WO2020175348A1 - Système d'évaluation se rapportant à la conduite d'une personne, à l'aptitude d'une personne, à une société ou à un thème - Google Patents

Système d'évaluation se rapportant à la conduite d'une personne, à l'aptitude d'une personne, à une société ou à un thème Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2020175348A1
WO2020175348A1 PCT/JP2020/006969 JP2020006969W WO2020175348A1 WO 2020175348 A1 WO2020175348 A1 WO 2020175348A1 JP 2020006969 W JP2020006969 W JP 2020006969W WO 2020175348 A1 WO2020175348 A1 WO 2020175348A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
evaluation
person
rank
point
items
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Ceased
Application number
PCT/JP2020/006969
Other languages
English (en)
Japanese (ja)
Inventor
ミツエ 福永
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Fukunaga Office Co ltd
Original Assignee
Fukunaga Office Co ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Fukunaga Office Co ltd filed Critical Fukunaga Office Co ltd
Publication of WO2020175348A1 publication Critical patent/WO2020175348A1/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Ceased legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/10—Services

Definitions

  • the present invention is a system for evaluating the behavior of a person or the ability of a person, or the value of a company or thing (including artificial objects and natural objects, the same applies hereinafter).
  • Patent Document 1 Conventionally, an evaluation about a person's action or ability or an evaluation about a value of a company or things has been performed in various scenes and for various purposes (for example, Patent Document 1).
  • company is evaluated from various points of view such as financial condition, product strength, human resource strength, market capitalization of stock, or corporate brand value.
  • Patent Document 1 Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 20 0 4 _ 4 6 7 7 0
  • the questions about the evaluation target may be abstract and schematic.
  • each question item will be a list of contents (words) that are considered to have the same evaluation level.
  • words contents
  • the person to be evaluated can understand in more detail and more accurately due to the deviation of the order of understanding and the like.
  • the present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and determines the level of understanding or proficiency or the level of achievement or usefulness of the evaluator or the subject of evaluation with respect to evaluation items in a stepwise and accurate manner. It is possible, and by subdividing the questions, it is possible to realize accurate evaluation (high-accuracy evaluation) of the evaluator with respect to the evaluation target. The purpose is also to provide.
  • the present invention provides a method in which an evaluator (including a computer) evaluates an evaluation of an act of a person or an ability of a person who is an object of evaluation or an evaluation of a value of a company or things. Or an evaluation system for a person's actions or abilities, a company, or things used in an evaluation, which is related to the evaluation target and is divided into two or more ranks according to a preset order.
  • One or more evaluation items having questionnaires and two or more evaluations stored in association with the corresponding questionnaires and evaluated by the evaluator (including the computer) for each of the questionnaires.
  • a storage unit that stores points, the respective question items, and the preset order, and in each question item of the evaluation items, an evaluation point that determines whether the corresponding evaluation points are arranged in the order.
  • the rank determination unit and the evaluation point rank of the question item to which the evaluation point determined to deviate from the rank by the order determination unit or the evaluation score of the rank is the evaluator of the corresponding evaluation item.
  • a judgment unit such as a boundary for any of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level of the evaluation subject, or an abnormal rank or an abnormal point Or human ability or company or ⁇ 02020/175348 4 ((171?2020/006969).
  • the present invention according to claim 2, wherein in the storage unit, one or more evaluations having three or more questions related to an evaluation target and subdivided into ranks according to a preset order. Items, and three or more evaluation points stored in association with the corresponding question items and evaluated by the evaluator (including the computer) for each of the question items;
  • evaluation system for acts of a person or ability of a person or a company or thing means, for example, to effectively use the "act of a person or ability of a person or a company or thing" to be evaluated. This is a system for evaluating the evaluation target. The whole evaluation system is controlled by the control unit that has the central processing unit ( ⁇ 11) of the computer.
  • the evaluation of "human actions or abilities” here is the overall evaluation of human actions and abilities. For example, point evaluations of people's behaviors performed in sports and art activities (acting in skating or gymnastics, or in competitions such as volleyball, dance, or Japanese dance), English, mathematics, etc.
  • the evaluation includes the evaluation of superiority and inferiority of academic ability (a type of ability), and the evaluation of intelligence known as the intelligence test.
  • cases such as organizations (corporations), stress checks of people at home or school, and self-report of physical condition of sick people are included.
  • the fact that the evaluator evaluates the person who belongs to the organization (organization person) from the viewpoint of labor management also corresponds to the “evaluation of human behavior or human ability”.
  • a labor management evaluation system is also included in the present invention.
  • the evaluation target is “human act” or “human ability”
  • evaluation relates to the evaluator's evaluation, or “human action” or “human ability”. It includes the evaluations of the evaluation subjects that correspond to "people”.
  • the evaluation of a "company” here is an overall evaluation of a company. For example, a company's financial position, product strength, human resource strength, market capitalization, or corporate brand value. ⁇ 02020/175348 5 ((171?2020/006969
  • the “evaluation” includes, for example, not only the actual management status and property status of the company, but also, for example, the person who maintains the operation of the company, that is, the management manager of the company. It also includes “evaluation” of the persons who are to be evaluated, such as those who execute operations and management, the supervisors and supervisors who are subordinate to them, and the responsible persons and workers under their supervision.
  • the evaluation of "things” includes general evaluations of "articles” such as “artifacts” and “natural products (natural products)", and general evaluations of "things”.
  • the evaluation of “artifacts” includes, for example, the taste of wine and sake, the scent of perfume, the effect of drugs on diseases, the superiority of performance of industrial products such as engines and batteries, and other values. Evaluation of the design value of daily necessities and clothing, evaluation of the artistic value of antiques and works of art, evaluation of the appearance or historical value of buildings and other structures, etc. (related to the designation of cultural assets such as national treasures by Japan) (Including various evaluations performed in the selection process).
  • evaluation of “natural products” such as mountains, rivers, lakes or wetlands includes, for example, the value of their landscapes and other appearances (various types of processes carried out in the selection process for UNESCO World Heritage registration). (Including evaluation).
  • evaluation when an object to be evaluated is, for example, evaluation of a concrete object itself that can be grasped by human senses, and, for example, maintenance, operation, management, etc. of the object. It includes the “evaluation” of the persons to be evaluated such as those involved, maintenance supervisors, supervisors, managers, and workers.
  • the evaluation of "thing” is, for example, general evaluation of an abstract matter that is an object of thought or observation.
  • the “evaluation” when the evaluation object is “thing” is, for example, the evaluation of the abstract matter itself that is the target of human thinking and intention, and the operation of rules and systems, for example. “Evaluation” of the evaluation target persons such as persons, managers, persons who supervise and supervise, persons involved in operation and maintenance, etc.
  • F in T ech is a coined word that combines F inance (finance) and T echn ⁇ ⁇ ⁇ gy (technology), and is used for multi-currency payment, inter-personal remittance, virtual currency, and blockchain ⁇ D It refers to the utilization of LT technology.
  • E d T ech is a coined word that combines education (education) and technology (technology), and education through the internet such as electronic textbooks, educational applications, and videos due to the spread of smartphones and tablets. It refers to a business.
  • Insurl ' ech is a coined word that fuses Insurance (insurance) and T echno I 0 gy (technology), and is an innovation in the insurance industry using big data, cloud, and artificial intelligence. Also known as Ins Tech.
  • R etai IT ech is a coined word that fuses R etai I (distribution) and T echn ⁇ I ⁇ gy (technology), and the amount of handling increases year by year and becomes complicated, such as logistics and warehouses. Refers to technological innovation in the field of management and services.
