JP2009251938A - Evaluation system, evaluation method and evaluation program - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an evaluation system that can more reliably evaluate a type of object of evaluation evaluated differently by evaluators. <P>SOLUTION: The evaluation system includes a reception part 23 for receiving a user's answers to questions about an object of evaluation, a score calculation part 24 for calculating an evaluation value of the object in scores at least by adding scores if the answers received by the reception part 23 are in the affirmative about the evaluation of the object, a score storage part 27 for storing the calculated scores, and a gap calculation part 29 for acquiring a plurality of such stored scores based on different users' answers and calculating a value indicative of the degree of deviation between the plurality of acquired scores. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2010,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to an evaluation system, an evaluation method, and an evaluation program.

  As a technology for evaluating corporate value, input the indicators related to “corporate organization power”, “technical stock and innovation” and “financial discipline”, and the learning neural network will output the investment value. There is a technology for optimizing the combined load and searching for a value chain, and using this combined load to evaluate and predict the investment value of an evaluation target company (see Patent Document 1).

Further, as a technique for evaluating the value of real estate, there is a house value evaluation method in which value determination information is received for each member constituting a house and a value point is calculated for each member (see Patent Document 2).
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2006-216019 JP 2007-156676 A

  Conventionally, as a corporate value evaluation method, there is a financial value evaluation centered on financial information. On the other hand, since corporations are social entities, social value evaluation is being attempted with a view to corporate environmental response and social contribution. For example, environmental accounting, internal control evaluation, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) evaluation, etc., are one of them.

  Here, the value evaluation centered on financial information is not limited to the profit and loss statement or balance sheet where there is room for the discretion of the company, but the cash flow statement that is difficult for the discretion of the company to be used. It is possible to close the gap with the evaluation. On the other hand, in the social value evaluation of a company, in addition to the absence of an established concept of the evaluation target, evaluation method, and evaluation result, the company size, industry (business domain), transaction type ( Customer group), the evaluator itself has a problem that the evaluation itself changes.

  In view of the above problems, an object of the present invention is to provide an evaluation system that can obtain a more reliable evaluation result for a type of evaluation object whose evaluation result varies depending on the evaluator.

  In order to solve the above problems, the present invention employs the following means. That is, the present invention includes a storage device, and an answer receiving unit that receives a user's answer to a question about an evaluation target, and the answer received by the answer receiving unit is positive about the evaluation of the evaluation target A score calculation unit that calculates the evaluation value of the evaluation target as a score by adding at least a score; and a score storage unit that accumulates the score calculated by the score calculation unit in the storage device; , A value indicating the degree of divergence between the plurality of scores acquired by the score acquisition means and the score acquisition means for acquiring a plurality of scores based on the answers of different users stored in the storage device by the score storage means An evaluation system comprising: gap calculating means for calculating

Here, the said score is a score which digitized the influence which the content grasped | ascertained from the said reply has on the evaluation of the said evaluation object, for example. In the present invention, a score is calculated by adding a score corresponding to a user's answer to a question. The calculated score is accumulated, and the degree of divergence between the plurality of scores accumulated by the responses of the plurality of users is calculated.

  That is, in order to solve the above-described problem, the present invention calculates the degree of divergence between scores calculated based on answers from different users. It is possible to obtain a more reliable evaluation result without depending on the evaluation result based only on the subjectivity of one evaluator.

  Further, the user is a user belonging to at least one of a plurality of groups, and further comprises an average score calculating means for calculating an average of scores relating to users belonging to the group for each group, and the gap The calculating means may calculate a value indicating the degree of deviation between the average scores of the groups.

  For example, if the evaluation target is an organization and the user belongs to the organization, the viewpoint of evaluation varies depending on the position within the organization. For this reason, in the present invention, it is possible to derive a more useful evaluation result by calculating an average score by users belonging to the same group, that is, a user having a close evaluation viewpoint, and calculating a deviation of the average score. It is said.

  Further, the user is a user belonging to at least one of a plurality of groups, and the gap calculating means belongs to a score related to a user belonging to one group and a group different from the one group. Among the values indicating the user's score and the degree of divergence between them, a value having the largest degree of divergence may be calculated. Instead of calculating the average score divergence, calculating the largest divergence between groups is also useful for extracting problems in the organization.

  The question is a question classified into a plurality of categories, and the score calculation means calculates a score for each category, and is calculated for each category set for each attribute to be evaluated. Coefficient holding means for preliminarily holding a weighting coefficient to be applied to the score, coefficient obtaining means for obtaining the weighting coefficient based on the evaluation target attribute, and the score calculating means using the obtained weighting coefficient And score correction means for correcting the score calculated by the above for each category.

  Even if the evaluation target is a company, for example, the importance of the category to be evaluated differs depending on the attribute so that the important evaluation category varies depending on the type of business (business domain), scale, transaction form (customer layer), and the like. Therefore, in the present invention, the evaluation result for each evaluation object is made highly reliable by correcting the score for each category according to the attribute of the evaluation object.

