JP6236564B1 - Validity or credit rating system for self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation, and evaluator's evaluation ability judgment system for self-evaluation - Google Patents

Abstract

[Purpose] A determination system capable of determining the validity or reliability of a self-evaluation result as a person or personnel evaluation and / or a determination system capable of determining the evaluation ability of an evaluator who performed the self-evaluation provide. [Structure] Recording section for evaluation items and the like for recording a plurality of evaluation items included in a plurality of evaluation groups in association with at least one of “relationship at the same level” and “relationship at different levels”; A rank determination unit that determines whether or not the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item in the self-evaluation result by the person satisfies “same level relationship” and / or “heterogeneous level relationship”, This is a system for determining the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation based on the determination result from. [Selection] Figure 1

Description

  The present invention relates to a system for determining the validity or reliability of a self-evaluation performed as a person or personnel evaluation, and a system for determining the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation.

  Traditionally, in the case of commercial organizations such as corporations (profit organizations) and public organizations such as administrative organizations, regular evaluations of personnel or personnel evaluations such as the ability evaluation of new employees (employees), managers, managers, etc. in the workplace Has been done. Conventionally, a person evaluation or personnel evaluation system for efficiently performing such person evaluation or personnel evaluation has also been proposed (see, for example, Patent Document 1).

JP 2004-46770 A

  As mentioned above, organizations such as companies and government offices have traditionally conducted periodic personnel evaluations or person evaluations to determine the treatment of employees and other members such as wages, bonuses, and promotions / promotions. However, most of the methods for doing so were third-party evaluations where managers (third parties) such as supervisors evaluated subordinates. In recent years, there are companies that incorporate 360-degree evaluations (multi-faceted evaluation) by multiple people, such as evaluations of superiors by subordinates and evaluations of other colleagues by colleagues. There is no change.

  However, with regard to third-party evaluation including the case of such 360-degree evaluation, the evaluation result is often significantly different from the self-evaluation of the evaluation subject himself / herself. There were problems such as distrust and suspicion against third parties such as bosses who were dissatisfied with the treatment based on the treatment, and lost their sense of unity.

  On the other hand, as an alternative to third-party evaluation, where such adverse effects are unavoidable, a method has been proposed in which each member determines the treatment of the member based on the result of self-evaluation by himself / herself. . Certainly, if each member's treatment is determined based on the self-evaluation of each member, even if the self-evaluation result performed by the evaluator is lower than the actual result, The member who is the evaluator should hardly be dissatisfied with the content of the treatment determined based on the self-evaluation result performed by the evaluator.

  However, in general, when each member's self-assessment is determined based on the self-evaluation of each member, the evaluator (member) who performs the self-evaluation has a higher evaluation than himself (actually) There is a problem that it is not possible to avoid making a sweet evaluation) or making an irresponsible evaluation, and the whole organization cannot be connected to appropriate treatment.

  The present invention was made by paying attention to such problems of conventional person or personnel evaluation, and the evaluation target person is dissatisfied with the evaluation result and the treatment based on it, or the boss who has evaluated himself Can prevent inconveniences such as distrust and suspicion against third parties, and evaluators who perform self-assessment give themselves a higher rating than their own (sweet self-evaluation). Providing a validity or credit rating system for self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation that can prevent irresponsible evaluation, and determining the evaluation ability of each evaluator who performs the self-evaluation It is an object of the present invention to provide an evaluation ability determination system for an evaluator who has performed self-assessment as a person who can perform an evaluation or personnel evaluation.

  The validity of the self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention for solving the problems as described above, or the creditworthiness determination system is a plurality of evaluations included in a plurality of evaluation groups having different viewpoints or meanings of evaluation. The items are classified into the “equivalent level relationship” based on the evaluation group to which each evaluation item belongs or the unique viewpoint or meaning of each evaluation group, that is, “the evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group are mutually `` Relationship that evaluations at the same or similar level should be made '' and whether the viewpoints or meanings specific to each evaluation group are located in a higher rank or lower rank of each other “Relationship at different levels” based on ranking, that is, “Each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups belongs to each An evaluation item etc. recording section that records in association with or in association with at least one of “relationship that different levels of evaluation should be performed so as to correspond to the ranking among value groups”, and certain evaluation A numerical value or other symbol (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation symbol”) indicating the result of self-evaluation of a plurality of evaluation items recorded in the evaluation item etc. recording unit as a result of self-evaluation by the person himself / herself Evaluation of each evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group having the same or similar rank in a self-evaluation result recording unit to be input or recorded and a self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit About the symbols, the same rank determination that determines whether or not they are at the same level or similar to each other, and entered or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit Regarding the evaluation symbols of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups in the self-evaluation results by the evaluator, they are “whether they are at different levels and whether they are consistent with the ranking among the evaluation groups. No ”, that is,“ the evaluation symbol of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the higher rank (or lower rank) is higher than the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the lower rank (or higher rank). A rank determination unit that performs at least one of different rank determinations to determine whether or not the evaluation symbol corresponds to (or lower order).

  Further, the evaluation ability determination system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention includes a plurality of evaluation items included in each of the plurality of evaluation groups having different evaluation viewpoints or meanings. Each evaluation group to which the evaluation item belongs, or “relationship at the same level” based on the unique viewpoint or meaning of each evaluation group, that is, “each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group is the same or similar level” Based on the relationship that the evaluation should be made ”and whether the unique viewpoints or meanings of each evaluation group are located in higher ranks or lower ranks of each other. Heterogeneous relationships ”, that is,“ Each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups is ordered among the evaluation groups to which each belongs. An evaluation item recording unit that records in association with or in association with at least one of “relationships where different levels of evaluation should be performed so as to correspond to each other”, and a certain evaluator evaluates himself / herself. Self-evaluation results for inputting or recording numerical values and other symbols (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation symbols”) indicating the results of self-evaluation of a plurality of evaluation items recorded in the evaluation item recording unit. The evaluation symbol of each evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the same or similar rank in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the recording unit and the self-evaluation result recording unit is the same as each other Alternatively, the same rank determination for determining whether or not the level is an approximate level, and a self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit. Among the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups, they are “whether they are at different levels and whether they are consistent with the ranking among the evaluation groups” or “ The evaluation symbol of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the higher rank (or lower rank) is higher (or lower) than the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the lower rank (or higher rank). A rank determination unit that performs at least one of the different rank determinations to determine whether or not the evaluation symbol corresponds to that of the item, and an evaluation that has performed the self-evaluation based on a determination result by the rank determination unit And an evaluation ability determination unit that determines the evaluation ability of the person.

  In addition, in the evaluation system of the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation, or the evaluation system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, In the case of evaluating itself, when the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or approximate rank are different from each other, based on the same rank determination result by the rank determination unit The same rank alarm means for outputting predetermined alarm information may be provided.

  Further, in the evaluation system of the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation, or the evaluation system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, In the case of evaluating itself, when the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of different ranks are at the same or similar level, based on the heterogeneous rank determination result by the rank determination unit Further, different rank alarm means for outputting predetermined alarm information may be provided.

  In addition, in the evaluation system for the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation, or the evaluation ability evaluation system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, the evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value. A unique rank is associated with each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group, and the rank determination unit corresponds to an average value of each evaluation group for the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item. You may make it provide the evaluation numerical value determination means which determines the suitability of each evaluation numerical value which the evaluator evaluated by comparing with the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item which belongs to an evaluation group.