  • F ash T e c h is a coined word that combines F as h i o n (fashion) and T e c h n o I o g y (technology), and is an innovation in the field of fashion. Examples include services via the Internet and apps, and clothing designed with new materials.
  • Ad Tec h is a coined word that fuses Ad (advertisement) and T e c h n o I o g y (technology), and is an innovation in the public notice industry.
  • R e T ech means R eal E state (real estate) and T echno I ⁇ ⁇ 02020/175348 7 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • Mar T ech is a coined word that combines Mar rketing (marketing) and T echn ⁇ ⁇ ogy (technology), and is an innovation in the operation and analysis of CRM/customer management systems and marketing tools. is there.
  • Me d T e c h is a coined word that combines Me d i c a l (medical) and T e c h n o l o g y (technical), and is an innovation in the medical field using big data, cloud, and artificial intelligence.
  • H e a l t h T e c h is a coined word that combines He a l t h (health care) and T e c h n ⁇ I o g y (technology), and is an innovation that combines health care and medical care with technology.
  • a gri T ech is a coined word that combines A gri Cu I ture (agriculture) and T echn ⁇ I ogy (technology). It is used for agriculture of drones and agriculture using OT and big data. It refers to the technological development of a field.
  • C l e a n T e c h is a coined word that fuses C l e a n (environment) and T e c h n o I o g y (technology), and is related to the environment such as energy, environmental problems, and energy saving.
  • Food T ech is a coined word that fuses food (food) and T echno I ogy (technology), and provides food advice and the development of new artificial foods based on sensors and OT data. Say that.
  • S p o r t T e c h is a coined word that combines S p o r t (sports) and T e c h n o l o g y (technology), and is an innovation in the field of sports such as visualization and measurement of various data during exercise.
  • H RT ech is a coined word that fuses Human Resource (human resources) and T echn ⁇ logy (technology). With various working styles increasing, new technological innovation in fields related to recruitment, employment and human resources. Say.
  • L ega IT ech is a coined word that fuses L kann (law) and T echnology (technology), and is combined with a block chain in the F in T ech field. ⁇ 02020/175348 8 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • the evaluator is not limited. For example, employ an organization (individual (individual company) or corporation, etc.), a person who belongs to the organization (person with an evaluation score or a person without an evaluation score), and a person (natural person or corporation) entrusted by the organization. be able to.
  • the person to be evaluated may be a personal computer (including Hachijo).
  • the “(1) Evaluator or (2) Evaluated person” here means the following.
  • the evaluator is a person (for example, an inspector if it is a favorite item such as alcohol or tea, an instructor or a supervisor if it is sports). , Schools and teachers in case of lessons), organizations (eg individuals (including private companies), corporations, etc.), computers, etc.
  • the evaluators are people (consultants, corporate directors and auditors), organizations (individuals: tax accountants and accountants, corporations: audit corporations).
  • the evaluator when the object of evaluation is “object” is a person (for example, if the object of evaluation is an automobile, it is an assessor; Persons, etc.), organizations (for example, individuals (including individual companies), corporations, etc.), computing, etc.
  • the evaluator is a person (for example, an operator or user in the case of a system or rule, a customer or a travel organizer in the case of travel planning, and the ⁇ 8: I If it is I ⁇ ), it means a supervisor, operator, organization (individual (including private company), corporation), computer, etc.
  • the evaluation target in the case where the evaluation target is “human act” or “human ability” is, for example, an evaluator or a “person” related to “human action” or “human ability”. Those who do.
  • the evaluation target is a “company”
  • the evaluation target is, for example, a person who maintains the operation of the company, that is, a business manager of the company, an executive of the operation and management, and a supervisor who supervises them. The person in charge and the person under the command, etc.
  • the evaluation target is “object”
  • the evaluation target is, for example, a person involved in the maintenance, operation, management, etc. of concrete objects that can be grasped by human senses, a supervisor of maintenance and maintenance, Persons in charge, workers, etc.
  • the evaluation target is “thing”
  • the evaluation target is, for example, the operator of the rules and systems, the manager, the person who supervises or supervises, the person who is involved in maintenance and operation, etc.
  • the evaluator also includes the evaluator itself, so the term “evaluator or evaluator” may include “the evaluator itself” or the evaluator. Means “evaluation target”.
  • evaluation target person used herein may be rephrased as "evaluator, etc.” “Evaluator, etc.” here means the evaluator, or “person's act” or “human ability” when the evaluation target is “human act” or “human ability”. "Become an evaluation subject corresponding to”. On the other hand, when the evaluation target is “company” or “thing”, the “evaluator etc.” is only the evaluator.
  • evaluationator means the evaluator or the evaluator evaluated by this evaluator when the evaluation target is a person's action or human ability, and the evaluation target is a company or thing. Is an evaluator only.
  • evaluation item is a matter when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation target with respect to the conduct of the person, the ability of the person, the company or the thing.
  • the type of this evaluation item is arbitrary. For example, evaluation items or skill characteristics may be used.
  • Multiple evaluation items are the views used when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation target. ⁇ 02020/175348 10 box (: 171?2020/006969
  • the “question item” is a question to ask the evaluator from a predetermined point of view/intent when ascertaining the evaluation item regarding the evaluation target. (Word) It should be noted that, for example, at the time of evaluation using an evaluation table such as a matrix table described below, it is easier to evaluate by allocating two or more, preferably three or more question items for each rank, but the evaluator When answering questions, it is preferable to arrange them randomly because it is unlikely that a high-scoring answer will be predicted from the tendency of questions placed before and after.
  • the number of questions may be two, three, four, five or more.
  • the answer to each question is, for example, "poor, normal, good” when the answer rank is 3, and "bad, moderately bad, normal, and moderate” when the answer rank is 5. It is preferable to prepare in advance something that can be easily scored, such as “good, good”. However, the answer is not limited to this, and may be an answer such as a ⁇ formula, a fill-in formula, and an alphabet.
  • evaluation score is the score (including XX formula, fill-in formula, and alphabet) evaluated by the evaluator for the questionnaire.
  • the number of questions in one evaluation item is arbitrary as long as it is 2 or more (plural), preferably 3 or more. As a result, the evaluation items are subdivided.
  • the “rank of question matter” is to know the degree of understanding or proficiency of the evaluator or the person to be evaluated or the degree of achievement or usefulness of the evaluation item related to the evaluation target. ⁇ 02020/175348 11 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • a "order” is an ordering that is arranged according to certain criteria.
  • the fixed standard is, for example, a natural number or an integer.
  • the evaluator evaluates “human behavior or ability, company or thing”, it is preferable to use the evaluation table including the matrix table.
  • the "storage unit” is, for example, installed in a personal computer or the like, and has an evaluation item having two or more, preferably three or more question items, and two or more items corresponding to each question item, and preferably two or more items. It stores at least three evaluation points and a preset order. Specifically, it is possible to employ a RAM (Random Acce ss Memory) that allows reading and writing of data, or a ROM (R eaD Only Memory) that is only for reading data. In addition, a hard disk such as a laptop computer may be used.
  • RAM Random Acce ss Memory
  • ROM Read Only Memory
  • a hard disk such as a laptop computer may be used.
  • the "evaluation point order determination unit” compares the order of each question item with the sequence of corresponding evaluation points in one evaluation item, and determines whether each evaluation point is arranged according to the order. It is a program (algorithm, logic) for judging.
  • (two or more, preferably three or more evaluation points) are stored in association with the corresponding question item" means that there are two or more, preferably three or more question items in the storage unit.
  • evaluation points for each answer it means that the question items and the evaluation points for them are stored in a one-to-one relationship.
  • each question item of the assessment item the corresponding assessment points are arranged in order
  • two or more, preferably three or more items belonging to one assessment item are preset. They are arranged in rank order, and it means whether or not the evaluation points that have a one-to-one relationship with these questions are arranged in the order according to that rank. For example, 5 from level 5 (easy) to level 1 (difficult) that belong to one evaluation item ⁇ 0 2020/175 348 12 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • the evaluation point ranking judgment section determines that all evaluation points are in order. It is determined that they are lined up.
