JP2005293027A - Method and system for evaluation of evaluation object - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an evaluation method and an evaluation system that can evaluate an evaluation object such as a company multilaterally from different viewpoints. <P>SOLUTION: The evaluation system comprises an answer reception part 23 for acquiring answers to questions related to a plurality of evaluation items for the multilateral evaluation of an evaluation object and to a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for the evaluation of each evaluation item from different viewpoints, an answer collection part 25 for collecting the answers digitized by an answer digitization processing part 24 for each of the plurality of evaluation items and the plurality of evaluation viewpoints, and a collection result output part 26 for outputting the collection results in relation to at least one of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2006,JPO&NCIPI

Description

  The present invention relates to a method and system for objectively evaluating an evaluation object such as a company, a person, an intangible property, or a technology using a computer system.

  When a financial institution such as a bank finances a company, the person in charge of the financial institution examines the creditworthiness of the company and decides whether or not to lend and conditions (amount, period, interest rate, etc.) of the loan. Yes. For example, by using statistical methods such as discriminant analysis and logistic analysis using various financial variables (sales, tangible fixed capital, etc.) and financial indicators (recurring profit margin, capital adequacy ratio, etc.) combining them Judging the default possibility.

  Here, SMEs, venture companies, and individuals (hereinafter abbreviated as “enterprises, etc.”) do not have sufficient financial statements for reasons such as shortly after their establishment, or the materials for evaluation are business plans, It is difficult to examine the creditworthiness using the statistical methods described above, such as only having explanatory materials on the possessed technology. In addition, such companies often do not have assets such as real estate or securities that can serve as collateral. On the other hand, since there are companies that can be expected to develop in the future, there is a possibility that they can be excellent customers for financial institutions.

  Therefore, it is necessary for financial institutions to appropriately evaluate the business plan described above and actively provide loans to these companies to secure excellent customers.

For example, the following Patent Documents 1 to 3 are useful as a method for evaluating a company or the like when performing financing or investment to such a company or the like.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 10-91679 JP 2001-392446 A JP 2002-163449 A

  However, any of the above-described conventional evaluation methods is merely a simple method in which evaluations (answers) for a plurality of items (questions) are simply digitized and aggregated. For this reason, there is a possibility that the evaluation result may be completely opposite depending on the business field or the maturity / innovation of the product or service.

  For example, if the answer is “Yes” in the item “Is there a lot of peers in the IT industry” or “Is the business recognized in the market?” Companies will be negatively valued. On the other hand, even if it is the same venture company, if it is a cafe restaurant or mail order, the business risk is lower if it is perceived by consumers, it is easier to separate from existing companies, and to some extent Profits can also be expected, so a “YES” answer is not necessarily negative.

  In addition, since it is necessary to consider default risk for loans, evaluation is performed with a low risk and a low return with an emphasis on safety and certainty. However, if the purpose of the evaluation is investment, there is some risk even if there is some risk. If a return can be expected, it should be highly evaluated. In this way, it is necessary to vary the way of evaluating the answer to the question depending on the purpose of evaluation.

  The present invention has been made to solve the above-described problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide an evaluation method and an evaluation system that can evaluate an evaluation object of a company or the like from different viewpoints in a multifaceted manner.

  According to a first main aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for evaluating an evaluation object by a computer system, wherein a plurality of evaluation items for evaluating the evaluation object in a multifaceted manner and each evaluation item are evaluated from different viewpoints. An answer acquisition step for acquiring answers to questions respectively associated with a plurality of evaluation viewpoints, and an answer aggregation for counting the answers quantified according to a predetermined standard for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints There is provided an evaluation method comprising a step and a totaling result output step of outputting a totaling result in association with at least one of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints.

  According to such a configuration, a question for evaluating an evaluation object is associated with a plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of evaluation viewpoints. Thereby, the answer to a question can be evaluated from various viewpoints from a multifaceted and multifaceted perspective. Also, the results obtained by digitizing and collecting the acquired answers are related to evaluation items and evaluation viewpoints and provided to evaluation requesters and the like. As a result, it is possible to perform individual specific evaluation with reference to evaluation items and evaluation viewpoints together with comprehensive evaluation of the total results.

  In addition, according to the second main aspect of the present invention, a plurality of evaluation items for evaluating the evaluation object in a multifaceted manner and questions respectively associated with a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for evaluating each evaluation item from different viewpoints. An answer acquisition means for acquiring an answer; an answer counting means for counting the answers quantified in accordance with a predetermined standard for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of a plurality of evaluation viewpoints; There is provided an evaluation system comprising a totaling result output means for outputting in association with at least one of them.

