JP6603388B1 - Labor management evaluation system - Google Patents

Abstract

[PROBLEMS] It is possible to determine the level of proficiency, comprehension or achievement of an evaluation target person for a question for each evaluation item in a stepwise and accurate manner. Provide an evaluation system for labor management that can be realized. In an evaluation item, an evaluation point order determination unit determines whether each evaluation point is arranged according to the order of the question items, and based on the determination result, an evaluation deviating from the rank order of each question item is made. The rank or evaluation score of the question items being evaluated is determined to be the boundary between the proficiency level, the understanding level or the achievement level of the evaluation target person, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point. This makes it possible to determine the evaluation subject's proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level boundary, or abnormal rank or abnormal point for the evaluation items stepwise and accurately. Further, by subdividing the questions, it is possible to realize accurate evaluation for the evaluation target person. [Selection] Figure 1

Description

  The present invention relates to an evaluation system for labor management in which an evaluator including himself who is an evaluation object evaluates matters related to predetermined labor with respect to an evaluation object person who belongs to or intends to belong to an organization.

In various organizations such as companies and government agencies, capacity evaluations regarding labor for new employees, mid-career chiefs, managers, managers, etc. are regularly conducted.
Conventionally, as one for efficiently performing these evaluations, for example, one disclosed in “Training for employees and personnel evaluation system” in Patent Document 1 is known.

JP 2004-46770 A

  However, in the conventional evaluation system, the questions to be evaluated are abstract and schematic contents. Moreover, even if one evaluation item (evaluation item) has a plurality of question items, each question item is merely an arrangement of contents (words) that are considered to have the same level of evaluation. It was. As a result, the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation subject for the evaluation item could not be accurately determined.

Therefore, as a result of diligent research, the inventor assumed that a plurality of questions arranged in evaluation items (evaluation items) were subdivided by rank according to a preset order (order arranged according to a certain standard), The rank of the questionnaire that has been evaluated to deviate from the rank rank of each questionnaire, or the evaluation point, the boundary of the evaluation subject's proficiency, comprehension or achievement level, or abnormal rank or abnormality It was found that all the above-mentioned problems could be solved if it was determined as a point, and the present invention was completed.
In addition, as a result of diligent research, the inventor subdivided each question item of the evaluation items into predetermined ranks to clarify the purpose and evaluation points of the organization. As a result, the evaluation accuracy of the evaluator regarding the evaluation subject increases. In addition, since the questions of the abstract evaluation items are converted into specific and objective questions, for example, the evaluation of the evaluation subject's work and the appropriateness of the evaluation subject who intends to belong to a new organization have been The present invention has been completed by knowing that it can be performed accurately.

  The present invention has been made in view of such problems, and is capable of discriminating stepwise and accurately the level of proficiency, comprehension or achievement of the evaluation subject for the evaluation items and subdividing the question items. Thus, another object of the present invention is to provide a labor management evaluation system capable of realizing an accurate evaluation for an evaluation target person.

  The present invention according to claim 1 is used when an evaluator including himself or herself who is an evaluation subject evaluates or evaluates the evaluation subject who belongs to or intends to belong to the organization with respect to the labor of the organization. One or a plurality of evaluations having a plurality of questionnaires to the evaluation subject related to labor of the organization and subdivided by rank according to a predetermined order A storage unit that stores a plurality of evaluation points acquired for each question item by the evaluation subject and the preset order; Each question item of the evaluation items is an evaluation point sequence determination unit that determines whether or not the evaluation points are arranged according to the order, and the question that has been evaluated deviating from the rank order of the respective question items It is provided with a determination section such as a rank of a term or a boundary for determining the evaluation subject as a proficiency level, an understanding level or an achievement level, or an abnormal rank or an abnormal point. It is an evaluation system for labor management.

The “labor management evaluation system” is a system for evaluating a person to be evaluated in order to effectively use workers and human resources. In this labor management evaluation system, the entire system is controlled by a control unit having a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer.
The type of organization is arbitrary. For example, a commercial organization such as a company (profit organization), or a public organization such as an administrative organization.
“Evaluation target” means those who belong to the organization (for example, new employees (staff), mid-level chiefs, managers, managers, etc.) who are going to belong to the organization (for example, the organization) Candidates who want to get a job)

The evaluator is not limited. For example, a person belonging to an organization (a person with an evaluation score, a person without an evaluation point) or a person (natural person or corporation) entrusted by the organization can be employed. In addition, the person to be evaluated may be a computer (including AI).
The type of matters related to the organization's labor (labor-related matters) is arbitrary. For example, it is possible to adopt the acceptance / rejection items (for example, suitability of job type, suitability of position, etc.) of a new employee (staff). In addition, appropriateness of treatment, risk management, HR tech (solutions that improve human resources business such as human resource development and recruitment activities, personnel evaluation by utilizing technology), various types Aptitude test etc. can be adopted.

The “evaluation item” here is a matter when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject regarding the labor of the organization. The evaluation items include evaluation items and skill characteristics.
“Multiple evaluation items” are two or more items having different viewpoints and different meanings, which are used when evaluating an evaluation subject regarding the labor of this organization. For example, strict adherence to rules, a sense of mission, and sharing of values can be adopted.
The “question item” referred to here is a question (word) for asking the evaluation subject from a predetermined viewpoint / meaning when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject regarding the evaluation items related to organizational labor. In the evaluation using the matrix table, it is easier to evaluate by placing each question item according to rank, but when the evaluator answers each question item, it is better to arrange them randomly. This is preferable because there is little possibility of predicting a high-scoring answer from the tendency of the question that has been made.

The answer to each question is, for example, “bad, normal, good” when the answer rank is 3, and “bad, slightly bad, normal, slightly good, good” when the answer rank is 5. For example, it is preferable that an item that can be easily scored is prepared in advance. However, the answer is not limited to this, and it may be an answer such as a ○ × formula, an entry formula, or an alphabet.
The “evaluation score” here is a score evaluated by the evaluator for the questionnaire.
The number of questions in one evaluation item is arbitrary as long as it is two or more. Thereby, the whole questionnaire is subdivided.
By subdividing in this way, for example, in the case of an evaluation item of “faithful attitude”, the spiritual aspect, practical aspect, administrative aspect, management aspect, aspect regarding contribution, etc. By subdividing in various aspects, a boundary of proficiency, comprehension or achievement, or an abnormal rank or point can be given with high precision and accuracy.
The “question item rank” is a rank in the rank based on the difficulty, usefulness, and necessity of a question, which is necessary to know the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the evaluation subject. is there.
“Sequence” is the order of arrangement according to a certain standard. As a fixed standard, for example, a natural number or an integer is used.

The “storage unit” is mounted on, for example, a personal computer and stores at least evaluation items and each evaluation point. Specifically, a RAM (Random access memory) that can freely read and write data, a ROM (Read Only Memory) that is dedicated to reading data, and the like can be employed. In addition, a hard disk of a personal computer may be used.
The phrase “stored in association with each corresponding question (a plurality of evaluation points)” means that when storing a plurality of questions and a plurality of evaluation points that are respective answers in the storage unit, It means to memorize in a one-to-one relationship between a matter and its evaluation score.

“Does each of the questions of the evaluation items have the evaluation points arranged according to the order?” Means that a plurality of question items belonging to one evaluation item are arranged in the rank order set in advance. This means whether or not the evaluation points that are in a one-to-one relationship with the questions are arranged in the order according to the rank.
Therefore, the “evaluation point order determination unit” is a program for comparing the order of each question item and the corresponding evaluation point sequence in the evaluation items, and determining whether the evaluation points are arranged according to the order. (Algorithm, logic).

For example, the evaluation score for five questions from level 5 (easy) to level 1 (difficult) belonging to one evaluation item is reduced by 5 points, 4 points, 3 points, 2 points, 1 point, minus 1 point each. In the case where the evaluation points are arranged in order, the evaluation point order determination unit determines that all evaluation points are arranged in the order.
Also, in the same order, the level 5 questionnaire has 5 points, the level 4 questionnaire has 4 points, the level 3 questionnaire has <1 point>, and the level 2 questionnaire When the evaluation score is 2 and the evaluation score of the question item of level 1 is 1, it is determined that the evaluation score is arranged in order of the question items up to level 4.

"The rank (abnormal rank) of the question items or the evaluation points that have been evaluated deviating from the rank order of each question item" means that a plurality of question items belonging to one evaluation item are set in advance. It means that the ranks of these question items or the evaluation points corresponding to the respective question items are out of the order according to the rank (deviation from the rank).
For example, in the case of an evaluation item having a plurality of questions with a predetermined order, it is determined whether each evaluation point is arranged according to the order of this question among a plurality of questions belonging to the evaluation item. It is also possible to determine by the order determination unit. Similarly, in this case, the boundary etc. determination unit determines the rank, or evaluation score, of the question items to which the evaluation points deviate from the order of each question item, and the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation subject. It may be determined that the boundary is an abnormal rank or an abnormal point.

“Proficiency level” here is the degree of proficiency of an evaluation subject (adequately accustomed to work, etc. and skillful) with respect to evaluation items related to organizational labor.
The “degree of understanding” here is the degree of understanding of the evaluation subject regarding the evaluation items related to the labor of the organization. This degree of understanding includes eligibility indicating whether the evaluation subject is suitable for the organization.
“Achievement” here refers to the degree of ability to solve and accomplish various problems and difficult matters related to organizational labor.
As used herein, the “boundary of the level of proficiency or understanding or achievement of the evaluation target person” refers to the level of ability or proficiency that the evaluation target person is proficient in, understanding, or achieving for a given evaluation item. It is a boundary with a level that does not have the ability to do. For example, when there are five levels (levels 5 to 1) of questions in the evaluation items, the evaluation points for the questions up to level 3 are arranged in order, and the evaluation points for the questions after level 2 are In the case of deviating, the level 3 and the level 2 are the boundary of the proficiency level, the understanding level, or the achievement level of the evaluation target person.