  • the evaluation score for level 5 questions is 5 points
  • the evaluation score for level 4 questions is 4 points
  • the evaluation score for level 3 questions is ⁇ 1 point>
  • the level 2 level is 2.
  • the number of evaluation points judged to deviate from the order by the evaluation point order determination section may be one, two or more (plural), or three or more.
  • the boundary judgment unit is a program for judging the rank of such question items or the boundary of evaluation points.
  • any number of boundaries, which are judged by the boundary judgment unit, among the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point is arbitrary. For example, it may be one or two or more.
  • the "rank of the question item to which the evaluation point determined to deviate from the order by the evaluation point order determination section or the evaluation point of this rank” is "a question item with two or more, preferably three or more. Rank, which has a one-to-one relationship with the evaluation score determined by the evaluation point rank determination section to deviate from the preset rank, or It means the “evaluation point judged to deviate”.
  • the term "familiarity” as used herein refers to the degree of proficiency of the evaluator or the evaluator with respect to the evaluation items related to the "human act or human ability or company or thing" that is the object of evaluation.
  • the “understanding” here means the degree of understanding of the evaluator or the subject of evaluation regarding the evaluation items related to “human behavior or ability or company or thing”. It should be noted that this level of understanding indicates whether the evaluation target persons are suitable for the organization. ⁇ 02020/175348 13 ((171?2020/006969
  • the “achievement level” here is the degree of the ability of the evaluator or the target person to solve and solve various problems and difficult matters related to “human behavior or human ability or company or thing”. ..
  • the “usefulness” here is the degree to which the evaluator or the person being evaluated evaluates useful or useful for various problems or difficult matters related to “human behavior or human ability or company or thing”. is there.
  • the boundary between the understanding level, the proficiency level, the achievement level, and the usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person refers to a predetermined evaluation item related to the evaluation target.
  • Level of understanding, proficiency, understanding, or achievement of the person being evaluated, or level at which the evaluator or person being evaluated makes it useful (beneficial), and understanding, proficiency, understanding, or achievement This is the boundary between the level at which the evaluator or the person under evaluation does not find it useful.
  • Level 3 For example, if there are five levels (levels 5 to 1) of questions in the evaluation items, the evaluation points of the questions up to level 3 are arranged in order, and the evaluation points of the questions after level 2 are If there is a deviation from the hierarchy, the boundary between Level 3 and Level 2 will be one of the level of understanding, proficiency, achievement, and usefulness of the evaluator or the target of the evaluation. ..
  • abnormality rank or abnormal point here means the rank (abnormality rank) of question items that have been evaluated in a manner that deviates from the preset order (abnormality rank), or each evaluation point corresponding to these question items. , Means an abnormal evaluation point (abnormal point) out of the order according to its rank.
  • the storage unit, the evaluation point order determination unit, and the boundary determination unit are controlled by the control unit.
  • the control unit may be, for example, a unit that controls the whole behavior of a person or ability of a person or an evaluation system for a company or a thing.
  • the present invention according to claim 3, wherein the evaluator (including the computer) evaluates the act of the former person or the ability of the person, or the value of the company or the former thing.
  • the evaluator including the computer evaluates the act of the former person or the ability of the person, or the value of the company or the former thing.
  • a matrix table in which the three or more question items subdivided by rank are arranged in each cell in which terms are arranged and where the corresponding evaluation items in the X, vertical axis intersect, is used. It is an evaluation system for the conduct or ability of a person or a company or thing described in paragraph 2.
  • the "matrix table" referred to here is a plurality of evaluation items arranged on the X axis when evaluating a person's behavior or ability, or when evaluating the value of a company or thing. , Two or more evaluation items arranged on the vertical axis are arranged in a two-dimensional manner, and at the intersection (mass, column) of the line and column (row and column), the corresponding questionnaire items are arranged in the evaluation table. is there.
  • At least one of the evaluation items may be arranged in rank order according to a preset order. For example, when the evaluation items for each rank are arranged in the vertical (vertical, column) axis direction, the order of the ranking may be upward or downward.
  • the present invention according to claim 4, wherein the storage unit stores an abnormality determination value serving as a determination criterion for a preset improper abnormal point at each of the evaluation points.
  • an abnormality determination value serving as a determination criterion for a preset improper abnormal point at each of the evaluation points.
  • abnormality judgment value is a criterion for judging an abnormal point that is predetermined in order to judge an improper abnormal point (abnormal evaluation point) in the evaluation points of each question item. Is a value (point).
  • the range of appropriate values determined in advance is defined as (1) “predetermined range”, and the boundary between appropriate values and incorrect values exceeding the range is (2) “acceptable”. Value”, and the value that exceeds the allowable value abnormally is (3) abnormal value (abnormal point).
  • the range deviating from the corresponding evaluation point by less than 5% is (1) “predetermined range”, and the value deviating from the corresponding evaluation point by 5% or more and less than 10% is (2) allowable value, From the evaluation point 1 ⁇ 02020/175348 15 (:171?2020/006969
  • the value deviated by 0% or more is defined as (3) Abnormal value (abnormal point).
  • inappropriate abnormal point means that, in the evaluation points of each question item arranged according to the order, the evaluation points before and after the abnormal judgment value exceed the abnormal judgment value and deviate from the hierarchy. The evaluation point of the person who did.
  • device from the order in the positive or negative direction means the value (evaluation point) that deviates (separates) in the positive direction from the order value based on the sequence of numerical values (evaluation points) according to the order. ), or the value deviated in the negative direction (evaluation point).
  • abnormal point extraction unit is a program that extracts the evaluation points that deviate from the order in the positive direction or the negative direction beyond the abnormality judgment value as inappropriate abnormal points.
  • the present invention according to claim 5, wherein in the storage unit, three or more evaluation reference points set in advance in accordance with the rank of each question item, and in each question item,
  • the evaluation allowable value which is a preset allowable error when comparing each evaluation reference point and the corresponding evaluation point, is stored, and the boundary determination unit determines the evaluation points that belong to each of the question items.
  • the rank of the question item or the evaluation point of the rank that is evaluated exceeding the evaluation allowable value is deviated from the above-mentioned order, and the corresponding evaluation item Is the boundary of any of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level, and usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person, or the abnormal rank or the abnormal point.
  • the evaluation system according to any one of claims 2 to 4 regarding a person's act or person's ability or a company or thing.
  • evaluation reference point is a "value to be a reference of an evaluation point (a point considered to be appropriate from general common sense and the viewpoint of an evaluator)" which is set in advance according to the order of each question. ..
  • the “evaluation allowance” here means the ratio between the evaluation reference point and the evaluation point for the corresponding question item in the rank of the question item belonging to each item. ⁇ 02020/175348 16 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • the rank of a question item that is deviated from the order and is evaluated to exceed the evaluation allowable value or the evaluation point of this rank means each evaluation point corresponding to each question item and the corresponding
  • (1) deviation from the ranking and (2) the rank of the question that satisfies both conditions of the evaluation tolerance or It means "the evaluation score that satisfies both the deviation from the ranking and the evaluation value exceeded”.
  • the “rank deviating from the rank” means that the evaluation point rank judging unit deviates from the preset rank among “ranks of three or more question matters” belonging to a predetermined question matter. It is a rank that has a one-to-one relationship with the evaluation score determined to be