  According to such a configuration, it is possible to obtain an evaluation system that can suitably implement the evaluation method according to the first main aspect described above.

  As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to obtain an evaluation method and an evaluation system that can evaluate an evaluation object of a company or the like from various viewpoints.

  Other features and remarkable effects of the present invention will be understood more clearly by referring to the description of the best mode section for carrying out the present invention and the attached drawings.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

  (Overall image of this embodiment)

  FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an overall image of an embodiment of the present invention. The evaluation system indicated by reference numeral 1 in this figure is an evaluation that receives and evaluates an evaluation request (a business partner company 6a or an investee company 6b) from a loan examination department 3 or an investor (venture capital) 4 of a financial institution 2. It is installed on the server of the institution 5. The loan examination department 3 and the investor 4 of the financial institution 2 refer to the acquired evaluation result to make a loan / investment to the client company 6a or the investee company 6b, or the conditions (period, interest, etc.) Final decision. This evaluation system 1 may be installed in the financial institution 2. Further, when the financial institution 2 invests in the client company 6 a, the financial institution 2 becomes the investor 4. In the following, the supplier company 6a and the investee company 6b are collectively referred to as “client company 6”. In addition, as a business partner company 6, for example, a technology venture company (manufacturing industry) that plans to manufacture and sell products using the technology seeds it owns, such as business plans and technical manuals provided by these companies Explain how to evaluate whether to make a loan or investment based on information.

  (Explanation of evaluation items)

  Here, with reference to FIG. 2, the example of a setting of the evaluation item in a manufacturing industry is demonstrated. Here, the evaluation item is a determination element for evaluating the evaluation object from various aspects. In the example shown in this figure, business step 1 such as technicality / business potential, business step 2 such as marketability, and business step 3 such as growth are set according to the development stage of the manufacturing industry. Risks are further set for each item. Specifically, for example, for business step 1, products such as the selection of which field the technology (including intangible assets such as patents and know-how) owned by the company is applied, procurement of materials and securing of sales channels, etc. The evaluation items are subdivided from the viewpoint of possibility and feasibility. As will be described later, a plurality of questions for each subdivided evaluation item are created in advance.

  The present embodiment is characterized in that an evaluation object is evaluated in consideration of an evaluation viewpoint for evaluating each evaluation item set in this way from different viewpoints. As an evaluation viewpoint, in order to improve the objectivity, versatility, and versatility of the evaluation results, the same facts (answers) are evaluated in the opposite direction, such as positive and negative aspects. A viewpoint is preferable. In the present embodiment, responses are evaluated and analyzed from the viewpoint of business risk and business development potential (potential≈expected value of return) when financing / investing in a client company.

  (Schematic configuration of evaluation system)

Next, a schematic configuration of the evaluation system 1 according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to the functional block diagram of FIG.
The evaluation system 1 includes a data storage unit 15 and a program storage unit 16 on a bus 14 to which a CPU 10, a RAM 11, an input / output device 12, and a communication device 13 are connected. Each component described below is actually a certain area secured in the storage medium of the server (computer system) of the evaluation organization 5 and a program installed in this area, and is called on the RAM 11 by the CPU 10. As a result, the functions of the present invention are achieved in cooperation with the OS (operation system) of the server.

  First, the data storage unit 15 stores an answer digitization standard table 17 for storing a standard for digitizing an answer to each question, and a question table for storing a plurality of questions respectively associated with an attribute to be evaluated and the plurality of evaluation items. 18. An answer history storage unit 19 for registering the answers before and after correction in association with the question when the answer is corrected, an analysis standard table 20 for storing an analysis standard set for each evaluation purpose and evaluation item, and An answerer information storage unit 21 is provided for storing the answer in association with the identification information of the answerer.

  Here, in the present embodiment, the answer digitization reference table 17 includes a plurality of evaluation items (evaluation items in three stages shown in FIG. 2 or evaluation items obtained by subdividing them) and questions associated with the evaluation items. Defines the relationship with the criteria for quantifying the responses to.

  Specifically, for example, in the evaluation of the manufacturing industry, as shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, the answers to the questions are “1: affirmed (I think so)”, “3: negative (I do not think so)”, “2: Even in the case of a method of inputting numbers in three stages (intermediate (which can be said to be neither)), the input numbers are not used for evaluation as they are, but are multiplied by different coefficients for each evaluation item, or a predetermined value is added. Or subtract to adjust. FIG. 5 shows a question for evaluating “product possibility” in business step 1.