  In addition, in the evaluation system for the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation, or the evaluation ability evaluation system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, the evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value. Each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group is associated with a unique rank, and when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, the evaluator evaluates each evaluation item with an evaluation numerical value. Is input or recorded, and the input or recorded evaluation numerical value is compared with the evaluation numerical value already input or recorded by the evaluator for other evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group as the evaluation numerical value, Calculate the difference between the evaluation values of each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group and evaluate based on this calculated difference (evaluation gap) It may be so provided with means for determining the appropriateness of evaluation capacity of.

  Further, in the evaluation system of the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation, or the evaluation ability evaluation system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, the evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value. Each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group is associated with a unique rank, and each evaluation item is recorded in association with an order for each evaluation group to which each evaluation group belongs. As a result, each evaluation item can be compared with all other evaluation items regardless of whether they belong to the same evaluation group or different evaluation groups. In the case where the rank determination unit performs the same rank determination, the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, When an evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for an evaluation item, the evaluation items combined with the same weighting value are compared with each other in the same evaluation group having the same rank. When the difference (evaluation disparity) is zero (evaluation disparity zero) is the most appropriate, and when the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) exceeds the range of the appropriate disparity, the evaluator depends on the degree of the evaluation disparity When the evaluator evaluates himself / herself in the case of performing the heterogeneous rank determination, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item in the case of performing the heterogeneous rank determination, they are different from each other. The evaluation items belonging to the evaluation group are compared with each other to calculate the difference (evaluation disparity), and the state in which the evaluation disparity is within the predetermined disparity is appropriate. When the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) deviates from the range of the appropriate disparity based on the rank of each evaluation group or each evaluation item, depending on the degree of deviation of the evaluation disparity from the appropriate disparity range You may make it provide at least any one of the means to adjust the evaluation capability value of an evaluator.

  In the validity or trustworthiness determination system for self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, it is associated with or associated with at least one of the “relationship at the same level” and the “relationship at different levels”. It is provided with a recording section for evaluation items to be recorded, and furthermore, evaluation symbols of evaluation items belonging to evaluation groups of the same or similar rank in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator are the same or approximate to each other The same rank determination that determines whether or not the level is the same level, and the evaluation symbols of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator, And whether it is consistent with the ranking among the evaluation groups, that is, “higher (or The evaluation symbol of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the lower rank corresponds to the evaluation symbol that is higher (or lower) than the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the lower rank (or higher rank). Since a rank determination unit for performing at least one of different rank determinations for determining whether or not an evaluation symbol is used, at least one of the above-mentioned “same level relationship” and “different level relationship” is provided. From either viewpoint, it becomes possible to appropriately determine the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation performed as the person / personnel evaluation. Therefore, according to the present invention, it is possible to prevent inconvenience such as distrust or suspicion of a third party such as a boss who is unhappy with the evaluation result and treatment based on the evaluation result or a self-evaluated by the evaluation subject. As a person or personnel evaluation, it is possible to prevent an evaluator who performs self-evaluation from making a higher evaluation (satisfactory self-assessment) than himself or making irresponsible evaluation. It is possible to realize a validity or credit rating system for self-evaluation.

  In the evaluation ability determination system of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation as the person or personnel evaluation according to the present invention, at least one of the “relationship at the same level” and the “relationship at the different level” An evaluation item etc. recording unit is provided for recording in association with or in association with each other, and further, for evaluation symbols of evaluation items belonging to evaluation groups of the same or similar rank in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator. Are the same rank determination that determines whether or not they are at the same or approximate level, and the evaluation symbols of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator, “Whether they are at different levels and whether they are consistent with the ranking of each evaluation group”, ie “above An evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group of (or lower) rank has a higher (or lower) evaluation symbol than an evaluation item belonging to a lower (or higher) rank evaluation group Since the rank determination unit that performs at least one of the different rank determinations for determining whether or not the evaluation symbol corresponds to “is the evaluation symbol corresponding to”, the “relationship at the same level” and the “relationship at the different levels” are provided. From the perspective of at least one of the above, it is possible to appropriately determine the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation performed as a person / personnel evaluation, and to determine the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation become. Therefore, according to the present invention, it is possible to prevent inconvenience such as distrust or suspicion of a third party such as a boss who is unhappy with the evaluation result and treatment based on the evaluation result or a self-evaluated by the evaluation subject. As a person or personnel evaluation, it is possible to prevent an evaluator who performs self-evaluation from making a higher evaluation (satisfactory self-assessment) than himself or making irresponsible evaluation. It is possible to realize an evaluation ability determination system for an evaluator who has performed self-evaluation.

  Further, in each of the above inventions, with respect to self-evaluation by a certain evaluator, the rank determination unit sets the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or similar ranks to the same or approximate level. (Same rank determination), based on this determination result, determine the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation result and / or the person who performed the self-evaluation (self-evaluator) Since the evaluation ability is determined, if (a) “Evaluation symbols of a plurality of evaluation items belonging to evaluation groups of the same or similar rank” input or recorded as person / personnel evaluation are the same or similar to each other If the level is not in a state satisfying the “relationship at the same level”, it is assumed that the “relationship at the same level” is not satisfied. Self-assessment as a matter assessment is in principle low in validity or creditworthiness, and / or a person who has performed the self-assessment (self-evaluator) can be assessed as having low assessment ability in principle, (B) “Evaluation symbols of a plurality of evaluation items belonging to an evaluation group having the same or similar rank” input or recorded as person / personnel evaluations have the same or approximate level (the “relationship between the same levels”). If the self-assessment as the person / personnel evaluation is in principle, the validity or trustworthiness is high, and / or Or, it becomes possible to evaluate that the person who performed the self-evaluation (self-evaluator) has high evaluation ability in principle.

  Further, in each of the above inventions, regarding the self-evaluation by a certain evaluator, the rank determination unit determines whether the evaluation symbols of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups are “different levels” or not. And whether the evaluation symbol of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the higher rank (or lower rank) is lower (or higher rank). It is determined (whether or not it is an evaluation symbol corresponding to a higher rank (or lower rank) compared to the evaluation items belonging to the rank evaluation group ”(based on the different rank determination). Since the validity or creditworthiness of the self-assessment result is determined and / or the evaluation ability of the person who performed the self-evaluation (self-evaluator) is determined, “Evaluation symbols of evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups” input or recorded as evaluations are “whether they are at different levels and whether they are in conformity with the rank among the evaluation groups”, That is, it is determined whether or not the “relationship at different levels” is satisfied. If (a) the “relationship at different levels” is not satisfied, the self-evaluation as the person / personnel evaluation is A person who has low relevance or creditworthiness in principle and / or who has performed the self-evaluation (self-evaluator) can be evaluated as having low evaluation ability in principle. If the level relationship is satisfied, the self-evaluation as the person / personnel evaluation has a high relevance or credibility in principle and / or the person who performed the self-evaluation (self-evaluator So it can be evaluated with the principle high evaluation capacity.

  In each of the above inventions, based on at least one of the same rank determination result and the different rank determination result by the rank determination unit, the validity or reliability of the result of the self-evaluation performed as the person / personnel evaluation, And / or when judging the evaluation ability of a person who has performed self-assessment as the person / personnel evaluation, at least one of the viewpoints of the “same level relationship” and the “different level relationship” From either viewpoint, it is possible to appropriately evaluate the validity or creditworthiness of the result of the self-evaluation performed as the person / personnel evaluation and / or the evaluation ability of the person (self-evaluator) who performed the self-evaluation. become.

