 10 thus illustrates an abstract path for policy compliance for any level manager, whether at an operation, division, project or application level. The display shown in FIG. 10 also provides an indication of the compliance status for all policies related to the manager's responsibility level. The manager can thus determine at a glance which aspects of their risk status is in compliance, and which may need further responses.

[0086] Referring now to FIG. 11, a flow diagram of a process for establishing new entries in the risk management system according to the present invention is shown. The process begins with the user accessing the system through a login 160. From login 160, the user is able to select from three choices: a risk management status 161; a new application entry 162; and an application parameter editing 163. Selection of risk management status 161 provides the user with various displays already illustrated, such as business operation compliant status 164, which is equivalent to display 159 shown in FIG. 8. If the user selects new application entry 162, the process proceeds to decision step 165 in which a determination is made as to whether the user is an information owner or a project manager. If the user is neither an information owner nor a project manager, decision step 165 branches back to the login screen state provided through login 160. If the user is determined to be an information owner or a project manager, decision step 165 branches to information entry step 166.

[0087] In information entry step 166, the user enters details about the new application, such as the application name, the project manager, the information owner and so forth. The process then proceeds to assignment step 167, in which roles for the application are assigned to various individuals. The assignment of a role within the scope of the new application provides the assignee with certain responsibilities related to tracking and managing risk criteria. Once the appropriate roles are assigned, the process proceeds to application questionnaire step 168. In step 168, the information owner or project manager answers a series of questions related to the application. The information owner or project manager then submits the completed questionnaire in electronic format, and the process continues to notification step 170.

[0088] Notification step 170 provides notification to all individuals assigned to roles for responsibilities in the new application. The persons that are notified in notification step 170 are automatically provided authorized access to the risk management system associated with the new application. The notification received in notification step 170 instructs the individuals on how to login through login step 160 and select application editing step 163. Once the individuals with roles and responsibilities related to the application enter editing step 163, they are prompted to choose the application for which they have been assigned responsibility or a role in step 171. Once the users selects the application for which they have a role or a responsibility, the process continues with step 172, in which the user identifies themselves according to their role with respect to the chosen application. For example, the user may select one or more roles to which they have been assigned for responsibility during the creation of the application in the risk management system. The user may have more than one role, such as, for example, security administrator and project manager.

[0089] Once the user selects the role with which they have been identified for the application, the process continues with step 173 in which the user is presented with questionnaires related to their respective roles. The questionnaires provided in step 173 are preferably partially completed with existing information available for the application. The user need only complete questionnaire sections that are still blank or that require further response. With the completion of the questionnaire, the user submits the responses and the process continues with step 174. In step 174, the project manager and/or information owner is notified that the questionnaire for a particular role has been completed. Upon notification, the process moves to step 175, in which the project manager or information owner can review the responses submitted in the role questionnaires. Once the questionnaires are reviewed, the process continues with step 176, in which the collected and reviewed questionnaires are submitted to the risk management system for review and approval. In step 177, a risk management assessor reviews the complete application, including the information provided by the information owner/project manager and the responses provided by the individuals assigned to the various roles.

[0090] Once the risk management assessor has reviewed all the aspects of the application, they can take appropriate action that results in the setting of indicator statuses denoting compliance with control policies and risk acknowledgement in step 178. At this point, the application has been entered into the risk management system, and individuals responsible for various aspects of maintaining compliance with control policies can access and update the system, as described above.

[0091] Among the information entered in step 168, for example, are hardware requirements, hardware locations and vendors, associated applications, software licenses, software vendors and so forth. The initiator of the new application also responds to questions such as whether the application will run on a mainframe, mini-computer or local network, whether the information related to the application will be stored on a LAN, if disaster recovery is needed, and whether any business plans should be updated.

[0092] When the entire process for the new application has been completed, such as in step 177, time frames for compliance are set so that the compliance status indicators that are shown as pending will, after the compliance time frames, be set to appropriate indications of status, in step 178. For example, if the initial application is not in compliance with one or more control policies, the status indicators related to compliance with the particular control policies will show that a compliance status is pending. After the time frame for response expires, if no action has been taken with regard to obtaining compliance for the non-compliant aspects of the application, the related status indicators will show a critical indication that will be promoted to the next managerial level, as discussed above.

[0093] Referring now to FIG. 12, a flow diagram for a process of receiving authorization for access to the risk management system is shown. The process begins in step 180 with the user accessing a registration request form from the risk management system introductory display. The user is prompted to fill out a request form, and submits the registration request in step 181. Once the request for registration is submitted, the user receives notification confirming receipt of the request in step 182. The acknowledgement of the receipt of the registration request serves as a check on access to the system to provide a security feature for the system.

[0094] System administrators and risk management administrators review the request for access to the system in step 183 to provide a multi-level approval structure. Administrators can search for a user profile and create, modify or delete user profiles in the system. User profiles may contain a number of pieces of information related to access of the system, such as a business ID, an accounting center, e-mail addresses, title and job grade, and so forth. Once the appropriate approvals have been granted, the user is notified in step 184. The user is provided with a logon ID, and an initial password. Once notified, the user can login as shown in step 185, using the login ID provided and the initial password. Once the user gains access to the system using the logon ID and password provided, the system prompts the user to provide a new password of the user's choosing. According to various security protocols, the user is preferably informed of password conventions such as, for example, use of a mix of alphanumeric characters and non obvious combinations, such as passwords resembling logon IDs. Once the user is admitted to the system in step 185, the user is provided with a number of administrative tracking features, such as connection time, logon time outs, periods of inactivity and so forth.

[0095] Changes to the user account can be made through the same process shown in FIG. 12, by submitting a request for approval through the relevant administrators. The user can also request such typical administrative activities as password resetting, lockouts, releases and so forth.

[0096] Although the present invention has been described in relation to particular embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications and other uses will become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A compliance tracking system, comprising:

a first storage device containing a first dataset of data related to regulatory and enterprise procedural policy information;

a second dataset storage device containing a second dataset of data related to a state of an operation activity;

a processor coupled to said first and second datasets, and operable to access and manipulate data in said first and second datasets;

a user interface device coupled to said processor and operable to receive user input and provide instructions to said processor for accessing and manipulating said first and second datasets, wherein said user input is based on a compliance response structure comprising a set of role definitions including a plurality of respective responsibilities, wherein said responsibilities being related to respective portions of said state of said operation activity, and wherein said instructions being related to said responsibilities whereby a level of compliance is modified based upon a combination of said responsibilities and respective portions of said state of operation activity;

first determination means for determining whether an operation activity is in compliance or non-compliance based on a comparison of the data contained in the first and second datasets;

second determination means for determining whether non-compliance is the result of a new policy or regulation or amendment to a policy or regulation;

risk assessment means for assessing risk and identifying risk factors associated with the state of the operation activity and the new policy or regulation or amendment to a policy or regulation;

third determination means for determining whether a risk acknowledgement has been approved, wherein risk acknowledgement approval comprises accepting the risk or developing or implementing a plan to achieve compliance; and

plan selection means for developing or implementing a plan to achieve compliance, wherein the plan is based on a sensitivity rating, an impact rating, a probability rating, and compensation and control procedures.

2. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1 wherein said processor further comprises a reporting engine processing device; and

said reporting engine processing device can operate on said indicia of compliance to produce a compilation of compliance indicia in a summary format.

3. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1, wherein said indicia of compliance pertains to a plurality of portions of said operation activity.

4. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1, wherein said processor further comprises a registration engine processing device; and

said registration engine processing device being operable to accept requests for registration from said user interface device, provide a notification to at least another user interface device for approval of said registration request, and provide a notification to said user interface device indicative of approval or refusal of registration.

5. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1, wherein said instructions include answers to a questionnaire related to assessing a level of compliance.

6. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1, wherein said instructions include information related to at least one of a sensitivity and a criticality of said operation activity with respect to a level of compliance.

7. A compliance tracking system according to claim 2, further comprising:

a management structure having a plurality of management levels; and

said compilation of compliance indicia is accessible to a management level above at least another management level.

