KR20090012944A - Multidimensional evaluation method and system considering evaluation capability information - Google Patents

Abstract

A multi-rater method and system considering evaluation ability information is provided to consider the evaluation ability information of an evaluator in a process of performing multi-rater, thereby performing equitable and efficient multi-rater. A question-response information acquisition unit(621) obtains the question-response information of an evaluator from a question information database(631). A participant information acquisition unit(622) obtains the evaluation ability information of the evaluator from a participant information database(632). A question survey score computation unit(623) calculates a question survey score based on participant information and question-response information. An office ability score updating unit(624) reflects the question survey score, which the question survey score computation unit draws, to the office ability score of an evaluated person. A promote condition determination unit(625) compares an office ability score required in each level and an office ability score updated after multi-rater performance and determines whether the evaluated person satisfies promotion conditions. A multi-rater server(620) updates the evaluation ability information of the evaluator.

Description

Multidimensional evaluation method and system considering evaluation capability information

The present invention relates to a multifaceted evaluation method and system in consideration of evaluation capability information.

In evaluating members of an organization, a top-down evaluation method has traditionally been used by supervisors to evaluate the performance and capacity of subordinates. However, in the top-down evaluation method, it is difficult to secure objectivity because the evaluation score may vary depending on the subjectivity and bias of the boss. As a supplement to this, the multifaceted evaluation method was introduced to extend the subject of evaluation to peers and customers, as well as to the evaluation by the evaluator's superior. The multifaceted evaluation method is sometimes called the 360 degree evaluation method. The faceting method complements the problem of top-down evaluation but is not perfect. In the multi-faceted evaluation method, the evaluator's evaluation score could be calculated by simply summing or arithmetical averaging of evaluation scores from various evaluation subjects. This method of calculating scores often leads to incorrect conclusions. For example, it is not correct to conclude that an evaluator has an average performance or competency when the evaluation scores for the same evaluator differ greatly depending on the evaluator.

In the present invention, the evaluation of the evaluation capability information of the evaluator is performed in the process of performing the multi-faceted evaluation, so that the fair and efficient multi-sided evaluation can be made.

According to an aspect of the present invention, a multi-faceted evaluation method performed by a multi-faceted evaluation server, the method comprising: obtaining questionnaire response information of the evaluator for the evaluation question; Obtaining evaluation capability information of the evaluator; And calculating a survey score for the evaluation question in consideration of the evaluation capability information.

The step of calculating the evaluation score may be characterized by further considering the evaluation direction information of the evaluation questionnaire.

The method may further include updating the evaluation capability information of the evaluator in consideration of a survey score.

The updating of the evaluation capability information may include: updating a job competency score for an evaluation item including the evaluation question in consideration of the survey score; And updating the evaluation capability information on the evaluation item in consideration of the job competency score.

According to another aspect of the present invention, a system for performing a multi-faceted evaluation based on the questionnaire response information of the evaluator for the evaluation question, comprising: a questionnaire response information acquisition unit for obtaining the questionnaire response information from the questionnaire information database; A participant information obtaining unit obtaining participant information of the evaluator from the participant information database; A survey score calculation unit for calculating a survey score for the evaluation question in consideration of the survey response information and the participant information; And a job competency score update unit for updating an evaluator's job competency score for an evaluation item including an evaluation question in consideration of a survey score.

The participant information used in the multi-faceted evaluation system includes the evaluator's job competency score, and the survey score calculator can calculate the survey score by considering the evaluation competency information corresponding to the evaluator's job competency score as a weight.

In addition, the multi-faceted evaluation system may further include a promotion condition determination unit that determines whether the promotion condition is satisfied in consideration of job competency score.

On the other hand, the multi-faceted evaluation system includes an evaluation propensity information calculation unit for calculating the evaluation propensity information of the evaluator based on the questionnaire response information of the evaluator; And an abnormal evaluation tendency detecting unit for detecting an abnormal evaluation tendency according to a predetermined criterion based on the evaluation tendency information.

