JP2008040670A - Questionnaire evaluation method and system - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a questionnaire evaluation method capable of obtaining an accurate general evaluation index for generally evaluating the results of a questionnaire survey about a plurality of question items by appropriately analyzing the result of the questionnaire survey for answering evaluations and importance degrees about the plurality of question items. <P>SOLUTION: The questionnaire evaluation method comprises: a step of allocating the question items of a questionnaire to a plurality of high order categories based on a specified standard; a step of summarizing the question items to a low order category on the basis of factor analysis when the plurality of question items are allocated to each high order category; a step of obtaining a score on the basis of a difference between the reference value of the evaluation and the questionnaire answer value of the evaluation and a difference between the reference value of the importance degree and the questionnaire answer value of the importance degree for each question item; and a step of obtaining the general evaluation index by weighting and adding the scores for the plurality of question items for each of the low order categories and the high order categories. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2008,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a questionnaire evaluation method for comprehensively evaluating a plurality of items by analyzing a result of a questionnaire survey including a plurality of question items, and in particular, a CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) of a group such as a company. The present invention relates to a questionnaire evaluation method for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensively evaluating CSR activities of an organization based on a result of a questionnaire survey that answers an evaluation and an importance level regarding an activity related to (manual responsibility). Furthermore, this invention relates to the questionnaire evaluation system for implementing such a questionnaire evaluation method.

  In recent years, it has been desired to comprehensively evaluate the CSR activities of organizations by quantitatively grasping the evaluation of each organization's CSR-related economic activities, environmental activities, and social activities. Yes. Here, the stakeholder refers to interested parties such as consumers (customers), business partners, employees, shareholders / investors, and local communities.

  In order to comprehensively evaluate the CSR activities of the organization, it is necessary to conduct a questionnaire survey on several items related to the CSR activities of the organization for each stakeholder, and obtain the CSR overall evaluation index by analyzing the results. Necessary. As the simplest method for obtaining the CSR comprehensive evaluation index, a method is considered in which an evaluation obtained by a questionnaire is regarded as a score, and the total score is calculated by summing up the scores for a plurality of items. However, according to this method, there arises a problem (1) that importance between items is not taken into account, and a problem (2) that a specific item is overestimated by overlapping similar questions. .

  In order to solve the above problem (1), a questionnaire is given to each stakeholder that evaluates and answers the importance of multiple items related to the CSR activities of the organization. A method of calculating a total score by weighted averaging of evaluations (hereinafter also referred to as “scoring method”) is used. However, according to the point addition method, there is a disadvantage that an activity with a high measure priority is hidden. Below, the fault of a point addition system is demonstrated.

  FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining a defect in the conventional questionnaire evaluation method. As shown in FIG. 8, by conducting a questionnaire on items A to C, a questionnaire result regarding evaluation and importance is obtained for each item. In FIG. 8, a score is obtained by the product of evaluation and importance according to a scoring method. As a result, the score for item A is 15 points, the score for item B is 10 points, and the score for item C is 12 points.

  As described above, according to the scoring method, even if the evaluation is equal, the higher importance item has a higher score, and this point is considered to be a reasonable result. On the other hand, if it is interpreted that the item with the lower score has a higher measure priority, the order of the measure priority is in the order of item B, item C, and item A. However, when comparing item A and item C, the evaluation is the same, but it can be seen that item A is a measure that should be prioritized because it is more important.

  As described above, when the measure priority is obtained by the point addition method, a correct result cannot be obtained. What kind of needs the stakeholders have, how well the organization's current activities are evaluated, and what areas they should focus on by looking at the gap with the needs In order to grasp this, the point addition method is not appropriate.

As a related technique, the following Patent Document 1 discloses a questionnaire processing apparatus that causes a questionnaire regarding a user interface to be evaluated to be answered on a monitor and displays items to be improved most. When developing an information device, this questionnaire processing apparatus allows a monitor to evaluate general items that are items for comprehensive evaluation of the information device and individual items that are items for each function of the device. Analyze the evaluation results of individual items and comprehensive items by multiple regression analysis, calculate multiple regression formulas, find the items that have the most influence on the comprehensive items, and present them to the developer To do. However, in the questionnaire processing apparatus of Patent Document 1, since the product with the worst product of the calculated influence degree and the average of the scoring results is displayed (paragraph 0010), this questionnaire processing apparatus conforms to the scoring method. it is conceivable that.
JP-A-8-235152 (first and third pages, FIG. 3)

  Therefore, the present invention provides an accurate synthesis for comprehensively evaluating the results of a questionnaire survey for a plurality of question items by appropriately analyzing the results of the questionnaire survey for answering the evaluation and importance for a plurality of question items. An object is to provide a questionnaire evaluation method and a questionnaire evaluation system capable of obtaining an evaluation index.