  For example, for the question “1-1 Basic technology is used for products in many fields”, the answer “1: I think so” is a question associated with business step 1, so the purchase routes are compared. It is considered easy and the material cost is low. Therefore, the input number “1” is used as it is. This is evaluated in the direction of reducing the risk of commercialization.

  On the other hand, even if the same question / answer is collected and evaluated in relation to business step 2, it is considered that it will compete with other companies in the market. Replace. That is, even with this question and answer alone, it is possible to obtain an evaluation that the business partner 6 can easily commercialize but cannot expect much sales. In this way, the same question / answer can be evaluated from various viewpoints. In addition, since accurate numerical values can be obtained objectively without depending on the respondent's knowledge, experience, ability, etc., the accuracy of evaluation is further improved.

  In addition, you may define the criteria for quantifying responses in relation to the evaluation purpose (such as financing or investment) and the attributes of the company being evaluated (business type, years since establishment, manager's work history, etc.) . For example, if the purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether or not the loan is available, a quantification standard is set with an emphasis on risk. If the purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether or not the investment is possible, the company's development potential (potential, future profit) A standard can be set. In addition, for each question or each evaluation target, it can be targeted for evaluation (aggregation) only within a specific type of business, or can be excluded. Thereby, even if the question content does not match the attribute of the evaluation target company and the respondent forcibly responds, the answer can be excluded from the evaluation target, so that the evaluation accuracy is improved.

  The questions stored in the question table 18 are created so that a plurality of subdivided evaluation items shown in FIG. 2 can be evaluated. For the manufacturing industry, specifically, a question as shown in FIG. 5 is created. In the example of this figure, whether each question is included in the evaluation target for each of a plurality of evaluation viewpoints (whether the respondent answers) is set. For example, the question “1-1-2 The number of related engineers has increased and the technology has been put to practical use” is included in the evaluation in terms of the potential viewpoint (answer α) related to business step 1, but the risk viewpoint It is excluded from the viewpoints related to the evaluation in (Answer β) and other business steps. Note that such a question list is preferably created for each attribute such as the type of business of the evaluation target company. This makes it easier to extract questions that match the industry and exclude questions that do not match.

  Each question may be stored in association with an evaluation purpose (whether it is an investment or a loan). In this case, it is preferable that the evaluation purpose is not taken into account in the standard for quantifying the answer of the question or the coefficient or the like is made small in conjunction with the numerical standard for the answer.

  The analysis standard stored in the analysis standard table 20 is set so that a good evaluation can be obtained comprehensively when the market potential is large even if the risk is large. Conversely, if the total of risk (R) for each evaluation item or the sum of risk (R) and potential (P) is less than a predetermined value, a minimum standard is set for neither lending nor investment. Has been.

  Next, in addition to the main program, the program storage unit 16 shown in FIG. 3 acquires the evaluation purpose and attributes (business type, etc.) of the business partner 6 from the financial institution 2 or the investor 4 and receives an evaluation request. A request receiving unit 22 (evaluation target basic information acquiring unit and evaluation purpose acquiring unit), an answer receiving unit 23 (answer acquiring unit) that acquires an answer of a question from an answerer and registers it in the answer history storage unit 19; An answer digitization processing unit 24 that searches and digitizes a digitization standard to be applied to each question from the digitization standard table 17, and counts the digitized answers for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints. The answer totaling unit 25, the totaling result output unit 26 that outputs the totaling result in association with at least one of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints, and a predetermined reference value set in advance for each of the plurality of evaluation items and each of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints. There are provided with a counting result analysis and output unit 27 for outputting analyzing the counting result. Note that the answer digitization processing unit 24 and the answer counting unit 25 correspond to the answer counting means of claim 21 and the like.

  Here, in this embodiment, the answer receiving unit 23 searches for a specific question associated with this attribute from the question table 18 based on the attribute of the evaluation target company acquired by the evaluation request receiving unit 22 and asks the question. A question list generation unit 28 (question search means) for generating a list is provided. The answer receiving unit 23 also has a function of acquiring answers before and after correction and registering them in the answer history storage unit 19 when the answerer corrects answers for one or more questions after collecting the answers. .

  The answer totaling unit 25 refers to the question table 18 to identify questions that do not match the acquired evaluation purpose and the attributes of the evaluation target company, and totals the answers by excluding answers to the questions. In addition, the answer counting unit 25 calculates and totals the positive evaluation score (α) and the negative evaluation score (β) of each question.