The “abnormal rank or abnormal point” here refers to the rank (abnormal rank) of the question items that have been evaluated deviating from the preset order, or each evaluation point corresponding to these question items. It means an abnormal evaluation point (abnormal point) out of order.
The “boundary etc. determination unit” is a program for determining the rank of such question items or the boundary of evaluation points. The boundary of the evaluation target person by the boundary etc. determination unit, the boundary between the proficiency level, the understanding level and the achievement level, or the number of abnormal ranks or abnormal points can be determined arbitrarily. For example, one or two or more may be used.
Note that the storage unit, the evaluation score order determination unit, and the boundary etc. determination unit are controlled by the control unit. For example, the whole labor management evaluation system may be controlled.

  The present invention according to claim 2 is a matrix table in which, in the evaluation system for labor management, when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject, a plurality of evaluation items are arranged in the X and Y axis directions, respectively. The evaluation items in any one of the X and Y axis directions are a plurality of evaluation items related to the labor of the organization, and the respective evaluation items arranged in the remaining direction in the X and Y axis directions Is a plurality of rank-specific skill characteristics related to the labor of the organization, and each of the corresponding questions is included in a plurality of squares where each evaluation item and each skill characteristic in the matrix table intersect. 2. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the items are arranged and the evaluation items stored in the storage unit are the evaluation items and the skill characteristics, respectively. 3.

The “matrix table” here refers to a plurality of skill characteristics according to rank related to organizational labor and a plurality of subdivided evaluation items corresponding to the X (row) axis direction and Y (column) axis. It is a matrix table that is arranged two-dimensionally with a direction and in which each of the corresponding question items is arranged at the intersection (mass, column) of X and Y (row and column). For example, when the skill characteristics are arranged in the Y (vertical, column) axis direction, the ordering order may be upward or downward.
The “evaluation item” here is an item when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject regarding the labor of the organization (one thing obtained by subdividing a group of things with a certain standard).
For example, when a plurality of evaluation items arranged in the X-axis direction (or the Y-axis direction) have a predetermined order, each question arranged in the X-axis direction among a plurality of question items belonging to each evaluation item It is also possible to determine whether the evaluation points for the items are in order, by the evaluation point order determination unit. Similarly, in this case, the boundary etc. determination unit determines the rank of the question items or the evaluation points in the evaluation items that have been evaluated to deviate from the rank of each evaluation item (each question item). , It may be determined as a boundary of understanding or achievement, or an abnormal rank or abnormal point.

“Skills” are the abilities acquired by the evaluator through education and training, and are refined by adding skills to the original talents.
“Skill characteristics” as used herein refers to the specially-equipped properties, unique properties, and characteristics of organizational labor. For example, basic skill characteristics (essential and basic matters that an organization must have), human skill characteristics (holding rich humanity and having reason and sensitivity), conscious skill characteristics (active attitude and motivation) Degree), compulsory skill traits (mental attitudes indispensable for practicing assessment items), voluntary skill traits (leading normative attitudes with a clear sense of purpose), technical skill traits (elevation of assessment items) Empirical and indispensable technologies).

  According to the third aspect of the present invention, in each of the evaluation points, an abnormality determination value serving as a criterion for determining an inappropriate abnormal point determined in advance is stored in the storage unit, and adjacent to each question item An abnormal point extraction unit that extracts, as the abnormal point, the evaluation point that deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction when the evaluation points between ranks are compared with each other. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the labor management evaluation system is provided.

The “abnormal judgment value” here is a value (point) that is a criterion for judging an abnormal point determined in advance for judging an inappropriate abnormal point (abnormal evaluation point) at the evaluation point of each question item. ).
For the evaluation of evaluation points, for example, the range of appropriate values determined in advance by the organization is (1) “predetermined range”, and the boundary between the appropriate value and the inappropriate value exceeding (2) “allow” Value ”, and the value that exceeds the allowable value abnormally (3) is the abnormal value (abnormal point). Specific examples are: (1) “predetermined range” for a range that deviates less than 5% from the corresponding evaluation point, and (2) a tolerance that is 10% from the corresponding evaluation point. The deviated value is (3) an abnormal value (abnormal point).
The “inappropriate abnormal point” as used herein refers to the evaluation point of each question item arranged according to the order of the evaluation points before and after the abnormality determination value that exceeds the abnormality determination value and deviates from the order. Say point.
Here, “deviation from the order in the positive or negative direction” means a value (evaluation point) that deviates (separates) in the positive direction from the value of the order based on the sequence of numerical values (evaluation points) according to the order. Or, a value (evaluation point) deviating in the negative direction.
The “abnormal point extraction unit” is a program that extracts an evaluation point that exceeds the abnormality determination value and deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction as an inappropriate abnormal point.

  The present invention according to claim 4 corresponds to a plurality of evaluation reference points set in advance according to a rank of each question item in the storage unit, and the evaluation reference points for each question item. When comparing the evaluation score, an evaluation allowable value that is a preset allowable error is stored, respectively, and the boundary etc. determination unit determines the evaluation score corresponding to each question item and the corresponding rank. When each of the evaluation reference points is compared with each other, the rank of the question items that have deviated from the rank and have exceeded the evaluation allowable value, or the evaluation points are assigned to the evaluation target person. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the system is determined as a boundary of proficiency, understanding or achievement, or an abnormal rank or an abnormal point. .

The “evaluation reference point” is a value (a point that is considered to be appropriate from the point of view of general common sense or organization) that is set in advance in accordance with the order of each question item and that serves as a reference for the evaluation point of the evaluation target person.
The “evaluation tolerance” here is used when comparing the evaluation reference point with the evaluation subject's evaluation point for the corresponding question item in the rank of the question item belonging to each evaluation item. , Means a preset tolerance. For example, when there are five levels (levels 5 to 1) of question items in the evaluation items, the allowable evaluation value may be 1 point (or 2 points).
“The ranks or evaluation points of the questionnaires that have been evaluated exceeding the above-mentioned evaluation allowable value” are the comparison between each evaluation point corresponding to each questionnaire and each evaluation reference point of the corresponding rank. In this case, it means the rank of the question items or the evaluation score that deviates from the preset order and exceeds the evaluation allowable value.

The present invention according to claim 5, wherein the boundary etc. determination unit can determine a plurality of boundaries of proficiency, comprehension or achievement, or abnormal ranks or abnormal points of the evaluation subject. It is an evaluation system for labor management given in any 1 paragraph among Claims 1-4 characterized by the above-mentioned.
The number of judgments of the level of proficiency or comprehension or achievement level of the person to be evaluated by the boundary etc. determination unit is arbitrary as long as it is plural. For example, two or three or more may be used.

  The present invention according to claim 6 is a visual display of evaluation points which displays a display or a printer and each evaluation point for the questionnaire by rank as a graph or a graphic on the display or on the paper using the printer. 6. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the labor management evaluation system comprises:

The type of display is arbitrary. For example, a liquid crystal display, an organic EL display, or the like can be employed.
The type of printer is also arbitrary. For example, an ink jet printer or a laser printer may be used.
The type of graph is arbitrary. For example, a line graph, a line graph, a bar graph, or a pie graph may be used.

The shape of the figure is arbitrary. For example, various two-dimensional figures (for example, a triangle, a polygon more than a quadrangle, etc.) can be adopted.
The evaluation point visual display unit is a program for visually displaying each evaluation point for each question item for each rank in the evaluation item as a graph or a figure.
What displays each evaluation score as a graph or a figure is, for example, a display such as a computer or a paper surface using a printer.

  According to the seventh aspect of the present invention, the ranks of the respective skill characteristics are rearranged according to any of the meaning, the gist, the usefulness, and the importance of the labor management of the organization for each skill characteristic according to the rank. 7. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 2 to 6, further comprising a skill characteristic changing unit that adds a new skill characteristic.

The “skill characteristic changing unit” is a program for rearranging skill characteristics or adding new skill characteristics for a predetermined reason for each skill characteristic by rank.
The rearrangement of each skill characteristic according to rank is performed according to any of the meaning, the gist, the usefulness, and the importance of matters relating to the labor of the organization. Alternatively, another skill characteristic is added to each skill characteristic for each rank according to any of the meaning, gist, usefulness, and importance of matters related to organizational labor.

  In the present invention according to claim 8, a plurality of skill characteristic evaluation values indicating evaluations according to skill characteristics corresponding to the evaluation target person are arranged in the matrix table, and an average value of all the skill characteristic evaluation values, Or, based on an adjustment value that is an average of all the skill characteristic evaluation values excluding abnormal values exceeding a preset skill characteristic abnormality determination value, it becomes an index of the overall job performance of the evaluation subject The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 2 to 7, further comprising a comprehensive job execution capability value calculation unit that calculates an overall job execution capability value.

The “skill characteristic evaluation value” is an evaluation point of an evaluation subject for each skill characteristic. In addition, this skill characteristic evaluation value is (1) the average value of the corresponding item evaluation values for each rank, (2) the average value of the corresponding item evaluation values for each item, and (3) the corresponding value of these evaluation values. It consists of either the average evaluation value which averaged the average value. Note that the item evaluation value by rank is the average score of the evaluation points of (same) rank common to all evaluation items belonging to each skill characteristic by rank. Moreover, the evaluation value for each item means an average of the evaluation points acquired for each evaluation item belonging to each skill characteristic for each rank.
The “skill characteristic abnormality determination value” is a criterion for determining an abnormal value determined in advance in order to determine an inappropriate abnormal value in each skill characteristic evaluation value.

“Comprehensive job performance” is a basic ability to perform a job comprehensively. The total ability value can be calculated from the average value of the skill characteristics.
The “comprehensive job performance value calculator” is a program that calculates the total job performance value of the evaluation subject from the average value or the adjustment value of all the skill characteristic evaluation values.