The evaluation item refers to the character, disposition, and task field of the evaluator examined for evaluating the evaluator. For example, communication items, leadership, and sincerity, which can be used as aspects for evaluating employees of a company, may be evaluation items.

The evaluation questionnaire refers to a question given to the evaluator in order to identify the evaluation items. For example, in order to identify 'integrity', questions about the evaluator's compliance with the commute time and the frequency of unauthorized absence may be presented to the evaluator as an evaluation questionnaire.

Evaluation capacity information is a value used as a criterion for how reliable the evaluator is in the response information. The evaluation capability information may include information on an evaluation capability weight reflected in calculating a survey score.

The evaluation tendency information is information indicating the bias of the questionnaire response information displayed by the evaluator in response to the evaluation questionnaire.

Other aspects, features, and advantages other than those described above will become apparent from the following drawings, claims, and detailed description of the invention.

According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the accuracy of the multi-faceted evaluation can be improved by considering the opinion of the evaluator who has excellent evaluation capability with respect to the corresponding evaluation item in the multi-faceted evaluation. In addition, by updating the evaluator's evaluation capability information in consideration of the survey score, it is possible to automatically determine who will have a relatively large influence on the evaluation item. In addition, by evaluating evaluator and evaluating propensity of evaluator's group, evaluator who performs biased or distorted evaluation can be detected, and evaluating evaluating questionnaire with unusual questionnaire response information secures an opportunity to examine error of evaluating questionnaire. can do.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the multi-faceted evaluation method and system according to the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. However, this is not intended to limit the present invention to specific embodiments, it should be understood to include all transformations, equivalents, and substitutes included in the spirit and scope of the present invention. In the following description of the present invention, if it is determined that the detailed description of the related known technology may obscure the gist of the present invention, the detailed description thereof will be omitted. In addition, in the description with reference to the accompanying drawings, the same or corresponding components will be given the same reference numerals and redundant description thereof will be omitted.

1 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation item and an evaluation questionnaire according to an embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 1, an evaluation item 100 and an evaluation question 200 belonging thereto are illustrated.

As the evaluation item 100 for evaluating the evaluator, 'mind', 'leadership' and 'planning' were exemplified. Each evaluation item 100 is assigned an evaluation item ID (S1), 'S2' and 'S3'.

As shown in FIG. 1, each evaluation item 100 includes one or more evaluation questions 200. In addition, the same evaluation questionnaire 200 may be associated with one or more evaluation items 100.

For example, evaluation questionnaires (evaluation question IDs S2Q4, S3Q4) containing 'propulsion power' belong to both leadership (evaluation item ID S2) and job competency (evaluation item ID S3) among the evaluation items 100.

The evaluation item 100 is determined in consideration of the questionnaire response information of the evaluator for the evaluation question 200. The evaluation question 200 belonging to the evaluation item 100 may have the same phase, but in some cases, one evaluation question may be considered more important than another evaluation question.

For example, the product conceptualization (evaluation question ID S3Q5) may be considered more important than the driving force (evaluation question ID S3Q4) among the evaluation questions of the evaluation item (evaluation item ID S3) including 'planning'.

2 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation questionnaire and questionnaire response information thereof according to an embodiment of the present invention. The evaluator presents a survey response corresponding to his or her opinion on the evaluation questionnaire.

As illustrated in FIG. 2, the evaluator may assign a score between 1 and 5 to the evaluation question 'information collection analysis' according to each evaluation opinion. In addition, if it is not appropriate to assign a score, a decision may be made to reserve the evaluation. Scores given by the evaluator are included in the evaluator's questionnaire response information.

On the other hand, different kinds of responses may be required depending on the type of evaluation questionnaire. If the evaluation question requires only an answer as to whether the evaluator satisfies certain requirements, an indication of the satisfaction of satisfaction may be included in the questionnaire response information.

As an answer to the evaluation questionnaire, evaluation scores and intentions given by the evaluator may be included in the questionnaire response information for the evaluation questionnaire and used as a basis for calculating the survey score.