  The tabulation result output unit 26 generates a tabulation result output interface that displays the tabulation results for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints so that they can be compared with each other. Further, the total result output unit 26 outputs the answer and the question together with the total result when the numerical value of the answer acquired by the answer receiving unit 23 exceeds a preset threshold value for each question. It also has functions.

  On this screen, when a user (such as a loan examiner of financial institution 2) clicks on a character for which a hyperlink is set, a transition is made to the evaluation result graph of FIG. 7 or the answer display screen by evaluation item of FIG. To do. A hyperlink is also set for each question category (subdivided risk assessment items; see Fig. 2) on the display screen of Fig. 8, and by clicking this, a plurality of questions corresponding to each category and their corresponding The answers are extracted from the question table 18 and the answer history storage unit 19 to generate the question / answer display screen shown in FIG.

  The aggregation result analysis / output unit 27 analyzes the aggregation result based on a predetermined analysis criterion stored in the analysis criterion table 20, and outputs the analysis result in association with the evaluation item and the evaluation viewpoint. As will be described later, the tabulation result analysis / output unit 27 analyzes the tabulation result for each evaluation item by applying an analysis criterion to each other. In addition, for example, risk (R) and potential (P) as shown in FIG. It is also possible to analyze the availability of loans and investments and their conditions based only on the ratio of the combined values. The ratio of the sum values in this case can be calculated by any of the following formulas or a combination of these formulas.

  Formula 1: Total value of potentials P1 to P3 for each business step / Total value of risks R1 to R3 for each business step

= (P1 + P2 + P3) / (R1 + R2 + R3)

  Formula 2: Total value obtained by mutually multiplying potentials P1 to P3 for each business step / Risk value obtained by mutually multiplying risks R1 to R3 for each business step

= (P2 * P3 + P3 * P1 + P1 * P2) / (R2 * R3 + R3 * R1 + R1 * R2)

  Expression 1 is a simple sum ratio, and Expression 2 is a triangular area ratio shown in FIG. In the case of Equation 2, the ratio between risk and potential can be visually displayed and can be useful information for evaluating the synergistic effect between the evaluation items.

  Further, the evaluation system 1 of the present embodiment calculates the average value by summing up the numerical values of the answers to each question in a predetermined cycle, and each question is based on the average value of each question and the analysis result. The question eligibility determination / output unit 29 for determining whether or not it is appropriate in relation to the evaluation viewpoint, and calculates the standard deviation of the numerical value of each answer in a predetermined cycle, and the respondent of the answer deviating from this standard deviation is the respondent An answerer eligibility determination / output unit 30 (answerer search means) that searches and outputs information from the information storage means is provided.

  (Evaluation flow)

Hereinafter, detailed functions of the system 1 will be described together with actual operations with reference to FIG.
First, when the evaluation request receiving unit 22 receives the evaluation request from the financial institution 2 by acquiring the evaluation purpose (loan) and the attribute information of the business partner company to be evaluated (step S1), the evaluation request receiving unit 22 receives the evaluation request. The question list generation unit 28 searches the question table 18 for a corresponding question (step S2). The question list generation unit 28 sorts the searched questions according to a plurality of evaluation items to generate a question list (step S3). The generated question list is transmitted (presented) to a predetermined respondent's terminal by the answer receiving unit 23 (step S4). The respondent inputs the answer to the question list of the terminal while referring to the business plan of the client company acquired separately.

  When the answer reception unit 23 obtains an answer to each question input by the respondent (step S5), the answer digitization processing unit 24 searches the answer digitization reference table 17 for the corresponding criteria based on the evaluation purpose. All answers are digitized (step S6). The answer receiving unit 23 registers all the quantified answers in the answer history storage unit 19 in association with the answerer ID (step S7).

  Next, the answer totaling unit 25 is activated and totals the answers for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints (step S8). Although this total result alone is useful information for the evaluation of the business partner, in this embodiment, the total result is subsequently analyzed (step S9). This analysis process will be described later.

  Here, if there is an answer that exceeds a predetermined threshold in the totaled answers (Yes in step S10), the total result output unit 26 extracts all the questions corresponding to the corresponding answers and stores them in the memory. Register (step S11). As a result, it is possible to present to the financial institution 2 that is the client a “question and answer that is evaluated as having a high risk” that cannot be identified from the comprehensive evaluation result.

  Finally, the total result output unit 26 generates an evaluation result output screen (see FIG. 6) that displays the total result / analysis result and the extracted specific question, and transmits it to the financial institution 2.