  In each of the above inventions, when a certain evaluator has performed or has performed a self-evaluation, the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups having the same or similar ranks have different levels. When the predetermined alarm information is output, the evaluator who has performed or is performing the self-evaluation work has performed or is about to deviate from the “same level of relationship”. However, it is possible to call attention to the appropriate evaluation.

  In each of the above inventions, when a certain evaluator has performed or is performing self-evaluation, the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to evaluation groups with different ranks are at the same or similar level. When the predetermined alarm information is output, the evaluator who has performed or is performing the self-evaluation work has performed or is performing an evaluation that deviates from the above-mentioned “relationship between different levels” However, it is possible to call attention to the appropriate evaluation.

  In each of the above inventions, the rank determination unit compares the average value of the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items for each evaluation group with the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the corresponding evaluation group. When a person performs the same rank determination as to whether or not each evaluation numerical value is a result of self-evaluation (evaluation numerical value determination means), the self-evaluator who has performed or is performing the self-evaluation work It is possible to appropriately determine whether or not the evaluation deviates from “same level of relationship”.

  In each of the above inventions, when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, The other evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group are compared with the evaluation values already input or recorded by the self-evaluator, and the difference between the evaluation values of the respective evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group is calculated. Based on the calculated difference (evaluation gap), the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation result is determined and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is determined (same rank determination result) If the self-evaluator who has performed or has performed the self-evaluation work deviates from the “same level of relationship”, Whether the Tsu or Gyoo you with, it is possible to properly determine.

  Furthermore, in each of the above inventions, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, the rank determination unit has the same evaluation having the same rank. In the group, the evaluation items combined with the same weighting value are compared with each other (identical rank determination), and the case where the difference between the evaluation values (evaluation gap) is zero (evaluation gap is zero) is the most appropriate. When the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) exceeds a predetermined appropriate disparity range, means for adjusting the evaluation ability value of the evaluator according to the degree of the evaluation disparity, and a certain evaluator evaluates himself / herself When the evaluator inputs or records the evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, the evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups are compared with each other (different rank determination). The difference (evaluation disparity) is calculated and the state where the evaluation disparity is within the range of the specified disparity is appropriate, and the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) is appropriate based on the rank between each evaluation group or each evaluation item. When deviating from the range of disparity, when providing at least one of means for adjusting the evaluation ability value of the self-evaluator according to the degree of deviation of the evaluation disparity from the range of appropriate disparity Whether or not the evaluator who has or has performed the self-evaluation work has made an evaluation that deviates from at least one of the “same level relationship” and the “heterogeneous level relationship”. Whether or not can be determined appropriately.

It is a conceptual block diagram which shows the determination system of the validity or trustworthiness of the self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation by the embodiment of the present invention, and the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator. In the present embodiment, a diagram for explaining a plurality of evaluation items and their “same level relationship” and “heterogeneous level relationship” recorded by the evaluation item recording unit (self-evaluation work is performed) Consistent with the ideal pattern for the results made). In the present embodiment, an example of an “evaluation work sheet” used for actual self-evaluation work, which shows an example of a plurality of evaluation items and their arrangement relationship recorded by the evaluation item recording unit, etc. FIG. It is a figure for demonstrating operation | movement etc. of the evaluation numerical value recording part and the same rank determination part in this embodiment. It is a figure for demonstrating operation | movement etc. of the recording part etc. of an evaluation numerical value in this embodiment, and a different rank determination part.

  Hereinafter, a system for determining the validity or reliability of self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation and the evaluation ability of a self-evaluator according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the conceptual block diagram shown in FIG.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 1 denotes an evaluation item recording unit. The evaluation item recording unit 1 includes a plurality of evaluation items included in a plurality of evaluation groups having different evaluation viewpoints or meanings, and each evaluation group to which each evaluation item belongs or a unique property of each evaluation group. Record in association with “relationship at the same level” based on viewpoint or meaning, that is, “relationship that each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group should be evaluated at the same or approximate level” In addition, each of the plurality of evaluation items or each of the plurality of evaluation groups is defined as “each evaluation group or its unique viewpoint or meaning is positioned in a higher rank or lower rank. “Relationships at different levels” based on “order of whether or not”, that is, “Each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups is assigned to In which is recorded in association with the relationship "that should be different levels evaluation of made from each other so as to correspond to the order of between-loop cross. The evaluation item etc. recording unit 1 is constituted by a hard disk of a personal computer, for example, and the specific operation / function thereof will be described later.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 2 denotes an evaluation numerical value recording unit. This evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 is a result of self-evaluation (a self-evaluation in which the evaluator evaluates himself / herself) performed by a certain evaluator, and is a plurality of items recorded in the evaluation item etc. recording unit 1 Evaluation numerical values (in the present invention, characters such as X, Y, and Z, and evaluation symbols such as ◯, Δ, and X may be input) are input or recorded as evaluation results for the evaluation items. The evaluation value recording unit 2 is composed of, for example, a hard disk of a personal computer, and the specific operation / function thereof will be described later.

  Further, in FIG. 1, reference numeral 4 indicates that an operator inputs an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item from an evaluation work sheet on which a result of self-evaluation by a certain evaluator is entered (or evaluation numerical value). 5 is a display unit such as a display for displaying the contents of the evaluation work sheet input by the operator to the personal computer.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 6 denotes an identical rank determination unit. The same rank determination unit 6 is an evaluation numerical value indicating a self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2, and each evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group having the same or similar rank It is determined whether or not the evaluation numerical values are the same or similar to each other. The said same rank determination part 6 is comprised from CPU etc. of the personal computer which operate | moves with a program, for example.

  For example, the same rank determination unit 6 compares the average value of the evaluation values of the evaluation items for each evaluation group with the evaluation values of the evaluation items belonging to the corresponding evaluation group. Appropriateness (appropriate value, allowable value, or inappropriate value) of each evaluation numerical value as a result of self-evaluation is determined, recorded on a hard disk of a personal computer, and displayed on the display unit 5.

  In addition, when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself according to a user instruction, the same rank determination unit 6 inputs or records an evaluation numerical value as a self-evaluation result for each evaluation item. The recorded evaluation numerical value is compared with the evaluation numerical value already input or recorded by the evaluator for other evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group as the evaluation numerical value, and the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group are compared. Based on the calculated difference (evaluation gap), determine the appropriateness or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation or the suitability of the self-evaluator's evaluation ability, and record it on the hard disk of a personal computer. At the same time, it can be displayed on the display unit 5.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 7 denotes a different rank determination unit. This heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 is an evaluation value of each evaluation item in a self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator recorded in the evaluation value etc. recording unit 2 and is an evaluation value of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups. , They are “whether they are at different levels and whether they are compatible with the ranking of the respective evaluation groups”, ie, “evaluations belonging to evaluation groups of higher (or lower) ranks”. Judges whether the evaluation value of the item is an evaluation value corresponding to a higher (or lower) item compared to an evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group of a lower (or higher) rank To do.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 8 denotes an alarm unit for generating a predetermined alarm such as generation of a predetermined alarm sound by a speaker (not shown) or display of an alarm image or characters on the display unit 5.

  In FIG. 1, reference numeral 3 denotes a control unit including a CPU of a personal computer operated by a program, for example. As shown in FIG. 1, the control unit 3 includes the evaluation item recording unit 1, the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2, the input unit 4, the display unit 5, the same rank determination unit 6, the different rank determination unit 7, and an alarm. The unit 8 is controlled. In the present embodiment, the control unit 3 performs various functions according to a program. A part of them is described as follows.