  • the boundary or the like determination unit is one of the boundaries of the understanding level, the proficiency level, the achievement level, and the usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person, or It is possible to determine a plurality of the abnormal ranks or the abnormal points, and the evaluation of the act of the person or the ability of the person or the company or the thing according to any one of claims 2 to 5. System.
  • the number of judgments by the boundary judgment unit on any of the comprehension level, proficiency level, achievement level and utility level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person is arbitrary as long as it is plural. For example,
  • the present invention uses a display or a printer and a screen of the display or a sheet of paper ejected from the printer to display a graph or a graph of each of the evaluation points with respect to the question items for each rank. It has an evaluation point visual display unit that is displayed as a figure, and in any one of claims 2 to 6, an evaluation system relating to a person's conduct or ability or a company or thing. It is a stem.
  • the type of display is arbitrary.
  • a liquid crystal display an organic ⁇ 02020/175348 17 ((171?2020/006969
  • the type of printer is also arbitrary. For example, it may be an ink jet printer or a laser printer.
  • the type of graph is arbitrary. For example, it may be a line graph, a line graph, a bar graph, or a pie graph.
  • the shape of the graphic is arbitrary.
  • various two-dimensional figures for example, triangles, polygons of quadrangle or more, etc.
  • the evaluation point visual display unit is a program for visually displaying each evaluation point for each question item by rank in the evaluation items as a graph or graphic.
  • each evaluation point as a graph or graphic is, for example, a display such as a computer or a paper surface using a printer.
  • the present invention according to claim 8, wherein the evaluation items are arranged in a plurality according to ranks according to a preset order, and the evaluation items (including the computer) mean the evaluation items for each rank.
  • Claims 2 to Claims characterized by having an evaluation item change part for rearranging the ranks or adding new evaluation items according to any of the points, usefulness, and importance. It is an evaluation system for acts or abilities of persons, companies, or things described in any one of 7 above.
  • the "evaluation item changing section” is a program for rearranging the evaluation items for each rank by a predetermined reason or adding new evaluation items for each evaluation item by rank.
  • the evaluation items are sorted by rank according to the evaluator's interests, points, usefulness, or importance. Or, to each of these rank-based evaluation items, another evaluation item is added according to the evaluator's intention, points, usefulness, or importance.
  • the present invention according to claim 1 or 2 relates to a person's act or a person's ability. ⁇ 02020/175348 18 ((171?2020/006969
  • the evaluation point ranking judgment section judges whether or not each evaluation point is arranged according to the order of the question matters, and Based on the ranking of question items that have been evaluated based on the rank of each question item, or the evaluation points, the boundary judgment unit determines the level of understanding and proficiency of the evaluator or the subject of evaluation of the evaluation items. , Boundary of achievement level or utility level, or judged as abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • the evaluator or the person to be evaluated can step through the boundaries of any of understanding, proficiency, achievement, and usefulness of the evaluation items related to the object of evaluation, or abnormal ranks, and abnormal points. And it can be accurately pinpointed.
  • the X, vertical axis direction is used. Multiple evaluation items and multiple evaluation items by rank are placed in any of the above, and multiple question items are subdivided by rank in each cell where evaluation items in the X and vertical directions intersect.
  • the matrix table in which is arranged is used. This makes it possible for the evaluator to see at a glance the relationship between the evaluation items in the X and vertical directions, and the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level, and usefulness of the evaluation item Also, it can be visually recognized with pinpoint.
  • the storage unit stores, in advance, an abnormality determination value serving as a determination criterion of an inappropriate abnormal point determined in advance at each evaluation point.
  • the abnormal point extraction unit extracts (removes) an inappropriate abnormal point. As a result, a more appropriate evaluation score can be obtained. As a result, by using the boundary judgment unit, one of the more accurate understanding, proficiency, achievement, and usefulness of the evaluation items of the evaluator or the evaluation subject, or the abnormal rank. Alternatively, the abnormal point can be determined. Since abnormal points are irregular, it is possible to perform more appropriate evaluation, etc., by eliminating them.
  • each evaluation reference point set in advance in the storage unit in correspondence with the rank of each question item and each question item set in advance.
  • the evaluated evaluation allowable values are stored.
  • the rank or evaluation point of the question that was evaluated beyond the evaluation allowable value and deviated from the rank was calculated. It is judged by the judgment part such as the boundary of the understanding level, the proficiency level, the achievement level and the usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person, or the abnormal rank or the abnormal point.
  • the evaluator or the person to be evaluated has a higher degree of accuracy and pinpoint, and the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level, and usefulness level of the evaluation items. It is possible to determine the boundary of any of the above, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • the evaluation point order determination section determines that there are a plurality of points where the evaluation points corresponding to the order of each question are not arranged.
  • the rank of the question that is evaluated deviating from the rank order of each question at that judgment point, or that question It is possible to judge that the evaluation score corresponding to is the boundary of any of the comprehension level, the proficiency level, the achievement level and the usefulness level of the evaluation item, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • each evaluation score according to the rank of the evaluation item is displayed as a graph or a graph on a screen of a display or a paper printed by a printer using the evaluation score visual display unit. It can be displayed visually as a figure.
  • the evaluation ⁇ 0 2020/175 348 20 (:171? 2020/006969
  • the person or the person to be evaluated does not have to read the evaluation points for each question, etc., but at a glance at the graph or graphic, the evaluation points for each evaluation item as well as the level of understanding and familiarity with the evaluation item can be obtained. It is possible to grasp the boundary of any one of the degree, the degree of achievement and the degree of usefulness, or the overall contents such as the abnormal rank or the abnormal point.
  • each evaluation item for each rank is determined according to any one of the purpose, the points, the usefulness, and the importance of the I-parity person by using the evaluation item change section. It is possible to rearrange and add evaluation items.
  • each evaluation item by rank is influenced by the evaluator's sense of values (intention).
  • the order of evaluation items can be rearranged in order to specifically function for any request.
  • new evaluation items can be added.
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an evaluation system for human behavior according to a first embodiment of the present invention.
  • Fig. 2 is an evaluation table used in the evaluation system for human actions according to the first embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 3 is a table showing the contents of each question included in the evaluation items of the evaluation system for human behavior according to the first embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 4 is an evaluation table used in the evaluation system for human ability according to the second embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 6 An evaluation table used in an evaluation system for corporate value according to a third embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 7 is a table showing the contents of each question included in the evaluation items of the company value evaluation system according to the third embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 8 is an evaluation table used in the evaluation system for the value of a product according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 9 is a table showing the contents of each question included in the evaluation items of the evaluation system regarding the value of a product according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 10 is an evaluation table used in an evaluation system for value of things according to Example 5 of the present invention.
  • Fig. 11 is a table showing the contents of each question included in the evaluation items of the evaluation system regarding the value of things according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 12 ( 3 ) is a graphical representation of the evaluation reference points of the evaluation items in Example 5.
  • ( ⁇ ) is a graphic representation of the evaluation points of the practical items (Mi) in the evaluation table in Fig. 10.