  The present invention can also be understood as an invention of an evaluation method, an evaluation program, and a computer-readable recording medium on which the evaluation program is recorded. That is, the present invention provides question information holding in which a computer having a storage device uses the storage device to hold information indicating a correspondence relationship between a question about an evaluation target and a score set in response to the answer to the question. An answer receiving step for receiving a user's answer to the question; and a score obtaining step for obtaining a score corresponding to the answer received in the answer receiving step from the information held in the question information holding step; A score calculation step of calculating the evaluation value of the evaluation target as a score by adding at least the scores acquired in the score acquisition step, and storing the score calculated in the score calculation step in the storage device A score accumulating step and a duplicate based on answers of different users accumulated in the storage device in the score accumulating step. And scores acquiring the scores, a gap calculation step of calculating a value indicating the degree of divergence between a plurality of scores obtained by the score acquisition step may be a evaluation method of execution.

  According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an evaluation system capable of obtaining a more reliable evaluation result for an evaluation object whose evaluation result varies depending on an evaluator.

<System configuration>
An embodiment of an evaluation system 10 according to the present invention will be described based on the drawings. FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an outline of the hardware configuration of the evaluation system 10 in the present embodiment. The evaluation system 10 in the present embodiment is a CPU (Central Processing).
A computer having a network interface such as a unit 11, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 14, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 12, a HDD (Hard Disk Drive) 13, a NIC (Network Interface Card) 15, and the like. Here, the evaluation program or the like developed in the RAM 12 is interpreted and processed by the CPU 11 so that the computer can receive the answer receiving means, the score calculating means, the score accumulating means, the score acquiring means, the gap calculating means, the average according to the present invention. It operates as an evaluation system 10 including a score calculation unit, a coefficient holding unit, a coefficient acquisition unit, and a score correction unit, and provides an evaluation service to the client terminal 40 via the Internet 100.

  Generally, in the management process of a company, management resources (for example, human resources, things, assets, information, etc.) are allocated to a plurality of categories (hereinafter referred to as “issues”), and in each issue. Profits are generated by effectively using management resources. If management resources are not working effectively, it will result in violation of laws and regulations, loss of business opportunities, and product / corporate brand collapse, resulting in loss of management resources. This leads to securing excellent human resources, etc., leading to financial excellence and profit improvement. Therefore, the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment calculates scores for a plurality of issues to which the management resources of the company are allocated, based on the contents of answers to questions by the user. In the present embodiment, “Organizational Governance”, “Environmental Response”, “Human Rights”, “Labor” prepared as guidance standards in ISO (International Responsibility) SR (Social Responsibility) standard of ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Scores are calculated for each of the seven issues: “Practice”, “Fair business activities”, “Consumer issues”, and “Social contribution (community participation)”.

  In the present embodiment, in addition to the above seven issues, the level of satisfaction of the stakeholders related to the company and the risk level for evaluating the risk of the company are calculated. More specifically, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, business partner satisfaction, and shareholder satisfaction levels are calculated. These are the legal violation risk, whistleblowing risk, business activity risk, and environmental risk. Such a risk level is calculated. In the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment, the satisfaction level and the risk level are calculated based on the contents of answers to questions by the user, such as “employee satisfaction points”, “SCM (Supply Chain Management)”. Calculated on the basis of “corresponding points”, “customer satisfaction points”, and “legal compliance points”. A specific method for calculating the satisfaction level or the risk level from these points will be described later.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an outline of a functional configuration of the evaluation system 10 in the present embodiment. The evaluation system 10 asks the database 30 (corresponding to the coefficient holding means of the present invention), the user management section 21, and the client terminal 40, which are functional sections corresponding to one or more of the respective means according to the present invention. A transmitting unit 22 that transmits a Web page for display, a receiving unit 23 that receives a user's response to a question (corresponding to an answer receiving unit of the present invention), and a score that calculates a score that is an evaluation value of a company for each category A calculation unit 24 (corresponding to the score calculation unit of the present invention), a satisfaction / risk level calculation unit 25, and a score correction unit 26 (coefficient acquisition unit of the present invention) that corrects the calculated score for each category using a weighting coefficient. And a score correcting unit), a score accumulating unit 27 for accumulating the calculated score (corresponding to the score accumulating unit of the present invention), an evaluation result output unit 28, Comprising gap calculating unit 29 that calculates a value indicating the degree of divergence between a plurality of scores (scores acquiring means of the present invention, the average score calculating means, and corresponds to a gap calculation means) and, the. Each of these functional units is realized mainly by the CPU 11 executing a program expanded in the RAM 12. However, each functional unit may be realized by one or a plurality of dedicated processors, or a plurality of functional units may be realized. These functional units may be realized by a single dedicated processor.

<Data structure>
Next, an outline of a data structure used in the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. Each information table described below is associated with each other and recorded in the HDD 13 to constitute the database 30.

  FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an outline of a data structure of question information according to the present embodiment. The question information includes a question ID for identifying the question, a question content actually presented to the user, an issue in which the question is classified, and a response with a positive answer to the evaluation of the question. If there is a response (in this embodiment, the answer is Yes), an additional point will be added to any of the “employee satisfaction points”, “SCM compatible points”, “customer satisfaction points”, and “legal compliance points”. The information indicating whether or not to perform information is associated with the information, and is stored in the question information table 33. In the present embodiment, the question content is set to a question that improves the score (evaluation) when the answer to the question is Yes. In other words, in the present embodiment, when the answer is Yes, the issue associated with the question (the above “organizational governance”, “environmental response”, “human rights”, “labor practices”, “fair business activities”) , "Consumer Issues" and "Social Contribution (Community Participation)"), 1 point will be added, and "Employee Satisfaction Point", "SCM Corresponding Point", "Customer Satisfaction Point", and One point will be added to the points indicated in the question information among the “legal compliance points”. Explaining using the example shown in the diagram, the question is, “The management team clarifies the organization chart regarding the division of duties and division of duties, and clearly describes the rules for guidance, orders, and instructions within the company.” If the answer to the answer is Yes, 1 point is added to the “organizational governance” issue, and 1 point is added to each of the “employee satisfaction points” and “SCM correspondence points”. However, it is preferable that the score calculation method is appropriately selected according to the embodiment. For example, in the question information or the like, the content of the answer to the question (Yes / No format, option format, free answer format, etc.) A corresponding score may be determined in advance, and a score determined in advance according to the content of the answer may be added. In addition, the score according to the content of the answer may be different depending on the content of the answer. In this case, the score is obtained by quantifying the effect of the content grasped from the answer on the evaluation of the company. It is preferable.

In addition, it is preferable that the content of the question is created with reference to various authentication standards. For example, ISO9001 (quality management system), ISO14001 (environmental management system), ISO / IEC17025 (general requirements regarding the ability of laboratories and calibration laboratories) as certification standards to be referred to for setting the contents of basic questions , OHAS 18001 (Occupational Safety and Health Management System), ISO 22000 (Food Quality Management System), ISO 9001-HACCP (Integrated Hygiene Management System), ISO 13485 (Quality Assurance of Medical Equipment), ISO / IEC27001 (Information Security Management System), ISO 20000 (IT Service management), ISO10018 (complaint management system), ISO16949 (quality management system),
TL9000 (quality management system), etc. Furthermore, JISQ15000 (Privacy Mark), ECS2000 (Ethical Law Compliance Management System), Eco Action 21 (Environmental Management System), Ecostage (Environmental Management System), KES (Environmental Management System), M-EMS (Mie Prefecture Small Scale) An environmental management system for business establishments), organic JAS (Japan Agricultural Standard) certification, FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) forest certification, and the like may be referred to.

  FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an outline of the data structure of the point information for each acquisition authentication according to the present embodiment. The score information for each acquisition certification is information in which a certification system that can be obtained by a company is associated with the score that is added to the score when the certification system is acquired by the evaluation target company. 36. Further, as the points to be added, the points for each of the above seven issues are accumulated for each authentication system. More specifically, according to the example shown in FIG. 4, when the enterprise to be evaluated has acquired ISO9001, 20 points for “organizational governance” and 20 for “fair business” among the above seven issues. 10 points are added to the point, “Consumer Issues”. In the present embodiment, these points are added after the score of each issue is converted into a score of 100 points in the score calculation process described later.

  FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an outline of a data structure of company information in the present embodiment. The company information is information related to the company and is stored in the company information table 31. The company information includes a company ID for identifying the company, a user ID of the representative, a company name, a location, a telephone number, and other data. Furthermore, the company size (listed company, consolidated subsidiary of listed company, large company) Basic information about companies such as companies, SMEs, etc., business domains (food, construction / architecture, chemistry, steel, transportation / transportation, etc.), transaction formats (inter-company transactions, consumer sales, etc.) And accumulated.

  FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a configuration of weighting information according to the present embodiment. In the score calculation according to the present embodiment, a score is calculated using a common question and a score table for different companies, but actually, the importance of each issue differs depending on the attribute of the company. For this reason, in this embodiment, the score is corrected by weighting each issue based on the business domain and the transaction form among the attributes of the company. For example, “Consumer issues” is the most important of the seven issues for the food manufacturing industry, and “Fair business activities” is the most important for the construction industry. In addition, “fair business activities” are more important when corporate activities are completed and established in business-to-business transactions, and “consumer issues” are more important in business activities that sell consumers. Therefore, in this embodiment, the company is divided into 18 types, which are combinations of 9 types of business domains and 2 types of transactions, and weighting coefficients are set, and the scores calculated for 7 issues are corrected. Yes. That is, in the weighting information table 34, a corresponding weighting coefficient is set and accumulated for each content of the basic information of the company. In the figure, “B2B” indicates that an inter-company transaction is being performed, and “B2C” indicates that a consumer sale is being performed. In addition to the business domain and transaction form, the company size for which the weighting coefficient is set may include the size of the company.