  Based on the determination result from the same rank determination unit 6 and / or the determination result from the different rank determination unit 7, the control unit 3 may determine the validity or reliability of a self-evaluation performed by a certain evaluator, and The evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is determined, and the determination result (evaluation ability, evaluation validity, or evaluation reliability) is recorded on the hard disk of a personal computer and displayed on the display unit 5.

  In addition, when a certain evaluator performs a self-evaluation, the control unit 3 includes each evaluation belonging to an evaluation group having the same or similar rank in the self-evaluation result entered or input by the evaluator. Although the evaluation numerical values of the items are different from each other (not approximated) even though they must be the same (including approximated) levels correctly, the same rank determining unit indicating that In response to the signal from 6, the alarm unit 8 is controlled to output a predetermined alarm, for example, an alarm sound, to alert the evaluator performing the self-evaluation work to perform an appropriate evaluation. .

  In addition, when a certain evaluator performs a self-evaluation, the control unit 3 evaluates each evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group having a different rank in the self-evaluation result entered or input by the evaluator. When the symbols are at the same level (including the case of approximation) even though the levels must be different (not approximate) from each other correctly, from the different rank determination unit 7 indicating that In response to the signal, the alarm unit 8 is controlled to output a predetermined alarm, for example, an alarm sound, to alert the evaluator who is performing the evaluation work to perform an appropriate evaluation.

  Further, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item when a certain evaluator performs self-evaluation, the control unit 3 automatically or based on a user instruction or the like, the same rank When the evaluation unit combined with the same weighting value is compared with each other in the same evaluation group having the same rank by controlling the determination unit 6, and the difference between the evaluation values (evaluation disparity) is zero When the evaluation disparity exceeding the predetermined appropriate disparity range is calculated with (evaluation zero disparity) being the most appropriate, the evaluation ability value of the evaluator is adjusted according to the degree of the evaluation disparity. The rank determination unit 7 is controlled to compare evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups with each other to calculate a difference (evaluation disparity), and the evaluation disparity falls within a predetermined disparity range. When the calculated difference (evaluation gap) deviates from the range of the appropriate gap based on the rank between each evaluation group or each evaluation item, the deviation of the evaluation gap from the range of the appropriate gap The self-evaluation result or the evaluation ability value of the self-evaluator is adjusted according to the degree of the above, and the evaluation disparity, the evaluation ability value and the adjustment value are recorded on a hard disk of Pacoson and the display unit 5 To display. The above-mentioned “state where the evaluation disparity is within a predetermined disparity range” means that, for example, when there is one rank disparity, the evaluation disparity is an approximate value of 1 or 1, and two rank disparities If there is, the evaluation disparity is 2 or an approximate value of 2.

  Next, FIG. 2 shows a plurality of evaluation items recorded by the evaluation item etc. recording unit 1 and their “same level relationship”, that is, “each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group is "Relationship that evaluations at the same level (including approximate cases) should be performed" and "Relationship between different levels", that is, "Evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups belong to each A diagram for explaining "the relationship that different (not approximate) levels of evaluation should be performed so as to correspond to the rank between evaluation groups" (the ideal pattern of the result of self-evaluation work and Match).

  As shown in FIG. 2, each of the plurality of evaluation items belongs to one of a plurality of evaluation groups classified based on the viewpoint or meaning of the person / personnel evaluation. In addition, in the relationship between each evaluation item and each of a plurality of evaluation items belonging to the same group, “relationships at the same level”, that is, “each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group is the same or similar to each other” It is recorded with the attribute of “relationship that the level of evaluation should be made”.

  In addition, in the relationship between evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups, the evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups are different from each other. Are recorded with an attribute of “relationship that different levels (not approximate) should be evaluated” so as to correspond to the order of

  Next, the “relationship at the same level”, that is, “relationship that each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group should be evaluated at the same or similar level” will be described. In the example of FIG. 2, each evaluation item included in the group “A” in the upper part of the figure is a plurality of evaluation items A1, A2, and a common viewpoint / meaning of “capability / attitude based on management viewpoint of work”, and A3. Since the evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 belonging to the group “A” are related to the same viewpoint / meaning, such evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 are empirical rules. In addition, each other is connected with “relationships at the same level” in the sense that “it is natural that the evaluation results for one particular person converge to the same or approximate evaluation value (same or approximate level)”. (See the portion summarized by reference numeral 11 in FIG. 2). In the example of FIG. 2, each evaluation item belonging to the group “E” in the lower part of the figure is a plurality of evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 related to a common viewpoint / meaning of “ability and attitude as a member of society”. is there. Since each of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the group “E” are related to the same viewpoint / meaning, each of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 is “ Evaluation results for a specific person are connected by “relationship at the same level” in the sense that it is natural to converge to the same or approximate evaluation numerical value (same or approximate level) ( (See the portion summarized by reference numeral 15 in FIG. 2). The above describes the “A” group in the upper part of FIG. 2 and the “E” group in the lower part and the evaluation items belonging to them, but regarding the other groups of “B”, “C” and “D”. In addition, it is the same that the evaluation items belonging to the same group are connected to each other by the “same level of relationship” (see the portions summarized by reference numerals 12, 13, and 14 in FIG. 2).

  The above has described the relationship between the evaluation items belonging to each of the evaluation groups A to E (relationship at the same level). On the other hand, the evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups are of different levels. Has a relationship. That is, each evaluation numerical value, which is an evaluation result for each evaluation item obtained by a self-evaluation of a certain evaluator, corresponds to the rank of each evaluation group to which each evaluation item belongs. It is natural that there is a difference in level along the order shown in the order of A, B, C, D, and E in FIG. Such a relationship between evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups A to E is referred to as a “heterogeneous level relationship” in this specification.

  Next, FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of an “evaluation work sheet” that is recorded in the evaluation item recording unit 1 and used for an actual evaluation work. The “evaluation work sheet” shown in FIG. 3 is used, for example, when a company manager or a new employee performs self-evaluation as a person / personnel evaluation. In the table of FIG. 3, the left end of the figure is a “No.” (serial number) column, the right side is a column indicating the contents of each “evaluation item”, and the right side is an “evaluation entry column” filled in by the evaluator. is there. Here, as an evaluation result entered by the evaluator in the “evaluation entry field”, characters or symbols indicating the self-evaluation result as an evaluation subject for each evaluation item, for example, 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 and the like, characters such as X, Y, and Z, symbols such as ◯, Δ, and X, and the like. Here, description will be made assuming that the evaluation results are indicated by numerical values such as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

  In FIG. 3, the broken line portion on the right side of the “evaluation entry field” is not actually shown on the evaluation work sheet used by the evaluator in the self-evaluation work, and is used for the explanation of this embodiment. In FIG. 4, the “number by evaluation group to which each evaluation item is associated” is virtually shown. This “number by evaluation group with which each evaluation item is associated” is, for example, “A1”, “B1”, “C1”... These “A1”, “B1”, “C1”,... Are “first evaluation item of group A”, “first evaluation item of group B”, and “first evaluation item of group C”, respectively. ...