  • FIG. 13 (3) is a table in which anomalous ranks are marked with boundaries in another evaluation table used in the human behavior evaluation system according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention. (10) is a table in which abnormal points are marked with circles in another evaluation table used in the evaluation system for human behavior according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 14 is an evaluation table used in the evaluation system for actions of persons according to the seventh embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 15 is a part of a matrix table used in the evaluation system for human behavior according to Example 8 of the present invention.
  • FIG. 16 is the remaining part of the matrix table used in the human behavior evaluation system according to the eighth embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 17 This is a table showing the contents of each question that is included in some of the evaluation items in the matrix table of Fig. 15. ⁇ 0 2020/175 348 22 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • FIG. 18 This is a table showing the contents of each question included in some evaluation items of the matrix table in Fig. 16.
  • reference numeral 10 denotes an evaluation system for a person's act according to the first embodiment of the present invention, and an evaluation system 10 for an act of this person is an organization (evaluator or evaluation target person).
  • evaluation target person that is, “goal management (mouth)”, which is one of the thoughts and behaviors, clarification of the evaluation target person's thoughts and actions, more specifically, based on the emphasis on planning.
  • mouth is one of the thoughts and behaviors
  • clarification of the evaluation target person's thoughts and actions more specifically, based on the emphasis on planning.
  • the action chart and the process until the completion of this action are evaluated using the evaluation table.
  • the evaluation table three evaluation items (evaluation items) related to preset target management are arranged in the X-axis direction (it may be the vertical axis direction), and Direction may be used) according to the order in which the rank shifts downward from “easy” to “difficult” for each evaluation item.
  • the rank of “Evaluation items” is arranged. That is, one evaluation item (for example, in 9 squares in total where “Evaluation items” and “Rank of each evaluation item” intersect in the evaluation table).
  • three subdivided question items for example, ⁇ _1 to ⁇ _3 grades) are arranged vertically (in the axial direction).
  • the evaluation system for human behavior 10 has a personal computer as a main body.
  • the control unit ( ⁇ 11) 11 of this personal computer includes a keyboard 12; a storage unit 13; an evaluation point order determination unit 14; a boundary determination unit 15; and an abnormal point extraction unit 19.
  • the evaluation point visual display section 20, the evaluation item changing section 21, the evaluation table display section 23, the display 24 and the printer 25 are electrically connected to each other.
  • the personal computer is a commercially available notebook personal computer placed in the personnel room of the organization.
  • Keyboard 1 and 2 are employees of the organization's personnel department (evaluators) who are mid-level chief employees of the organization. ⁇ 02020/175348 23 ((171?2020/006969
  • the operator When assessing the target management ability of the evaluation subject, the operator inputs the evaluation points obtained by the evaluator's answer to each question on the evaluation work sheet in the input section. is there.
  • the storage unit 13 here is a hard disk of a personal computer.
  • the evaluation point order determination unit 14 is a program for determining whether or not each evaluation point is arranged according to the order of each question in each evaluation item.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 compares the evaluation reference points for each evaluation item with each rank and the corresponding evaluation points, etc. (e.g., the evaluation points between adjacent ranks of each question may be compared.
  • the rank of the evaluation item whose point difference exceeds the evaluation allowable value is defined as the boundary of any of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level of the evaluation target (evaluator or evaluation target).
  • This is a program that determines that the point difference is abnormal, and if the point difference exceeds the evaluation allowable value abnormally (if it exceeds the abnormal judgment value), it is determined as an abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 is composed of a personal computer 0 II.
  • all the programs described in Example 1 are also composed of the personal computer ⁇ II.
  • the abnormal point extraction unit 19 compares each evaluation score assigned to each evaluation item with the evaluation reference score of the corresponding rank (evaluation score between adjacent ranks of each question is the same). It is also a program that, when compared), extracts a deviation from the order in the plus or minus direction that exceeds the preset abnormality judgment value as an inappropriate abnormality point.
  • the evaluation point visual display section 20 shows the evaluation points by rank for each evaluation item. ⁇ 0 2020/175 348 24 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • the evaluation item changing section 21 is a sort of rank according to the organization's intentions, points, usefulness, or importance for each evaluation item arranged by rank, or a new evaluation. It is a program that adds items.
  • the evaluation table display section 23 is a program for displaying the created matrix table on the display 24.
  • the display 24 is a liquid crystal screen of a personal computer.
  • the printer 25 is a laser system that is electrically connected to a personal computer via a !_8 1 ⁇ 1 cable.
  • this evaluation table shows "goal planning 0 (: plan)", “rational behavior (0: execution)”, “clarification of unreached causes and effective measures” in the X-axis direction.
  • Eight ( ⁇ ,: Reflection and re-action)” are assigned to each of the three evaluation items, and the evaluation items “ There are 3 ranks, and there are 0 to 8 evaluation items.
  • Nine question items ( ⁇ 1 ⁇ ⁇ _ 3, _ _ 1 ⁇ _ _ 3, 8 _ 1 ⁇ _ 8 _ 3) are arranged in a total of 9 squares that intersect with the rank.
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 5 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 4 points.
  • the evaluation reference points for the three ranks are three points.
  • the evaluation tolerance is 1 point.
  • the evaluation point order determination unit 14 determines whether or not the evaluation points are arranged according to the order of each question in each evaluation item of the evaluation table of FIG. After that, based on the result of the judgment, the boundary judgment unit 15 compares the evaluation reference points for each evaluation item for each evaluation item with the corresponding evaluation points, and the difference between the points is the evaluation allowable value.
  • the rank of the evaluation items that are exceeded is judged as (the rank of) any one of the understanding level, the proficiency level, the achievement level and the usefulness level of (for the evaluator) the evaluation target person, and When the point difference exceeds the evaluation allowable value abnormally (when it exceeds the abnormality judgment value), it is judged as an abnormal rank or an abnormal point.
  • the evaluation reference point of 3 ranks is 3 points, while the evaluation score of _ 3 is 1 point, so the error is 2 points. Exceeds the evaluation tolerance of 1 point.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 determines whether the boundary between any of the _ 2 and the _ 3 is one of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level, and usefulness level of the evaluator (or evaluator). Is determined as.
  • the evaluation point of rank _ 2 is “1 point” (deviation in the negative direction) with respect to the evaluation reference point “4 points”, so the abnormal point extraction unit 19 determines this as an abnormal point (abnormal rank _ 2 ) Is extracted as.
  • the evaluation target for each evaluation item for the target management can be more accurately performed. It is possible to judge the boundary of any of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point. As a result, the evaluator (employee/organization of the personnel department) will be able to understand each evaluation item's level of comprehension, proficiency, achievement and usefulness, or an abnormal rank, or even an abnormal rank. Anomalous points can be accurately (stepwise) pinpointed and accurately determined.
  • the evaluator comes to have a high awareness of each question of the evaluation item, and the accuracy of the evaluation of the evaluator (or the evaluator) regarding the evaluation target can be improved.
  • FIG. 1 a human ability evaluation system according to a second embodiment of the present invention will be described.
  • the human ability evaluation system 108 focuses on the understanding ability of the evaluation target person regarding 6-learning. ⁇ 0 2020/175 348 27 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • evaluation reference points for rank 0, 3 for evaluation rank for swallows, and 2 for evaluation reference for 3 ranks.
  • the evaluation tolerance here is 1 point.
  • the evaluation reference point of the swallow rank is 3 points (since the evaluation point of 3-2 is 1, The error exceeds the evaluation allowable value of 1. This allows the boundary judgment unit 15 to determine the level of understanding and familiarity of the evaluation subject (or the evaluator) between 0-1 and ⁇ 3 _ 2. Degree of achievement, achievement or usefulness is judged as a boundary, and similarly, in the evaluation item of “elimination of weaknesses and problems () ”, the evaluation reference point of the swallow rank is 8 points for 3 points.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 determines the boundary between 8 _ 1 and 8-2 as the boundary of the proficiency level or understanding level of the evaluation subject.