8. A compliance tracking system according to claim 7, wherein said instructions include information related to at least one of a sensitivity and a criticality of said operation activity with respect to a level of compliance.

9. A compliance tracking system according to claim 8, wherein said compilation of compliance indicia is accessible to said management level based on said information related to said at least one of a sensitivity and a criticality.

10. A compliance tracking system according to claim 1, wherein said processor further comprises an administration engine processing device;

said administration engine processing device is operable to at least one of input data received from said user interface device into said second dataset and provide authorized access to said processor through said user interface device.

11. A method for tracking status and providing status feedback using a computer, comprising:

accessing a set of rules in a database, the rules being related to an enterprise operation wherein said rules provide conformance standards for regulatory or enterprise procedural policies;

accessing a set of data related to compliance with said set of rules;

comparing, by a processing engine, said set of data against said set of rules to produce a compliance status;

providing a computer-generated indication of said compliance status to a user interface; and

accepting user input comprising instructions through said user interface whereby a condition of said set of data is modified, thereby improving said compliance status, wherein said user input is based on a compliance response structure comprising a set of role definitions including a plurality of respective responsibilities, wherein said responsibilities being related to respective portions of said state of said operation activity, and wherein said instructions being related to said responsibilities whereby a level of compliance is modified based upon a combination of said responsibilities and respective portions of said state of operation activity;

determining, by a processor engine, whether an enterprise operation is in compliance or non-compliance based on a comparison of the data contained in the first and second datasets;

determining, by a processor engine, whether non-compliance is the result of a new policy or regulation or amendment to a policy or regulation;

receiving at least one survey generating, deleting, modifying or revising data related to the enterprise operation; and

determining, by a processor engine, if a risk acknowledgement associated with the enterprise operation has been approved, wherein risk acknowledgement approval comprises accepting the risk or developing or implementing a plan to achieve compliance; and

developing or implementing, by a processor engine, a plan to achieve compliance, wherein the plan is based on a sensitivity rating, an impact rating, a probability rating, and compensation and control procedures.

12. A compliance tracking system, comprising:

a first storage device containing a first dataset of data related to regulatory and enterprise procedural policy information;

a second storage device containing a second dataset of data related to a state of an operation activity;

a processor coupled to said first and second datasets, and operable to access and manipulate data in said first and second datasets;

a user interface device coupled to said processor and operable to receive user input and provide instructions to said processing engine processor for accessing and manipulating said first and second datasets, wherein said instructions include answers to a questionnaire related to assessing a level of compliance and information related to at least one of a sensitivity and a criticality of said operation activity with respect to a level of compliance, wherein said user input is based on a compliance response structure comprising a set of role definitions including a plurality of respective responsibilities, wherein said responsibilities being related to respective portions of said state of said operation activity, and wherein said instructions being related to said responsibilities whereby a level of compliance is modified based upon a combination of said responsibilities and respective portions of said state of operation activity;

said processor being further operable to compare data contained in said first and second datasets and provide processor-generated indicia of compliance to said user interface device based on a result of said comparison, wherein said indicia of compliance pertains to a plurality of portions of said operation activity, and wherein said device further comprises a reporting engine processing device, and wherein said reporting engine processing device can operate on said indicia of compliance to produce a compilation of compliance indicia in a summary format;

a first determination processor or interface device for determining whether an operation activity is in compliance or non-compliance based on a comparison of the data contained in the first and second datasets;

a second determination processor or interface device for determining whether non-compliance is the result of a new policy or regulation or amendment to a policy or regulation;

a risk assessment processor or interface device for assessing risk and identifying risk factors associated with the state of the operation activity and the new policy or regulation or amendment to a policy or regulation;

a third determination processor or interface device for determining whether a risk acknowledgement has been approved, wherein risk acknowledgement approval comprises accepting the risk or developing or implementing a plan to achieve compliance; and

a plan selection processor or interface device for developing or implementing a plan to achieve compliance, wherein the plan is based on a sensitivity rating, an impact rating, a probability rating, and compensation and control procedures.

13. A compliance tracking system according to claim 12, further comprising:

a management structure having a plurality of management levels; and

said compilation of compliance indicia is accessible to a management level above at least another management level.

14. A compliance tracking system according to claim 12, wherein said compilation of compliance indicia is accessible to said management level based on said information related to said at least one of a sensitivity and a criticality.

15. A compliance tracking system according to claim 12, wherein said processor further comprises an administration engine processing device;