  In the “evaluation work sheet” actually used by the evaluator in the self-evaluation work in this embodiment, each evaluation item is “A1”, “A2”, “A3”, etc., as shown in FIG. ”Or“ A ”,“ B ”,“ C ”,“ D ”,“ E ”are arranged in order according to the vertical direction, That is, they are arranged in the up-down direction (or left-right direction) in a random order having no context at all, rather than “the order in which the relationship of the same level and the relationship of different levels is regularly satisfied”. This is because the evaluator senses which group each individual evaluation item belongs to (what kind of viewpoint and meaning each individual evaluation item is from). This is to prevent it.

  Next, the operations of the same rank determination unit 6 and the control unit 3 will be described with reference to FIG. An evaluation numerical value, which is a result of one person who has actually performed the person evaluation work for self-evaluation, is entered, for example, after being entered on the evaluation work sheet, and the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 To be recorded. For the evaluation numerical value recorded by the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2, the same rank determination unit 6 determines whether or not the content of the evaluation result satisfies the “same level relationship”. This determination is performed as follows, for example.

  The same rank determination unit 6 assigns each evaluation item (see FIG. 3) randomly arranged without any context in the evaluation result entered in the “evaluation work sheet”, as shown in FIG. “Relationship” and “relationship at different levels” are rearranged in an order that makes it easy to determine, that is, the rank order of each evaluation group. Shows the state).

  As shown in FIG. 4, when the actual evaluation results are rearranged in the order in which “relationship at the same level” and “relationship at different levels” can be easily determined, the following can be understood. For example, when the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 (see reference numeral 21 in FIG. 4) belonging to the group “A” in the upper part of the figure are viewed, A1, A3, and A2 are indicated as 1, 5, 1, respectively. There is a large variation in numbers. That is, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 belonging to the group “A” in the upper part of FIG. 4 are not converged to the same or approximate level, particularly between A1, A3, and A2. , “Same level of relationship” is not satisfied. When the evaluation numerical values (see reference numeral 25 in FIG. 4) of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the group “E” in the lower part of the figure are viewed, E1, E3, There is a large numerical variation between E2. That is, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the group “E” in the lower part of FIG. 4 are not converged to the same or approximate level, particularly between E1 and E3 and E2. , “Same level of relationship” is not satisfied. Looking at each evaluation item belonging to each of the other groups “B”, “C”, and “D”, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the same group are similar to each other as in the case of “A” and “E”. It does not converge to the same or approximate level, and the “same level relationship” is not satisfied (see reference numerals 22, 23, and 24 in FIG. 4).

  Therefore, the same rank determination unit 6 has the same or approximate level between the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group for the evaluation numerical values that are the evaluation results as shown in FIG. It is not converged and it is judged that the “same level of relationship” is not satisfied, the validity or creditworthiness of such a self-evaluation result is judged low, and the evaluator who performed such self-evaluation The evaluation ability is judged low.

  On the other hand, contrary to the state of FIG. 4, the same rank determination unit 6 has the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the same group converge to the same or approximate level, and the “relationship of the same level” is If it is satisfied, the validity or reliability of such a self-evaluation result is determined to be high, and the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed such self-evaluation is determined to be high.

  The same rank determination unit 6 transmits the determination result of the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result performed as described above and the evaluation result of the self-evaluator's evaluation ability to the control unit 3, and the control The unit 3 records this in the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 and outputs it to the display unit 5 and the like. As a result, the user can know the validity of the self-evaluation result or the level of creditworthiness and the level of the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator.

  In addition, the above explanation is for the case where the evaluator determines the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation result after entering or entering evaluation values for all evaluation items, and / or the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator. However, the present embodiment can also be used in the process where the evaluator enters or inputs evaluation values for all evaluation items. That is, when a certain evaluator is evaluating himself, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same rank are different from each other, which is contrary to the “relationship at the same level”. When the same rank determination unit 6 detects this and outputs a predetermined signal to the control unit 3, the control unit 3 receives the signal and controls the alarm unit 8 to output a predetermined alarm sound or the like. generate. By generating such an alarm, the evaluator during the evaluation work is informed that he (evaluator himself) is going to perform an evaluation contrary to the above-mentioned relationship at the same level, and the evaluator is given an appropriate You can call attention to self-assessment.

  Further, in the above description, the same rank determination unit 6 performs the evaluation results as shown in FIG. The determination of whether or not the “same level of relationship” is satisfied has been described, but a specific determination method for this purpose is exemplified as follows.

  For example, the same rank determination unit 6 compares the average value of the evaluation values of the evaluation items for each evaluation group with the evaluation values of the evaluation items belonging to the corresponding evaluation group. Appropriateness (appropriate value, allowable value, or inappropriate value) of each evaluation numerical value evaluated by the evaluator can be determined (evaluation numerical value appropriateness determination means).

  In addition, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, for example, when the evaluator inputs or records the evaluation numerical value, the same rank determination unit 6 and the evaluation numerical value, The evaluation value is compared with the evaluation value already input or recorded by the evaluator for other evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group, and the difference between the evaluation values of the evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group is calculated. An evaluator who has performed or is performing the evaluation work by a method of determining the appropriateness or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation and / or the suitability of the self-evaluator's evaluation ability based on the difference (evaluation gap) Whether or not the evaluation deviates from the “same level of relationship”.

  Next, the operations of the different rank determination unit 7 and the control unit 3 will be described with reference to FIG. As described above, the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 records the evaluation numerical value which is a self-evaluation result when a certain evaluator (for example, a manager or a new employee) actually performs the person evaluation work on himself / herself. In the present embodiment, the different rank determination unit 7 determines whether or not the evaluation result recorded by the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 satisfies the “different level relationship”. This determination is performed as follows, for example.

  The heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 first sorts the data in the “evaluation work sheet” in which the evaluation numerical value as the evaluation result is actually entered in order of each evaluation item (state shown in FIG. 3) arranged randomly. From FIG. 5, the “relationships at the same level” and “relationships at different levels” are rearranged in an order that makes it easy to determine, that is, the order according to the rank of each evaluation group (actually because it is a computer process). It is not necessary to rearrange, but FIG. 5 shows the rearranged state for convenience of explanation).

  As described above, when the evaluation results actually performed by the evaluator are rearranged in an order in which “relationship at the same level” and “relationship at different levels” are easy to determine (state shown in FIG. 5), You can see the following: First, regarding “relationship at the same level”, as shown in FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item belonging to each group from “A” to “E” is, for example, A1 belonging to the group “A”. , A2, and A3 are 5, 4, 5 (see reference numeral 31 in FIG. 5), and B1, B2, and B3 belonging to the group “B” are 2, 1, 2, and 2 (see reference numeral 32 in FIG. 5). ), 3, 3, and 3 for C1, C2, and C3 belonging to the “C” group (see reference numeral 33 in FIG. 5), and 4 for D1, D2, and D3 belonging to the “D” group. 5, 4 (see reference numeral 34 in FIG. 5), E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the group “E” are 1, 2, 1 (see reference numeral 35 in FIG. 5). Even if you look at each evaluation item, all of the evaluation items that belong to the same group It meets "the same level relationships" that the value is converged to the level of the same or close to each other. Therefore, in the example of the self-evaluation result shown in FIG. 5, the determination by the same rank determination unit 6 is a determination result that both the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result and the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator are high. .

  On the other hand, in the example of the self-evaluation result (evaluation numerical value) as shown in FIG. 5, what kind of determination the different rank determination unit 7 performs will be described below. The example of FIG. 5 shows a self-evaluation result when a certain evaluator (for example, a manager or a new employee) performs a person evaluation work on himself as in FIG. In the present embodiment, each of the groups “A” to “E” has the viewpoints and meanings of the evaluation items that each group has, “A” is “ability / attitude based on the management viewpoint of work”, “B” Is “ability / attitude based on the overall viewpoint of work”, “C” is “ability / attitude as an intermediate manager”, “D” is “ability / attitude as an organization”, “E” is “working person” "Ability and attitude as" are "ordered" in the vertical direction in the figure so as to follow the career improvement process as a business person.