  Note that the issues, satisfaction levels, risk levels, questions and weighting factors described above may be customizable. For example, by preparing an evaluation system 10 that uniquely sets questions and weighting factors based on own procurement requirements and transaction requirements and evaluates the other company, the other company can obtain its own procurement requirements and transaction requirements. It is possible to determine whether or not

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an outline of a data structure of user information in the present embodiment. The user information is information relating to a user belonging to the company to be evaluated, and is input by the user before or after the answer to the question and is accumulated in the user information table 32. The user information includes the user ID, the company ID of the company to which the user belongs, the group to which the user belongs (in the present embodiment, the “manager group”, “manager group”, and “general employee group”). Other data (groups are defined) are included. In this embodiment, the user ID is set to a random value generated using a random number generator, a pseudo-random number generation function, etc., and information other than the user's affiliated company and the affiliated group within the company is specified. Is preventing. The user information may include the user's name, e-mail address, etc., but it is preferable to let the user determine whether to register himself or herself from the viewpoint of ensuring anonymity. Further, the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment does not transmit an email from the system to the user even when the user's email address is registered. This is for avoiding that the e-mail addressed to the user passes through the server of the company to be evaluated and the user who is the evaluator is specified.

  FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an outline of the data structure of the score information in the present embodiment. The score information is information including the company ID, the group to which the user who made the answer used for the score calculation, the score for each issue calculated by the score calculation unit 24, and the like are stored in the score information table 35. . Note that the accumulated score may be a score before correction by the score correction unit 26 or a score after correction. In addition to the score for each issue, the score information table 35 may store various calculation results calculated in the score calculation process, such as an overall score, a satisfaction level, and a risk level.

  In addition, the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment includes a mechanism for ensuring the anonymity of the user in order to provide the user who is an evaluator with an environment in which the user can answer with real intention. When a company uses the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment, the company applies for a range or group of users who are evaluators. In response to this, the provider (administrator) of the evaluation system 10 notifies the requested user of the URL of the site where the value evaluation service is provided. The URL preferably does not include information that can identify the user. The user accesses the system using this URL and answers the question. At this time, the evaluation system 10 causes the user to input information included in the user information.

  The answer contents and score by the user are accumulated in the score information table 35 and the like, but at this time, the accumulated answer contents and score information do not include information (for example, user ID, etc.) that can identify the answering user. By doing so, it is possible to prevent the user from being specified from the answer contents and the score information. In this embodiment, the company ID is stored in association with the score information. However, the company ID is also a random ID generated using the random number generator, the pseudo-random number generation function, or the like. Thus, it is possible to prevent the company from knowing the evaluation result for any company simply by acquiring the accumulated score information. If an identifier is required for the score information, an identifier generated using the random number generator, the pseudo random number generation function, or the like may be used. In this way, by ensuring the user's anonymity, the user can answer with real intention, and a more reliable gap evaluation result can be obtained. However, when the user's consent is obtained, the score information may be accumulated in association with the user ID. In this case, since anonymity is an issue, the system provider side does not provide information that can identify the user related to the score information to the evaluation target company side (for example, managers), and the system provider side makes a bulletin board, electronic You may mediate the communication between the user related to the score information and the company through means such as mail. In this way, while ensuring the anonymity of the user who made the response, the user's opinions are reflected in management, and the results of the gap evaluation are utilized more effectively, and measures such as securing and improving management resources are taken. I can take it.

<Process flow>
Next, the flow of the score calculation process and the gap evaluation process in this embodiment will be described. The processing shown below is performed by the CPU 11 interpreting and executing a program expanded in the RAM 12 or the like. In addition, the processing unit and processing order of the following processes are not limited to the processing unit and processing order shown in the present embodiment, and may be changed as appropriate. FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing a flow of score calculation processing in the present embodiment. The process shown in this flowchart is started when the NIC 15 of the evaluation system 10 receives a login request from the client terminal 40. In the communication between the evaluation system 10 and the client terminal 40 shown below, for example, TLS (Transport Layer Security) or SSL is used in order to prevent communication contents from being browsed by a server or the like that passes through the communication. It is preferable to use a cryptographic communication technique such as (Secure Socket Layer).

  In step S101, login is accepted. The user management unit 21 receives the login request transmitted from the client terminal 40 via the Internet 100. The login request includes identification information (for example, a user ID) for identifying the user who operates the client terminal 40, and the user management unit 21 uses the user information table of the database 30 based on this identification information. 32, a user registered in advance is specified. At this time, the user may be authenticated by using an authentication means such as a password or public key authentication. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S102.

  In step S102 and step S103, a question display Web page is transmitted and an answer by the user is received. The transmission unit 22 reads out a question from the question information table 33 stored in association with the question ID, the question content, the issue classified by the question, and the like, generates a question display Web page, and transmits the question via the Internet 100. It transmits to the client terminal 40 (step S102). However, in order to reduce the load on the system, instead of a method of generating a Web page based on information read from the question information table 33 every time distribution is performed, a Web page for displaying a question prepared in advance is used as the database 30. A method of reading and transmitting from may be employed. Further, the question display Web page includes a question for answering the certification of ISO 9001 or the like acquired by the company to be evaluated, in addition to the questions related to the above seven issues. The client terminal 40 displays the received question display Web page on the display.