Patent Citations (507)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US3634669(A)	1972-01-01	Soumas et al.	Applicant
US3946206(A)	1976-03-01	Darjany	Applicant
US4047033(A)	1977-09-01	Malmberg et al.	Applicant
US4465206(A)	1984-08-01	Sorel et al.	Applicant
US4545838(A)	1985-10-01	Minkus et al.	Applicant
US4582985(A)	1986-04-01	Lofberg	Applicant
US4614861(A)	1986-09-01	Pavlov et al.	Applicant
US4634845(A)	1987-01-01	Riley	Applicant
US4689478(A)	1987-08-01	Hale et al.	Applicant
US4700055(A)	1987-10-01	Kashkashian, Jr.	Applicant
US4746787(A)	1988-05-01	Okada	Applicant
US4750119(A)	1988-06-01	Robertson	Applicant
US4752676(A)	1988-06-01	Leonard et al.	Applicant
US4754418(A)	1988-06-01	Hara	Applicant
US4766293(A)	1988-08-01	Boston	Applicant
US4766539(A)	1988-08-01	Fox	Applicant
US4789928(A)	1988-12-01	Fujisaki	Applicant
US4822985(A)	1989-04-01	Boggan et al.	Applicant
US4831242(A)	1989-05-01	Englehardt	Applicant
US4831526(A)	1989-05-01	Luchs	Applicant
US4837422(A)	1989-06-01	Dethloff et al.	Applicant
US4868376(A)	1989-09-01	Lessin et al.	Applicant
US4870259(A)	1989-09-01	Boggan et al.	Applicant
US4882675(A)	1989-11-01	Nichtberger et al.	Applicant
US4897533(A)	1990-01-01	Lyszczarz	Applicant
US4906826(A)	1990-03-01	Spencer	Applicant
US4908521(A)	1990-03-01	Boggan et al.	Applicant
US4923288(A)	1990-05-01	Allen et al.	Applicant
US4928001(A)	1990-05-01	Masada	Applicant
US4941090(A)	1990-07-01	McCarthy	Applicant
US4943707(A)	1990-07-01	Boggan	Applicant
US4953085(A)	1990-08-01	Atkins	Applicant
US4954985(A)	1990-09-01	Yamazaki	Applicant
US4961142(A)	1990-10-01	Elliott et al.	Applicant
US4968873(A)	1990-11-01	Dethloff et al.	Applicant
US4975840(A)	1990-12-01	DeTore et al.	Applicant
US4978401(A)	1990-12-01	Bonomi	Applicant
US4992940(A)	1991-02-01	Dworkin	Applicant
US5025372(A)	1991-06-01	Burton et al.	Applicant
US5049728(A)	1991-09-01	Rovin	Applicant
US5055662(A)	1991-10-01	Hasegawa	Applicant
US5080748(A)	1992-01-01	Bonomi	Applicant
US5095194(A)	1992-03-01	Barbanell	Applicant
US5117355(A)	1992-05-01	McCarthy	Applicant
US5146068(A)	1992-09-01	Ugawa et al.	Applicant
US5175416(A)	1992-12-01	Mansvelt	Applicant
US5180901(A)	1993-01-01	Hiramatsu	Applicant
US5192947(A)	1993-03-01	Neustein	Applicant
US5202286(A)	1993-04-01	Nakatani	Applicant
US5202826(A)	1993-04-01	McCarthy	Applicant
US5206488(A)	1993-04-01	Teicher	Applicant
US5206803(A)	1993-04-01	Vitagliano	Applicant
US5214700(A)	1993-05-01	Pinkas et al.	Applicant
US5218631(A)	1993-06-01	Katz	Applicant
US5247190(A)	1993-09-01	Friend et al.	Applicant
US5276311(A)	1994-01-01	Hennige et al.	Applicant
US5287268(A)	1994-02-01	McCarthy	Applicant
US5287269(A)	1994-02-01	Dorrough et al.	Applicant
US5297026(A)	1994-03-01	Hoffman	Applicant
US5311594(A)	1994-05-01	Penzias	Applicant
US5326959(A)	1994-07-01	Perazza	Applicant
US5326960(A)	1994-07-01	Tannenbaum	Applicant
US5328809(A)	1994-07-01	Holmes et al.	Applicant
US5339239(A)	1994-08-01	Manabe et al.	Applicant
US5349633(A)	1994-09-01	Katz	Applicant
US5350906(A)	1994-09-01	Brody et al.	Applicant
US5359183(A)	1994-10-01	Skodlar	Applicant
US5361062(A)	1994-11-01	Weiss et al.	Applicant
US5365575(A)	1994-11-01	Katz	Applicant
US5383113(A)	1995-01-01	Knight	Applicant
US5397881(A)	1995-03-01	Mannik	Applicant
US5399502(A)	1995-03-01	Friend et al.	Applicant
US5401827(A)	1995-03-01	Holmes et al.	Applicant
USRE34915(E)	1995-04-01	Nichtberger et al.	Applicant
US5424524(A)	1995-06-01	Ruppert et al.	Applicant
US5450477(A)	1995-09-01	Amarant et al.	Applicant
US5453601(A)	1995-09-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5455407(A)	1995-10-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5457305(A)	1995-10-01	Akel et al.	Applicant
US5459306(A)	1995-10-01	Stein et al.	Applicant
US5465206(A)	1995-11-01	Hilt et al.	Applicant
US5466919(A)	1995-11-01	Hovakimimian	Applicant
US5471669(A)	1995-11-01	Lidman	Applicant
US5477038(A)	1995-12-01	Levine et al.	Applicant
US5477040(A)	1995-12-01	Lalonde	Applicant
US5479494(A)	1995-12-01	Clitherow	Applicant
US5482139(A)	1996-01-01	Rivalto	Applicant
US5483444(A)	1996-01-01	Malark	Applicant
US5483445(A)	1996-01-01	Pickering	Applicant
US5500514(A)	1996-03-01	Veeneman et al.	Applicant
US5511114(A)	1996-04-01	Stimson et al.	Applicant
US5512654(A)	1996-04-01	Holmes et al.	Applicant
US5513102(A)	1996-04-01	Auriemma	Applicant
US5521363(A)	1996-05-01	Tannenbaum	Applicant
US5521813(A)	1996-05-01	Fox et al.	Applicant
US5530232(A)	1996-06-01	Taylor	Applicant
US5530235(A)	1996-06-01	Stefik et al.	Applicant
US5537314(A)	1996-07-01	Kanter	Applicant
US5544086(A)	1996-08-01	Davis et al.	Applicant
US5544246(A)	1996-08-01	Mandelbaum et al.	Applicant
US5553120(A)	1996-09-01	Katz	Applicant
US5577109(A)	1996-11-01	Stimson et al.	Applicant
US5578808(A)	1996-11-01	Taylor	Applicant
US5581064(A)	1996-12-01	Riley et al.	Applicant
US5585787(A)	1996-12-01	Wallerstein	Applicant
US5590038(A)	1996-12-01	Pitroda	Applicant
US5592560(A)	1997-01-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5604542(A)	1997-02-01	Dedrick	Applicant
US5608785(A)	1997-03-01	Kasday	Applicant
US5612868(A)	1997-03-01	Off	Applicant
US5621787(A)	1997-04-01	McKoy et al.	Applicant
US5621812(A)	1997-04-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5627973(A)	1997-05-01	Armstrong et al.	Applicant
US5630127(A)	1997-05-01	Moore et al.	Examiner
US5637845(A)	1997-06-01	Kolls	Applicant
US5638457(A)	1997-06-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5642279(A)	1997-06-01	Stone	Applicant
US5642485(A)	1997-06-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5644723(A)	1997-07-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5644727(A)	1997-07-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5649114(A)	1997-07-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5649117(A)	1997-07-01	Landry	Applicant
US5649118(A)	1997-07-01	Carlisle et al.	Applicant
US5653914(A)	1997-08-01	Holmes et al.	Applicant
US5659741(A)	1997-08-01	Eberhardt	Applicant
US5664110(A)	1997-09-01	Green et al.	Applicant
US5664157(A)	1997-09-01	Takahira et al.	Applicant
US5665953(A)	1997-09-01	Mazzamuto	Applicant