  The present invention according to claim 9, wherein each of the questions is related to a contribution performance or a contribution schedule or a job execution attitude of the evaluation target person to the organization, and the evaluation system for labor management includes the evaluation person The system is used when judging whether or not the organization has given the evaluation target to the evaluation subject based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

“Evaluation subject's contribution achievement” is the achievement that the assessment subject has contributed to the organization so far.
“Evaluation subject's contribution plan” is a predicted result of whether or not the evaluation subject after employment can contribute to the organization.
“Job performance attitude” is the attitude when the person being evaluated works on the duties of the organization.
“Treatment” here refers to wages and bonuses, promotions and demotions, relocations, etc. that are performed regularly or irregularly.
This evaluation system can be used to evaluate evaluators (persons belonging to an organization, persons entrusted by an organization, evaluation subjects themselves, computers (AI Based on each evaluation point marked by)), the organization (evaluator, etc.) judges (including quantification) whether or not the treatment subject to the evaluation subject is or will be treated. It has a function to support the occasion.

  In the present invention described in claim 10, each of the questions is for determining the suitability of the type of job of the person to be evaluated in the organization, and the evaluation system for labor management is configured so that the evaluator 9. The method according to claim 1, which is used when determining whether or not the job type of the evaluation subject is appropriate based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. It is an evaluation system for labor management.

“Occupation type” refers to the type of work and is classified according to the content of the work, such as “sales job”, “accounting job”, “personnel job”, and “development job”. If you work for a company that is divided into departments, such as the sales department, accounting department, and human resources department, this is the type of work for the department you belong to.
In this evaluation system, the organization (evaluator, etc.) determines the suitability of the job type of the evaluation subject based on each evaluation point (evaluation value) evaluated by the evaluator for the question items for judging the suitability of the preset job type ( It has a function to support when including numerical values).

  In the present invention described in claim 11, each of the questions is for determining whether or not the position of the person to be evaluated in the organization is appropriate. The evaluation system for labor management includes 9. The method according to claim 1, which is used when determining whether or not the position of the evaluation subject is appropriate based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. It is an evaluation system for labor management.

“Position” is the position in the organization.
This evaluation system is used for each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for questions that determine the degree of contribution performance and job execution attitude set in the case of regular or irregular promotion, demotion, or relocation. Based on this, the organization (evaluator, etc.) has a function of providing support when judging the suitability of the evaluation subject's position (including quantification).

  In the present invention described in claim 12, each of the questions is for judging the degree of risk of the person to be evaluated in the organization or the degree of risk handling, and the labor management evaluation system comprises: The evaluator is used when judging the degree of risk of the evaluation target person in the organization or the degree of risk handling based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. It is an evaluation system for labor management given in any 1 paragraph among Claims 1-8.

“Risk management” means to examine and implement measures to prevent the event that causes the risk so that the assumed risk does not occur.
This evaluation system is related to the risk management of those who belong to or intend to belong to the organization and applicants, and the evaluator will respond to questions that determine the degree of risk set in advance or the degree of risk response. When an organization (evaluator, etc.) determines (including numerical value) the degree of risk (crisis) or the degree of risk response (level of proficiency, understanding, or achievement) based on each evaluation score It has a function to provide support.
“Risk response” as used herein refers to a response such as appropriately understanding and coping with the cause of the risk.

  The invention according to claim 13 is the labor management evaluation system, wherein each of the questions is for determining the degree of advancement or enhancement of the human resource of the evaluation subject for the organization. Is used when the evaluator makes a judgment on the degree of HR tech support related to labor management based on each evaluation point corresponding to each of the questions. Among these, it is an evaluation system for labor management given in any 1 paragraph.

“HR Tech (HR (Technology) Technology)” refers to a group of solutions (elucidation, solutions) that improve human resources operations such as human resource development, recruitment activities, and personnel evaluation through the use of technology. Is.
“Sophistication of human resources” means the sophistication of skills held, such as attention and concern.
“Higher performance of human resources” is the further functionalization of skills held through active utilization of issues and crisis management awareness.
This evaluation system is based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator (including the evaluation target person itself) for the questionnaire items that determine the degree of advancement and enhancement of human resources. (Evaluator, etc.) has a function to assist in determining (including numerical value) the degree of HR tech support (skill level, understanding level or achievement level) related to labor management.

  In the present invention according to claim 14, each of the questions is for determining the degree of maintenance and regular use of the evaluation subject's excellent behavior characteristics with respect to the organization, and the evaluation system for labor management includes: The evaluator is used when judging the degree of competency based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. It is an evaluation system for labor management described in the section.

“Competency” means desirable behavioral characteristics (high performance) that produce excellent results.
This evaluation system is based on the evaluation points evaluated by the evaluator (including the evaluation target person) for the questions to determine the level of competence performance and the preset high-performance maintenance and regular use performance. (Evaluators, etc.) have a function to support when judging (including numerical value) the degree of competency (proficiency, comprehension or achievement).

  In the present invention according to claim 15, each of the questions is for determining the suitability of the evaluation subject who intends to belong to the organization to the organization and the presence or absence of necessary skills. The evaluation system is used when a proxy organization acting on behalf of the decision to accept or reject the organization is used to determine the suitability of the organization based on the evaluation points self-evaluated by the evaluation target person. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8.

“Representative organization” refers to an organization or a company that performs the adoption / rejection work of a company instead of recruiting an evaluation target person (applicant who wants to find a job) who wants to belong to the organization.
This evaluation system is based on the evaluation points (applicants) who have evaluated themselves for the questions regarding the suitability to the organization and the necessary skills that have been set in advance. It has a function to support when judging suitability (including quantification) for an organization.

  In the present invention described in claim 16, each of the questions is for inspecting organizational suitability of a person to be evaluated who belongs to the organization, and the evaluation system for labor management includes the organization, The labor according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor is used for checking suitability for the organization based on the evaluation points self-evaluated by the evaluation subject. Evaluation system for management.

This evaluation system is intended for evaluation subjects (applicants) with respect to organizational aptitude test questions that have been set in advance with regard to the organizational aptitude of evaluation subjects (applicants who wish to find employment) who are to belong to the organization. An organization (evaluator, etc.) has a function of judging suitability (including quantification) of an organization based on an evaluation score evaluated by itself.
This evaluation system tests whether an applicant who wants to find a job is self-inspecting the suitability of the applicant for the job or whether the applicant is suitable for the organization when the organization hires the applicant. It has a function to support the occasion.

  The present invention according to claim 17 relates to the training of employees who are candidates for evaluation belonging to the organization, or training for recruitment candidates as evaluation subjects who are going to belong to the organization. In the labor management evaluation system, the evaluator is based on each evaluation point corresponding to each question item, and the understanding degree, proficiency level or achievement of the employee education or the training education of the evaluation target person The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used when judging the degree.

  This evaluation system allows organizations (evaluators, etc.) to become familiar with employee education or training education based on the evaluation points evaluated by the evaluator for questions regarding employee education and training education that have been set in advance. It has a function to support when judging the degree, degree of understanding or achievement (including quantification).

  The present invention according to claim 18, wherein each of the questions is a target management skill of an evaluation target person belonging to the organization, or a target management of an employment candidate who is an evaluation target person who belongs to the organization. The evaluation system for labor management relates to the degree of prediction, and the evaluator determines that the evaluator has a target management practice skill or target management based on each evaluation point corresponding to each question item. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used when determining the degree of possibility.

“Goal management skills” as used here refers to organizations that achieve planned, rational, and efficient achievements set by the lower order and assignments assigned by the organization or the head of the organization, or by oneself. It refers to the abilities that have been acquired through the learning and training that people should have.
As used herein, “degree of target management prediction” refers to the degree of prediction of target management practice given by or set by the person who wants to belong to an organization or job type or position. For the question to be determined, it is a degree of prediction for predicting a practical course of management technology and management knowledge, and reasonably achieving the task and target value of the organization based on the plan (PDCA).
“Skills for target management practice” here refers to the practice of management technology and knowledge utilization for achieving the target values imposed by the organization and the head of the organization, or the target values set by the evaluation subject themselves This is a practice for rationally achieving tasks and target values based on the plan (PDCA), and is a skill acquired for the practice.

  This evaluation system is related to the target management skill of the evaluation target person belonging to the organization or the degree of target management prediction of the recruitment candidate who is the evaluation target person who wants to belong to the organization. On the other hand, based on the evaluation points evaluated by the evaluator, the organization (evaluator, etc.) tries to belong to the evaluation target person (person belonging to the organization) or the target management practice skill of the evaluation target person (person belonging to the organization). It has a function to support when judging (including quantification) the degree (proficiency, comprehension or achievement) of the target management possibility of the person who performs.

According to the evaluation system for labor management according to claim 1, in the evaluation items, the evaluation point order determination unit determines whether each evaluation point is arranged according to the order of the question items, and based on the determination result, each question The rank or evaluation point of a question item that has been evaluated to deviate from the rank of the item rank is determined to be a boundary of proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level, or an abnormal rank or abnormal point.
As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) must make a gradual and pinpoint determination based on the level of proficiency, comprehension or achievement level of the evaluation subject for the evaluation items, or the abnormal rank, as well as abnormal points. Can do.

Further, in this labor management evaluation system, the question items belonging to the evaluation items are subdivided into predetermined ranks, so that the company's intention and evaluation points are clarified. As a result, the evaluation subject comes to face the question of the evaluation item with a high problem awareness, and the accuracy of the evaluator's evaluation regarding the evaluation subject can be improved.
Further, by subdividing the evaluation questions in this way, the abstract questions are converted into specific and objective questions. Therefore, for example, the organization (evaluator or the like) can more accurately perform the work evaluation of the evaluation subject belonging to the organization and the suitability of the job type of the evaluation subject to be newly assigned.

  In particular, according to the second aspect of the present invention, when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject regarding the labor of the organization, a plurality of evaluation items and a plurality of skill characteristics for each rank in any of the X and Y axis directions. And a matrix table in which a plurality of question items subdivided by rank are arranged in each square where each evaluation item and each skill characteristic intersect. This enables organizations (evaluators, etc.) to clearly see the relationship between each evaluation item and each skill characteristic at a glance, and to pinpoint the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation subject for the evaluation item. can do.