  FIG. 10 is a view showing an image of a Web page for question display according to the present embodiment. In addition to the questions classified into the above seven issues, the question display Web page is a question for answering whether the contents and the company have obtained ISO 9001 certification (see FIG. 4) or not. , An answer input field for each of these questions and a send button (not shown) are included. In the example of FIG. 10, by answering while moving the Web page for each issue, answers to all the questions classified into seven issues are performed. The user inputs the answers to the questions while browsing the questions displayed on the display of the client terminal 40, and when input of the answers to all the questions is completed, the user clicks the send button to confirm the input contents and send instructions I do. In the present embodiment, the answer to the question is answered by selecting either “Yes” or “No”, so that the answer to the question is Yes or No. A question having these options may be prepared, or a free answer question may be prepared.

  When the client terminal 40 receives a click on the transmission button by the user, the client terminal 40 transmits the answer input by the user to the evaluation system 10. And the receiving part 23 of the evaluation system 10 receives the reply transmitted from the client terminal 40 via the internet 100 (step S103). Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S104.

In step S104 and step S105, a score is calculated for each issue. First, the score calculation unit 24 acquires, from the database 30, a question information table 33 corresponding to the question display Web page transmitted in step S <b> 102 and accumulated by associating the content of the answer to the question and the score (step). S104). Then, the score calculation unit 24 counts the number of questions whose answer is Yes for each issue (“Yes” is checked according to the example of FIG. 10), and the Yes for the total number of questions of each issue. In accordance with the ratio of the number, the score when each issue is rated as a maximum of 100 points is calculated (step S105). For example, when the number of questions for one issue is 8, it can be converted to a score of 100 points by multiplying the number of Yes related to the question of the issue by 12.5. However, the score calculation method is not limited to the above method, and various known methods may be employed. For example, in the case where the answer content and the score for the question are associated and stored in the question information table 33, the score corresponding to the answer content for the question is acquired for each question, and the acquired score belongs to the question A score for each issue may be calculated by adding up for each issue. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S106.

  In step S106 and step S107, a score corresponding to the authentication system acquired by the evaluation target company is added to the score for each issue. The score calculation unit 24 acquires point information for each acquisition authentication from the point information table 36 based on the authentication system already acquired by the evaluation target company included in the answer to the question (step S106), and step A score is added to the score calculated in S105 (step S107). In the present embodiment, the upper limit of the added score is 100 points.

  In steps S108 to S110, the basic information of the company is acquired, and the score is weighted. The score correction unit 26 searches the company information table 31 (see FIG. 5) of the database 30 using the company ID of the company to which the user who input the answer belongs, thereby acquiring basic information of the company to which the user belongs (see FIG. 5). Step S108). Note that the basic information acquired here is the company size, business domain, transaction form, and the like. And the score correction | amendment part 26 acquires the weighting coefficient for every issue corresponding to the company to which a user belongs by referring the predetermined weighting information table 34 based on the acquired basic information (step S109).

  The score correction unit 26 performs correction by weighting by multiplying the obtained weighting coefficient for each issue by the score for each issue calculated in step S105 (step S110). Also here, the upper limit of the weighted score may be 100 points. In this embodiment, the weighting coefficient is determined in advance, and correction by weighting is performed by multiplying the score for each issue by the coefficient. However, the weighting process is performed by other methods such as addition / subtraction of weighting points. May be. Through this process, a score for each issue that has been corrected in accordance with the attributes of the company can be obtained. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S111.

In step S111, a total score is calculated. The score calculation unit 24 calculates the total score by summing up the scores for all the issues. In the present embodiment, since the score is calculated with a maximum score of 100 per issue, the total score is a maximum of 700 points. At this time, in order to make the total score comparable with companies having other attributes, the total score may be a score in a state where weighting in step S110 or point addition in step S107 is not performed. Further, the total score may be compared with a predetermined threshold for determining the overall rank, and the overall rank of the evaluation target company may be determined. For example, by preparing five overall ranks from A to E and preparing in advance the range of scores determined for each rank as a threshold, the rank of the company evaluated in step S114 described later can be obtained. Output the result of the comprehensive evaluation can be easily communicated to the user. Note that the overall rank may be determined by relative evaluation. For example, after calculating the total score, it is compared with the total score of other companies accumulated in the database 30, and based on how far the company has been evaluated so far, A rank may be determined. Furthermore, in addition to the rank, information that allows the user to grasp how much the actual position is compared to other companies (referred to as “assumed position” in the present embodiment), for example, “top 20% Information such as “within” may be provided.