  In order to solve the above problems, a questionnaire evaluation method according to one aspect of the present invention is a questionnaire evaluation method for comprehensively evaluating a result of a questionnaire survey for answering evaluation and importance for a plurality of question items. Assigning a question item to a plurality of upper categories based on a specific criterion, and when there are a plurality of question items assigned to each upper category, assign those question items to at least one subordinate category based on factor analysis Score based on step (b) to be categorized, the difference between the evaluation reference value and the evaluation questionnaire response value, and the difference between the importance reference value and the importance questionnaire response value for each question item Step (c), and the scores for a plurality of question items are weighted and added for each lower category and higher category. By, comprising the step (d) to seek a comprehensive evaluation index for a comprehensive evaluation of the results of the survey for a plurality of the questions.

  In addition, a questionnaire evaluation system according to one aspect of the present invention is a questionnaire evaluation system that comprehensively evaluates a result of a questionnaire survey that answers evaluation and importance for a plurality of question items. Question item classification means that assigns a question item to multiple upper categories based on specific criteria, and when there are multiple question items assigned to each upper category, those question items are assigned to at least one subordinate based on factor analysis Score items based on the question item aggregation means to be aggregated into categories, the difference between the evaluation reference value and the evaluation questionnaire response value, and the difference between the importance reference value and the importance questionnaire response value for each question item And weighting the scores for multiple question items for each lower category and higher category. And by, to and a comprehensive evaluation index calculation means for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for a comprehensive evaluation of the results of the survey for a plurality of the questions.

  According to the present invention, when there are a plurality of question items assigned to each upper category, the question items are aggregated into a lower category based on factor analysis, and for each question item, an evaluation reference value and an evaluation questionnaire are collected. Accurate to evaluate the results of questionnaire surveys in a comprehensive manner for multiple question items by obtaining a score based on the difference between the response value and the difference between the reference value of importance and the questionnaire response value of importance A comprehensive evaluation index can be obtained.

Hereinafter, the best mode for carrying out the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.
First, the basic concept of the questionnaire evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described. In the description of the background art, the drawbacks in the case of adopting the point addition method for solving the problem (1) have been described. In the present embodiment, the following method is used in order to avoid the disadvantages of the point addition method. Is adopted.

  FIG. 1 is a diagram for explaining a method used in a questionnaire evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, by conducting a questionnaire on items A to C, a questionnaire result regarding evaluation and importance is obtained for each item. In FIG. 1, a score is obtained by the difference between importance and evaluation. In other words, the score represents the gap (gap) between the needs of the stakeholders and the current activity. If the item is important but the evaluation is low, the score will be high.

  As a result, the score of item A is 2 points, the score of item B is 3 points, and the score of item C is 1 point. In this method, the higher the score, the higher the priority of the measure. Therefore, the order of the measure priority is in the order of item B, item A, and item C, which is consistent with the examination results described above. In other words, what needs the stakeholders have, how well the organization's current activities are evaluated, and what areas should be focused on by looking at the deviation from the needs? In order to grasp this point, this method (hereinafter also referred to as “gap method”) is more appropriate than the point addition method.

Next, a rational method for calculating the gap from the evaluation and importance and converting the gap into a score will be described. In this approach, deviation from the activities of stakeholder needs and current situation (gap) G _i, and the difference between the survey responses value of the reference value with the evaluation of the evaluation, and the questionnaire responses value of the importance of the reference value and importance Based on the difference between the two.

Since the difference between the importance I _i and the evaluation E _i described above is expressed as (I _i −E _i ) or (−I _i + E _i ) with the sign reversed, the gap G _i is For example, when the importance standard value I ₀ and the evaluation standard value E ₀ are used, they are expressed as follows.
G _i = (I ₀ −I _i ) + (E _i −E ₀ )
Alternatively, when the geometric distance in the (I _i , E _i ) plane with importance I _i on the horizontal axis and evaluation E _i on the vertical axis is considered as a gap, the gap G _i is expressed as follows: The
G _i = √ (I ₀ −I _i ) ² + (E _i −E ₀ ) ²

When each of the evaluation and the importance is evaluated in five levels, the reference value I ₀ of the importance is set to “5” and the reference value E _{0 of the} evaluation is set to “1”, so that (I _i , E _i ) At the reference point (5, 1) in the plane, the gap G _i = 0 can be set. In this case, the gap G _i is defined by the following equation (1).
G _i = √ (5-I _i ) ² + (E _i −1) ² (1)

FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining the concept of a gap in the questionnaire evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. The value of the gap G _i at an arbitrary point in the (I _i , E _i ) plane shown in FIG. 2 represents the geometric distance between that point and the reference point (5, 1). Accordingly, the value is less that about measures priority on CSR activities of the gap G _i (priority) is high, priority as those values of the gap G _i is large can be said that low (good for status quo).