According to the third aspect of the present invention, an abnormality determination value that is a criterion for determining an inappropriate abnormality point determined in advance at each evaluation point is stored in advance in the storage unit.
After that, when comparing the adjacent ranks of each questionnaire, the abnormal point extraction unit calculates an evaluation point that exceeds this abnormality determination value and deviates from the rank in the positive or negative direction. To be extracted (removed). Thereby, a more appropriate evaluation score can be obtained. As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) uses the boundary etc. determination unit to determine the boundary of the proficiency, comprehension or achievement level of the evaluation subject with higher accuracy, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point. Can do. In addition, since an abnormal point is irregular, the direction which removes it can perform evaluation of an evaluation object person more appropriately.

Further, according to the present invention as set forth in claim 4, each evaluation reference point set in advance corresponding to the rank of each question item in the storage unit and an evaluation allowance value set in advance for each question item And remember each.
Then, for each questionnaire, when comparing these evaluation reference points with the corresponding evaluation points, the ranks or evaluation points of the questions that were evaluated that exceeded the evaluation tolerance and deviated from the rank were evaluated. The boundary or the like is determined by the boundary of the proficiency level, the understanding level or the achievement level of the target person, or the abnormal rank or abnormal point.
In this way, by providing the evaluation reference point and the evaluation allowable value, the organization (evaluator, etc.) is more accurately and pinpointed, and the boundary of the proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level of the evaluation target person, or An abnormal rank or an abnormal point can be determined.

  Furthermore, according to the present invention described in claim 5, even when the evaluation score order determination unit determines that there are a plurality of places where the evaluation points corresponding to the order of each question item are not arranged, Since multiple determination units such as boundaries can be determined, the ranks of the questions that have deviated from the rank order of the questions at each determination point, or the evaluation points corresponding to the questions The organization (evaluator or the like) can determine the evaluation subject's proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level boundary, or an abnormal rank or abnormal point.

  According to the sixth aspect of the present invention, each evaluation score for each rank of the evaluation items is visually displayed as a graph or a graphic on the screen of the display or the paper printed by the printer using the evaluation score visual display unit. Can be displayed automatically. As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) can evaluate the evaluation subject in addition to each evaluation point of the evaluation item only by looking at the graph or figure without reading the evaluation point for each question item. It is possible to grasp the whole content such as the boundary of proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level, or abnormal rank or abnormal point.

According to this invention of Claim 7, each skill characteristic according to rank uses the skill characteristic change part according to the meaning, the gist, the usefulness, and the importance of the matter regarding the labor of the organization. You can sort and add skill characteristics.
In other words, since the operational status of organizations varies greatly from organization to organization, it is natural that the skill characteristics required for each organization differ depending on the type of industry. Therefore, the order of skill characteristics can be rearranged to function specifically for any request. In addition, when the content of skill characteristics necessary and indispensable for an organization is insufficient, new skill characteristics can be added.
Therefore, it is possible to rank the skill characteristics most suitable for the organization (evaluator, etc.), and to clarify the question items of the evaluation items belonging to the skill characteristics.

  According to the present invention described in claim 8, an average value of all skill characteristic evaluation values or a value obtained by removing abnormal values from all skill characteristic evaluation values using a comprehensive job performance value calculation unit From the adjustment value that is the average, the overall performance performance value of the evaluation subject is calculated. As a result, based on the average value or adjustment value of each skill characteristic that constitutes a part of the matrix table, the organization (evaluator, etc.) determines the overall job performance value of the evaluation target person, for example, the evaluation target By comparing within the group of the same occupation and the same position to which the person belongs, it is possible to determine the comprehensive job performance of the evaluation target person.

  According to the present invention described in claim 9, the treatment (for example, wages, bonuses, promotion / demotion, relocation, etc.) of the evaluation target persons (including applicants who wish to find employment) in the organization is determined or determined. When trying, the organization (evaluator, etc.) evaluates the treatment based on the evaluation points evaluated by the evaluator for each question related to the pre-set contribution record or planned contribution or job performance attitude. The level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the person being evaluated for an item can be judged stepwise and accurately. Thereby, fair and appropriate treatment determination can be easily performed. Therefore, it is possible to quickly respond to regular or irregular treatment decisions of the organization.

  In the present invention described in claim 10, the job types (for example, “sales job”, “accounting job”, “human resource job”, “development job”) of the person to be evaluated in labor management (including applicants who wish to find employment) Etc.) for each question related to the job type set in advance, the organization (evaluator etc.) evaluates the job type based on each evaluation point (evaluation value) evaluated by the evaluator. The level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the person being evaluated for an item can be judged stepwise and accurately. Thereby, the suitability of the job type of the evaluation subject can be judged fairly and appropriately.

  In the present invention described in claim 11, when determining the suitability of the position (position) of an evaluation target person (including applicants who wish to find employment) in the organization, Based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator (including the evaluator itself), the organization (evaluator, etc.) determines the level of proficiency, understanding or achievement of the evaluator for the evaluation item regarding the position. Can be judged step by step and accurately. Thereby, even if anyone of the organization (evaluator, etc.) (the person who gave the evaluation point, the person who did not give the evaluation point) decides the position, the position of the evaluation object person can be decided fairly and appropriately.

  The present invention according to claim 12 relates to risk management of an evaluation target person (including applicants who wish to find employment) in an organization, and an evaluator evaluates each preset risk-related question item. Based on each evaluation point, the organization (evaluator, etc.) can judge step by step and accurately the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation target person for the evaluation items regarding risk management. As a result, the organization is appropriate depending on the degree of risk assumed by the assessment target (including quantification) and the degree of risk response (including quantification) such as appropriately understanding and addressing the cause of the risk. Can manage risk.

  In the present invention according to claim 13, human resources that are set in advance with regard to the degree of advancement and enhancement of human resources of persons to be evaluated in the organization (including applicants who wish to find employment) Organizations (evaluators, etc.), based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for each question related to the advancement and functional enhancement of the You can judge your level of proficiency, comprehension or achievement step by step. As a result, the organization (evaluator or the like) can fairly and appropriately determine the degree of HR technical support regarding the labor management of the evaluation subject.

In the present invention according to claim 14, persons to be evaluated in the organization (including applicants who wish to work)
Organization competency skills (desired behavioral characteristics that produce excellent results), based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for each question regarding the maintenance of high performance and the level of regular use (Evaluator etc.) can judge the level of competence of the evaluation subject. As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) can gradually assess the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the evaluator with respect to competency skills such as clear goal management that shares values with the organization and voluntary skill improvement. And it can be judged accurately.

In the present invention according to claim 15, the present invention relates to a system that performs the acceptance / rejection work of an organization that employs an evaluation target person (applicant who wishes to find employment) who wants to belong to the organization. Based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator (including the person to be evaluated) for each question to determine the suitability of the system and the necessary skills, The level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the evaluation subject for the evaluation items can be judged stepwise and accurately. Thereby, the agency organization can easily determine the suitability or inappropriateness of the evaluation subject to the organization after the employment.
Accordingly, it is possible to employ human resources that are suitable for the company (organization) and have the necessary ability (skill) without performing troublesome acceptance / rejection work.

The present invention according to claim 16 relates to an organization person aptitude test to an organization of an evaluation subject (applicant who wishes to find employment) who intends to belong to an organization, and an organization to a predetermined organization Organizations (evaluators, etc.), based on each evaluation point that the evaluation target person evaluated himself / herself for each question of the personal aptitude test, the level of proficiency and understanding of the evaluation target person for the evaluation items of the organizational aptitude test Degree or achievement can be judged step by step and accurately.
Thereby, the organization (evaluator or the like) can easily determine the suitability of the evaluation subject to the organization. In addition, for example, the person to be evaluated can easily check the suitability of the organization for an organization that wants to find a job.

  According to the present invention as set forth in claim 17, there is provided a labor management system relating to employee education of evaluation subjects (including applicants who wish to find employment) belonging to an organization and training education for recruitment candidates of an organization. Based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for the questions in the employee training and training education set in advance, the organization (evaluator, etc.) The degree of achievement can be judged stepwise and accurately. As a result, the person to be evaluated can easily determine the suitability of the skill for the organization that wants to find a job. In addition, the organization (evaluator, etc.) can accurately determine the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of employee education and training education for applicants and candidates.

  In the present invention described in claim 18, the target management skill of the evaluation target person belonging to the organization, or the degree of target management prediction of the recruitment candidate who is the evaluation target person who wants to belong to the organization is determined. An organization (evaluator, etc.) based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for each preset goal management skill or target management prediction question. ) Is the target of the evaluation subject for the evaluation items related to the degree of the target management skill (target management practice skill) of the evaluation subject belonging to the organization The level of proficiency, comprehension or achievement can be judged stepwise and accurately.

It is a block diagram of the evaluation system for labor management concerning Example 1 of the present invention. It is a matrix table | surface of the skill characteristic of C rank of the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. It is a matrix table | surface of the skill characteristic of B rank of the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. It is a matrix table | surface of the skill characteristic of A rank of the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. (A) is a graphic representation of the evaluation reference points of the evaluation items in the skill characteristic A rank. (B) is a graphic representation of the evaluation points for fixing (A3) of the same A rank management means. (A) is the table | surface which attached the boundary line to the abnormal rank in another matrix table | surface used for the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 2 of this invention. (B) is a table in which abnormal points are circled in another matrix table used in the labor management evaluation system according to Example 2 of the present invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 3 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 3 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 3 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 4 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 4 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 4 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 5 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 5 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 5 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 6 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 6 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 6 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 7 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 7 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 7 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 8 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 8 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 8 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 9 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 9 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 9 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 10 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 10 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 10 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 11 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 11 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 11 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of C rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 2 which concerns on Example 12 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of B rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 3 which concerns on Example 12 of this invention. It is a table | surface which shows each question content inserted in the evaluation item of A rank of the matrix table | surface in FIG. 4 which concerns on Example 12 of this invention. It is a table | surface regarding the horizontal order check of the evaluation item which belongs to the basic skill characteristic which concerns on Example 13 of this invention.