In step S112, the satisfaction level or management risk level of the stakeholder of the company is calculated. The satisfaction / risk level calculation unit 25 has a positive answer to the evaluation of the evaluation target among the questions stored in the question information table 33 read out in step S104 (in this embodiment, “ For the question that was “Yes”), information indicating whether to add to “Employee Satisfaction Point”, “SCM Corresponding Point”, “Customer Satisfaction Point”, or “Legal Compliance Point” is obtained from the question information table 33 And add. Then, based on these four calculated points, five levels of satisfaction level and risk level are calculated. More specifically, the “customer satisfaction level” is calculated by determining which of the predetermined five levels (A to E) the customer satisfaction point value is within. The The “employee satisfaction level” is calculated based on employee satisfaction points, and the “customer satisfaction level” is calculated based on SCM compatible points. The “shareholder satisfaction level” is calculated based on the total score. The “law violation risk level” is calculated based on legal compliance points, and the “whaling whistleblowing risk level” is calculated based on the sum of employee satisfaction points and legal compliance points. Furthermore, the “business activity risk level” is calculated based on the result of calculating the following formula,
(Customer Satisfaction Point x SCM Corresponding Point Maximum Score / Customer Satisfaction Point Maximum Score) + SCM Corresponding Point “Environmental Risk Level” is calculated based on the result of calculating the following formula.
(Number of Yes for questions related to environmental issues x 3) + Legal compliance points Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S113.

  In step S113, the calculated score is accumulated. The score accumulating unit 27 calculates the score for each issue, the total score, the satisfaction level, the risk level, and the like calculated in the process up to step S112, as the company ID and the group to which the user who made the answer based on which the score is calculated. In association with each other, the score information table 35 is accumulated. In addition, it is preferable that the association with the user ID is not performed during the accumulation. By not associating the score with the user ID, the anonymity of the user who is an answerer is ensured. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S114.

  In step S114 and step S115, a Web page for displaying results is generated and transmitted. The evaluation result output unit 28 generates elements such as a radar chart, an overall rank display, a comment, a satisfaction level display field, and a risk level display field based on the scores weighted in step S110, and arranges them on the Web page. Then, a Web page for displaying results is generated (step S114). Then, the evaluation result output unit 28 transmits the generated Web page to the client terminal 40 via the Internet 100. Thereafter, the processing shown in this flowchart ends.

  The client terminal 40 that has received the Web page for displaying the result displays an image of the evaluation result on the display using a browser. FIG. 11A to FIG. 11C are diagrams showing images of evaluation results according to the present embodiment. The result display web page according to the present embodiment has a seven-axis radar chart displaying the scores for the seven calculated issues, the overall rank (in this embodiment, five levels from A to E), The display includes comments retrieved from a table (not shown) in which comments are accumulated in advance according to the score and rank, a satisfaction level (see FIG. 11B), and a risk level (see FIG. 11C).

  Satisfaction levels are "very rich satisfaction", "rich satisfaction", "great satisfaction", "small fruit" for customer satisfaction level, employee satisfaction level, supplier satisfaction level, and shareholder satisfaction level. It is displayed using a word and an icon representing a satisfaction level such as “not satisfied” (see FIG. 11B). In the present embodiment, it is easy to visually grasp the satisfaction level by using fruit icons having different sizes and colors. Regarding the risk level, “Risk is very small and the risk itself is grasped” and “Risk is small but the risk is reorganized” for each of the legal violation risk level, whistleblowing risk level, business activity risk level, and environmental risk level. Words that express risk levels, such as “Yes”, “There is risk but avoids major management blows”, “Risk is large and risk identification is an urgent issue”, “Risk is large and it cannot recognize itself already” And an icon (see FIG. 11C). In this embodiment, the size of the hole opened in the road and the human appearance for the hole (whether or not the hole is recognized and whether or not it falls in the hole) are visually different depending on the icon. This makes it easier to understand the risk level. By performing such display, the user can visually grasp the social value and problems of the company and use it for management.

  FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing the flow of the gap evaluation process according to this embodiment. The process shown in this flowchart is started when the NIC 15 of the evaluation system 10 receives a gap evaluation request from the client terminal 40 that designates a company to be evaluated.

  In step S201, it is determined whether or not scores for a predetermined number of users have been accumulated. The gap calculation unit 29 counts the number of scores accumulated by the score calculation process, thereby determining whether or not a score, which is an evaluation result related to the company to be evaluated, is accumulated for a predetermined number of users. Is done. In addition, the reference | standard defined as a predetermined number of users here may be prescribed | regulated by various methods. For example, it may be set to the same number as the total number of users who belong to the evaluation target company and participate in the evaluation, or may be set to a number equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio with respect to the total number of participating users. Further, in addition to the above conditions, a lower limit value of the accumulation number may be determined. By setting the lower limit, it is possible to prevent the user who has made the answer from being specified and to ensure the anonymity of the user. When it is determined that the scores for the predetermined number of users are not accumulated, the processing shown in this flowchart ends. If it is determined that scores for a predetermined number of users are accumulated, the process proceeds to step S202.

  In step S202, the score is read. The gap calculation unit 29 searches the score information table 35 using the company ID of the evaluation target company, and reads the score related to the company that is the target of the gap evaluation, which is accumulated in the database 30 in step S113. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S203.