US5672678(A)	1997-09-01	Holmes et al.	Applicant
US5675607(A)	1997-10-01	Alesio et al.	Applicant
US5675662(A)	1997-10-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5677955(A)	1997-10-01	Doggett et al.	Applicant
US5684291(A)	1997-11-01	Taskett	Applicant
US5687322(A)	1997-11-01	Deaton et al.	Applicant
US5689100(A)	1997-11-01	Carrithers et al.	Applicant
US5689650(A)	1997-11-01	McClelland et al.	Applicant
US5692132(A)	1997-11-01	Hogan	Applicant
US5696907(A)	1997-12-01	Tom	Applicant
US5699528(A)	1997-12-01	Hogan	Applicant
US5703344(A)	1997-12-01	Bezy et al.	Applicant
US5704046(A)	1997-12-01	Hogan	Applicant
US5705798(A)	1998-01-01	Tarbox	Applicant
US5708422(A)	1998-01-01	Blonder et al.	Applicant
US5710458(A)	1998-01-01	Iwasaki	Applicant
US5710886(A)	1998-01-01	Christensen et al.	Applicant
US5710887(A)	1998-01-01	Chelliah et al.	Applicant
US5710889(A)	1998-01-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
US5715399(A)	1998-02-01	Bezos	Applicant
US5717925(A)	1998-02-01	Harper et al.	Applicant
US5721768(A)	1998-02-01	Stimson et al.	Applicant
US5721781(A)	1998-02-01	Deo et al.	Applicant
US5726884(A)	1998-03-01	Sturgeon et al.	Applicant
US5727153(A)	1998-03-01	Powell	Applicant
US5728998(A)	1998-03-01	Novis et al.	Applicant
US5729693(A)	1998-03-01	Holda-Fleck	Applicant
US5734154(A)	1998-03-01	Jachimowicz et al.	Applicant
US5734838(A)	1998-03-01	Robinson	Applicant
US5736728(A)	1998-04-01	Matsubara	Applicant
US5737421(A)	1998-04-01	Audebert	Applicant
US5740549(A)	1998-04-01	Reilly et al.	Applicant
US5742775(A)	1998-04-01	King	Applicant
US5745049(A)	1998-04-01	Akiyama et al.	Applicant
US5745706(A)	1998-04-01	Wolfberg et al.	Applicant
US5749075(A)	1998-05-01	Toader et al.	Applicant
US5760381(A)	1998-06-01	Stich et al.	Applicant
US5765138(A)	1998-06-01	Aycock et al.	Applicant
US5765141(A)	1998-06-01	Spector	Applicant
US5770843(A)	1998-06-01	Rose et al.	Applicant
US5770849(A)	1998-06-01	Novis et al.	Applicant
US5774870(A)	1998-06-01	Storey	Applicant
US5777305(A)	1998-07-01	Smith et al.	Applicant
US5777306(A)	1998-07-01	Masuda	Applicant
US5777903(A)	1998-07-01	Piosenka et al.	Applicant
US5778067(A)	1998-07-01	Jones et al.	Applicant
US5787156(A)	1998-07-01	Katz	Applicant
US5787404(A)	1998-07-01	Fernandez-Holman	Applicant
US5789733(A)	1998-08-01	Jachimowicz et al.	Applicant
US5794207(A)	1998-08-01	Walker	Applicant
US5798950(A)	1998-08-01	Fitzgerald	Applicant
US5799087(A)	1998-08-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5802176(A)	1998-09-01	Audebert	Applicant
US5805719(A)	1998-09-01	Pare et al.	Applicant
US5806042(A)	1998-09-01	Kelly et al.	Applicant
US5806044(A)	1998-09-01	Powell	Applicant
US5806045(A)	1998-09-01	Biorge	Applicant
US5807627(A)	1998-09-01	Friend et al.	Applicant
US5809478(A)	1998-09-01	Greco	Applicant
US5813009(A)	1998-09-01	Johnson et al.	Applicant
US5815657(A)	1998-09-01	Williams et al.	Applicant
US5815658(A)	1998-09-01	Kuriyama	Applicant
US5819234(A)	1998-10-01	Slavin et al.	Applicant
US5819237(A)	1998-10-01	Garman	Applicant
US5826243(A)	1998-10-01	Musmanno et al.	Applicant
US5832457(A)	1998-11-01	O'Brien	Applicant
US5832488(A)	1998-11-01	Eberhardt	Applicant
US5835061(A)	1998-11-01	Stewart	Applicant
US5835576(A)	1998-11-01	Katz	Applicant
US5839113(A)	1998-11-01	Federau et al.	Applicant
US5845259(A)	1998-12-01	West et al.	Applicant
US5845260(A)	1998-12-01	Nakano et al.	Applicant
US5852811(A)	1998-12-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5852812(A)	1998-12-01	Reeder	Applicant
US5857079(A)	1999-01-01	Claus et al.	Applicant
US5857175(A)	1999-01-01	Day et al.	Applicant
US5857709(A)	1999-01-01	Chock	Applicant
US5859419(A)	1999-01-01	Wynn	Applicant
US5864609(A)	1999-01-01	Cross et al.	Applicant
US5864828(A)	1999-01-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5864830(A)	1999-01-01	Armetta et al.	Applicant
USRE36116(E)	1999-02-01	McCarthy	Applicant
US5870718(A)	1999-02-01	Spector	Applicant
US5870721(A)	1999-02-01	Norris	Applicant
US5875437(A)	1999-02-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5883377(A)	1999-03-01	Chapin, Jr.	Applicant
US5883810(A)	1999-03-01	Franklin et al.	Applicant
US5884271(A)	1999-03-01	Pitroda	Applicant
US5884278(A)	1999-03-01	Powell	Applicant
US5884285(A)	1999-03-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5884287(A)	1999-03-01	Edesess	Applicant
US5887065(A)	1999-03-01	Audebert	Applicant
US5890138(A)	1999-03-01	Godin et al.	Applicant
US5890140(A)	1999-03-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
USH1794(H)	1999-04-01	Claus	Applicant
US5893079(A)	1999-04-01	Cwenar	Applicant
US5897620(A)	1999-04-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US5905246(A)	1999-05-01	Fajkowski	Applicant
US5907350(A)	1999-05-01	Nemirofsky	Applicant
US5911135(A)	1999-06-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5911136(A)	1999-06-01	Atkins	Applicant
US5914472(A)	1999-06-01	Foladare et al.	Applicant
US5920629(A)	1999-07-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5920844(A)	1999-07-01	Hotta et al.	Applicant
US5920847(A)	1999-07-01	Kolling et al.	Applicant
US5923734(A)	1999-07-01	Taskett	Applicant
US5926800(A)	1999-07-01	Baronowski et al.	Applicant
US5930217(A)	1999-07-01	Kayanuma	Applicant
US5930762(A)	1999-07-01	Masch	Applicant
US5931764(A)	1999-08-01	Freeman et al.	Applicant
US5933817(A)	1999-08-01	Hucal	Applicant
US5937068(A)	1999-08-01	Audebert	Applicant
US5940811(A)	1999-08-01	Norris	Applicant
US5952641(A)	1999-09-01	Korshun	Applicant
US5953423(A)	1999-09-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5953710(A)	1999-09-01	Fleming	Applicant
US5955961(A)	1999-09-01	Wallerstein	Applicant
US5956691(A)	1999-09-01	Powers	Applicant
US5956695(A)	1999-09-01	Carrithers et al.	Applicant
US5963648(A)	1999-10-01	Rosen	Applicant
US5970479(A)	1999-10-01	Shepherd	Applicant
US5970480(A)	1999-10-01	Kalina	Applicant
US5974399(A)	1999-10-01	Giuliani et al.	Applicant
USRE36365(E)	1999-11-01	Levine et al.	Applicant
US5984180(A)	1999-11-01	Albrecht	Applicant
US5984191(A)	1999-11-01	Chapin, Jr.	Applicant
US5987434(A)	1999-11-01	Libman	Applicant