  (Analysis flow of the total results)

  Next, with reference to FIG.11 and FIG.12, the analysis process of the said step 9 is demonstrated in detail. The following processing steps are mainly executed by the total result analysis / output unit 27 in accordance with the criteria stored in the analysis criteria table 20.

  (Analysis flow for loan availability)

  First, with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 11, the process of analyzing the availability of financing to the manufacturing industry and the period during which financing is possible will be described. Here, since the evaluation purpose is financing, the risk side tabulation result (“risk coefficient (R)” in FIG. 6) is referred to. That is, the evaluation is improved as the numerical value is smaller.

  First, the risk (R1) in business step 1 is analyzed (step S9-1). Specifically, the evaluation is performed from the viewpoint of “whether the product can be shipped” of the business partner company to be evaluated. When the value of R1 is 4 or more, “it is difficult to ship the product” (step S9-2), it is determined that the loan cannot be picked up (step S9-3). On the other hand, if R1 is less than 4, “commodities can be shipped” and the process proceeds to the next step. In the example of FIG. 6, since R1 is 3.72, it can proceed to the next step.

  In the next process, the risk (R2) in the business step 2 is analyzed (step S9-4). Specifically, it is evaluated from the viewpoint of “whether the product sells smoothly”. Here again, if R2 is 4 or more, it is determined that a loan cannot be collected (step S9-3). On the other hand, if R2 is less than 3, the product proceeds to the next step after evaluating that “the product sells smoothly”. In the example of FIG. 6, since R2 is 2.96, the process can proceed to the next step.

  In the risk (R3) analysis step (step S9-5) in the next commercialization step 3, the aggregation results are evaluated and analyzed from the viewpoint of “whether the business can be expanded”. If R3 is less than 3, it is determined that there is no hindrance to business expansion (step S9-8), and it is analyzed that long-term financing for 3 years or more is possible (step S9-9). If R3 is 3 or more, it is determined that it is difficult to expand the business (step S9-10), and it is analyzed that the loan can be made within two years (step S9-11). Here, when R3 is 3 or more, it is not judged that the loan cannot be collected because it is judged that commercialization and continuation of the business are possible in the above two analysis steps, so business expansion (development) is expected. This is because the default risk is considered to be small even if not. In the example of FIG. 6, since R3 is 2.81, it is analyzed that a long-term loan of three years or more is possible.

  On the other hand, if R2 is 3 or more and less than 4 in the step S9-4, it is evaluated that “the product is sold but not well” (step S9-6), and the next analysis step (step S9-7). ) Again, the analysis is based on whether R3 is 3 or more and less than 3. If R3 is less than 3, it is judged that at least the maintenance of the business is possible (step S9-12), and it is analyzed that the loan can be made within two years (step S9-13). When R3 is 3 or more, it is determined that “business is difficult to maintain” (step S9-14), and an analysis result that is allowed only for short-term loans within one year is output (step S9-15).

  (Investment flow analysis flow)

  Next, with reference to the flowchart of FIG. 12, the process of analyzing whether or not to invest in the investee company and the investment form is described. In the loan judgment, the loan period is changed depending on the size of the risk. However, in the following investment judgment, the minimum standard when the risk value is too large is set while emphasizing the magnitude of the potential. The method is taken. Specifically, the aggregation result of the potential aspect (“potential (P)” in FIG. 6) and the aggregation result of the risk aspect (“risk coefficient (R)”) are referred to in parallel. The evaluation is improved as the numerical value of the potential P is larger, and the evaluation is improved as the numerical value of the risk coefficient R is smaller. However, because of the nature of investment, the risk factor R is moderately evaluated by setting the minimum standard higher than in the case of the above loans.

  In this analysis process, first, the potential (P1) and risk (R1) in business step 1 are analyzed (step S9-20). Specifically, the aggregation results are analyzed from the viewpoint of “business seeds for which public offering can be expected”. When P1 is less than 3 and R1 is 4.5 or more, it is difficult to go public, and a large return cannot be expected for a large risk, so it is analyzed that investment is impossible (steps S9-21, S9-22). ). When P1 is 3 or more or R1 is less than 4.5, since the public offering can be expected or the business risk is not large, the process proceeds to the next analysis step. In the example of FIG. 6, since P1 is 3.89 and R1 is 3.72, the process can proceed to the next step.