Furthermore, in order to convert the value of the gap G _i into the point S _i , the following formula (2) is used in the present embodiment.
S _i = 20G _i +20 (2)
Using the equation (2), the gap G _i = 4 at the point (5, 5) representing the highest evaluation for the most important item is converted into a score S _i = 100 having the highest value for the stakeholder. In addition, the gap G _i = 2 at the point (5, 3) representing a moderate evaluation of the most important items is converted into a score S _i = 60 that is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory for the stakeholders. The lines indicating these scores are shown in FIG.

However, the gap G _i = 4√2 at the point (1, 5) representing the highest evaluation for the item having the lowest importance is converted into a score S _i = 133 exceeding 100 points. In reality, it is unlikely that the rating will be high despite its low degree. Further, for example, for an item having an importance level of 3 and a high evaluation, the score G _i = 2√5 and the score S _i = 109.4 for an item with a high evaluation of 5. CSR activities related to these items exceed the needs of stakeholders and can be interpreted as excessive investment of management resources.

  As described above, among the problems described in the background art, the problem (1) in which the importance between items is not considered can be solved. On the other hand, in order to solve the problem (2) that a specific item is overestimated by overlapping similar questions, factor analysis which is one method of multivariate analysis is used as will be described in detail later. Thus, a large number of question items are aggregated into one or a plurality of groups.

Next, a questionnaire evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a questionnaire evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 3, this questionnaire evaluation system includes an input unit 10 such as a keyboard and a mouse used for inputting various data and commands, and a CRT or LCD display for displaying an operation screen, a questionnaire total result, and the like. A display unit 20 such as an interface 30 to which the input unit 10 and the display unit 20 are connected, a central processing unit (CPU) 40 for performing various calculations, and data supplied from the input unit 10 via the interface 30 A memory 50 for temporarily storing instructions, a network interface 60 for connecting to a wide area network such as the Internet, software for causing the CPU 40 to perform an operation, a result of questionnaires, and the like are stored in a recording medium such as a hard disk. And a storage unit 70.

  These portions 30 to 70 are connected to each other via a bus line. In the storage unit 70, as a recording medium, an external hard disk, a flexible disk, an MO, an MT, a RAM, a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or the like can be used in addition to the built-in hard disk.

Here, functional blocks 41 to 43 configured by the CPU 40 and software will be described.
The question item classification unit 41 assigns a large number of question items included in the questionnaire to a plurality of upper categories based on a specific criterion according to the operation of the operator. When there are a plurality of question items assigned to each of the upper categories, the question item aggregation unit 42 aggregates the question items into at least one lower category based on factor analysis.

  The overall evaluation index calculation unit 43 obtains a score for each question item based on the difference between the evaluation reference value and the evaluation questionnaire response value, and the difference between the importance reference value and the importance questionnaire response value. Then, a score for a plurality of question items is weighted and added to each of the lower category and the upper category, thereby obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensively evaluating the result of the questionnaire survey for the plurality of question items. A specific example of the operation of the functional blocks 41 to 43 will be described below.

  FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a questionnaire evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. Here, it is assumed that a questionnaire survey is performed on a plurality of types of stakeholders regarding a plurality of question items related to the CSR activities of the organization. FIG. 5 shows an example of questions in the questionnaire.

  When the questionnaire result in which the evaluation and the importance level are answered for each item is obtained, in step S1 of FIG. 4, the question item classification unit 41 determines the question item of the questionnaire for each stakeholder type according to the operation of the operator. Assign to the three upper categories of "Economy", "Environment" and "Society" Some question items may be related to “economy” and “society”, but questions related to economic activities are assigned to the “economic” category and related only to social contributions. The question items to be assigned will be assigned to the “society” category.

  In general, a number of question items are assigned to each of these upper categories. However, it is not always possible to grasp the duplication of similar items, the balance of the number of items, etc. in the questionnaire questions before conducting the questionnaire. If the total evaluation score is simply calculated by summing the evaluations without correcting such points, duplicate similar items are double-counted, or a particular aspect is overestimated or underestimated due to the poor balance of the number of items. Or biased evaluation. Therefore, in this embodiment, similar questions are aggregated by the following method to eliminate such a bias and to evaluate each aspect of the CSR activity in a balanced manner.

  FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a hierarchical structure of comprehensive evaluation indexes used in the questionnaire evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. In FIG. 6, the question items of the questionnaire are assigned to three upper categories of “economy”, “environment”, and “society”. However, with such a classification alone, the number of question items included in the upper category is large, and question items in different areas such as price strategies and services are also included.

  Therefore, in step S2, the question item aggregating unit 42 aggregates many question items included in the upper category “economy” into L lower categories based on the factor analysis, and many included in the upper category “environment”. Are aggregated into M lower categories, and many question items included in the upper category “society” are aggregated into N lower categories. Here, L, M, and N are natural numbers.

  Factor analysis refers to an analysis method that extracts potential factors that explain a plurality of observed variables, assuming that the latent variables that are not directly observed are affecting the observed variables. In the present embodiment, exploratory factor analysis is used among factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis refers to factor analysis in which exploratory factors that affect observation variables are explored without particularly having a clear hypothesis or theoretical basis. Factors include independent factors that affect only certain observed variables and common factors that impose a large load in common on multiple observed variables.

  In the above questionnaire survey, for question items classified by the common factor, it is considered that the same factor exists behind the answer. Therefore, these question items can be aggregated as similar question items. Specifically, a common factor is extracted by obtaining a correlation matrix of observation variables based on a plurality of questionnaire results and using a maximum likelihood method, a least square method, or the like. Based on this common factor, multiple question items can be aggregated into one or more subcategories.

  For example, if the stakeholder is “consumer”, the question items included in the upper category “economy” are aggregated into lower categories such as “governance” and “products / services” and included in the upper category “environment”. Question items are collected in a lower category such as “environmental conservation activities”, and question items included in the higher category “society” are collected in a lower category such as “social contribution activities”.

  Referring to FIG. 4 again, in step S3, the comprehensive evaluation index calculation unit 43 obtains a score for each of the plurality of question items by the gap method using the equations (1) and (2) already described. Furthermore, in step S4, the comprehensive evaluation index calculation unit 43 weights and adds scores for a plurality of question items for each lower category and higher category, thereby comprehensively evaluating the CSR activities of the organization. Obtain an evaluation index.

ここでは、重み付け係数Ｗ_ｊを、第ｉ番目の下位カテゴリーに含まれる項目数Ｎ_ｉの逆数に等しくしている。このようにして、各下位カテゴリーに集約された質問項目の数の逆数が重み付け係数として用いられることにより、複数の質問項目についての得点が、下位カテゴリー毎に平均される。 Here, a specific calculation method of the comprehensive evaluation index will be described. In the i-th subcategory, if the weighting coefficient of the j-th item is W _j and the score is S _ij , the score S _i of the i-th sub-category is expressed by the following equation (3).

Here, the weighting coefficient W _j is set equal to the reciprocal of the number of items N _i included in the i-th lower category. In this way, the reciprocal of the number of question items aggregated in each lower category is used as a weighting coefficient, whereby scores for a plurality of question items are averaged for each lower category.

ここでは、上位カテゴリー「経済」に含まれる下位カテゴリーの重み付け係数を０．５、得点の和をＳ_ＥＣＯＮとし、上位カテゴリー「環境」に含まれる下位カテゴリーの重み付け係数を０．３、得点の和をＳ_ＥＮＶとし、上位カテゴリー「社会」に含まれる下位カテゴリーの重み付け係数を０．２、得点の和をＳ_ＳＯＣとしている。なお、これらの重み付け係数は、図６において括弧の中に示されている。このようにして、複数の下位カテゴリーについての得点が、上位カテゴリー毎に重み付けして加算され、その結果、複数の項目を総合的に評価するための正確な総合評価指標が、ステークホルダーの種類毎に求められる。 Further, when the weighting coefficient of the i-th subcategories and W _i, total evaluation index CSR is expressed by the following equation (4).

Here, the weighting coefficient of the lower category included in the upper category “economy” is 0.5, the sum of the scores is _SECON , the weighting coefficient of the lower category included in the upper category “environment” is 0.3, and the sum of the scores _Is S _ENV , the weighting coefficient of the lower category included in the upper category “society” is 0.2, and the sum of the scores is S _SOC . These weighting factors are shown in parentheses in FIG. In this way, scores for multiple lower categories are weighted and added for each upper category, and as a result, an accurate comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensive evaluation of multiple items is provided for each stakeholder type. Desired.

  FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the comprehensive evaluation index calculated in one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in Fig. 7, the sum of scores for economic activities, environmental activities, and social activities related to the CSR of the organization for each stakeholder such as consumers, business partners, employees, shareholders / investors, and local communities (evaluation index) ) Is calculated, and a comprehensive evaluation index is calculated by weighting and adding them. By comparing these values among stakeholders, or comparing with the values of the previous year or other companies, it is possible to comprehensively grasp the CSR activities of the organization.