US5988509(A)	1999-11-01	Taskett	Applicant
US5991413(A)	1999-11-01	Arditti et al.	Applicant
US5991743(A)	1999-11-01	Irving et al.	Applicant
US5991748(A)	1999-11-01	Taskett	Applicant
US5991750(A)	1999-11-01	Watson	Applicant
US5999596(A)	1999-12-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US6000608(A)	1999-12-01	Dorf	Applicant
US6000832(A)	1999-12-01	Franklin et al.	Applicant
US6002383(A)	1999-12-01	Shimada	Applicant
US6003762(A)	1999-12-01	Hayashida	Applicant
US6004681(A)	1999-12-01	Epstein et al.	Applicant
US6006988(A)	1999-12-01	Behrmann et al.	Applicant
US6009415(A)	1999-12-01	Shurling et al.	Applicant
US6014636(A)	2000-01-01	Reeder	Applicant
US6014638(A)	2000-01-01	Burge et al.	Applicant
US6014645(A)	2000-01-01	Cunningham	Applicant
US6014749(A)	2000-01-01	Gloor et al.	Applicant
US6016482(A)	2000-01-01	Molinari et al.	Applicant
US6016954(A)	2000-01-01	Abe et al.	Applicant
US6018722(A)	2000-01-01	Ray et al.	Applicant
US6019284(A)	2000-02-01	Freeman et al.	Applicant
US6026370(A)	2000-02-01	Jermyn	Applicant
US6029139(A)	2000-02-01	Cunningham et al.	Applicant
US6029144(A)	2000-02-01	Barrett et al.	Applicant
US6029890(A)	2000-02-01	Austin	Applicant
US6032136(A)	2000-02-01	Brake, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US6036099(A)	2000-03-01	Leighton	Applicant
US6038292(A)	2000-03-01	Thomas	Applicant
US6038537(A)	2000-03-01	Matsuoka	Applicant
US6038552(A)	2000-03-01	Fleischl et al.	Applicant
US6041315(A)	2000-03-01	Pollin	Applicant
US6045042(A)	2000-04-01	Ohno	Applicant
US6047067(A)	2000-04-01	Rosen	Applicant
US6047268(A)	2000-04-01	Bartoli et al.	Applicant
US6049463(A)	2000-04-01	O'Malley et al.	Applicant
US6049773(A)	2000-04-01	McCormack et al.	Applicant
US6049782(A)	2000-04-01	Gottesman et al.	Applicant
US6058378(A)	2000-05-01	Clark et al.	Applicant
US6064985(A)	2000-05-01	Anderson	Applicant
US6065675(A)	2000-05-01	Teicher	Applicant
US6068183(A)	2000-05-01	Freeman et al.	Applicant
US6070067(A)	2000-05-01	Nguyen et al.	Applicant
US6070147(A)	2000-05-01	Harms et al.	Applicant
US6070153(A)	2000-05-01	Simpson	Applicant
US6076068(A)	2000-06-01	DeLapa et al.	Applicant
US6076072(A)	2000-06-01	Libman	Applicant
US6078888(A)	2000-06-01	Johnson, Jr.	Applicant
US6078891(A)	2000-06-01	Riordan et al.	Applicant
US6078904(A)	2000-06-01	Rebane	Applicant
US6088678(A)	2000-07-01	Shannon	Applicant
US6091817(A)	2000-07-01	Bertina et al.	Applicant
US6092056(A)	2000-07-01	Tull, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US6095412(A)	2000-08-01	Bertina et al.	Applicant
US6095416(A)	2000-08-01	Grant et al.	Applicant
US6098053(A)	2000-08-01	Slater	Applicant
US6105011(A)	2000-08-01	Morrison, Jr.	Applicant
US6105865(A)	2000-08-01	Hardesty	Applicant
US6109525(A)	2000-08-01	Blomqvist et al.	Applicant
US6112191(A)	2000-08-01	Burke	Applicant
US6115458(A)	2000-09-01	Taskett	Applicant
US6119097(A)	2000-09-01	Ibarra	Applicant
US6119103(A)	2000-09-01	Basch et al.	Applicant
US6119932(A)	2000-09-01	Maloney et al.	Applicant
US6122623(A)	2000-09-01	Garman	Applicant
US6128598(A)	2000-10-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US6128599(A)	2000-10-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US6129274(A)	2000-10-01	Suzuki	Applicant
US6134536(A)	2000-10-01	Shepherd	Applicant
US6138917(A)	2000-10-01	Chapin, Jr.	Applicant
US6145741(A)	2000-11-01	Wisdom et al.	Applicant
US6148297(A)	2000-11-01	Swor et al.	Applicant
US6161096(A)	2000-12-01	Bell	Applicant
US6163770(A)	2000-12-01	Gamble et al.	Applicant
US6164533(A)	2000-12-01	Barton	Applicant
US6167385(A)	2000-12-01	Hartley-Urquhart	Applicant
US6169975(B1)	2001-01-01	White et al.	Applicant
US6173267(B1)	2001-01-01	Cairns	Applicant
US6182048(B1)	2001-01-01	Osborn et al.	Applicant
US6182894(B1)	2001-02-01	Hackett et al.	Applicant
US6186793(B1)	2001-02-01	Brubaker	Applicant
US6189787(B1)	2001-02-01	Dorf	Applicant
US6192113(B1)	2001-02-01	Lorsch	Applicant
US6195644(B1)	2001-02-01	Bowie	Applicant
US6202053(B1)	2001-03-01	Christiansen et al.	Applicant
USRE37122(E)	2001-04-01	Levine et al.	Applicant
US6223143(B1)	2001-04-01	Weinstock et al.	Applicant
US6227447(B1)	2001-05-01	Campisano	Applicant
US6243688(B1)	2001-06-01	Kalina	Applicant
US6263316(B1)	2001-07-01	Khan et al.	Applicant
US6265977(B1)	2001-07-01	Vega et al.	Applicant
US6278981(B1)	2001-08-01	Dembo et al.	Applicant
US6295522(B1)	2001-09-01	Boesch	Applicant
US6298336(B1)	2001-10-01	Davis et al.	Applicant
US6308268(B1)	2001-10-01	Audebert	Applicant
US6330546(B1)	2001-12-01	Gopinathan et al.	Applicant
US6334192(B1)	2001-12-01	Karpf	Examiner
US6336099(B1)	2002-01-01	Barnett et al.	Applicant
US6338048(B1)	2002-01-01	Mori	Applicant
US6341724(B2)	2002-01-01	Campisano	Applicant
US6343743(B1)	2002-02-01	Lamla	Applicant
US6345261(B1)	2002-02-01	Feidelson	Applicant
US6345766(B1)	2002-02-01	Taskett et al.	Applicant
US6349291(B1)	2002-02-01	Varma	Applicant
US6360954(B1)	2002-03-01	Barnardo	Applicant
US6366220(B1)	2002-04-01	Elliott	Applicant
US6373969(B1)	2002-04-01	Adler	Applicant
US6377669(B1)	2002-04-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US6385591(B1)	2002-05-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US6386444(B1)	2002-05-01	Sullivan	Applicant
US6397202(B1)	2002-05-01	Higgins et al.	Examiner
US6402039(B1)	2002-06-01	Freeman et al.	Applicant
US6405182(B1)	2002-06-01	Cuervo	Applicant
US6422459(B1)	2002-07-01	Kawan	Applicant
US6422462(B1)	2002-07-01	Cohen	Applicant
US6424029(B1)	2002-07-01	Giesler	Applicant
US6429927(B1)	2002-08-01	Borza	Applicant
US6434259(B1)	2002-08-01	Hamid et al.	Applicant
US6446210(B1)	2002-09-01	Borza	Applicant
US6450407(B1)	2002-09-01	Freeman et al.	Applicant
US6463039(B1)	2002-10-01	Ricci et al.	Applicant
US6467684(B2)	2002-10-01	Fite et al.	Applicant
US6473500(B1)	2002-10-01	Risafi et al.	Applicant
US6484144(B2)	2002-11-01	Martin et al.	Applicant
US6484148(B1)	2002-11-01	Boyd	Applicant
US6498861(B1)	2002-12-01	Hamid et al.	Applicant
US6505168(B1)	2003-01-01	Rothman et al.	Applicant
US6505780(B1)	2003-01-01	Yassin et al.	Applicant
US6529880(B1)	2003-03-01	McKeen et al.	Applicant
US6557750(B1)	2003-05-01	Druse et al.	Applicant