  In the next analysis step of potential (P2) and risk (R2) in business step 2, the aggregation results are analyzed from the viewpoint of “whether it can be commercialized at an early stage” (step S9-23). Here, when P2 is 3 or more and R2 is less than 4.5, it is evaluated that “it can be commercialized at an early stage” and the process proceeds to the next analysis step. In the example of FIG. 6, since P2 is 3.60 and R2 is 2.96, the process can proceed to the next step.

  In the next analysis process of potential (P3) and risk (R3) in business step 3, the aggregated result is analyzed from the viewpoint of “whether the business can be expanded” (step S9-24). Here, when P3 is 3 or more, it is evaluated as a promising investment destination that can be expected to have a high return with low risk (step S9-25), and a large amount of investment (for example, 100 million yen) is aimed at lead VC (venture capital) (S9-26). If P3 is less than 3, it is evaluated as a solid investment destination with middle risk and middle return (step S9-27), and an analysis result indicating that normal investment (for example, investment amount tens of millions of yen) is possible. Output (step S9-28). At this stage, the risk of business continuity is low, so it is effective to evaluate only with potential. In the example of FIG. 6, since P3 is 3.78, it is evaluated as a promising investment destination.

  On the other hand, in step S9-23, if P2 is less than 3 and R2 is less than 4.5, it is evaluated that “There is a problem in commercialization”, and then proceeds to the next analysis step (step S9−). 29, S9-30). Even in this process, analysis is performed based on whether P3 is 3 or more and less than 3, but the viewpoint of the analysis is “can it withstand business expansion”? If P3 is 3 or more, the risk is high, but it is evaluated that a high return can be expected slightly (step S9-31), and the diversified investment is effective in the portfolio (for example, the investment amount is several million yen). (Step S9-32). For example, the idea is that even if most of these investments are lost, it will be profitable if several companies go public. If P3 is less than 3 or R3 is 4.5 or more, it is evaluated that a high return sufficient to accept a high risk cannot be expected (step S9-33), and it is analyzed that investment is impossible (step S9). -34). Further, when R2 is 4.5 or more in step S9-23, the risk is too great, and an analysis result indicating that investment is impossible is output (step S9-22).

  In addition, this invention is not limited to said embodiment, A various deformation | transformation is possible in the range which does not change the summary of invention.

  For example, in the above-described embodiment, an example of application to the determination of whether investment / loan is possible or not at a financial institution has been described. it can. For example, in personnel evaluations, in response to a “YES” answer to the question “Abundance of specialized knowledge / experience in a specific field”, there is a positive evaluation of “High expertise” and “There is a tendency for the field of view to be narrow” Negative evaluation.

  The evaluation purpose, evaluation item, evaluation viewpoint, evaluation target attribute, question content, and the like are not limited to the above-described examples, and can be changed as appropriate according to the evaluation target, the evaluation situation, and the like.

The figure which shows the whole image of embodiment of this invention. The figure which shows the example of a setting of the evaluation item in evaluation of a manufacturing industry. The block diagram which shows schematic structure of the evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows the example of an answer numerical conversion reference | standard table. The figure which shows the example of a question. The figure which shows the example of an evaluation result output screen. The figure which shows the example of the output screen of an evaluation result graph. The figure which shows the example of the answer display screen classified by evaluation item. The figure which shows the example of a question and an answer. The flowchart which shows the evaluation process of evaluation object. The flowchart which shows the analysis process of the reply total result in judgment of loan availability. The flowchart which shows the analysis process of the reply total result in judgment of investment availability.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Evaluation system 2 ... Financial institution 3 ... Loan examination department 4 ... Investor 5 ... Evaluation organization 6 ... Client company 6a ... Client company 6b ... Investment company 10 ... CPU
11 ... RAM
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 12 ... Input / output device 13 ... Communication device 14 ... Bus 15 ... Data storage part 16 ... Program storage part 17 ... Answer digitization reference table 18 ... Question table 19 ... Answer history storage part 20 ... Analysis reference table 21 ... Respondent information storage Unit 22 ... Evaluation request reception unit 23 ... Response reception unit 24 ... Response digitization processing unit 25 ... Response aggregation unit 26 ... Total result output unit 27 ... Total result analysis / output unit 28 ... Question list generation unit 29 ... Question eligibility determination・ Output unit 30 ... Respondent eligibility determination / Output unit

Claims (32)