  Examples of the present invention will be specifically described below. Here, a labor management evaluation system using a matrix table will be described.

  1 to 4, reference numeral 10 denotes a labor management evaluation system according to the first embodiment of the present invention. This labor management evaluation system 10 is an evaluation target person (here, belonging to or belonging to a company organization). Employees who are mid-career chiefs of companies are evaluated using a matrix table when the evaluator (including the self who is the evaluation target) evaluates the labor management ability (items related to labor) within the organization. Is. However, a plurality of evaluation items may be arranged only in the X-axis direction (see, for example, FIG. 2) or only in the Y-axis direction without using the matrix table.

  As shown in FIG. 2 to FIG. 4, the matrix table has a rank shift from “easy” to “difficult” downward in the Y-axis direction (or the X-axis direction) with respect to a predetermined organizational labor. The three skill characteristics (evaluation items) for each rank of “C to A” are arranged according to the order to be performed, while three evaluation items (evaluation items) relating to the organization's labor set in advance are arranged in the X-axis direction. In addition, three question items (for example, C1-1) each subdivided into one evaluation item (for example, C1) in a total of nine squares where each skill characteristic and each evaluation item intersect in the matrix table, respectively. To C1-3 etc.) are arranged vertically (Y-axis direction). Among these, each question item of “c to a” belonging to each skill characteristic (for example, basic skill characteristic etc.) is directed downward from “easy” to “difficult” with respect to the evaluation subject. It is related to the organization's labor, broken down by rank.

  As shown in FIG. 1, the labor management evaluation system 10 has a personal computer as a main body. The personal computer control unit (CPU) 11 includes a keyboard 12, a storage unit 13, an evaluation score order determination unit 14, a boundary etc. determination unit 15, a rank-based item evaluation value calculation unit 16, and an item-specific evaluation value. Calculation unit 17, skill characteristic evaluation value acquisition unit 18, abnormal point extraction unit 19, evaluation point visual display unit 20, skill characteristic change unit 21, comprehensive job performance value calculation unit 22, matrix display unit 23, the display 24, and the printer 25 are electrically connected to each other.

Hereinafter, these components will be specifically described.
The personal computer is a commercially available notebook computer arranged in the personnel room.
When an employee (evaluator) of the personnel department evaluates the labor management ability of an evaluation target person who is a mid-level chief, the keyboard 12 evaluates the keyboard 12 for each question on the evaluation work sheet that is a test sheet. This is an input unit for an operator to input each evaluation score obtained by answering to a personal computer.

Here, the storage unit 13 is a hard disk of a personal computer.
The storage unit 13 compares (1) each evaluation item, (2) each skill characteristic, (3) each evaluation reference point for each rank, and a plurality of evaluation points acquired by the evaluation target person for the corresponding questionnaire. Evaluation tolerance, which is a preset tolerance, and (4) an abnormality judgment value that is a criterion for determining inappropriate abnormal points that have been determined in advance beyond the evaluation tolerance at each evaluation point. And (5) multiple skill characteristic evaluation values that indicate the evaluation by the corresponding skill characteristics of the evaluation target person, and (6) in order to determine inappropriate abnormal values in each skill characteristic evaluation value. The skill characteristic abnormality determination value that is the determination criterion of the abnormal value, (7) a preset order for each question item, and (8) a template of this matrix table are stored as data.

The evaluation score order determination unit 14 is a program that determines whether each evaluation item is arranged according to the order of each question item in each evaluation item.
The rank-based item evaluation value is an average score of evaluation scores of (same) ranks common to all evaluation items belonging to each skill characteristic in each rank.
For each evaluation item, the boundary etc. determination unit 15 compares the evaluation reference point by rank with each corresponding evaluation point, etc., and the rank of the evaluation item whose point difference exceeds the evaluation allowable value is evaluated. When a person's proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level is determined to be a boundary (rank), and the point difference is abnormally exceeding the allowable evaluation value (when the abnormal determination value is exceeded), It is a program to judge that. This boundary etc. determination part 15 is comprised from CPU of a personal computer. Hereinafter, all the programs described in the first embodiment are similarly composed of a CPU of a personal computer.

The rank-based item evaluation value calculation unit 16 averages each evaluation score of the same rank (for example, C1-1 to C3-1) common to all evaluation items belonging to each skill characteristic for each rank. This is a program for obtaining a rank-specific item evaluation value for each rank of skill characteristics.
The item-specific evaluation value calculation unit 17 averages the evaluation points acquired in different ranks (for example, C1-1 to C1-3, etc.) for each evaluation item belonging to each skill characteristic for each rank. This is a program for obtaining the obtained evaluation value for each item for each evaluation item.
The skill characteristic evaluation value acquisition unit 18 refers to each skill characteristic evaluation value attributed to each skill characteristic for each rank, the average value of the corresponding item evaluation value for each rank, and the average of the corresponding evaluation value for each item. It is a program which makes any one of a value and the average evaluation value which averaged the average value of these corresponding evaluation values.

When the abnormal point extraction unit 19 compares each evaluation point arranged in each evaluation item with the evaluation reference point of the corresponding rank (the evaluation points between adjacent ranks of each question item may be compared) In addition, a program for extracting an abnormal point that exceeds a preset abnormality determination value and deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction.
The evaluation point visual display unit 20 is a program for displaying each evaluation point for each evaluation item for each rank as a graph or a graphic on the screen of the display 24 or printing it on a sheet of paper printed by the printer 25.
The display 24 is a liquid crystal screen of a personal computer.
The printer 25 is of a laser type that is electrically connected to a personal computer via a LAN cable.

The skill characteristic changing unit 21 reorders skill characteristics or ranks new skill characteristics for each skill characteristic according to rank according to the meaning, point, usefulness, and importance of matters related to organizational labor. It is a program that adds.
The overall job performance value calculator 22 is a program that calculates the overall job performance value of the person to be evaluated from the average value (may be an adjustment value) of all skill characteristic evaluation values. The adjustment value is an average of all skill characteristic evaluation values excluding abnormal values exceeding a preset skill characteristic abnormality determination value.
The matrix display unit 23 is a program for displaying the created matrix table on the display 24.

Here, referring to FIGS. 2 to 7, three skill characteristics for each rank in the Y-axis direction and three evaluation items in the X-axis direction are arranged, and each evaluation item and each skill characteristic intersect. A matrix table in which three questions (a total of 27 questions) are arranged on a total of nine squares will be described.
First, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 5, a matrix table in which basic skill characteristics of rank C are arranged in the Y-axis direction will be specifically described.
At this time, there are a total of nine question items of ranks c to a belonging to the three types of evaluation items C1 to C3 (C1-1 to C1-3, C2-1 to C2-3, C3- 1-C3-3). The contents of the question items of each evaluation item belonging to the rank C of the skill characteristic are described in the table of FIG. In addition, each question item employs a five-level scoring system (1 defect, 2 defects, 3 normal points, 4 slightly good points, 5 good points).

In addition, the evaluation reference point of rank c of each evaluation item is 5 points, the evaluation reference point of rank b is 4 points, and the evaluation reference point of rank a is 3 points. Further, the allowable evaluation value is 1 point.
Furthermore, an abnormal point is determined when the difference in evaluation points between adjacent ranks is 3 points (abnormality determination value) or more from the evaluation reference point and deviates in the positive or negative direction from the rank. Here, the evaluation score of C2-2 is “1 point” (divergence in the minus direction) with respect to the evaluation reference point “4 points” of rank b, so that the item evaluation value by rank and the item evaluation value are calculated respectively. When doing this, the abnormal point extraction unit 19 extracts this as an abnormal point (abnormal rank C2-2). Thereafter, the rank-specific item evaluation value calculation unit 16 and the item-specific evaluation value calculation unit 17 average the evaluation points excluding the abnormal points, thereby obtaining the rank-specific item evaluation value and the item-specific evaluation value. Each is calculated.

In addition, since the evaluation reference point of rank a is 3 and the evaluation score of C2-3 is 1 point, the error exceeds 1 point of the allowable evaluation value by 2 points. Thereby, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between C2-2 and C2-3 as a boundary of a proficiency degree, comprehension degree, or achievement level of an evaluation object person. Therefore, as described above, the evaluation target person removes C2-2 as an abnormal point with respect to the content of the evaluation item “Sincere Consistent Posture (C2)”, so that C2-1 and C2-3 Since the boundary is drawn by the boundary etc. determining unit 15 in the middle, it is recognized that only C2-1 can be mastered, understood or achieved.
Furthermore, since the evaluation reference point of b rank is 4 points and the evaluation point of C3-2 is 2 points, the error exceeds 1 point of the allowable evaluation value by 2 points. Thereby, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between C3-1 and C3-2 as a boundary of the proficiency level, comprehension level, or achievement level of an evaluation object person. Furthermore, since the evaluation reference point of the a rank is 3 points and the evaluation point of C3-3 is 1 point, the error exceeds 2 points of the allowable evaluation value by 2 points. Thereby, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between C3-2 and C3-3 as boundaries, such as a proficiency degree of an evaluation object person. Therefore, there are two boundaries here. Therefore, in “clarification of self-responsibility (C3)”, it is recognized that only C3-1 can be mastered, understood or achieved.

Next, in the rank-based item evaluation values, the average of the c rank evaluation points is 5 points, the average of the b rank evaluation points (excluding the C2-2 evaluation points) is 3.5 points, and the a rank evaluation points The average of the item evaluation values by rank is 3.5 points.
On the other hand, in the evaluation value by item, the average score of each rank (ca) of “fair attitude (C1)” is 4.67 points, and each rank of “integrity consistent attitude (C2)” The average of the evaluation points (excluding the evaluation point of C2-2) is 3, and the average of the evaluation points in each rank of “clarification of self-responsibility (C3)” is 2.67 points. Therefore, the average value of the evaluation values for each item is 3.45 points. Therefore, the skill characteristic evaluation value is obtained by using the skill characteristic evaluation value acquisition unit 18, the average value of the item evaluation values by rank (3.5 points) and the average value of the item evaluation values (3.45 points). The average value is 3.5 points (rounded value of 3.48 points). However, the skill characteristic evaluation value may be an average value (3.5 points) of item evaluation values by rank or an average value (3.45 points) of item evaluation values.
In this way, by providing evaluation reference points, evaluation allowances, and abnormality determination values, it is possible to determine the evaluation subject's proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level boundary, or abnormality rank or abnormality point with higher accuracy. can do.