US6560578(B2)	2003-05-01	Eldering	Applicant
US6574603(B1)	2003-06-01	Dickson et al.	Applicant
US6581839(B1)	2003-06-01	Lasch et al.	Applicant
US6601040(B1)	2003-07-01	Kolls	Applicant
US6601761(B1)	2003-08-01	Katis	Applicant
US6609111(B1)	2003-08-01	Bell	Applicant
USRE38255(E)	2003-09-01	Levine et al.	Applicant
US6615189(B1)	2003-09-01	Phillips et al.	Applicant
US6615190(B1)	2003-09-01	Slater	Applicant
US6625582(B2)	2003-09-01	Richman et al.	Applicant
US6631849(B2)	2003-10-01	Blossom	Applicant
US6641049(B2)	2003-11-01	Luu	Applicant
US6641050(B2)	2003-11-01	Kelley et al.	Applicant
US6671673(B1)	2003-12-01	Baseman et al.	Applicant
US6675127(B2)	2004-01-01	LaBlanc et al.	Applicant
US6675149(B1)	2004-01-01	Ruffin et al.	Applicant
US6687222(B1)	2004-02-01	Albert et al.	Applicant
US6693544(B1)	2004-02-01	Hebbecker	Applicant
US6742704(B2)	2004-06-01	Fitzmaurice et al.	Applicant
US6745938(B2)	2004-06-01	Sullivan	Applicant
US6757660(B2)	2004-06-01	Canada et al.	Applicant
US6757710(B2)	2004-06-01	Reed	Applicant
US6802008(B1)	2004-10-01	Ikefuji et al.	Applicant
US6805287(B2)	2004-10-01	Bishop	Applicant
US6865547(B1)	2005-03-01	Brake, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US6868426(B1)	2005-03-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US6876971(B1)	2005-04-01	Burke	Applicant
US6895386(B1)	2005-05-01	Bachman et al.	Applicant
US6901372(B1)	2005-05-01	Helzerman	Applicant
US6912502(B1)	2005-06-01	Buddle et al.	Examiner
US6970830(B1)	2005-11-01	Samra et al.	Applicant
US6999943(B1)	2006-02-01	Johnson et al.	Applicant
US7006992(B1)	2006-02-01	Packwood	Applicant
US7051925(B2)	2006-05-01	Schwarz, Jr.	Applicant
US7072864(B2)	2006-07-01	Brake, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US7089503(B1)	2006-08-01	Bloomquist et al.	Applicant
US7104443(B1)	2006-09-01	Paul et al.	Applicant
US7113914(B1)	2006-09-01	Spielmann et al.	Applicant
US7165049(B2)	2007-01-01	Slater	Applicant
US2001/0011227(A1)	2001-08-01	Ashery et al.	Applicant
US2001/0011243(A1)	2001-08-01	Dembo et al.	Applicant
US2001/0027441(A1)	2001-10-01	Wankmueller	Applicant
US2001/0034682(A1)	2001-10-01	Knight et al.	Applicant
US2001/0037315(A1)	2001-11-01	Saliba et al.	Applicant
US2001/0044293(A1)	2001-11-01	Morgan	Applicant
US2001/0047342(A1)	2001-11-01	Cuervo	Applicant
US2001/0054003(A1)	2001-12-01	Chien et al.	Applicant
US2001/0056398(A1)	2001-12-01	Scheirer	Applicant
US2002/0019803(A1)	2002-02-01	Muller	Applicant
US2002/0026418(A1)	2002-02-01	Koppel et al.	Applicant
US2002/0046255(A1)	2002-04-01	Moore et al.	Applicant
US2002/0059093(A1)	2002-05-01	Barton et al.	Examiner
US2002/0062235(A1)	2002-05-01	Wahlbin et al.	Applicant
US2002/0077978(A1)	2002-06-01	O'Leary et al.	Applicant
US2002/0091572(A1)	2002-07-01	Anderson et al.	Applicant
US2002/0091631(A1)	2002-07-01	Usui	Applicant
US2002/0095365(A1)	2002-07-01	Slavin et al.	Applicant
US2002/0104878(A1)	2002-08-01	Seifert et al.	Applicant
US2002/0116271(A1)	2002-08-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US2002/0116330(A1)	2002-08-01	Hed et al.	Applicant
US2002/0120627(A1)	2002-08-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US2002/0120642(A1)	2002-08-01	Fetherston	Applicant
US2002/0143703(A1)	2002-10-01	Razvan et al.	Applicant
US2002/0147662(A1)	2002-10-01	Anderson	Applicant
US2002/0165820(A1)	2002-11-01	Anvekar et al.	Applicant
US2002/0174016(A1)	2002-11-01	Cuervo	Applicant
US2002/0194081(A1)	2002-12-01	Perkowski	Applicant
US2003/0004828(A1)	2003-01-01	Epstein	Applicant
US2003/0023549(A1)	2003-01-01	Armes et al.	Applicant
US2003/0028518(A1)	2003-02-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US2003/0033211(A1)	2003-02-01	Haines et al.	Applicant
US2003/0033246(A1)	2003-02-01	Slater	Applicant
US2003/0046249(A1)	2003-03-01	Wu	Applicant
US2003/0053609(A1)	2003-03-01	Risafi et al.	Applicant
US2003/0101119(A1)	2003-05-01	Persons et al.	Applicant
US2003/0105672(A1)	2003-06-01	Epstein et al.	Applicant
US2003/0135462(A1)	2003-07-01	Brake, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US2003/0140004(A1)	2003-07-01	O'Leary et al.	Applicant
US2003/0144935(A1)	2003-07-01	Sobek	Applicant
US2003/0154125(A1)	2003-08-01	Mittal et al.	Applicant
US2003/0163403(A1)	2003-08-01	Chen et al.	Applicant
US2003/0163416(A1)	2003-08-01	Kitajima	Applicant
US2003/0172040(A1)	2003-09-01	Kemper et al.	Applicant
US2003/0195808(A1)	2003-10-01	Brown et al.	Applicant
US2003/0200143(A9)	2003-10-01	Walker et al.	Applicant
US2003/0200180(A1)	2003-10-01	Phelan et al.	Applicant
US2003/0216965(A1)	2003-11-01	Libman	Applicant
US2004/0024672(A1)	2004-02-01	Brake, Jr. et al.	Applicant
US2004/0030626(A1)	2004-02-01	Libman	Applicant
US2004/0039588(A1)	2004-02-01	Libman	Applicant
US2004/0059952(A1)	2004-03-01	Newport et al.	Applicant
US2004/0093296(A1)	2004-05-01	Phelan et al.	Applicant
US2004/0093303(A1)	2004-05-01	Picciallo	Applicant
US2004/0098351(A1)	2004-05-01	Duke	Applicant
US2004/0128186(A1)	2004-07-01	Breslin et al.	Applicant
US2004/0243498(A1)	2004-12-01	Duke	Applicant
US2005/0021400(A1)	2005-01-01	Postrel	Applicant
US2005/0027649(A1)	2005-02-01	Cech	Applicant
US2005/0071230(A1)	2005-03-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US2005/0075932(A1)	2005-04-01	Mankoff	Applicant
US2005/0077350(A1)	2005-04-01	Courtion et al.	Applicant
US2005/0091138(A1)	2005-04-01	Awatsu	Applicant
US2005/0171898(A1)	2005-08-01	Bishop et al.	Applicant
US2006/0047589(A1)	2006-03-01	Grau	Applicant
CA2293321	1998-12-01		Applicant
EP843292(A2)	1998-05-01		Applicant
EP855659	1998-07-01		Applicant
EP959440	1999-11-01		Applicant
GB2275654(A)	1994-09-01		Applicant
GB2376787	2002-12-01		Applicant
GB2377071	2002-12-01		Applicant
GB2377314	2003-01-01		Applicant
WO94/29112	1994-12-01		Applicant
WO97/41673	1997-11-01		Applicant
WO98/11477(A2)	1998-03-01		Examiner
WO98/59307	1998-12-01		Applicant
WO99/05633	1999-02-01		Applicant
WO9905598	1999-02-01		Applicant
WO1/18699	2001-03-01		Applicant
WO1/69347	2001-09-01		Applicant
WO1/69347(A2)	2001-09-01		Applicant
WO1/69347(A3)	2001-09-01		Applicant
WO2005/043277(A3)	2005-05-01		Applicant