  In step S203 and step S204, the average score gap between groups is calculated. The gap calculation unit 29 divides the read score for each associated group. Specifically, the gap calculation unit 29 divides a plurality of read scores for each group based on a group ID that is directly or indirectly associated with the score. And the gap calculation part 29 calculates the average value of the score linked | related with the group for every issue (step S203). When the average score for all the groups is calculated, the gap calculating unit 29 calculates the average gap between the groups by calculating the difference in the average score between the groups for all the combinations of groups.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an outline of an average gap calculation method according to the present embodiment. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the user belongs to one of three groups of “manager group”, “manager group”, and “general employee group”. For this reason, in this embodiment, for all seven issues, the average gap between the “manager group” and the “manager group” and the average between the “general employee group” and the “manager group” The gap and the average gap between the “manager group” and the “general employee group” are calculated. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S205.

  In step S205 and step S206, the maximum gap between groups is calculated. The gap calculation unit 29 divides the plurality of read scores for each group to which the user belongs, and calculates the highest score and the lowest score in each group for each issue. Then, for each issue, the maximum gap between the groups is calculated by calculating the difference between the highest score and the lowest score between two different groups.

  FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an outline of a maximum gap calculation method according to the present embodiment. Here, when calculating the difference between the highest score and the lowest score between two groups, the difference between the highest score in one group and the lowest score in the other group, and the lowest score in the one group Both the difference from the highest score in the other group is obtained, and the larger one is calculated as the maximum gap. However, the maximum gap may be calculated using other calculation methods. Similar to the average gap, the maximum gap is calculated for all combinations between the three groups. Note that the minimum gap between groups may be calculated together with the maximum gap. The minimum gap is the smallest difference among the differences in scores related to users belonging to different groups. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S207.

  In step S207, the divergence level is calculated. The gap calculation unit 29 compares the average gap calculated in step S204 and the maximum gap calculated in step S206 with a predetermined numerical range, thereby indicating the gap size in a stepwise manner. Determine the level. For example, it is possible to determine the divergence level by determining five levels of divergence levels and five numerical ranges in advance, and determining which of the numerical ranges the calculated average gap and maximum gap belong to. . In this embodiment, the parameter calculated as the gap evaluation is a divergence level, but for the gap evaluation, it is only necessary to obtain a parameter representing the degree of divergence between different groups or between users. The degree of deviation may be expressed using an index that does not depend on the deviation level. For example, a ratio of average scores between different groups (for example, it can be referred to as “divergence rate”) or the like may be calculated. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S208.

  In step S208 and step S209, a web page for displaying the gap evaluation result is generated and transmitted. The evaluation result output unit 28 generates an element such as a message according to the divergence level based on the average gap calculated in step S204 and the maximum gap calculated in step S206, and arranges it on the Web page, thereby An evaluation result display Web page is generated (step S208). Specifically, the evaluation result output unit 28 acquires a message corresponding to the divergence level determined in step S207 from the database, and arranges it on a web page for displaying the gap evaluation result. A message prepared in advance in the database 30 is used for each deviation level (not shown). Here, when the deviation level is high, the content of the message may be warning content. Then, the evaluation result output unit 28 transmits the generated Web page to the client terminal 40 via the Internet 100 (Step S209). Thereafter, the processing shown in this flowchart ends.

FIG. 15 is a diagram illustrating an example of a display image of the gap evaluation result according to the present embodiment. The gap evaluation result includes an average gap, a maximum gap, and the like calculated by the gap calculation unit 29, and an image for visually grasping the size of the gap generated by the evaluation result output unit 28 ( In the example of FIG. 15, a graph indicating the magnitude of the deviation is included. Furthermore, the average value of the gaps in all issues (“Total Average Gap” in the figure), the lowest score for each issue (“Issue Minimum Value Checker” in the figure), and the degree of divergence of each question between groups (Figure) "Question GAP value"), etc. may be calculated and output. The degree of divergence for each question can be calculated, for example, by calculating the ratio of the answer to a certain question for each group and determining the difference between the ratios. Further, although not shown in the example of FIG. 15, it is preferable that the gap level calculated in step S207 is also output to the gap result at the same time.

  According to the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment, by evaluating the score gap that is an evaluation result by a plurality of users, even in the social value evaluation of companies whose evaluation results vary greatly depending on the evaluator, the reliability is high. It is high and it is possible to obtain evaluation results that are very useful for subsequent corporate management. Furthermore, according to the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment, the gap evaluation is performed for each of the seven issues, so that it is easy to recognize which issue the company has a big problem and take measures. Is possible. It is also possible to understand whether there is a big gap between managers and managers, managers and regular employees, or between managers and regular employees. is there.

  The score, the overall rank, the divergence level, and the like calculated by the evaluation system 10 may be provided to an external organization such as a financial institution or a consultant via a network. By providing such information to external organizations, the evaluation results can be used for corporate evaluations by external organizations and advice for management. Further, the weighting coefficient and the like may be customized by an external organization that provides the information. For example, by letting financial institutions determine the weighting factor for the “organizational governance” issue, financial institutions receiving information can obtain appropriately corrected organizational governance scores, overall ranks, divergence levels, etc. Become.