Next, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 6, a matrix table in which practical skill characteristics of rank B are arranged in the Y-axis direction will be specifically described.
At this time, there are a total of nine question items of ranks c to a belonging to the three types of evaluation items B1 to B3 (B1-1 to B1-3, B2-1 to B2-3, B3- 1-B3-3). The contents of the question items for each evaluation item belonging to rank B of the skill characteristics are described in the table of FIG. In each question item, the same five-point scoring system (1 defect, 2 defects, 3 normal, 4 good, 5 good) is adopted.

In addition, the evaluation reference point for the c rank of each evaluation item is 4 points, the evaluation reference point for the b rank is 3 points, and the evaluation reference point for the a rank is 2 points. Further, the allowable evaluation value here is one point.
Thereafter, the rank-specific item evaluation value calculation unit 16 and the item-specific evaluation value calculation unit 17 calculate the rank-specific item evaluation value and the item-specific evaluation value from the respective evaluation points.

  Moreover, since the evaluation reference point of b rank is one point with respect to three evaluation reference points of B1-2, the error exceeds one point of the allowable evaluation value. Thereby, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between B1-1 and B1-2 as a boundary of the proficiency level of an evaluation object person, or an understanding level. Similarly, since the B-rank evaluation reference point is 3 points and the B3-2 evaluation point is 1 point, the boundary etc. determination unit 15 evaluates the boundary between B3-1 and B3-2. Judged as the boundary of proficiency or comprehension level. As a result, the person to be evaluated is recognized as having mastered, understood or achieved only up to B1-1 with respect to the content of the evaluation item “work accuracy (B1)”. Similarly, it is recognized that only “B3-1” can be mastered, understood or achieved with respect to “work improvement (B3)”.

Next, in the rank-based item evaluation values, the average of the c rank evaluation points is 3, the average of the b rank evaluation points is 1.33 points, and the average of the a rank evaluation points is 1.33 points The average item evaluation value by rank is 1.89 points.
On the other hand, in the evaluation value by item, the average score of each rank (ca to a) of “work accuracy (B1)” is 2 points, and in each rank of “planned achievement of division (B2)” The average evaluation score is 2 points, and the average evaluation score in each rank of “work improvement (B3)” is 1.67 points. Therefore, the average value of the evaluation values for each item is 1.89 points. Therefore, the skill characteristic evaluation value is obtained by using the skill characteristic evaluation value acquisition unit 18, and the average value of the item evaluation values by rank (1.89 points) and the average value of the item evaluation values (1.89 points). Is the average value of 1.9 points (rounded value of 1.89 points). However, as the skill characteristic evaluation value, the average value of the rank-specific item evaluation values and the average value of the item-specific evaluation values are the same value, and any of them may be adopted.
As described above, by providing the evaluation reference point and the evaluation allowable value, it is possible to determine the evaluation subject's proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level boundary, or abnormal rank or abnormal point with higher accuracy. it can.

Next, as shown in FIGS. 4 and 7, a matrix table in which administrative skill characteristics of rank A are arranged in the Y-axis direction will be specifically described.
At this time, there are a total of nine question items of ranks c to a belonging to the three types of evaluation items A1 to A3 (A1-1 to A1-3, A2-1 to A2-3, A3- 1-A3-3). The contents of the question items for each evaluation item belonging to rank A of the skill characteristics are described in the table of FIG. In each question item, the same five-point scoring system (1 defect, 2 defects, 3 normal, 4 good, 5 good) is adopted.

In addition, the evaluation reference point of c rank of each evaluation item is 3 points, the evaluation reference point of b rank is 2 points, and the evaluation reference point of a rank is 1 point. Further, the allowable evaluation value here is one point.
Thereafter, the rank-specific item evaluation value calculation unit 16 and the item-specific evaluation value calculation unit 17 calculate the rank-specific item evaluation value and the item-specific evaluation value from the respective evaluation points.
Further, since the evaluation reference point of b rank is 2 points and the evaluation point of A3-2 is 4 points, the error exceeds one point of the allowable evaluation value. Thereby, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between A3-1 and A3-2 as a boundary of a proficiency degree, comprehension degree, or achievement level of an evaluation object person. Thereby, the person to be evaluated is recognized that the content of the evaluation item “fixing management means (A3)” is only up to A3-1.

Next, in the rank-based item evaluation values, the average of the c-rank evaluation points is 2.33 points, the average of the b-rank evaluation points is 2, and the average of the a-rank evaluation points is 1 point. The average of other item evaluation values is 1.78 points.
On the other hand, in the evaluation value by item, the average score of each rank (ca) of “Mismatch Countermeasure (A1)” is 1.33 points, and “Effective Utilization of Working Hours (A2)” The average of the evaluation points is 1.67 points, and the average of the evaluation points in each rank of “fixing management means (A3)” is 2.33 points. Therefore, the average value of the evaluation values for each item is 1.78 points. Therefore, the skill characteristic evaluation value is obtained by using the skill characteristic evaluation value acquisition unit 18, and the average value (1.78 points) of the item evaluation values by rank and the average value (1.78 points) of the item evaluation values. The average value is 1.8 points (the rounded off value of 1.78 points). However, as the skill characteristic evaluation value, the average value of the rank-specific item evaluation values and the average value of the item-specific evaluation values are the same value, and any of them may be adopted.
As described above, by providing the evaluation reference point and the evaluation allowable value, it is possible to determine the evaluation subject's proficiency level, understanding level or achievement level boundary, or abnormal rank or abnormal point with higher accuracy. it can.

In addition, when comparing each evaluation score of the same rank that is common to each evaluation item and the corresponding evaluation reference point of the same rank, a positive or negative direction from the rank exceeding the preset abnormality determination value Are extracted (removed) as inappropriate abnormal points by using the abnormal point extraction unit 19. Therefore, a more appropriate rank-specific item evaluation value can be obtained.
Also, when each evaluation score by rank and the evaluation reference point of the corresponding rank are compared, those that deviate from the rank in the positive or negative direction beyond the preset abnormality determination value, The abnormal point extraction unit 19 is used to extract an inappropriate abnormal point. Therefore, a more appropriate evaluation value for each item can be obtained.

Furthermore, the evaluation score by rank in each evaluation item is visually displayed as a polygonal figure of a triangle or a quadrangle using the evaluation score visual display unit 20 (FIG. 8 (a), FIG. 8 ( see b)).
FIG. 8A is a graphic representation of the evaluation reference points of the evaluation items of ranks c to a in the administrative skill characteristic (A rank) of FIG. Similarly, FIG. 8B is a graphic representation of the evaluation points in the management skill characteristic (A rank) “fixing management means (A3)”.
This makes it possible to visually compare each evaluation reference point and the overall numerical value (evaluation point) contents of each evaluation item without having to confirm the numerical value of each evaluation item. Can be recognized.
Furthermore, each skill characteristic according to rank is rearranged according to the meaning, gist, usefulness, and importance of the labor-related matters of the organization using the skill characteristic changing unit 21, and the addition of skill characteristics It can be performed.
In other words, since the operational status of organizations varies greatly from organization to organization, the skill characteristics required for each organization differ depending on the type of industry. This allows the order of skill characteristics to be rearranged to function specifically for any request. In addition, when the content of skill characteristics necessary and indispensable for an organization is insufficient, new skill characteristics can be added.
Therefore, it is possible to rank the skill characteristics that are most suitable for the organization, and to clarify the question items of the evaluation items belonging to the skill characteristics.

  Furthermore, using the comprehensive job performance value calculator 22, an average value of all skill characteristic evaluation values (3.5 points (C rank) +1.9 points (B rank) +1.8 points (A rank)) ) = 2.4 points), it is possible to calculate the overall performance performance value of the evaluation subject. As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.), for example, the same job type to which the evaluation target person belongs is obtained by calculating the overall job performance ability value of the evaluation target person based on the average value of each skill characteristic constituting a part of the matrix table. By comparing within the group of the same position, it is possible to determine the comprehensive job performance of the evaluation target person. Instead of the average value of all skill characteristic evaluation values, an adjustment value that is the average of the skill characteristic evaluation values obtained by removing abnormal values exceeding a preset skill characteristic abnormality determination value may be employed.

In addition, the matrix table template stored in the storage unit 13 is displayed on the display 24 by the matrix display unit 23, and the evaluation points and the like for each rank of the evaluation target person are displayed through the matrix table displayed on the display screen. Another skill characteristic evaluation value can be visually recognized at a glance. Therefore, the organization (evaluator, etc.) determines the boundaries of proficiency, comprehension or achievement, or abnormal ranks or abnormalities of the evaluation target in each evaluation point etc. in the ranked evaluation items and skill characteristic evaluation values. It can be determined at the same time.
As a result, the organization (evaluator and the like) can make a comprehensive judgment on, for example, the duties and positions of the evaluation subject who is already working and the organization of the evaluation subject who will join the company.

Next, an evaluation system for labor management according to Example 2 of the present invention will be described with reference to the tables of FIGS. 9a and 9b.
The evaluation system 10A for labor management according to the second embodiment uses the evaluation reference points according to the first embodiment without using the evaluation reference points, and sets the rank of the evaluation points that deviate from the rank as a boundary between the proficiency level, the understanding level, or the achievement level of the evaluation target person. And the determination result is displayed as a graphic (downward triangle) in the table of FIG. 9a and visualized.