Non-Patent Literature (134)

Kase, Risk Management Opportunities for the Community Bank, ABA Bank Compliance, vol. 19, Issue 9, Sep./Oct. 1998, start p. 29 [PROQUEST].Examiner
Duden, From Data to Decisions: Selecting Risk Management Software, Risk Management, vol. 43, Issue 12, Dec. 1996, p. 33-35 [PROQUEST].Examiner
Barr, Developing a Risk-Based Compliance Monitoring System, ABA Bank Compliance, vol. 15, Issue 10, Oct. 1994, start p. 27 [PROQUEST].Examiner
Y. Breitbart, et al., “Merging Application-centric and Data-centric Approaches to Support Transaction—oriented Multi-system Workflows,” pp. 1-7.Applicant
Douglas O. Cook, et al., “Productivity and Efficiency in Insurance: An Overview of the Issues,” Wharton Financial Institutions Center, Oct. 11, 1994, Pennsylvania.Applicant
International Search Report dated Apr. 9, 2002.Applicant
5500 - FDIC General Counsel's Opinion No. 8 - Stored Value Cards, 61 Fed. Reg. 40490, http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5500-500.html, Aug. 2, 1996.Applicant
Song, A Card That Asks For ID, Time Magazine, Apr. 12, 2004, 1 page.Applicant
A Store Card Issuer Looks for Lift from Electronic Gift Certificates, Credit Card News, Feb. 1, 1995, 2 pages.Applicant
Claessens, et al., A Tangled World Wide Web of Security Issues, First Monday, retrieved from the internet at http://www.firstmonday.org/issue7—3/claessens, retrieved from the internet on Oct. 6, 2006.Applicant
Hotchkiss, ATM's at the head of their class, Bank Marketing, vol. 29, No. 3, Mar. 1997, pp. 26-32.Applicant
Edwards, ATMs The Hot New Media Buy, ABA Banking Journal, Mar. 1999, pp. 58, 60.Applicant
American Express Incentive Services, Incentive, Sep. 1996, p. 126.Applicant
Fickenscher, Amex Prepaid Offering is Latest Card for Firms Regarding Employees, American Banker, vol. 161, No. 151, Aug. 8, 1996, pp. 1-2.Applicant
Neumann, An Enhanced Neural Network Technique for Software Risk Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, No. 9, Sep. 1, 2002, pp. 904-912.Applicant
Associates First Capital Corporation, Hoover's Inc., The Industry Standard: The Newsmagazine of the Internet Economy, thestandard.net/companies/company-display, Apr. 6, 1999.Applicant
Award Card Comparison, JA7922,Applicant
Brehl, Banks issue cash-card pledge, The Toronto Star, Oct. 9, 1997, 1 page.Applicant
Blockbuster running test of a stored value card, The American Banker, Sep. 1, 1995.Applicant
Meece, Boatman's Prepaid Cards for Worker-Incentive Firm, American Banker, Jul. 2, 1996, p. 12.Applicant
Boatmen's Floats Stored Value into the Employee Incentive Waters, Debit Card News, vol. 2, Issue 2, Jul. 16, 1996, 3 pages.Applicant
CES/NaBANCO introduces stored values card technology blockbuster video is first merchant partner, Business Wire, Inc., Jan. 15, 1996.Applicant
Card Based Award Systems, JA8309.Applicant
CardEx Incentives, www.cardex.com, Apr. 6, 1999.Applicant
CardFlash, Apr. 5, 2005.Applicant
Vandenengel, Cards on the Internet: Advertising on a $3 Bill, Industry Intelligence, Feb. 1, 1995, pp. 46-48.Applicant
Kutler, Card Cash Creator Looking Beyond Mondex, Feb. 9, 1995.Applicant
Rosen, Cash Just Isn't Flexible Enough: Shops of the Future Will Only Take Cards, Daily Express, Technology Section, Feb. 10, 1995, 1 page.Applicant
Bank, Cash, Check, Charge—What's Next?, Seattle Times, Mar. 6, 1995.Applicant
Morgan et al., Categorizing Risks for Risk Ranking, vol. 20, No. 1, Jun. 22, 2005, pp. 49-58.Applicant
Common electronic purse specifications, Business Requirements, Version 6.0, Dec. 1998.Applicant
Guidotti, Comparing Environment risks: A Consultative Approach to Setting Priorities at the Community Level, Public Health Rev 1994, vol. 22, Jun. 16, 2005, pp. 321-337.Applicant
Britt, Competing in Auto Lending, America's Community Banker, vol. 5, No. 11, Nov. 1, 1996, pp. 33-37.Applicant
Consortium created to manage common electronic purse specification, Cardtech Securtech, Chicago, www.visa.com/av/news/PRmisc051199.vhtml, May 11, 1999.Applicant
Nora Wood, Corporate Spotlight, Incentive, Dec. 1997, 4 pages.Applicant
Mobasher et al., Creating Adaptive Web Sites Through Usage-Based Clustering of URLs, Knowledge and Data Engineering Exchange Workshop, Chicago, IL and Los Alamitos, CA, 1999, pp. 19-25.Applicant
Lamond, Credit Card Transactions Real World and Online, Paying by Credit Card-Real World and Online, http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/ElectronicProperty/kiamond/credit, printed Jul. 8, 2005, 17 pages.Applicant
D.C. Area Safeway Stores Look for Increase in Sales Volume and Revenue with Cards, Card News, vol. 6, No. 25, Dec. 30, 1991, pp.7-9.Applicant
Piskora, Debit Cards Seen Poised for New Markets, American Banker, Credit/Debit/ATMs, Mar. 7, 1995, p. 16.Applicant
E-Z Pass, Web page, http://www.ezpass.com-Disc—portNewYork.html, Nov. 12, 2001.Applicant
E-Z Pass, Web page, http:\\www.ezpass.com-Disc—ny—annual.html, Nov. 12, 2001.Applicant
E-Z Pass, Web page, http\\www.ezpass.com-frameMain.html, Nov. 12, 2001.Applicant
E-Z Pass, Web page, http:\\www.ezpass.com-whatis.html, Nov. 12, 2001.Applicant
Eight Keys to Making the Right Choice, Incentive, Dec. 1996, 9 pages.Applicant
D. O'Mahony, Electronic Payment System, 1997, Artech House, XP002137255, p. 7-11.Applicant
Business Times, Electronic Purse Can Free You From ATM Drag, Business Times, www.btimes.co.za, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 1 page.Applicant
Electronic Purse, SCIA (Smart Card Industry Association), About Smart Cards, www.scia.org.printed Feb. 23, 2001, 1 page.Applicant
Sanchez-Klein, Electronic purse alliance planned, Computerworld Online News, Jul. 29, 1998, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 2 pages.Applicant
Electronic purse card to be launched tomorrow, New Straits Times, News Clippings, Sep. 18, 1999, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 3 pages.Applicant
Exclusively Yours From Maritz . . . The MasterCard Ultimate Incentive, Incentive, Oct. 1995, 3 pages.Applicant
Block, First Data Subsidiary Creates Payroll Card for the Bankless, LexisNexis Academic, Credit/Debit/ATMs, p. 10, Mar. 21, 1997.Applicant
First Data markets stored-value cards, Cards International, Jan. 30, 1996, p. 5.Applicant
First USA - Activate Today and Get One Hour Free Calling Card Calls, Call 1-800-555-2535, First USA, 6 pages.Applicant
First USA - Call 1(800)335-2453 To Receive One Hour of Domestic Long Distance Calling (No Strings Attached), First USA, 6 pages.Applicant
First USA Platinum Connect, First USA Bank, First USA Promotional Mailing, Oct. 1997, 6 pages.Applicant
First Union Issues Smart Cards to Fort Benning Recruits, CardFax, vol. 1999, No. 60, Mar. 26, 1999, 1 page.Applicant
Norris, First data unit develops blockbuster cash card, Omaha World Hearld Sunrise Edition, Business Section, Jan. 19, 1996, p. 16.Applicant
Frequently asked questions, ECARD, www.eregard.com, printed Sep. 23, 2001, 7 pages.Applicant
Glossman, et al.,, Glossman, et al., Citicorp Company Report, Report No. 1647151, p. 8 of 16.Applicant
Machlis, Have it the smart way: Burger King program drives smart-card use, Computerworld, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 1 page.Applicant
Here's the calling convenience you asked for: 1-800-call-ATT . . . For All Calls, AT&T, Appendix A: For Card Carriers, 1999, 7 pages.Applicant
Hoovers, General Mills, Inc. Corporate Profile relied upon to show the history of the company, http:/cobrands.hoovers.com/global/cobrands/proquest/history.xhtml?COID=10639, Jul. 12, 2005, 2 pages.Applicant
How Is It Different?, JA8331.Applicant
Konrad, IBM Had a Bunch of Unusual Ideas in 2003, www.philly.com, printed Jan. 21, 2004, posted on Jan. 13, 2004, 2 pages.Applicant
Incenticard, Bellsouth, JA8329.Applicant
Judy Quinn, Incentive Cards Explained, Incentive, Dec. 1995, 5 pages.Applicant
Incentive Firms Find Debit Cards A Rewarding Experience (Off-line debit card issuers converge efforts with companies looking for effective incentives to boost employee productivity and to motivate individuals to buy their products), Debit Card News, vol.Applicant
Vincent Alonzo, Incentive Marketing . . . Three If By Smart Card, Incentive Sep. 1995, p. 11.Applicant
Incentive gift Card: Another way to give the gift of choice!, Incentive, Aug. 1995, 2 pages.Applicant
Coulton, Incentives Field Moving to Card-Based Series 14, American Banker, Mar. 26, 1998, 3 pages.Applicant
Introducing SpendingMoney(TM), Armetta: Marketing & Design Product Concept Report, Oct. 9, 1996, 15 pages.Applicant
Introducing the First USA Platinum Connect Card, First USA Promotional Mailing, Dec. 1997, 2 pages.Applicant