  • the evaluator including the organization
  • the evaluator must be able to learn, understand, or achieve only 0 to 1 for the evaluation target content, “learning motivation for learning objectives ( ⁇ ),” of the evaluation item (at that level). It is possible to recognize (understand) that it is usefulness ⁇ 02020/175348 28 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • the evaluation reference points and the evaluation allowances are provided, so that the evaluation target (or evaluator)'s level of understanding and familiarity with 6-learning can be improved with higher accuracy. It is possible to determine the boundary of any of the degrees of achievement, achievement and usefulness, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • FIG. 1 a company value evaluation system according to the third embodiment of the present invention will be described.
  • the company's value evaluation system 10 is based on the fact that establishment of the soundness and safety of the organization determines the value of the company. This table is used to evaluate the risk handling skills and risk elimination process of employees (organizational members) that make up a company (organization) because they constitute important elements.
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 3 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 2 points
  • the 3 rank has an evaluation reference point of 1 point.
  • the evaluation tolerance here is 1 point.
  • the evaluation reference point of the armpit rank is 2 points and the evaluation score of _ 2 is 4 points. The difference exceeds one point of the evaluation tolerance.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 determines whether the evaluator's (or the subject of evaluation)'s comprehension level, proficiency level, achievement level, or usefulness level between 8-1 and _ 2 is between 8-1 and _ 2. It is judged as the boundary.
  • the evaluator including the organization
  • the evaluation reference point and the evaluation allowance are provided, so that the evaluator (or the evaluation subject) for each evaluation item for corporate value can more accurately It is possible to determine the boundary of any one of understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level, or abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • FIG. 1 Next, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 8 and FIG. 9, an evaluation system for the value of an object according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention will be described.
  • the evaluation system 10 0 ⁇ 3 relating to the value of an object according to the fourth embodiment relates to a vehicle that is an object of a physical right that is a subject of sight or thought. This table is used to evaluate the process of maintaining and evaluating the value of the vehicle.
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 3 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 2 points
  • the 3 rank has an evaluation reference point of 1 point.
  • the evaluation tolerance here is 1 point.
  • the evaluation reference point of the Tsubaki Rank is 2 points (since the evaluation point of 3 _ 2 is 4 points, The error exceeds 1 point of the evaluation allowable value, so that the boundary judgment unit 15 causes the evaluator's understanding level, proficiency level, and achievement level to be between _ _ 1 and (3 _ 2). And the degree of usefulness is determined as the boundary.
  • the evaluator (including the organization) is able to learn from 0 to 1 that the evaluator (self) learns the contents of the evaluation item “maintaining the basic value ( ⁇ 3)” regarding the value of the vehicle.
  • the evaluator (self) learns the contents of the evaluation item “maintaining the basic value ( ⁇ 3)” regarding the value of the vehicle.
  • the evaluation reference point and the evaluation allowance are provided, so that the evaluator's degree of understanding and proficiency of the value of the vehicle being evaluated can be improved with higher accuracy. It is possible to determine the boundary between achievement level and usefulness level, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point.
  • FIG. 10 Next, with reference to FIG. 1, FIG. 10 and FIG. 11, an evaluation system regarding the value of things according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention will be described.
  • the evaluation system for value of 10 according to Example 5 is based on the theme of abstract matters that are the targets of thoughts and observations. Therefore, this table is used to evaluate the process of maintenance and evaluation of various management systems. ⁇ 02020/175348 31 ((171?2020/006969
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 3 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 2 points
  • the 3 rank has an evaluation reference point of 1 point.
  • the evaluation tolerance here is 1 point.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 determines that It is judged that the boundary between 2 and 1 is one of the comprehension level, the proficiency level, the achievement level and the usefulness level of the evaluator (or the target person).
  • the evaluator has no inconsistency in the proficiency, understanding, or achievement of the evaluator (self) with respect to the content of the evaluation item, “Practices of various management systems (Mimi)”, and up to _ 1 It can be recognized that these deviate (the degree of usefulness up to that point).
  • the evaluator's level of understanding, proficiency, and achievement of the management system that is the object of evaluation can be achieved with higher accuracy. It is possible to determine the boundary of either the degree or the usefulness, or the abnormal rank or the abnormal point.
  • evaluation points by rank in each evaluation item are displayed on the display 24 as a polygonal figure of a triangle or a quadrangle using the evaluation point visual display unit 20. ⁇ 02020/175348 32 ((171?2020/006969
  • Figure 12 (8) is a graphic representation of the evaluation reference points for the evaluation items of ranks 0 to 8 in the various management systems shown in Figure 10.
  • Fig. 12 ( ⁇ ) is a graphical representation of the evaluation points in “Practical matters of each type of management system (Min)” in Fig. 10. This allows you to compare each evaluation reference point with the overall numerical value (evaluation point) of each evaluation item without checking the numerical value such as the evaluation score of each evaluation item. Can be visually recognized.
  • evaluation items are rearranged by using the evaluation item changing section 21 or the evaluation items are added according to any of the organization's intentions, points, usefulness, and importance. It can be carried out.
  • the most appropriate evaluation item for the organization will be placed in the evaluation table (if necessary, each evaluation item can be ranked), and the questions of the evaluation item can be clarified.
  • the evaluation system for human behavior 1 0 in this Example 6 does not use the evaluation reference points of Example 1 and ranks the evaluation points deviating from the ranking.
  • Fig. 13 ( 3 ) shows the points that are judged as the boundaries of the understanding, proficiency, achievement, and usefulness of the target person (or evaluator) regarding target management, and the judgment results. Displayed as a figure (downward triangle) in the table ⁇ 02020/175348 33 ⁇ (: 171? 2020 /006969
  • Example 6 As shown in Fig. 13 ( 3 ), as an evaluation table, four evaluation items in the X-axis direction (N 0.1: grasp of plan hindrance factors, N 0.2: target , 0: 3: Rational actions, N 0.4: Elucidation of causes and measures to be reached, and 5 types of questions with ranks of 6 (easy) to 3 (difficult) in the vertical direction. Use the one that is arranged.
  • the order here is based on the criteria that "the evaluation score on the difficult rank side is smaller than the evaluation score on the question matter on the easy rank side" in the two questionnaire items between adjacent ranks. In order.
  • Example 6 will be specifically described below with reference to the evaluation table of FIG. 13 ( 3 ).
  • the evaluation score for N 0.1 was 3 and the evaluation score for 1 ⁇ 10.
  • the point order determination unit 14 determines that this is contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary judgment part 15 evaluates the evaluation items or evaluation targets for the evaluation items of 1 ⁇ 10.1 between 1 ⁇ 1 ⁇ .1-and 1 ⁇ 1 ⁇ .1 - ⁇ . It is judged as a boundary between the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level and usefulness level.
  • the organization (evaluator or evaluator) has no contradiction in the proficiency, understanding, or achievement of the evaluator or the evaluator up to the rank for the contents of the evaluation item in 0.1, and these Can be recognized as deviating (usefulness up to that point).
  • the evaluation score of N 0.2 — 6 is 4 points, and the evaluation score of 1 ⁇ 10 2_ is as large as 5 points.
  • the order determination unit 14 determines that this is against the order. Based on this, the boundary judgment unit 15 judges that the boundary between N 0.2-6 and 1 ⁇ 10.2- is the boundary such as the level of understanding of the evaluation target for N 0.2 evaluation items. To do. As a result, the organization has a N 0.2 ⁇ 02020/175348 34 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • the evaluation score of N 0.3_ was 2 points and the evaluation score of 1 ⁇ 10.3. .3—The evaluation score of the swallow was 2 points, and 1 ⁇ 10.3. Therefore, the evaluation point order determination unit 14 determines that these ranks are not in order. Based on this, the boundary judgment unit 15 determines that the boundary between N 0.3- and 1 ⁇ 10.3.- ⁇ and between N 0.33-13 and 1 ⁇ 10.3. Is defined as the boundary of the comprehension level of the evaluator or the target person for the evaluation item of N 0.3.