3 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation direction weight for each evaluation item according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Evaluation direction information refers to the relationship between the evaluator and the evaluator. For example, when face-to-face evaluation is carried out in a company, the evaluation direction can be divided into upward, horizontal and downward according to the difference in rank between the two.

Depending on the evaluation direction, the weight of the evaluation direction reflected in the survey score calculation process may vary. For example, when the position of the evaluator is the group leader and the position of the evaluator is the executive for the evaluation item S1, the evaluation direction is upward and the evaluation direction weight is 0.5. If the position of the evaluator is the team leader, the evaluation direction weight is one.

In addition, as shown in FIG. 3, the evaluation direction weights may be distributed differently according to the characteristics of the evaluation item.

Meanwhile, in FIG. 3, the same job weighting value is applied to the same evaluation item, but the job weighting value may be set differently for each evaluation question belonging to the evaluation item.

4 is a diagram illustrating job competency scores and evaluation capability weights according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Occupational competency scores are scores that indicate how good or how competent a participant is in a multifaceted assessment. In addition, job competency scores can be a criterion for determining whether or not an organization can be promoted to each position.

In this embodiment, the job competency score is set to the initial job competency score according to the job title of the multi-faceted evaluation participant, but is not limited to a multi-faceted evaluation participant having the same job title necessarily having the same job competency score.

In addition, job competency scores for each position illustrated in FIG. 4 are also job competency scores required for promotion to each position. In other words, Group B needs to earn 25 additional job competency scores to be promoted to executive.

Job competency score can be changed to correspond to the survey score calculated based on the survey response information of the evaluator for the multi-faceted evaluation, a detailed description thereof can be understood with reference to the detailed description of FIG.

The evaluation capability weight is a weight used in the process of calculating the evaluator's job competency score based on the evaluator's questionnaire response information, and indicates how important the evaluator's questionnaire response information is to be treated.

Since an evaluator who has a good job competency score in a particular evaluation item is expected to perform the evaluation on the evaluation item accurately, the evaluation capacity weight may be set to a value corresponding to the job competency score of the evaluator.

Setting to a corresponding value is not only set proportionally or inversely to that value. Meaning that it is set to the same value, and the proportional and inverse relationship is not limited to the linear one.

In this embodiment, the evaluation capability weight was calculated to be 10 times the job competency score for convenience of calculation.

5 is a diagram illustrating a survey score calculation process according to an embodiment of the present invention. Evaluation items, questionnaire response information, evaluation direction weights and evaluation capability weights illustrated in FIG. 5 may be understood with reference to FIGS. 1 to 4.

In FIG. 5, a survey score calculation process for evaluation item S1 is illustrated for subject D. FIG.

As shown in FIG. 1, evaluation item S1 includes three evaluation questions. For each evaluation questionnaire, a score between 1 and 5 may be given by the evaluator as shown in FIG. 2.

In the present embodiment, each evaluation questionnaire in evaluation item S1 has an equal importance. Therefore, the process of calculating the evaluation direction weight consideration score from the questionnaire response information may be performed by multiplying the evaluation direction weight by an average of scores assigned to each evaluation questionnaire S1Q1, S1Q2, and S1Q3.

In the case of evaluator C, the total of the points given in the questionnaire response is 6, so the average is 2. By multiplying the evaluation direction weight by 1, the evaluation direction weight consideration score 2 is obtained.

In relation to the evaluation direction weight, the evaluation direction weight illustrated in FIG. 3 was applied. Evaluation item is S1, and rank of evaluator C is higher than rank of evaluator D. Therefore, the evaluation direction weight of 1 when the evaluation direction is downward among the evaluation direction weights of the evaluator C was applied.

The evaluation capacity weight consideration score is calculated by multiplying the evaluation direction weight consideration score by the evaluator's evaluation capability weight. In the case of evaluator C, since the evaluation direction weight consideration score is 2.0 and the evaluation capability weight is 200, the evaluation capability weight consideration score is 400.