  From such “ordering”, for example, when a new employee evaluates himself / herself, the new employee belongs to the evaluation group of “ability / attitude as a member of society” of the lowest rank “E”. Even if it is a case where the highest evaluation number of “5” can be assigned to any of the evaluation items, it is an “organization” of “D”, which is one of the higher ranks. It is natural that the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group “capability / attitude as a person” is a value lower than “5”, for example, “4”, or an evaluation numerical value approximate thereto. The evaluation value of each evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of “capability / attitude as an intermediate manager” of “C”, which is the higher rank, is a value lower than “4”, for example, “3” or an evaluation value close to it. It ’s natural, and The evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of “Ability / Attitude based on overall viewpoint of work” of “B”, which is one higher level, is lower than “3”, for example “2” or approximated to it It is natural that the evaluation value becomes the evaluation value, and the evaluation of each evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of “Ability / Attitude based on work management viewpoint” of “A”, which is one higher rank (that is, the highest level in FIG. 5) The numerical value is naturally a value lower than “2”, for example, “1” or an evaluation numerical value approximate thereto.

  This is because, for example, in the case of new employees, if there are many average new employees, even if they have sufficient abilities and attitudes as members of society, their abilities and attitudes as middle managers are compared. Naturally, it is natural that there is not enough, and it is natural that there is almost no ability and attitude based on the management viewpoint of work. In the present embodiment, the relationship that exists between the evaluation groups with respect to the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the respective evaluation groups is expressed as follows. In addition, it is called “relationship at different levels” in the sense of “relationship that evaluation values should be different from each other so as to be in line with each other's order”.

  The heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 can see the above-described “heterogeneous level relationship” between the evaluation values of the evaluation items of the evaluation groups and the evaluation values of the evaluation items of different evaluation groups. When it is determined that the evaluation numerical value of the evaluation item has a “heterogeneous level relationship” correctly, based on the determination result, the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result is determined to be high, and the self The evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the evaluation is judged high. On the other hand, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 has the above-described “heterogeneous level relationship” between the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation groups and the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of different evaluation groups. If not, the evaluation value of the evaluation item is determined not to have a “different level of relationship”, and based on this determination result, the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result is determined to be low, The evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is determined to be low.

  For example, when looking at “same level relationship” in the example shown in FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the groups A to E (see reference numerals 31 to 35 in FIG. 5) are all within each evaluation group. Satisfy the “same level of relationship”. Therefore, the said same rank determination part 6 determines with self-evaluation being appropriate about all the evaluation numerical values of each evaluation group AE.

  On the other hand, when “relationship between different levels” is seen in the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values (portions summarized by reference numeral 32) of the evaluation items B1, B2, and B3 belonging to the evaluation group B, Evaluation values of evaluation items C1, C2, and C3 (portions summarized by reference numeral 33) and evaluation values of evaluation items D1, D2, and D3 belonging to evaluation group D (portions summarized by reference numeral 34) are respectively In relation to other groups, “relationship at different levels” is satisfied. That is, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items B1, B2, and B3 of the evaluation group B (see reference numeral 32) are based on the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items C1, C2, and C3 of the lower evaluation group C (see reference numeral 33). The evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items C1, C2, and C3 of the evaluation group C (see reference numeral 33) are the evaluation items D1, D2, and the evaluation items D of the lower evaluation group D. Since the evaluation value of D3 is smaller than the evaluation value (see reference numeral 34) (stricter evaluation is made), the evaluation values of the evaluation items belonging to each of the evaluation groups B, C, and D are all “different level levels”. Satisfaction ”. Therefore, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 determines that the self-evaluation results are appropriate with respect to the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the groups B, C, and D (the result of the self-evaluation is basically valid or reliable). To be high).

  However, in the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 belonging to the evaluation group A (portions summarized by reference numeral 31) In the relationship with the evaluation numerical values (portions summarized by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34, respectively), the “heterogeneous level relationship” is not satisfied.

  Because the viewpoint or meaning of the evaluation group A is ranked higher than the other evaluation groups B, C, and D, the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item (portion summarized by reference numeral 31) is other Evaluation that is stricter than the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation groups B, C, and D (portions summarized by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34), that is, if a smaller evaluation numerical value is not entered, In the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation group A (portions summarized by reference numeral 31) are the values of the other evaluation groups B, C, and D. This is because evaluations that are looser than evaluation numerical values of evaluation items (portions summarized by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34), that is, larger evaluation numerical values are entered.

  Therefore, in the example of FIG. 5, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 is inappropriate in the self-evaluation numerical values (portions summarized by reference numeral 31) of the evaluation items A1, A2, and A3 belonging to the evaluation group A (part concerned) The result of self-assessment is judged to be low in validity or creditworthiness in principle.

  Similarly, in the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the evaluation group E (portions summarized by reference numeral 35) are the evaluation items in the other evaluation groups B, C, and D. In the relationship with the evaluation numerical values (portions summarized by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34, respectively), “relationship at different levels” is not satisfied.

  Because the viewpoint or meaning of the evaluation group E is ranked lower than the other evaluation groups B, C, and D, the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item (portion summarized by reference numeral 35) is other Evaluation group B, C, and D of the evaluation items of the evaluation items (evaluation that is looser than the evaluation values (parts respectively grouped by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34)), that is, if a larger evaluation value is not entered, In the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation group E (portions gathered by reference numeral 35) are the values of the other evaluation groups B, C, and D. This is because evaluations that are stricter than the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items (portions summarized by reference numerals 32, 33, and 34), that is, smaller evaluation numerical values are entered.

  Therefore, in the example of FIG. 5, the different rank determination unit 7 has inappropriate self-evaluation numerical values (portions gathered by reference numeral 35) of the evaluation items E1, E2, and E3 belonging to the evaluation group E ( The result of the self-assessment is judged as having low validity or credit quality in principle.

  The operation of the above-described different rank determination unit 7 will be supplemented as follows. The heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 calculates a difference by comparing evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups with each other, and the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) is “appropriate based on each evaluation group or an order between the evaluation items. The evaluation ability value of the evaluator is determined and adjusted according to whether or not it deviates from the “range of disparity”. For example, in the example of FIG. 5, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 determines that the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation group E (portions gathered by reference numeral 35) are the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the other evaluation groups D (reference symbols). When the evaluation value is smaller than the evaluation value more severe than the part summarized in 34), the self-evaluation result is determined to be inappropriate in principle. Even in this case, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 determines that the evaluation disparity (difference from the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of other evaluation groups) is “the range of the appropriate disparity based on the order of each evaluation group or each evaluation item. The evaluation ability value (judgment value) of the self-evaluator is adjusted depending on how far it deviates (if the evaluation disparity is, for example, a difference of 0.5 to 1.5, it is within the appropriate disparity range). Further, the different rank determination unit 7, contrary to the example of FIG. 5, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the evaluation group E (portions summarized by reference numeral 35) are the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of the other evaluation groups D When the evaluation value is larger than the evaluation value (the portion summarized by reference numeral 34), the self-evaluation result is determined to be appropriate in principle. Even in this case, the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 determines that the evaluation disparity (difference from the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items of other evaluation groups) is “the range of the appropriate disparity based on the order of each evaluation group or each evaluation item. "If the evaluation disparity is within the range of the appropriate disparity if the evaluation disparity is 0.5 to 1.5, for example, the evaluation ability value (determination value) of the self-evaluator is adjusted according to the degree.