  • the organization has no inconsistency in the proficiency, understanding, or achievement of the evaluator or the evaluator up to the rank with respect to the content of the evaluation item of N 0.3, and these deviations occur in the ⁇ rank. You can recognize that you are doing (usefulness up to that point).
  • the evaluation score of N 0.4- is 3 points, while the evaluation score of 1 ⁇ 10.4__ is 3 points. Therefore, the evaluation point order determination unit 14 determines that this is against the order. Based on this, the boundary judgment section 15 determines whether the evaluator or the person to be evaluated for the evaluation item of N 0.4 is between 1 ⁇ 10.4 and -1 ⁇ 0.4. Judge as the boundary of understanding level. As a result, the organization has no inconsistency in the proficiency, understanding, or achievement of the evaluator or the evaluator up to the rank with respect to the content of the evaluation item of N 0.4, and these are ranked in the ⁇ rank. It can be recognized as deviating (usefulness up to that point).
  • Fig. 13 (distance) is a table in which the evaluation points in the above evaluation table are marked with circles as abnormal points, which are points that are inconsistent with the preset order.
  • the masses marked with circles (abnormal points) can be used as a basis by simply looking at the evaluation table in Fig. 13 (b). ⁇ 02020/175348 35 ⁇ (: 171?2020/006969
  • the evaluation system for human behavior in Example 7 is the behavior of the person to be evaluated (person), that is, the evaluation item (question This is an example in which the order is also set for items).
  • the evaluation point ranking determination unit 1 4 has a range between the swallow rank and the 3 rank. Is judged to be against the order. Based on this, the boundary determination unit 15 determines between the rank 3 and the rank 3 as one of the boundaries of the understanding level, proficiency level, achievement level, and usefulness level of the evaluator or the evaluation target person. As a result, the organization (evaluator) can recognize that the evaluation target person is only able to master, understand or achieve the contents of the evaluation items that belong to the goal management up to the rank (usefulness up to that point). ..
  • the evaluation system 100 for the actions of this person is to clarify the thoughts and actions of the assessee regarding the "goal management" of the assessee belonging to the organization.
  • the matrix table (evaluation table) is used to evaluate the actions based on the plan and the process of realizing the actions.
  • the matrix table shown in FIGS. 15 and 16 has three evaluation items (evaluation items) related to preset target management arranged in the X-axis direction (it may be the vertical axis direction), while In the axial direction (it may be the X-axis direction), regarding skill management, two skill characteristics (evaluation items) for each rank of "Mimi, Hachi” are evaluated according to the order in which the rank shifts downward from "easy” to "difficult". There are 3 question items that are arranged and divided into 6 squares in total, where each skill characteristic and each evaluation item in the matrix table intersect, for each evaluation item (eg (3 etc.)).
  • each skill characteristic for example, practical skill characteristic
  • Etc. to the evaluation subject belonging to Each of the questions in “” relates to target management subdivided by rank, in which the rank shifts downward from “easy” to “difficult”.
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 5 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 4 points.
  • the evaluation reference points for the three ranks are three points.
  • the evaluation tolerance is 1 point. Furthermore, when the difference between the evaluation points of adjacent ranks is 3 points (abnormality judgment value) or more from the evaluation reference point and deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction, it is regarded as an abnormal point.
  • the evaluation points for all the questionnaire items of the three evaluation items are within the evaluation allowable value based on the corresponding evaluation reference points of the 0 to 3 ranks. It was found that the evaluation target persons understood all evaluation items.
  • evaluation items there are three evaluation items in the X-axis direction: “advancement of target management technology ( ⁇ 3)”, “planned response to target management (MI)”, and “learning attitude of target management technology ()”.
  • the evaluation items “ 3 ranks are arranged, and the evaluation items from 0 to 8
  • There are nine questions (0 1 to 0 1 3 and 1 1 to 3 1 and 8 1 1 to 8 1 3) in a total of 9 squares that intersect with the rank.
  • the ⁇ rank has an evaluation reference point of 5 points
  • the swallow rank has an evaluation reference point of 4 points.
  • the evaluation reference points for the three ranks are three points.
  • the evaluation tolerance is 1 point. Furthermore, when the difference between the evaluation points of adjacent ranks is 3 points (abnormality judgment value) or more from the evaluation reference point and deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction, it is regarded as an abnormal point.
  • the boundary etc. determination unit 15 determines that the boundary between Mimi _ 2 and Mami _ 3 is one of the boundaries of the evaluation subject's degree of understanding, proficiency, achievement and usefulness. .. Moreover, since the evaluation score of Min_2 is “1” (the deviation in the negative direction) with respect to the evaluation reference score “4” of the rank, the abnormal point extraction unit 19 determines this as an abnormal point ( It is extracted as an abnormal rank _ 2).
  • Mimi _ 2 was removed as an abnormal point, and the boundary determination unit 1 5 made Mami _ 1 and Mami _ A boundary is drawn between (3) and (3), and the evaluator (or evaluator) is recognized as having only mastered, understood or achieved up to __1 (the usefulness of that level).
  • the evaluation reference point of 3 ranks is 3 points, and the evaluation score of _ 3 is 1 point, so the error is 2 points. Exceeded 1 point of value.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 determines that the boundary between 8_2 and 8_3 is the boundary of the understanding degree of the evaluation subject.
  • the evaluation reference point of the swallow rank is 4 points and the evaluation point of _ 2 is 2, the error is 2 points, which exceeds the evaluation allowable value of 1 point.
  • the boundary determination unit 15 also determines between 8 and 12 as one of the boundaries of understanding, proficiency, achievement, and usefulness of the evaluation subject. Therefore, there are two boundaries in this “familiar attitude of target management technology (8)”. As a result, it is recognized that up to 8 _ 1 the evaluation target person has not been able to master, understand or achieve the target.
  • Example 8 As described above, in Example 8, three evaluation items are arranged in the X-axis direction, two skill characteristics for each rank are arranged in the vertical axis direction, and ranks are assigned to each square where these intersect. It uses a matrix table that arranges multiple subdivided questions. As a result, the evaluator (including the organization) can see at a glance the relationship between each evaluation item in the X and vertical directions and each skill characteristic, and the evaluation target person (or the evaluation object for the evaluation item belonging to each skill characteristic) A person's understanding level or proficiency level, or achievement level or usefulness level can also be visually confirmed in a pinpoint manner.
  • the present invention is useful as a technique for evaluating the conduct of a person or the ability of a person, or the value of a company or thing.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Educational Administration (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention a pour but de fournir un système d'évaluation concernant la conduite d'une personne, l'aptitude d'une personne, une société ou un thème, le système d'évaluation permettant : de distinguer, d'une manière précise et pas à pas, le niveau de compréhension, la compétence, la réussite et l'utilité d'une personne en cours d'évaluation ou d'une personne effectuant une évaluation par rapport à un thème d'évaluation ; de subdiviser le thème d'évaluation en au moins trois thèmes de question afin d'effectuer ainsi une évaluation correcte d'un objet d'évaluation.　Une unité d'évaluation de séquence de points d'évaluation (14) évalue si, par rapport à un thème d'évaluation mémorisé dans une unité de mémoire (13), des points d'évaluation sont agencés dans la séquence des thèmes des questions. En fonction du résultat d'évaluation, d'une limite, etc., l'unité d'évaluation (15) évalue que le classement d'un thème de question pour laquelle l'évaluation s'écarte de la séquence de classement des questions, ou qu'un point d'évaluation dudit classement constitue un classement anormal, un point anormal ou une limite dans le niveau de compréhension, de compétence, de réussite ou d'utilité d'une personne en cours d'évaluation ou d'une personne effectuant une évaluation par rapport au sujet d'évaluation.
PCT/JP2020/006969 2019-02-25 2020-02-21 Système d'évaluation se rapportant à la conduite d'une personne, à l'aptitude d'une personne, à une société ou à un thème Ceased WO2020175348A1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
JP2019-032070 2019-02-25
JP2019032070A JP6574928B1 (ja) 2019-02-25 2019-02-25 人の行為若しくは人の能力又は企業若しくは物事に関する評価システム