The sum of the evaluation capacity weighting considerations calculated in this way is 3600 for the five evaluators. The maximum score that each evaluator can give is 6250. Therefore, the score obtained by the evaluator against the perfect score is 0.576. As a result, the survey score for assessment item S1 for subject D was 0.576.

In addition, FIG. 5 illustrates an update amount of job competency score corresponding to the survey score calculated as mentioned above. As mentioned above, correspondence is not necessarily limited to linear proportionality.

In this example, the survey score of 0.576 improves the job competency score of subject D by 1.152. In other words, twice the survey score is reflected in job competency score. This improves the job competency score for assessor D, S1, from 10 to 11.152.

In addition, in the present embodiment, even if the normal evaluation score is received, job competency score can be improved by one point. This means that if a participant who is a member of a team has a regular evaluation score each time, he / she meets the 20 job competency scores required for promotion to the next level at the time of 10 multi-faceted evaluations.

However, it is possible to set the evaluation score of the average grade so that job competency score does not improve, and the survey score reflecting ratio may be different for each position.

As such, job competency scores for evaluation items can be used as a criterion for promotion, and the way and / or the reflecting ratio of the survey scores in job competency scores is appropriate to the characteristics and policies of the organization where the multifaceted evaluation is performed. Can be changed.

On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the subject D also participated in the multi-faceted evaluation as one of the evaluators. However, in some cases, the self-evaluation may be limited or the reflectance thereof may be reduced.

In this way, the job competency score is updated using the survey score of the multifaceted evaluation, and the updated job competency score affects the weight of the evaluation capability in the subsequent multifaceted evaluation.

By constructing such a recursive multi-faceted evaluation method, the weights considered in the multi-faceted evaluation are determined by the participants of the multi-faceted evaluation. This provides a basis for preventing a small number of biased evaluators from distorting the evaluation results.

6 is a block diagram of a multi-faceted evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention, Figure 7 is a flow chart of a multi-faceted evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 6, the multi-faceted evaluation server 620, questionnaire response information acquisition unit 621, participant information acquisition unit 622, survey score calculation unit 623, job competency score update unit 624, promotion condition The determination unit 625, the evaluation tendency information calculation unit 626, the abnormal evaluation tendency detection unit 627, the multi-faceted evaluation database 630, the questionnaire information database 631, and the participant information database 632 are illustrated.

Acquiring the questionnaire response information (S710) is a step in which the questionnaire response information acquisition unit 621 obtains the questionnaire response information of the evaluator from the questionnaire information database 631. The acquired survey response information is the basis of the survey score calculation. The survey response information may include an evaluation question ID, an evaluation score associated with each evaluator, and an evaluator.

The questionnaire information database 631 stores ID and content of the evaluation item, ID and content of the evaluation questionnaire, and information on a questionnaire response given by the evaluator in response to the evaluation questionnaire. As mentioned above, the form of the questionnaire response information may vary depending on the type of evaluation questionnaire. In addition, if there is an evaluation questionnaire that is more important in the evaluation process of the evaluation score within the evaluation item, information about it may be stored.

In this embodiment, the multi-faceted evaluation server 620 and the multi-faceted evaluation database 630 may be maintained independently and connected to a network, but may be integrated and operated in one server or the like.

Acquiring the evaluation capability information of the evaluator (S720), the participant information obtaining unit 622 obtains the evaluation capability information of the evaluator from the participant information database 632. Evaluation capacity information may mean information on the evaluation capacity weight that can be applied to each evaluation item or evaluation questionnaire.

However, since the evaluation capability weight may be set to correspond to the evaluator's job competency score, the evaluation capability weight may not be stored as a separate record. In this case, job competency scores and their corresponding relationships are stored and evaluation capability information is obtained through this.

Participants in the multifaceted evaluation include the evaluator and the evaluator. The participant information database 632 may store information such as the evaluator's evaluation ability and rank, and may store job competency scores for each evaluation item as evaluation result information for the evaluator.