  The heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 transmits the determination result of the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result performed as described above and the determination result of the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator to the control unit 3, and the control The unit 3 records them in the evaluation numerical value recording unit 2 and outputs them to the display unit 5 and the like. Thereby, a user (a manager or the like) can know the validity of the self-evaluation result or the level of creditworthiness and the level of the evaluation ability of the self-evaluator.

  In this embodiment, for example, when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, the same rank determination unit 6 has the same rank. Within the evaluation group, the evaluation items combined with the same weighting value are compared with each other, and when the difference between the evaluation values (evaluation disparity) is zero (evaluation disparity is zero), the most appropriate is the prescribed appropriate disparity When the evaluation disparity exceeding the range is calculated, the evaluation ability value of the self-evaluator is adjusted according to the degree of the evaluation disparity, and the heterogeneous rank determination unit 7 includes evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups The difference (evaluation disparity) is calculated by comparing each other, and the state where the evaluation disparity is within the range of the specified disparity is appropriate, and the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) By adjusting the evaluation ability value of the self-evaluator according to the degree of deviation from the appropriate disparity range of the evaluation disparity when deviating from the appropriate disparity range based on the order of the group or each evaluation item Appropriately determine whether the evaluator who has or has performed the self-evaluation work has performed or is performing an evaluation that deviates from the “relationship at the same level” and the “relationship at a different level” Like to do.

  In the above explanation, the self-evaluator determines the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation results after entering or entering evaluation values for all evaluation items, and / or the self-evaluator's evaluation ability, etc. However, the present embodiment can also be used in the process where the evaluator enters or inputs evaluation values for all evaluation items. In other words, when a certain evaluator is evaluating himself, the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of different ranks are the same or approximate levels, and “ordering between evaluation groups” If the relationship is different from the “different level relationship”, the different rank determination unit 7 determines this and outputs a predetermined signal to the control unit 3. 8 is controlled to generate a predetermined alarm sound or the like. The occurrence of such an alarm informs the evaluator during the self-evaluation work that he / she is trying to perform a self-evaluation contrary to the above-mentioned ordering / heterogeneous relationship. You can call attention to self-assessment.

  Further, in the present embodiment, the same rank determination unit 6 relates to the evaluation values of the respective evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups having the same or similar rank with respect to their own evaluation by a certain evaluator. It is determined whether or not the level of the self-evaluation is satisfied, and the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is determined based on the determination result. Therefore, according to the present embodiment, if (a) “the evaluation numerical values of the plurality of evaluation items belonging to the evaluation group having the same or similar rank” input or recorded as the person / personnel evaluation are the same or similar to each other, If the level is not at the same level, the validity or creditworthiness of the result of the self-assessment is in principle low and / or the evaluator who performed the self-assessment, assuming that the “relationship at the same level” is not satisfied. The evaluation ability can be determined to be low in principle. On the other hand, if (b) “Evaluation of multiple evaluation items belonging to evaluation groups of the same or similar ranks” entered or recorded as person / personnel evaluations If the `` numerical values '' are at the same or similar levels, the validity or creditworthiness of the self-assessment result is determined as satisfying the above `` relationship at the same level ''. Law to high, and / or evaluation capacity evaluator performing the self-assessment will be able to determine that the principle high.

  Further, in the present embodiment, the different rank determination unit 7 relates to the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups with respect to the self-evaluation by a certain evaluator. And whether or not it is compatible with the ranking of the evaluation groups, that is, “the evaluation numerical value of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of the higher (or lower) rank is lower (or higher) ) And whether or not the evaluation numerical value corresponding to the higher (or lower) evaluation item in comparison with the evaluation numerical value of the evaluation item belonging to the evaluation group of rank), based on the determination result, The validity or creditworthiness of the result of the self-evaluation and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation was determined. Therefore, according to the present embodiment, the “evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item belonging to different evaluation groups” input or recorded as the person / personnel evaluation is “whether or not each level is different from each other” It is determined whether or not it conforms to the ordering of the above, that is, whether or not the “heterogeneous relationship” is satisfied, and (a) if the “heterogeneous relationship” is not satisfied The validity or creditworthiness of the result of the self-assessment can be determined to be low in principle and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-assessment can be determined to be low in principle. In the case where the above-mentioned “heterogeneous relationship” is satisfied, the validity or reliability of the result of the self-assessment is high in principle, and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is in principle It is possible to determine the Most.

  Further, in the present embodiment, the control unit 3 performs self-evaluation performed by a certain evaluator based on both the determination result by the same rank determination unit 6 and the determination result by the different rank determination unit 7. Since the validity or trustworthiness and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation is recorded and output, the control unit 3 has the viewpoint of the “same level relationship” and the “different level”. From the viewpoints of both the “relationship”, the validity or creditworthiness of the self-evaluation and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation can be determined.

  Further, in the present embodiment, when a certain evaluator is evaluating himself, when the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or similar rank are at different levels, The control unit 3 that has received a signal from the same rank determination unit 6 controls the alarm unit 8 to output predetermined alarm information. When a person performs or tries to deviate from the “same level of relationship”, attention can be drawn to a proper evaluation.

  Further, in this embodiment, when a certain evaluator is evaluating himself, when the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of different ranks are the same or approximate levels, The control unit 3 that has received the signal from the different rank determination unit 7 controls the alarm unit 8 to output predetermined alarm information. When a self-evaluation that deviates from “a heterogeneous level of relationship” is or is about to be performed, attention can be drawn to a proper evaluation.

  Moreover, in this embodiment, the said same rank determination part 6 contrasts the average value for every evaluation group of the evaluation numerical value of each said evaluation item, and the evaluation numerical value of each evaluation item which belongs to a corresponding evaluation group. According to (evaluation numerical value appropriateness determination means) to determine the appropriateness (appropriate value, allowable value, or inappropriate value) of each evaluation numerical value as a result of self-evaluation by the evaluator, It is possible to appropriately determine whether or not the evaluator performing the evaluation has performed or is about to deviate from the “same level relationship”.

  In the present embodiment, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item when the evaluator evaluates the self, the same rank determination unit 6 inputs or records the evaluation. The numerical value is compared with the evaluation value already input or recorded by the evaluator for other evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group as the evaluation numerical value, and the difference between the evaluation numerical values of the evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group is calculated. In addition, since the evaluator's evaluation ability is determined based on the calculated difference (evaluation gap), the evaluator who performed or has performed the self-evaluation work may It is possible to appropriately determine whether or not an evaluation deviating from “sex” has been performed or is being performed.

  Furthermore, in this embodiment, when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, when the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, the same rank determination unit 6 has the same evaluation group having the same rank. The evaluation values of the evaluation items combined with the same weighting value are compared with each other, and when the difference between the evaluation values (evaluation gap) is zero (evaluation difference is zero), the most appropriate When an evaluation disparity exceeding the range of disparity is calculated, the evaluation ability value of the evaluator is adjusted according to the degree of the evaluation disparity, and the different rank determination unit 7 includes evaluations belonging to different evaluation groups Calculated the difference (evaluation disparity) by comparing the evaluation values of the items with each other, and the state where the evaluation disparity is within the range of the predetermined disparity is appropriate When (evaluation disparity) deviates from the range of the appropriate disparity based on the rank of each evaluation group or each evaluation item, the evaluator's evaluation ability according to the degree of deviation of the evaluation disparity from the range of the appropriate disparity Since the value is adjusted, the evaluator who has performed or is performing the self-evaluation work has performed or performed an evaluation that deviates from the “relationship at the same level” and the “relationship at a different level”. It becomes possible to determine appropriately whether or not.