Key Bank Holiday Offer, http://www.key.com/swiftgift/home.html, printed Apr. 5, 1999.Applicant
LexisNexis Academic, Debit Card Innovation, vol. XXXV, No. 5, p. 2, May 1997.Applicant
LexisNexis Academic, Debit Cards: Payroll Card Ups Fees, Future Banker, p. 18, Oct. 6, 1997.Applicant
LexisNexis Academic, NTS' TransPay Debit Card Helps Remote and Unbanked Employees Get Funds Quicker, Financial News, Mar. 18, 1997.Applicant
MailFrontier Survey Finds that Consumers Hold Financial Institutions Accountable for Online Identity Theft, www.mailfrontier.com, Palo Alto, CA, Nov. 2004.Applicant
O'Conner, Maritz Gets MasterCard's Stamp of Approval, Business Travel News, Aug. 19, 1996, 2 pages.Applicant
Maritz, Incentive, Jun. 1996, p. 111.Applicant
Meridian Award Cards, JA8251.Applicant
Meridian-the leader in card marketing, JA8343.Applicant
Meridicard vs. Debit Cards, JA7917.Applicant
Clark, Microsoft, Visa to Jointly Develop PC Electronic-Shopping Software, The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1994, Nov. 9, 1994 WSJ B9.Applicant
More Retailers Turn to Co-Branding, Chain Store Age Executive with Shopping Center Age, Feb. 1, 1995, 3 pages.Applicant
Bogle, Mutual Funds at the Millennium: Fund Directors and Fund Myths, The Vanguard Group to the '40 Act Institute of PLI (Practicing Law Institute), New York, NY, May 15, 2000, 15 pages.Applicant
New 1-800-CALL-ATT Campaign Promotes One Number for All Calls, AT&T Marketing, News Release, www.att.com/press/0297/970217.csa.htm, Feb. 17, 1997, 2 pages.Applicant
Schwab, Charles, Now 7 Ways For A better Total Return For Your Money; Schwat 1, The Inventor's Asset Management Account, Charles R. Schwab, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 16 pages.Applicant
Allen et al., Overview of Smart Cards and the Industry, Smart Cards: Seizing Strategic Business Opportunities, Chapter 1, p. 2-20, Irwin Professional Publishing, 1997.Applicant
Paper or Plastic? With these three incentives, The Choice is Yours, Incentive, Feb. 1996, 2 pagesApplicant
Dugas, Payroll May Ask: Paper or Plastic?, USA Today, 3B, Aug. 14, 2001, 1 page.Applicant
Proton world and Europay to co-operate in creation of new CEPS-compliant e-purse application, Press Release 1999, Waterloo, Belgium, Jun. 28, 1999, 2 pages.Applicant
Brown et al., Purchasing Card Magic: Eli Lilly Finds Accounts Payable Flying High With Plastic, Corporate Cashflow, vol. 15, No. 12, Nov. 1994, 2 pages.Applicant
Purse Application for Cross Border Use in Euro, Cordis, Pace 1st 1999-11531 Pace, www.cordis.lu, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 3 pages.Applicant
SK100 Smart Card Electronic Purse Balance Reader, SK100 Balance Reader, http://perso.wanadoo.fr, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 1 page.Applicant
Miller, Section E.2.1: Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System, Project Athena, Cambridge, MA, Dec. 21, 1987, 39 pages.Applicant
Souccar, Smart Cards: 1st Union Smart Card Pilot Enlists a Second Army Base, American Banker, Digital Frontiers, vol. 164, Mar. 31, 1999, 3 pages.Applicant
Smart Cards: Big Brother's Little Helpers, The Privacy Committee of New South Wales, No. 66, Aug. 1995.Applicant
Smart card for loyalty and e-purse applications eclipses capability of conventional mag-stripe cards, Press Release. www.1.sib.com, Apr. 21, 1997, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 3 pages.Applicant
SmartAxis: Load Cash on to your E-Purse Card, Supported Currencies and Schemes, www.smartaxis.co.uk, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 9 pages.Applicant
Spurgin, Sopininmon! or What's Happening in the Retail Credit Card Environment, Credit World Journal, vol. 85, No. 4, Mar. 1, 1997, pp. 20-23.Applicant
Lacker, Stored Value Cards: Costly Private Substitutions for Government Currency, Economic Quarterly, 1996, Economic Quarterly, v82, n3, p. 1(25), ISSN: 1069-7225, 17 pages.Applicant
Lazarony, Stuck for a gift? Give a prepaid credit card, www.bankrate.com, Dec. 21, 1998, 1 page.Applicant
Key, Swift Gift ‘Wows’ Internet Shoppers, PR Newswire, www.key.com/swiftgift/home.html, Dec. 2, 1998, 1 page.Applicant
The Campus Card Conundrum, Card Technology, Journal ISSN: 1093-1279, p. 25+, Feb. 1998, pp. 1-8.Applicant
The Electronic Purse Reaches the Car Park, http:\\docs.vircom.net/mobility/parking, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 2 pages.Applicant
The Evolution of a New Consumerism, Chain Store Age, vol. 73, Jun. 1997, pp 8-9.Applicant
The Federal Transit Administration, TCRP Report 32 Multipurpose Transit Payment Media, Chapter 2 Multipurpose Fare Payment: Overview, p. 10-20.Applicant
Stoughton, The Gift of Credit, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business, Dec. 14, 1998.Applicant
Nora Wood, The Power of the Card, Incentive, Jul. 1997, 6 pages.Applicant
Stuber, The electronic purse: An overview of recent development and issues, Bank of Canada, Technical Report No. 74, www.bankofcanada.ca, Jan. 1996, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 2 pages.Applicant
Understanding the benefits: Smartcity offers a number of important benefits to both the card issuers and their customers, http://www.icl.com/smartcards/benefits.htm, printed Feb. 27, 2001, 2 pages.Applicant
Langheinrich et al., Unintrusive Customization Techniques for Web Advertising, Computer Networks, vol. 31, 1999, pp. 1259-1272.Applicant
Universal Card free lifetime membership extended 3 months, AT&T Marketing, www.att.com/press/0297/970217.csa.html, Dec. 4, 1990, 2 pages.Applicant
Visa Cash - Where can I get it?, www.visa-asia.com/pd/cash/where.html, Feb. 23, 2001.Applicant
Visa Cash, www.visa-asia.com/pd/cash/main.html, Feb. 23, 2001.Applicant
Visa International And SERMEPA Announce Plans For Cross Border Visa Cash Based on CEPS, www.visa.com/av/news/praaamisc111699.vhtml, Nov. 16, 1999.Applicant
Visa first to launch electronic purse load via GSM mobile phone, www.cellular.co.za, Johannesburg, ZA, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 4 pages.Applicant
Visa releases visa cash electronic purse specifications based on CEPS, www.visa.com/av/news/PRaamisc042099.vhtml, San Francisco, Apr. 20, 1999.Applicant
Hansell, Visa to unveil electronic purse cards, New York Times, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 2 pages.Applicant
Welcome To Card Express CardEx, CardEx website archived by web.archive on Oct. 31, 1996, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cardex.com, retrieve Oct. 18, 2003, 7 pages.Applicant
Welcome To Card Express, The CardEx Incentive Card, as disclosed in the CardEx web site archived by web.archive.org on Feb. 7, 1998, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cardex.com, retrieve Oct. 18, 2003, 8 pages.Applicant
SWIFTGIFT, Welcome to Swiftgift, www.swiftgiftcard.com, Dec. 8, 1998, 10 pages.Applicant
Kenneth Hein, What's the Deal?, Incentive, Jul. 1998, 7 pages.Applicant
Machlis et al., Will smart cards replace ATMS?, Computerworld, printed Feb. 23, 2001, 3 pages.Applicant
Definition of Store-Value Card, Wikipedia, retrieved from the internet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored-value—card, retrieved from the internet on Apr. 16, 2007.Applicant
PCT, International Search Report, PCT/US2004/006108, Feb. 27, 2004.Applicant
Higuera et al, “Software Risk Management”, Software Engineering Institute, Jun. 1996, 58 pages.Applicant
STRATEGIES & TACTICS, “Consulting Services”, www.strategies-tactics.com, Jan. 24, 1997, [retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008], 10 pages, Retrieved from www.archive.org.Applicant
Lerouge, Cynthia, “Managing by Projects”, Strategic Finance, Nov. 1999, vol. 81 Issue 5, [retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008], 23 pages, Retrieved from: web.ebscohost.com.Applicant
“How to live up to deadlines”, Industrial Computing, May 1989, [retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008], 5 pages, Retrieved from : Dialog.Applicant
Haimes, Yacov Y., “Risk Modeling, Assessment and Management”, John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1998, 36 pages.Applicant
“Compliance: An exercise in Risk Management”, ComplianceAction, Apr. 1996 [retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008], vol. 1, No. 7, 2 pages, retrieved from: bankersonline.com.Applicant
Antl, Boris et al.; “As easy as ASP”, Euromoney-n382, pp. 160-166, Feb. 2001, [retrieved on Feb. 15, 2008] 21 pages, Retrieved from ebscohost.com.Applicant
Royer, Paul S., “Risk Management: the undiscovered dimensions of project management”, Project Management Journal-v31n1, pp. 6-13, Mar. 2000.Applicant

Abstract