Evaluation capability information includes criteria that indicate how reliable the evaluator is in response information. That is, the survey response information of the evaluator may be reflected in the survey score calculation corresponding to the evaluation capability information.

In this way, by considering the opinions of the trusted evaluators more importantly, as in the conventional downward evaluation, it is possible to prevent only the opinions of a small number of managers with high ranks being importantly reflected. Of course, in the initial value of the evaluation capacity, a higher evaluation capacity weight may be given to a person with a higher rank, but the evaluation capacity weight may be updated as multiple evaluations are performed several times.

In operation S730, the survey score calculation unit 623 calculates the survey score based on the participant information and the survey response information in consideration of the evaluation capability information.

A survey score calculation process according to an embodiment of the present invention has been described with reference to FIG. 5, and a similar calculation process may be used in this embodiment.

Meanwhile, the evaluation tendency information of the evaluator may be further considered in calculating the evaluation result. Evaluation tendency information refers to the bias or tendency shown by the evaluator in the multifaceted evaluation process.

For example, the evaluation tendency may appear depending on the departmental work within the company. Employees in the sales departments of the company require higher momentum than those in other departments. Correspondingly, if employees in the sales department perform multiple assessments, they may tend to give lower evaluation scores to the assessment questionnaire about the momentum.

In addition, this evaluation tendency needs to be analyzed in relation to the evaluator group. For example, when departments in a company are evaluator groups, a situation may arise in which an evaluator who belongs to a friendly group intentionally raises a score. Since the biased scores impede the fair performance of the multi-faceted evaluation, it is possible to adjust the evaluation score to reflect the evaluation tendency.

In step S740, the job competency score updating unit 624 updates the questionnaire score derived by the survey calculation unit 623 as the job competency score of the evaluator in consideration of the survey score. Step.

Job competency scores may be updated to correspond to the survey scores for the assessment items. The corresponding renewal is not only in proportion to or inversely proportional to the survey score. It includes the same case. This may be understood with reference to the bar described in FIG. 5.

In this embodiment, the updated job competency score may be delivered to and stored in the participant information database 632.

On the other hand, the promotion condition determination unit 625 compares the job competency score required by each position with the job competency score updated after the multi-faceted evaluation to determine whether the evaluator satisfies the promotion condition. The promotion condition determination unit 625 may store whether the promotion condition is satisfied in the participant information database 632, and may include a function of notifying the personnel decision maker.

On the other hand, if the job competency score is adjusted downward according to the survey score, it is also possible to determine whether the predetermined fall condition.

The updating of the evaluation capability information of the evaluator (S750) is a step of the multi-faceted evaluation server 620 updating the evaluation capability information of the evaluator.

In one embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation capability information is represented as an evaluation capability weight, which is a value set corresponding to the job competency score of the evaluator. As a result, the evaluation scores given by the evaluators with excellent competence in certain evaluation items were reflected relatively.

Another criterion for updating assessment capacity information may be used. Although the competency does not have excellent competence, the criteria for updating the competency information may be used to reflect the opinions of evaluators who perform fair or accurate evaluations.

For example, if the score given by the evaluator in response to the evaluating questionnaire has a form of a standard distribution, the evaluator's response that gives the score farther from the center value of the standard distribution is judged to be less reliable, Evaluation capacity information can be updated.

Evaluation reliability can be calculated as a measure of how reliable the evaluator's evaluation score assignment can be. For example, the evaluation reliability may be calculated using an average and a variance of scores given for the evaluation questionnaire.

및 평가자 B의 평가신뢰도

는 다음 수식에 의하여 계산될 수 있다.Variance of Evaluation Score for Evaluation Question k

And assessment confidence of evaluator B

Can be calculated by the following equation.

: 평가설문 k에 대한 평가점수 평균,

: 평가설문 k에 대한 평가자 B의 평가점수,

: 평가자 수)(

: Mean score for the questionnaire k,

: Evaluator B's score for rating questionna

: Number of evaluators)

As the evaluation reliability value calculated by the above is smaller, the appraisal score of evaluator B is closer to the average appraisal appraisal score, so the appraisal capability of evaluator B can be updated in a positive direction.