  As mentioned above, although one Embodiment of this invention was described, this invention is not limited to this, Various change or correction is included. For example, in the determination system according to the present embodiment shown in FIG. 1, both the same rank determination unit 6 and the different rank determination unit 7 are provided, and the control unit 3 includes the same rank determination unit 6 and the different rank determination unit 7. Based on the judgment results from both, the validity or confidence of the self-assessment result is judged and output, and / or the evaluation ability of the evaluator who performed the self-assessment is judged and output. In the present invention, the invention is not limited to this. For example, at least one of the same rank determination unit 6 and the different rank determination unit 7 shown in FIG. Based on the determination result from at least one of the same rank determination unit 6 and the different rank determination unit 7 provided, the validity or reliability of the self-evaluation result is determined and output. , And / or self-assessment evaluation capability of the evaluator may be determined and output went, it is a matter of course.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 Evaluation item recording part 2 Evaluation numerical value recording part 3 Control part 4 Input part 5 Display part 6 Same rank determination part 7 Different rank determination part 8 Alarm part

Claims (7)

A plurality of evaluation items included in a plurality of evaluation groups having different evaluation viewpoints or meanings from each other are evaluated based on a unique viewpoint or meaning of each evaluation group to which each evaluation item belongs or each evaluation group. Level relationship ", that is," relationship that each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group should be evaluated at the same or similar level ", and the viewpoints or meanings specific to each evaluation group are mutually “Relationships at different levels” based on the ranking of whether they are located at higher ranks or lower ranks, that is, “Evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups belong to each evaluation group to which each belongs. At least one of the relationships that `` different levels of assessment should be made to correspond to each other's order '' And evaluation item such as a recording unit to record in response with or associated,
A numerical value or other symbol (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation symbol”) indicating the result of self-evaluation of a plurality of evaluation items recorded in the evaluation item etc. recording unit as a result of self-evaluation by a certain evaluator. A self-evaluation result recording unit for inputting or recording
Regarding the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or similar ranks in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit, they are the same or approximate levels. Evaluation symbols for evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups in the same rank determination for determining whether or not and the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit They belong to "evaluation groups with higher (or lower) ranks", "whether they are at different levels and are compatible with each other's ranking of each other". Compared with an evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group with a lower evaluation rank (or higher rank), the evaluation item is higher (or lower) And rank determination unit for performing at least one of determining different rank judging whether "it is evaluated symbol corresponding to that of)
A system for determining the validity or reliability of self-assessment as a person or personnel evaluation. A plurality of evaluation items included in a plurality of evaluation groups having different evaluation viewpoints or meanings from each other are evaluated based on a unique viewpoint or meaning of each evaluation group to which each evaluation item belongs or each evaluation group. Level relationship ", that is," relationship that each evaluation item belonging to the same evaluation group should be evaluated at the same or similar level ", and the viewpoints or meanings specific to each evaluation group are mutually “Relationships at different levels” based on the ranking of whether they are located at higher ranks or lower ranks, that is, “Evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups belong to each evaluation group to which each belongs. At least one of the relationships that `` different levels of assessment should be made to correspond to each other's order '' And evaluation item such as a recording unit to record in response with or associated,
A numerical value or other symbol (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation symbol”) indicating the result of self-evaluation of a plurality of evaluation items recorded in the evaluation item etc. recording unit as a result of self-evaluation by a certain evaluator. A self-evaluation result recording unit for inputting or recording
Regarding the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or similar ranks in the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit, they are the same or approximate levels. Evaluation symbols for evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups in the same rank determination for determining whether or not and the self-evaluation result by a certain evaluator input or recorded in the self-evaluation result recording unit They belong to "evaluation groups with higher (or lower) ranks", "whether they are at different levels and are compatible with each other's ranking of each other". Compared with an evaluation item belonging to an evaluation group with a lower evaluation rank (or higher rank), the evaluation item is higher (or lower) And rank determination unit for performing at least one of determining different rank judging whether "it is evaluated symbol corresponding to that of)
Based on the determination result by the rank determination unit, an evaluation capability determination unit that determines the evaluation capability of the evaluator who performed the self-evaluation,
An evaluation ability determination system for an evaluator who performed self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation.   When a certain evaluator is evaluating himself / herself, when the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups of the same or similar rank are different from each other, the same by the rank determination unit The system according to claim 1, further comprising: same-rank alarm means for outputting predetermined alarm information based on a rank determination result.   When a certain evaluator evaluates himself / herself, when the evaluation symbols of the evaluation items belonging to the evaluation groups having different ranks are at the same or similar levels, different ranks by the rank determination unit The system according to claim 1, further comprising: a different rank alarm means for outputting predetermined alarm information based on a rank determination result. The evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value,
Each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group is associated with a unique rank,
The rank determination unit compares each evaluation item's evaluation numerical value for each evaluation group with each evaluation item's evaluation numerical value, thereby comparing each evaluation value evaluated by the evaluator. The evaluation or adequacy determination means for determining the adequacy of the evaluation according to claim 1, 3 or 4. The evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value,
Each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group is associated with a unique rank,
When the evaluator inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, the rank determination unit is the same as the evaluation numerical value input or recorded. The other evaluation items belonging to the evaluation group are compared with the evaluation values already input or recorded by the evaluator, and the difference between the evaluation values of the respective evaluation items belonging to the same evaluation group is calculated. ), The validity or self-evaluation system for self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation according to claim 1, 3 or 4, comprising means for determining the suitability of the evaluator's evaluation ability. The evaluation symbol is an evaluation numerical value,
Each evaluation item belonging to each evaluation group is associated with a unique rank,
Each evaluation item is recorded in association with the rank of each evaluation group to which each belongs, and the respective ranks can be compared. As a result, each evaluation item belongs to the same evaluation group. Regardless of whether they belong to evaluation groups with different ranks or not, all other evaluation items can be compared with each other.
In the case of performing the same rank determination, when the evaluator evaluates himself / herself, the rank determination unit inputs or records an evaluation numerical value for each evaluation item, or the same rank having the same rank Within the evaluation group, the evaluation items combined with the same weighting value are compared with each other, and the difference calculated between the evaluation values (evaluation gap) is zero (evaluation gap is zero). When (evaluation disparity) exceeds the range of a predetermined appropriate disparity, the evaluator is himself / herself in the means for adjusting the evaluation ability value of the evaluator according to the degree of the evaluation disparity In evaluating itself, when the evaluator enters or records the evaluation value for each evaluation item, evaluation items belonging to different evaluation groups The difference (evaluation disparity) is calculated in contrast to each other, and the state where the evaluation disparity is within the range of the specified disparity is appropriate, and the calculated difference (evaluation disparity) is the order between each evaluation group or each evaluation item When there is a deviation from the appropriate disparity range based on the evaluation disparity, at least one of means for adjusting the evaluation ability value of the evaluator according to the degree of deviation of the evaluation disparity from the appropriate disparity range is provided. The validity or trustworthiness determination system of self-evaluation as a person or personnel evaluation according to claim 1, 3 or 4.

Images