  In Example 2, as shown in FIG. 9a, as a matrix table, four evaluation items (No. 1: fair attitude, No. 2: sincere consistent attitude, No. 3: clear self-responsibility in the X-axis direction) , No. 4: Human relationship power) is arranged with five types of question items from e (easy) to a (difficult) rank, respectively, and the basic C rank of Example 1 in the Y-axis direction. Use only skill characteristics. The ranks are arranged in accordance with the criterion that “the evaluation score on the difficult rank side is smaller than the evaluation score on the easy rank side evaluation item” in the two questions between the adjacent ranks. Is in order.

Hereinafter, Example 2 will be described in detail with reference to the matrix table of FIG.
At this time, no. 1-No. There are a total of 20 question items of rank a to a belonging to the four types of evaluation items 4 (No. 1-e to No. 1-a, No. 2-e to No. 2- a, No. 3-e to No. 3-a, No. 4-e to No. 4-a). In addition, each question item employs a five-level scoring system (1 defect, 2 defects, 3 normal points, 4 slightly good points, 5 good points).

No. In the evaluation item 1 (fair attitude), no. The evaluation score of 1-d is No. with respect to 3 points. Since the evaluation score of 1-c is as large as 4 points, the evaluation score order determination unit 14 determines that this is contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary etc. determination part 15 is No.1. 1-d and No. 1-c is determined as the boundary of the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation target person for each evaluation item. As a result, the evaluation subject is No. It is recognized that the content of one evaluation item can only be mastered, understood or achieved up to d rank.
No. In the evaluation item (2) The evaluation score of 2-e is No. with respect to 4 points. Since the evaluation score of 2-d is as large as 5 points, the evaluation score order determination unit 14 determines that this is contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary etc. determination part 15 is No.1. 2-e and No. 2-d is determined as a boundary such as the proficiency level of the person to be evaluated. As a result, the evaluation subject is No. It is recognized that the content of evaluation item 2 can only be mastered, understood or achieved up to e rank.

  No. In the evaluation item 3 (clarification of self-responsibility), no. The evaluation score of 3-d is No. with respect to 2 points. The evaluation score of 3-c is as large as 3 points. The evaluation score of 3-b is No. with respect to 2 points. The evaluation score of 1-a is as large as 4 points. Therefore, the evaluation score order determination unit 14 determines that these ranks are contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary etc. determining unit 15 3-d and No. 3-c and No. 3-b and No. 3-a is determined as a boundary such as the proficiency level of the person to be evaluated. As a result, the recognition of the organization (evaluator, etc.) It is recognized that the content of the evaluation item 3 can be mastered, understood or achieved only up to d rank.

No. In evaluation item 4 (human relations), No. 4 The evaluation score of 4-d is No. with respect to 3 points. Since the evaluation score of 4-c is the same as 3 points, the evaluation score order determination unit 14 determines that this is contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary etc. determination part 15 is No.1. 4-d and No. 4-c is determined as a boundary such as the proficiency level of the evaluation target person. As a result, the evaluation subject is No. It is recognized that the content of the evaluation item 4 can only be mastered, understood or achieved up to d rank.
These evaluation results are displayed and visualized in the table of FIG. 9a by a downward triangle figure and a border line drawing between ranks. As a result, it is possible to simultaneously grasp the rank boundary such as proficiency of the evaluation subject and the rank range such as proficiency according to the rank by simply looking at the matrix table of FIG. 9a.
Further, FIG. 9b is a table in which the evaluation points in the matrix table are circled with the evaluation points contrary to the preset order as abnormal points. As a result, it is possible to grasp all abnormal points that have not been learned, understood or achieved by the evaluation subject in each square marked with a circle (abnormal point) by simply looking at the matrix table of FIG. 9b.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 10-12, the labor management evaluation system which concerns on Example 3 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10B according to the third embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 is appropriate for the treatment that the organization has given or is going to give to the person to be evaluated (for example, wages, bonuses, promotion / demotion, relocation, etc.). When an organization (evaluator, etc.) makes judgments based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator for a number of questions related to the contribution performance and job performance attitude of the evaluation subject to a predetermined organization, This is to support this.

The table | surface of FIGS. 10-12 shows the several question item according to C-A rank regarding treatment. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, the organization (evaluator or the like) can use the matrix table to discriminate stepwise and accurately the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation target person for each evaluation item. As a result, it is possible to easily determine whether or not the organization (evaluator or the like) has given the evaluation object or is appropriate for the treatment to be given, and fair and appropriate treatment determination based on this. Therefore, it is possible to quickly respond to regular or irregular treatment decisions of the organization.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 13-15, the labor management evaluation system which concerns on Example 4 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10C of the fourth embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 shows whether the organization (evaluator, etc.) is appropriate for the job type (for example, sales, accounting, personnel, development, etc.) set in advance. This is to assist in determining whether or not the job type of the evaluation subject is appropriate based on each evaluation point given by the evaluator.

The table | surface of FIGS. 13-15 shows the several question item according to C-A rank regarding an occupation. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Here, each evaluation point of the evaluator is assumed to be the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) can use this matrix table to determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the evaluation subject for each evaluation item related to the job type in a stepwise and accurate manner. it can. As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) can easily determine whether the evaluation subject's job type is appropriate in labor management and determine a fair and appropriate job type based on this.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 16-18, the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 5 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10D according to the fifth embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 is configured so that each evaluation point assigned by the evaluator to each question regarding whether or not the organization (evaluator or the like) is in advance is appropriate. This is for assisting in determining whether or not the position (position) of the evaluation subject is appropriate.

The table | surface of FIGS. 16-18 shows the several question item according to C-A rank regarding a position. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) can use this matrix table to determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the evaluation subject for each evaluation item related to the position in a stepwise and accurate manner. it can. As a result, it is possible to easily determine the suitability of the position of the evaluation target person who is or is going to be given by the organization (evaluator or the like) and to determine a fair and appropriate position based on this.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 19-21, the labor management evaluation system which concerns on Example 6 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10E of Example 6 as shown in FIG. 1 relates to the risk management of employees who are evaluation targets or those who wish to join the company. The organization (evaluator, etc.) This is to support the evaluation of the degree of risk (crisis) of the assessment target person or the degree of risk response based on each evaluation point given by the evaluator. is there.

The table | surface of FIGS. 19-21 shows the several question item according to the CA rank regarding a risk. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) uses this matrix table to determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of the assessment subject for each evaluation item related to risk management in a stepwise and accurate manner. Can do.
As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) has performed or is willing to perform fair and appropriate in-house processing (treatment) of the assessment subject based on the judgment of the assessment subject's level of risk or risk response. , Acceptability etc.) can be easily determined.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 22-24, the labor management evaluation system which concerns on Example 7 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10F of the seventh embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 relates to the degree of HR tech support for the labor management of the evaluation subject, and the organization (evaluator, etc.) supports HR tech that is set in advance. This is intended to assist in determining the degree of HR tech support of the evaluation subject based on each evaluation point given by the evaluator for each question item.

The table | surface of FIGS. 22-24 shows the several question item according to C-A rank regarding the grade corresponding to HR tech. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) can use this matrix table to gradually and accurately determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of evaluation subjects for each evaluation item related to the degree of HR tech support. Can be determined.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 25 to 27, a labor management evaluation system according to Example 8 of the present invention will be described.
The labor management evaluation system 10G of Example 8 as shown in FIG. 1 relates to the degree of competence of the evaluation subject, and the organization (evaluator etc.) maintains the high performance set in advance and the degree of normal use. This is to assist in determining the level of competency skill of the evaluation subject based on each evaluation point given by the evaluator.

The table | surface of FIGS. 25-27 shows the several question item according to C-A rank regarding the grade of competency display. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) use this matrix table to determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of evaluation subjects for each evaluation item related to the level of competency in a stepwise and accurate manner. can do.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 28-30, the labor management evaluation system according to Embodiment 9 of the present invention will be described.
The labor management evaluation system 10H of the ninth embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 is related to the agency of a company (organization) that employs job seekers (evaluation subjects), and is adapted to a preset company. Based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator (including the evaluation target person himself / herself) for each question regarding the feasibility and necessary skills, whether or not the evaluation target person's suitability or inappropriateness to the company was adopted This is to support this when the agency company (the agency organization) makes a decision.

The table | surface of FIGS. 28-30 shows the several question item according to the C-A rank regarding the acceptance / rejection of the job applicant. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, the agent (agent organization) uses this matrix table to step-wise and accurately determine the proficiency level, comprehension level, or achievement level of the evaluation target for each evaluation item related to the acceptance or rejection of job applicants. Can be determined. Even if a company (organization) does not perform acceptance / rejection work, it is possible to employ human resources that are suitable for the company and have the necessary capabilities.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 31-33, the labor management evaluation system according to Example 10 of the present invention will be described.
The labor management evaluation system 10I of the tenth embodiment as shown in FIG. 1 relates to an organization aptitude test for a job applicant, and an organization (evaluator, etc.) performs an organization aptitude test for a predetermined organization. For each question, the assessment subject himself / herself evaluates each of the assessment points to determine whether the assessment subject is appropriate or inappropriate for the company after employment. is there. In addition to the case where an applicant who wishes to find a job self-inspects the suitability of the organization for which he / she wants to find a job, the organization (evaluator, etc.) This is supported by examining whether is suitable for the organization.

The tables of FIGS. 31 to 33 show a plurality of questions according to ranks C to A regarding the organization aptitude test of job applicants. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Here, each evaluation score self-evaluated by the evaluation subject is assumed to be the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) uses this matrix table to determine the proficiency level, comprehension level, or achievement level of the assessment subject for each evaluation item related to the organizational human aptitude test for the organization in a step-by-step manner. It can be determined accurately.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 34-36, the evaluation system for labor management which concerns on Example 11 of this invention is demonstrated.
The labor management evaluation system 10J according to the eleventh embodiment shown in FIG. 1 relates to employee education for evaluation subjects belonging to an organization and training education for recruitment candidates of an organization. Based on each evaluation point evaluated by the evaluator, the organization (evaluator, etc.) determines the proficiency level, understanding level, or achievement level of the evaluation target person for the evaluation items for employee education and training education. When it comes to helping this.