Meanwhile, the multi-faceted evaluation server may further include an evaluation tendency information calculator 626 and an abnormal evaluation tendency detector 627.

Evaluation tendency information calculation unit 626 calculates evaluation tendency information on the evaluator, the evaluator, and the evaluation questionnaire. The abnormal evaluation tendency detecting unit 627 detects an evaluator, an evaluator, and an evaluation questionnaire having an unusual tendency based on the evaluation tendency information.

In addition to evaluating propensity information of evaluators and individuals, evaluating propensity information of multi-participant groups including multiple evaluators and evaluators can be calculated. It may include.

를 이용하면 평가설문 자체의 이상 여부를 감지할 수 있다. 다른 평가설문에 비하여 이 분산 값이 특이하게 큰 경우에는 평가설문 자체가 평가에 적합하지 않을 가능성이 있으므로 검토가 요구된다. 일 예로, 특정 평가설문에 대한 평가점수의 분산이 지나치게 큰 경우, 이는 평가설문 자체의 모호함을 의미할 수 있다. 특정 평가자의 평가점수 부여의 평균이 지나치게 높은 경우 그 평가자는 공정한 평가를 수행하지 않는 것으로 판단될 수 있다.Variance of Evaluation Score for Evaluation Question k

Use to detect abnormality of the evaluation question itself. If this variance is unusually large compared to other evaluation questions, the evaluation question itself may not be suitable for evaluation, so a review is required. For example, if the variance of the evaluation score for a particular evaluation questionnaire is too large, this may mean that the evaluation question itself is ambiguity. If the average of the appraisal scores of a particular evaluator is too high, the evaluator may be judged not to perform a fair evaluation.

In addition, even if the evaluation scores themselves are not very large in variance, when the opinions of a particular subject are sharply opposed to `` very good '' and `` very inferior '', the variance of the evaluation scores for a particular subject is large. It will have a value. Such cases can be detected to provide an opportunity for further investigation.

On the other hand, it is possible to grasp the evaluation propensity by the group to which the multi-faceted evaluation participant belongs, not the evaluator and the individual subject. If faceted evaluation is carried out in the company, participants in the faceted evaluation can be grouped according to their department.

The evaluation tendency information of the evaluator group may be grasped by adding the variance of the evaluation scores assigned by the evaluator belonging to the specific evaluator or the evaluator group.

By analyzing the evaluation propensity information calculated as above, it is possible to detect the behavior such as giving high grade to only the members of the group and to perform the fair multi-sided evaluation.

As such, when a predetermined criterion is satisfied, an evaluation questionnaire or an evaluator showing an abnormal evaluation tendency may be excluded from subsequent multiple evaluation, or the influence thereof may be reduced to remove bias or ambiguity included in the multiple evaluation.

Meanwhile, in FIG. 6, the multi-faceted evaluation server 620 and the multi-faceted evaluation database 630 may be separately installed and operated, and may be connected to a network, but may be integrated and operated in one system.

In addition, the components shown in FIG. 6 do not necessarily have a hardware configuration, and some components may be implemented in the form of an application program that performs the same or similar functions. In addition, each component may be combined or separated within the scope of the invention.

8 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation direction weight according to an embodiment of the present invention. Referring to FIG. 8, the evaluation direction weights given by rank differences between the evaluator and the evaluator are illustrated.

The position weights illustrated in FIG. 1 were given only by considering whether the positions of the evaluators and the evaluators were raised or lower, but the degree of difference in positions was not considered.

As shown in FIG. 8, evaluation direction weights may be assigned to correspond to differences in ranks. In this way, the opinions of the evaluators and those with small differences in position can be given more importance.

In addition, the components shown in FIG. 6 do not necessarily have a hardware configuration, and some components may be implemented in the form of an application program that performs the same or similar functions. In addition, each component may be combined or separated within the scope of the invention.