  In the above description according to the present embodiment, the explanation is made assuming that the person inside the enterprise to be evaluated is an evaluator. However, the evaluation is made by an evaluator (for example, a business partner) outside the enterprise. To calculate the score and the gap between the inside and outside of the company. By calculating a score based on a viewpoint from the outside of the company and further calculating a gap between the inside and outside of the company, it is possible to make the evaluation result provided by the evaluation system 10 more reliable.

  In addition, according to the evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment, the score changes according to the basic information. Therefore, the evaluation system 10 can be used for the purpose of simulating the influence of the change in the basic information. In other words, by inputting fictitious information as basic information, it is possible to recognize changes in corporate value when such changes occur in a company and use it for relocation of management resources, review of business plans, etc. .

  In addition, although this embodiment demonstrated the evaluation system 10 used for a company's value evaluation, the evaluation system which concerns on this invention is an evaluation system suitable for evaluation of the evaluation object of the type from which an evaluation result differs by an evaluator. Therefore, it can be used for evaluation of organizations other than companies and evaluation targets other than organizations.

It is a figure which shows the outline of the hardware constitutions of the evaluation system in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of a function structure of the evaluation system in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of the data structure of the question information which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of the data structure of the point information for every acquisition authentication which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of the data structure of the company information in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the structure of the weighting information which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of the data structure of the user information in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline of the data structure of the score information in embodiment. It is a flowchart which shows the flow of the score calculation process in embodiment. It is a figure which shows the image of the web page for the question display which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows a score display image among the images of the evaluation result which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows a satisfaction rank image among the images of the evaluation result which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows a risk rank image among the images of the evaluation result which concerns on embodiment. It is a flowchart which shows the flow of the gap evaluation process which concerns on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline | summary of the calculation method of the average gap based on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the outline | summary of the calculation method of the largest gap based on embodiment. It is a figure which shows the display image of the gap evaluation result based on embodiment.

Explanation of symbols

10 Evaluation System 11 CPU (Central Processing Unit)
12 RAM (Random Access Memory)
13 HDD (Hard Disk Drive)
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 21 User management part 22 Transmission part 23 Reception part 24 Score calculation part 25 Satisfaction / risk level calculation part 26 Score correction part 27 Score storage part 28 Evaluation result output part 29 Gap calculation part 30 Database 40 Client terminal

Claims (7)

Having a storage device,
An answer receiving means for receiving a user's answer to the question about the evaluation target;
Score calculation means for calculating the evaluation value of the evaluation object as a score by adding at least a score when the answer received by the answer reception means is a positive content regarding the evaluation of the evaluation object When,
Score accumulation means for accumulating the score calculated by the score calculation means in the storage device;
Score acquisition means for acquiring a plurality of scores based on answers from different users accumulated in the storage device by the score accumulation means;
Gap calculating means for calculating a value indicating the degree of divergence between a plurality of scores acquired by the score acquiring means;
An evaluation system comprising: The user is a user belonging to at least one of a plurality of groups,
For each group, further comprising an average score calculating means for calculating an average of scores relating to users belonging to the group,
The gap calculating means calculates a value indicating the degree of deviation between the average scores of the groups;
The evaluation system according to claim 1. The user is a user belonging to at least one of a plurality of groups,
The gap calculating means is a degree of divergence among values indicating a degree of divergence between a score relating to a user belonging to one group and a score relating to a user belonging to a group different from the one group. Calculates a large value,
The evaluation system according to claim 1. The questions are questions classified into a plurality of categories,
The score calculating means calculates a score for each category,
Coefficient holding means for holding in advance a weighting coefficient applied to the score calculated for each category set for each attribute to be evaluated;
Coefficient acquisition means for acquiring the weighting coefficient based on the evaluation target attribute;
Score correction means for correcting the score calculated by the score calculation means for each category using the obtained weighting coefficient;
The evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising: The score is a score obtained by quantifying the influence of the content grasped from the answer on the evaluation of the evaluation target.
The evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 4. A computer having a storage device
An answer receiving step for receiving a user's answer to the question about the evaluation target;
A score calculating step of calculating the evaluation value of the evaluation object as a score by adding at least a score when the answer received in the answer receiving step is a positive content regarding the evaluation of the evaluation object When,
A score accumulating step for accumulating the score calculated in the score calculating step in the storage device;
A score acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of scores based on answers of different users accumulated in the storage device in the score accumulation step;
A gap calculating step for calculating a value indicating the degree of divergence between the plurality of scores acquired in the score acquiring step;
Evaluation method to perform. A computer having a storage device;
An answer receiving means for receiving a user's answer to the question about the evaluation target;
Score calculation means for calculating the evaluation value of the evaluation object as a score by adding at least a score when the answer received by the answer reception means is a positive content regarding the evaluation of the evaluation object When,
Score accumulation means for accumulating the score calculated by the score calculation means in the storage device;
Score acquisition means for acquiring a plurality of scores based on answers from different users accumulated in the storage device by the score accumulation means;
Gap calculating means for calculating a value indicating the degree of divergence between a plurality of scores acquired by the score acquiring means;
Evaluation program to function as.

Images