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2020175348A1 true WO2020175348A1 (fr) 2020-09-03

Family

ID=67909556

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/JP2020/006969 Ceased WO2020175348A1 (fr) 2019-02-25 2020-02-21 Système d'évaluation se rapportant à la conduite d'une personne, à l'aptitude d'une personne, à une société ou à un thème

Country Status (2)

Country Link
JP (1) JP6574928B1 (fr)
WO (1) WO2020175348A1 (fr)

Families Citing this family (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN111507354B (zh) 2020-04-17 2023-12-12 北京百度网讯科技有限公司 信息抽取方法、装置、设备以及存储介质
JP7425166B1 (ja) 2022-11-30 2024-01-30 カリツー株式会社 物流作業評価支援システム

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPS6236570B2 (fr) * 1980-12-29 1987-08-07 Izumi Denki Kk
WO2014115327A1 (fr) * 2013-01-28 2014-07-31 株式会社野村総合研究所 Dispositif et procédé d'évaluation d'entreprise

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPS6236570B2 (fr) * 1980-12-29 1987-08-07 Izumi Denki Kk
WO2014115327A1 (fr) * 2013-01-28 2014-07-31 株式会社野村総合研究所 Dispositif et procédé d'évaluation d'entreprise

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
JP2020135766A (ja) 2020-08-31
JP6574928B1 (ja) 2019-09-11

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Salmi The tertiary education imperative: Knowledge, skills and values for development
Hamdan et al. The Effect of Choosing Strategic Goals and Core Capabilities on the Creative Behavior of Organizations
Matsuo Instructional skills for on‐the‐job training and experiential learning: an empirical study of Japanese firms
Omar Gomez et al. Examining culture and performance at different middle school level structures
Washburn et al. A comparison of the professional development needs of Kansas and Missouri teachers of agriculture
WO2020175348A1 (fr) Système d'évaluation se rapportant à la conduite d'une personne, à l'aptitude d'une personne, à une société ou à un thème
Estrellado et al. The effects of game-based soft skills training: A quasi-experiment with Ethiopian garment workers
Akpomi Entrepreneurship among graduates-to-be of business/management faculties and economic development in Nigeria
Mong et al. Assessment of accounting competencies possessed by business education graduates for handling entrepreneurship challenges in Abia State, Nigeria
Alic Everyone an innovator
Alroaia et al. Selection of preference order entrepreneurial skills by using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (the case study of entrepreneurs in Iran and Malaysia)
Sharma et al. Perceptual Gap Between Different Stakeholders About Management Education: A Challenge for the Employability of Graduates.
Cicek et al. Determining the Dependencies of Engineering Competencies for Engineering Practice: An Exploratory Case Study
Rochaeni et al. Gap competency analysis for employee of Animal Feed Warehouse Department
Muhamad et al. Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Awareness of Industry 4.0: A Preliminary Study
Alipour et al. Development of Curriculum in Technology-related Supply Chain Management Programs
Akhtar et al. the Implementation of Toyota Production System (TPS) in Indian MSMEs: a Study on the Motive, Barriers, Challenges, Success Factor and Applications
Scofield et al. Introducing the Accounting Equation with M&M's®.
Ahmadzadeh et al. Designing a model to manage succession planning in the banking system via structural equations method (Case study: Agricultural Bank)
Nweke et al. Extent of management of adult education programmes for sustainable development in Delta State
Paredes et al. Employability skills and geographical location
Petrina et al. Developing a large-scale assessment of technological literacy
Kotowska et al. The changing role of accountants through the lens of University students’ perspective
Nabegu Internal Quality Assurance Practices in Selected Nigerian Universities
Pramod et al. Modelling the challenges faced by Indian engineering consultancies: an ISM analysis

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 20763663

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 20763663

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1