A method of evaluating an evaluation object by a computer system,
An answer obtaining step for obtaining answers to questions respectively associated with a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for evaluating the evaluation objects from a plurality of aspects and a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for evaluating each evaluation item from different viewpoints;
An answer counting step of counting the answers quantified according to a predetermined standard for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of a plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
And a totaling result output step of outputting a totaling result in association with at least one of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints. The method of claim 1, wherein
This method is used to determine whether a loan or investment should be made to the business partner based on the future business plan of the financial institution's business partner or information on the technology or intangible property held, and the conditions for executing the loan or investment. And a method of evaluating the business partner by a computer system managed by the financial institution. The method of claim 2, wherein
The plurality of evaluation items are set for each of a plurality of business steps in a business field to which the supplier belongs,
The plurality of evaluation viewpoints include business development and business risk for each business step. The method of claim 1, wherein
The plurality of evaluation viewpoints include a viewpoint that positively evaluates an evaluation object and a viewpoint that negatively evaluates the evaluation object,
The method of summarizing the answers, wherein the answers are quantified with respect to one answer from the viewpoint of the positive evaluation and the viewpoint of the negative evaluation. The method of claim 1, wherein
The answer counting step searches for a quantification criterion to be applied to each question from an answer quantification criterion table defining a relationship between the plurality of evaluation items and / or questions and a criterion for quantifying an answer to each question. A method characterized by being digitized. The method of claim 1, wherein
Furthermore, the evaluation object basic information acquisition step for acquiring the purpose of evaluating the evaluation object or the attribute of the evaluation object is provided,
The answer counting step is a quantification that matches the evaluation purpose or evaluation target attribute obtained from the answer quantification standard table that defines the relationship between the evaluation purpose or evaluation target attribute and the standard for quantifying the answer to each question. A method characterized by searching for criteria and digitizing each answer. The method of claim 1, wherein
Furthermore, an evaluation purpose acquisition step of acquiring a purpose for evaluating the evaluation object is provided,
The answer counting step is to identify a question that does not match the acquired evaluation purpose by referring to a question table defined by associating a plurality of questions with the evaluation purpose, and to add up the answers to the question. A method characterized by. The method of claim 1, wherein
In the answer acquisition step, when an attribute to be evaluated is acquired and an application for evaluation is received, a question list including a plurality of questions respectively associated with the plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for each attribute is obtained. A method comprising a question list search step of searching a corresponding question list from a registered attribute-specific question table. The method of claim 1, wherein
further,
An evaluation target basic information acquisition step for acquiring the purpose of evaluating the evaluation target attribute or the evaluation target;
Based on the acquired attribute or evaluation purpose of the evaluation target, specified from a question table storing a plurality of questions respectively associated with the evaluation target attribute and / or evaluation purpose, the plurality of evaluation items, and the plurality of evaluation viewpoints And a question list generating step of generating a question list by searching for a question or excluding a specific question. The method of claim 1, wherein
further,
A totaling result analysis step of analyzing the totaling result based on a predetermined reference value preset for each of a plurality of evaluation items and / or a plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
An analysis result output step of outputting an analysis result in association with the evaluation item and / or evaluation viewpoint. The method of claim 10, wherein:
The total result analysis step is a method for analyzing a total result based on a predetermined standard set for each of the plurality of evaluation items or for a plurality of evaluation purposes. The method of claim 10, wherein:
Further, the average value is calculated by summing up the numerical values of the answers to each question in a predetermined cycle, and whether each question is appropriate in relation to the evaluation item or evaluation viewpoint based on the average value of each question and the analysis result And a question eligibility determination step for determining. The method of claim 1, wherein
The totaling result output step includes a totaling result for each of the plurality of evaluation items and a totaling value for each of the evaluation viewpoints, or a totaling value for each evaluation viewpoint obtained by totaling the totaling values of the plurality of evaluation items for each evaluation viewpoint. A method for generating a tabulation result output interface displayed so as to be mutually comparable. The method of claim 1, wherein
The tabulation result output step compares the threshold value of the answer to each digitized question with the numeric value of the answer acquired in the answer acquisition step, and outputs the answer exceeding the threshold and the question together with the count result A method characterized by being. The method of claim 1, wherein
The answer acquisition step is to acquire a corrected answer for one or more questions,
The method further comprises an answer registration step of registering the answers before and after correction in association with the question when the answer is corrected. The method of claim 1, wherein
further,
A respondent information storage step of storing the answer in the respondent information storage means in association with the identification information of the respondent;
A respondent search step of calculating a standard deviation of numerical values of each answer at a predetermined period, searching for respondents whose answers deviate from the standard deviation from the respondent information storage means, and outputting them. Method. A plurality of evaluation items for evaluating the evaluation object in a multifaceted manner and an answer acquisition means for acquiring answers to questions respectively associated with a plurality of evaluation viewpoints for evaluating each evaluation item from different viewpoints;