The tables shown in FIGS. 34 to 36 show a plurality of questions according to ranks C to A regarding employee education and training education. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, organizations (evaluators, etc.) can use this matrix table to step-wise and accurately determine the level of proficiency, comprehension, or achievement of evaluation subjects for each evaluation item related to employee education and training education. Can be determined.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 1 and FIGS. 37 to 39, a labor management evaluation system according to Example 12 of the present invention will be described.
The labor management evaluation system 10K according to the twelfth embodiment shown in FIG. 1 is a target management skill of an evaluation target person belonging to an organization, or a target management of an employment candidate who is an evaluation target person who belongs to the organization. This is related to the degree of prediction. Based on the evaluation points evaluated by the evaluator against the preset questions in the target management, the organization (evaluator, etc.) Skill) and target management prediction (target management possibility) are to support this.

The tables of FIGS. 37 to 39 show a plurality of questions according to ranks C to A regarding target management. These questions are reflected in the matrix tables of FIGS. Note that each evaluation point of the evaluator here is the same as in the case of Example 1, for example. Of course it may be different.
As a result, the organization (evaluator, etc.) uses this matrix table to evaluate the target management skills (skills of target management practice) of the evaluation subjects belonging to the organization, or the evaluation subjects who intend to belong to the organization. It is possible to determine the proficiency level, comprehension level, or achievement level of the evaluation target person for each evaluation item related to the degree of the target management prediction (target management possibility) of the hiring candidate Since the configuration, operation, and effect are in a range that can be estimated from the first embodiment, the description thereof is omitted.

Next, with reference to FIG. 40, a labor management evaluation system according to Example 13 of the present invention will be described.
The labor management evaluation system 10L of the thirteenth embodiment shown in FIG. 1 has basic skill characteristics depending on the operational status of each organization (company) and the difference in industry (meaning, key points, usefulness, necessary skills). This is an example in which a ranking is also set for the evaluation item (question item) to which it belongs.
Hereinafter, the table of FIG. 40 will be specifically described. In the table, is there a c-ranking question “Fair attitude”? "Evaluation reference point is 5P, b-rank question" Is there a sincere consistent attitude "? "Evaluation reference point is 4P, a-rank question" Is there self-responsibility clarification "? As for the evaluation reference point of “3P”, there is a rank order in the horizontal direction (X-axis direction) from easy to difficult, such as 3P.
Here, the evaluator's c-rank evaluation point 5P, the b-rank evaluation point 4P, and the a-rank evaluation point 1P
Thus, the evaluation score order determination unit 14 determines that the interval between the b rank and the a rank is contrary to the order. Based on this, the boundary etc. determination part 15 determines between b rank and a rank as a boundary of a proficiency degree, comprehension degree, or achievement level of an evaluation object person. As a result, it is recognized that the person to be evaluated has mastered, understood or achieved only the b rank with respect to the content of the evaluation item (question item). Although the basic skill characteristics have been described here, the practical skill characteristics, the administrative skill characteristics, and the like may be used similarly.
Other configurations, operations, and effects are in a range that can be inferred from the first embodiment, and thus description thereof is omitted.

  INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY The present invention is useful as a technique for an evaluator including himself or herself who is an evaluator to evaluate an item related to predetermined labor for an evaluator who belongs to or intends to belong to an organization.

10, 10A to 10L Labor Management Evaluation System 13 Storage Unit 14 Evaluation Value Point Order Determination Unit 15 Boundary etc. Determination Unit 16 Rank-Based Item Evaluation Value Calculation Unit 17 Item-Specific Evaluation Value Calculation Unit 18 Skill Characteristic Evaluation Value Acquisition Unit 19 Abnormal Point Extraction unit 20 Evaluation point visual display unit 21 Skill characteristic change unit 22 Comprehensive job performance value calculation unit 23 Matrix display unit 24 Display 25 Printer

Claims (18)

An evaluation system for labor management that is used when an evaluator who belongs to or intends to belong to an organization evaluates or evaluates the labor of the organization by an evaluator including the evaluator. ,
One or a plurality of evaluation items having a plurality of questionnaire items to the evaluation subject related to labor of the organization and subdivided by rank according to a predetermined order, and a corresponding questionnaire item, respectively A storage unit that stores a plurality of evaluation points that are stored and acquired by the evaluation subject for each of the questions, and the preset order;
When a plurality of questions belonging to the evaluation items are arranged in a predetermined rank order, it is determined whether or not the evaluation points corresponding to these question items are arranged in an order according to the rank. An evaluation point order determination unit to perform ,
The rank of the questionnaire that has been evaluated to deviate from the rank rank of each of the questions, or the evaluation score, the boundary of the proficiency, understanding or achievement of the evaluation subject, An evaluation system for labor management, comprising a determination unit for determining a boundary and the like. In the labor management evaluation system, when the evaluator evaluates the evaluation subject, a matrix table in which a plurality of the evaluation items are arranged in the X and Y axis directions is used.
Each of the evaluation items in one of the X and Y axis directions is a plurality of evaluation items related to the labor of the organization, and each of the evaluation items arranged in the remaining direction in the X and Y axis directions is the organization Each of the corresponding question items is assigned to a plurality of squares in which the evaluation items and the skill characteristics intersect with each other in the matrix table. And
2. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation items stored in the storage unit are the evaluation items and the skill characteristics. In each of the evaluation points, the storage unit stores an abnormality determination value serving as a determination criterion for an inappropriate abnormality point determined in advance.
When the evaluation points between adjacent ranks of each question are compared with each other, the evaluation point which is more than the abnormality determination value and deviates from the rank in the positive direction or the negative direction is extracted as the abnormal point. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising an abnormal point extraction unit. In the storage unit, when comparing a plurality of evaluation reference points set in advance according to the rank of each question item, and the evaluation points corresponding to these evaluation reference points for each question item, Each evaluation tolerance that is a set tolerance is stored,
The boundary etc. determination unit deviates from the rank when exceeding each evaluation score corresponding to each question item and each evaluation reference point of the corresponding rank, and exceeds the allowable evaluation value. It is characterized in that the rank of the questionnaire items that have been evaluated or the evaluation score is determined as a boundary of proficiency, comprehension or achievement level of the evaluation subject, or an abnormal rank or abnormal point. The evaluation system for labor management according to any one of claims 1 to 3.   5. The boundary determination unit is capable of determining a plurality of boundaries of proficiency, comprehension or achievement, or abnormal ranks or abnormal points of the evaluation subject. The evaluation system for labor management given in any 1 paragraph among them. A display or printer,
The evaluation score visual display section for displaying each evaluation score for the questionnaire by rank as a graph or a graphic on the paper using the printer or the printer. Item 6. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of Items 5.   For each skill characteristic by rank, the rank of each skill characteristic is rearranged or a new skill characteristic is added according to the purpose, gist, usefulness, and importance of labor management of the organization. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 2, further comprising a skill characteristic changing unit. In the matrix table, a plurality of skill characteristic evaluation values indicating evaluations according to skill characteristics corresponding to the evaluation target person are arranged,
Based on an average value of all the skill characteristic evaluation values or an adjustment value that is an average of all skill characteristic evaluation values obtained by removing an abnormal value exceeding a preset skill characteristic abnormality determination value. The labor management evaluation system according to claim 2, further comprising a comprehensive job execution capability value calculation unit that calculates an overall job execution capability value that serves as an index of the overall job execution capability. Each of the questions is related to the evaluation result of the person to be evaluated for the organization or to the contribution schedule and job performance attitude,
In the labor management evaluation system, the evaluator determines whether or not the organization has given the evaluation target person or is appropriate for the treatment based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. 9. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used at a time. Each of the questions is for determining the suitability of the job type of the evaluation subject in the organization,
The evaluation system for labor management is used when the evaluator determines suitability of a job type of the evaluation subject based on each evaluation point corresponding to each question item. The evaluation system for labor management according to any one of claims 1 to 8. Each question is for determining the suitability of the position of the evaluation subject in the organization,
The evaluation system for labor management is used when the evaluator determines suitability of the position of the evaluation target person based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. The evaluation system for labor management according to any one of claims 1 to 8. Each question is for determining the degree of risk of the evaluation target person in the organization or the degree of risk handling,
The labor management evaluation system is used when the evaluator determines the degree of risk of the evaluation target person in the organization or the degree of risk handling based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used. Each of the questions is for determining the degree of advancement and enhancement of human resources of the evaluation subject for the organization,
The evaluation system for labor management is used when the evaluator determines the degree of HR tech handling related to labor management based on each evaluation point corresponding to each question item. The evaluation system for labor management according to any one of claims 1 to 8. Each of the questions is for determining the degree of maintenance and regular use of the excellent behavioral characteristics of the evaluation subject for the organization,
The evaluation system for labor management is used when the evaluator determines the degree of competency based on each evaluation point corresponding to each question item. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of 8. Each of the questions is for determining the suitability of the evaluation target person who intends to belong to the organization and the presence or absence of necessary skills,
The labor management evaluation system is used when a proxy organization acting on behalf of the decision to accept or reject the organization determines whether or not the organization is appropriate based on the evaluation points self-evaluated by the evaluation subject. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the evaluation system is for labor management. Each of the questions is for examining the suitability of the organization of an evaluation subject who intends to belong to the organization.
The evaluation system for labor management is used when the organization inspects suitability for the organization based on the evaluation points self-evaluated by the evaluation subject. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of 8. Each of the questions relates to employee education of evaluation subjects belonging to the organization, or training education of recruitment candidates as evaluation subjects who want to belong to the organization,
In the labor management evaluation system, the evaluator determines an understanding level, proficiency level, or achievement level of the employee education or the training education of the evaluation target person based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used when the management system is used. Each of the questions is related to the target management skill of the evaluation target person belonging to the organization, or the degree of target management prediction of the recruitment candidate who is the evaluation target person who wants to belong to the organization.
The labor management evaluation system is used when the evaluator determines the target management practice skill of the evaluation target person or the degree of target management possibility based on the evaluation points corresponding to the questions. The labor management evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the labor management evaluation system is used.

Images