On the other hand, the multi-faceted evaluation method can be written in a computer program. Codes and code segments constituting the program can be easily inferred by a computer programmer in the art. In addition, the program is stored in a computer readable media, which is read and executed by a computer to implement the multifaceted evaluation method. The information storage medium includes a magnetic recording medium, an optical recording medium and a carrier wave medium.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular example embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the present invention. Singular expressions include plural expressions unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

In this application, the terms "comprise" or "having" are intended to indicate that there is a feature, number, step, operation, component, part, or combination thereof described in the specification, one or more other It is to be understood that the present invention does not exclude the possibility of the presence or the addition of features, numbers, steps, operations, components, parts, or a combination thereof.

Terms such as first and second may be used to describe various components, but the components should not be limited by the terms. The terms are used only for the purpose of distinguishing one component from another.

So far I looked at the center of the present invention with respect to the embodiment. Many embodiments other than the above-described embodiments are within the scope of the claims of the present invention. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention can be implemented in a modified form without departing from the essential features of the present invention. Therefore, the disclosed embodiments should be considered in descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation. The scope of the present invention is shown in the claims rather than the foregoing description, and all differences within the scope will be construed as being included in the present invention.

1 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation item and an evaluation questionnaire according to an embodiment of the present invention.

2 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation questionnaire and questionnaire response information thereof according to an embodiment of the present invention.

3 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation direction weight for each evaluation item according to an embodiment of the present invention.

4 is a diagram illustrating job competency scores and evaluation capability weights according to an embodiment of the present invention.

5 is a diagram illustrating a survey score calculation process according to an embodiment of the present invention.

6 is a block diagram of a multi-faceted evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention.

7 is a flowchart of a multi-faceted evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

8 is a diagram illustrating an evaluation direction weight according to an embodiment of the present invention.

<Explanation of symbols for the main parts of the drawings>

620: multi-faceted evaluation server 621: survey response information acquisition unit

622: participant information acquisition unit 623: survey score calculation unit

624: job competency score update unit 625: promotion condition determination unit

626: evaluation propensity information calculation unit 627: abnormal evaluation propensity detection unit

630: multiple assessment database 631: survey information database

632: Participant Information Database

Claims (9)

In the multiple evaluation method performed by the multiple evaluation server, Obtaining questionnaire response information of the evaluator about the evaluation questionnaire; Obtaining evaluation capability information of the evaluator; And And calculating a survey score for the evaluation question in consideration of the evaluation capability information. The method of claim 1, The step of calculating the survey score, multi-faceted evaluation method, characterized in that further considering the evaluation direction information of the evaluation questionnaire. The method of claim 1, And updating the evaluation capability information of the evaluator in consideration of the survey score. The method of claim 3, The updating of the evaluation capability information may include: Updating the job competency score for the evaluation item including the evaluation question in consideration of the survey score; And And updating the evaluation capability information on the evaluation item in consideration of the job competency score. As a system for performing a multi-faceted evaluation based on the evaluator's questionnaire response information on the evaluation questionnaire, A survey response information acquisition unit for obtaining the survey response information from a survey information database; A participant information obtaining unit obtaining participant information of the evaluator from a participant information database; A survey score calculator for calculating a survey score for the evaluation question in consideration of the survey response information and the participant information; And And a job competency score updating unit for updating an evaluator's job competency score for the evaluation item including the evaluation question in consideration of the survey score. The method of claim 5, The participant information includes job competency score of the evaluator, The survey score calculator calculates the survey score by considering the evaluation capability information corresponding to the job competency score of the evaluator as a weight. The method of claim 5, And a promotion condition determination unit that determines whether the promotion condition is satisfied in consideration of the job competency score. The method of claim 5, An evaluation tendency information calculation unit configured to calculate evaluation tendency information of the evaluator based on the questionnaire response information of the evaluator; And And an abnormal evaluation tendency detecting unit for detecting an abnormal evaluation tendency according to a predetermined criterion based on the evaluation tendency information. A computer-readable recording medium for recording a program for executing the method of any one of claims 1 to 4 on a computer.

Images