  The present invention can be used in a questionnaire evaluation method and system for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensively evaluating a plurality of items by analyzing a result of a questionnaire survey.

It is a figure for demonstrating the system used for the questionnaire evaluation method which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a figure for demonstrating the concept of the gap in the questionnaire evaluation method which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a block diagram which shows the structure of the questionnaire evaluation system which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart which shows the questionnaire evaluation method which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a figure which shows the example of the question matter in a questionnaire. It is a figure which shows the hierarchical structure of the comprehensive evaluation parameter | index used in the questionnaire evaluation method which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a figure which shows the comprehensive evaluation parameter | index calculated in one Embodiment of this invention. It is a figure for demonstrating the fault in the conventional questionnaire evaluation method.

Explanation of symbols

10 input unit 20 display unit 30 interface 40 CPU
41 Question Item Classification Unit 42 Question Item Aggregation Unit 43 Comprehensive Evaluation Index Calculation Unit 50 Memory 60 Network Interface 70 Storage Unit

Claims (8)

A questionnaire evaluation method that comprehensively evaluates the results of a questionnaire survey that answers the evaluation and importance of a plurality of question items,
Assigning questionnaire items to a plurality of higher categories based on specific criteria (a);
When there are multiple question items assigned to each upper category, a step (b) of consolidating those question items into at least one lower category based on factor analysis;
For each question item, a step (c) for obtaining a score based on the difference between the evaluation reference value and the evaluation questionnaire response value, and the difference between the importance reference value and the importance questionnaire response value;
A step (d) for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensively evaluating the result of the questionnaire survey for the plurality of question items by weighting and adding the scores for the plurality of question items for each of the lower category and the upper category; ,
A questionnaire evaluation method comprising: A questionnaire evaluation method for comprehensively evaluating a CSR activity of an organization based on a result of a questionnaire survey that answers the evaluation and importance of a plurality of question items related to the CSR activity of the organization,
The questionnaire evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein step (a) includes assigning question items of the questionnaire to three upper categories of economy, environment, and society.   In the two-dimensional coordinate system in which step (c) is represented by evaluation and importance, between the position represented by the reference value of evaluation and importance and the position represented by the questionnaire response value of evaluation and importance The questionnaire evaluation method of Claim 1 or 2 including calculating | requiring the geometric distance of this and calculating | requiring a score based on this geometric distance.   Step (d) uses the reciprocal of the number of question items aggregated in each subcategory as a weighting factor to average scores for a plurality of question items for each subcategory, and further scores for a plurality of subcategories The questionnaire evaluation method of any one of Claims 1-3 including calculating | requiring a comprehensive evaluation parameter | index by weighting and adding for every high-order category. A questionnaire evaluation system that comprehensively evaluates the results of a questionnaire survey that answers the evaluation and importance of multiple question items,
Question item classification means for assigning questionnaire question items to a plurality of upper categories based on specific criteria according to the operation of the operator,
When there are a plurality of question items assigned to each upper category, a question item aggregation means for aggregating those question items into at least one lower category based on factor analysis;
For each question item, scores are calculated based on the difference between the evaluation reference value and the evaluation questionnaire response value, and the difference between the importance reference value and the importance questionnaire response value. A comprehensive evaluation index calculation means for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation index for comprehensively evaluating a result of a questionnaire survey for a plurality of question items by weighting and adding each of the lower category and the upper category,
Questionnaire evaluation system. A questionnaire evaluation system that comprehensively evaluates a CSR activity of an organization based on a result of a questionnaire survey that answers a plurality of questions related to the CSR activity of the organization and answers the importance.
The questionnaire evaluation system according to claim 5, wherein the question item classification means assigns the question items of the questionnaire to three upper categories of economy, environment, and society.   In the two-dimensional coordinate system represented by evaluation and importance, the comprehensive evaluation index calculation means is a position represented by a reference value of evaluation and importance, and a position represented by a questionnaire response value of evaluation and importance. The questionnaire evaluation system according to claim 5 or 6, wherein a geometric distance between the two is obtained, and a score is obtained based on the geometric distance.   The overall evaluation index calculation means averages scores for a plurality of question items for each lower category by using the inverse of the number of question items aggregated in each lower category as a weighting coefficient, and further, for a plurality of lower categories The questionnaire evaluation system of any one of Claims 5-7 including calculating | requiring a comprehensive evaluation parameter | index by weighting and adding each score for every high-order category.

Images