An answer counting means for counting the answers digitized according to a predetermined standard for each of the plurality of evaluation items and for each of a plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
An evaluation system comprising: an aggregation result output means for outputting an aggregation result in association with at least one of the plurality of evaluation viewpoints. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The evaluation object is a business partner of a financial institution,
The plurality of evaluation items and evaluation viewpoints are based on the future business plan of the business partner or information on the technology and intangible assets that the business partner should carry out. Evaluation system characterized by evaluation items and evaluation viewpoints for judging The evaluation system according to claim 18, wherein
The plurality of evaluation items are set for each of a plurality of business steps in a business field to which the supplier belongs,
The plurality of evaluation viewpoints include business development and business risk for each business step. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The plurality of evaluation viewpoints include a viewpoint that positively evaluates an evaluation object and a viewpoint that negatively evaluates the evaluation object,
The answer counting means counts the answers, each of which is quantified from the viewpoint of positive evaluation and the viewpoint of negative evaluation, for one answer. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The answer counting means searches for a quantification criterion to be applied to each question from an answer quantification criterion table defining a relationship between the plurality of evaluation items and / or questions and a criterion for quantifying an answer to each question. A system characterized by being digitized. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
Furthermore, the evaluation object basic information acquisition means for acquiring the purpose of evaluating the evaluation object or the attribute of the evaluation object is provided,
The answer counting means is a quantification that matches the attribute of the evaluation purpose or evaluation target obtained from the answer quantification standard table that defines the relationship between the evaluation purpose or evaluation target attribute and the standard for quantifying the answer to each question. A system characterized by searching criteria and digitizing each answer. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
Furthermore, an evaluation purpose acquisition means for acquiring a purpose of evaluating the evaluation object is provided,
The answer counting means refers to a question table defined by associating a plurality of questions with an evaluation purpose, identifies a question that does not match the acquired evaluation purpose, and aggregates the answers by excluding answers to the question. A system characterized by The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
further,
For each attribute to be evaluated, an attribute-specific question table that stores a question list composed of a plurality of questions respectively associated with the plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
And a question list search means for searching a question list associated with the attribute from the attribute-specific question table when an evaluation application is acquired and an application for evaluation is accepted. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
further,
Evaluation object basic information acquisition means for acquiring the purpose of evaluating the attribute or evaluation object of the evaluation object;
A question table for storing a plurality of questions respectively associated with the attribute and / or evaluation purpose of the evaluation target, the plurality of evaluation items, and the plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
And a question list generating means for generating a question list by searching for a specific question from the question table or excluding the specific question based on the acquired attribute to be evaluated or the purpose of evaluation. System. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
further,
Total result analysis means for analyzing the total result based on a predetermined reference value preset for each of a plurality of evaluation items and / or a plurality of evaluation viewpoints;
An analysis result output means for outputting an analysis result in association with the evaluation item and / or evaluation viewpoint. The evaluation system according to claim 26,
The totaling result analyzing means analyzes the totaling result based on a predetermined standard set for each of the plurality of evaluation items or for each of a plurality of evaluation purposes. The evaluation system according to claim 26,
Further, the average value is calculated by summing up the numerical values of the answers to each question in a predetermined cycle, and whether each question is appropriate in relation to the evaluation item or evaluation viewpoint based on the average value of each question and the analysis result A system comprising a question eligibility determination means for determining The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The totaling result output means includes a totaling result for each of the plurality of evaluation items and a totaling value for each of the evaluation viewpoints, or a totaling value for each evaluation viewpoint obtained by totaling the totaling values of the plurality of evaluation items for each evaluation viewpoint. A system for generating a tabulation result output interface displayed so as to be mutually comparable. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The tabulation result output means compares the threshold value of the answer to each digitized question with the answer value acquired by the answer acquisition means, and outputs the answer exceeding the threshold and the question together with the tabulation result. A system characterized by being a thing. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
The answer acquisition means acquires a corrected answer for one or more questions,
The system further comprises answer history registration means for registering the answers before and after the correction in association with the question when the answer is corrected. The evaluation system according to claim 17, wherein
further,
Respondent information storage means for storing the answer in association with the identification information of the respondent;
A respondent search means for calculating a standard deviation of the numerical value of each answer at a predetermined period, searching for respondents whose answers deviate from the standard deviation from the respondent information storage means, and outputting them. system.

Images