US20160019555A1 - Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management - Google Patents
Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20160019555A1 US20160019555A1 US14/799,459 US201514799459A US2016019555A1 US 20160019555 A1 US20160019555 A1 US 20160019555A1 US 201514799459 A US201514799459 A US 201514799459A US 2016019555 A1 US2016019555 A1 US 2016019555A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- screening
- practices
- rating
- screening practices
- check
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/4401—Bootstrapping
- G06F9/4406—Loading of operating system
- G06F9/4408—Boot device selection
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/4401—Bootstrapping
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/4401—Bootstrapping
- G06F9/4416—Network booting; Remote initial program loading [RIPL]
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/455—Emulation; Interpretation; Software simulation, e.g. virtualisation or emulation of application or operating system execution engines
- G06F9/45533—Hypervisors; Virtual machine monitors
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/455—Emulation; Interpretation; Software simulation, e.g. virtualisation or emulation of application or operating system execution engines
- G06F9/45533—Hypervisors; Virtual machine monitors
- G06F9/45558—Hypervisor-specific management and integration aspects
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/46—Multiprogramming arrangements
- G06F9/50—Allocation of resources, e.g. of the central processing unit [CPU]
- G06F9/5061—Partitioning or combining of resources
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/018—Certifying business or products
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F9/00—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units
- G06F9/06—Arrangements for program control, e.g. control units using stored programs, i.e. using an internal store of processing equipment to receive or retain programs
- G06F9/44—Arrangements for executing specific programs
- G06F9/455—Emulation; Interpretation; Software simulation, e.g. virtualisation or emulation of application or operating system execution engines
- G06F9/45533—Hypervisors; Virtual machine monitors
- G06F9/45558—Hypervisor-specific management and integration aspects
- G06F2009/45575—Starting, stopping, suspending or resuming virtual machine instances
Definitions
- This application is directed toward an automated system for collecting information about employee screening practices and optionally, corporate management and making the information available to the public, and more particularly to an automated system for collecting information about employee screening practices and corporate management and generating uniform objective ratings and making the information and ratings available to the public.
- Positive attributes of a product include how well it performs its expected duties.
- the positive attributes of a service include how well the company or employee performs the expected services.
- the negative attributes of a product or service may include any harm or injury the consumers experience from products or services.
- An injury caused to the end consumer by a product could be a faulty braking system that causes a car to crash and injure the driver.
- An injury caused by a service could be physical abuse to an elderly client by a home healthcare worker. As indicated, the character of the employee has a large effect upon the products/services provided and the related harm done.
- rating systems which provide ratings (which may be scores) of how well products perform; however, they give little or no information on the negative attributes caused by employees producing the products.
- rating systems which rate services, but provide little information on the employees providing the services. If any such information is provided, it usually does not relate to the same parameters. Therefore, currently it is difficult to rate companies providing products or services based upon the same parameters.
- the current system may be embodied as a system for providing information regarding employee screening practices of industry entities (IEs) 3 having an IE storage 110 adapted to be remotely accessible and to store values of a plurality of parameters such as screening practices of IEs 3 . It also includes a parameter storage 130 having a list of screening practices along with their values, referred to as a “profile”, to be used to determine a rating (a score) for a selected industry, a weighting factor storage 160 adapted to store weighting factors that each correspond to a selected screening practice indicating their relative impact upon a rating, a controller 210 coupled to the IE storage 110 , the parameter storage 130 , and the weighting factor storage 160 .
- IEs industry entities
- the controller 210 is adapted to acquire the selected screening practices from the parameter storage 130 , acquire values of the selected screening practices from IE storage 110 , acquire corresponding weighting parameters from the weighting factor storage 160 , create a rating equation for the selected industry employing the selected screening practices and their corresponding weighting factors, and create a rating for at least one IE of the selected industry having values for the selected screening practices by applying the rating equation to the acquired values for each IE.
- the current system may also be embodied as a system for creating a rating of the employee screening practices of industry entities (IEs) 3 that has an IE storage 110 of having prestored screening practices that have values indicating a status of each screening practice, weighting factor storage 160 having prestored weighting factors for at least one of the screening practices, a controller 210 which creates a rating based upon the values of the screening practices and the weighting factors of each screening practice.
- IEs industry entities
- An automated system 100 is provided to allow the IEs 3 to enter values for the selected screening practices relating to it, and calculate ratings 380 from a combination of the values of the selected screening practices and their corresponding weighting factors.
- the method of current invention may also include the steps of identifying the executive management of an IE from at least one of a) information entered by the IEs, b) a corporate database, and c) a corporate information service. Then choosing a target manager to analyze from the executive management found, and obtaining at least one of a) criminal background information, b) civil background information, and c) past corporate performance for the target manager. The obtained information is adjusted for at least one of the a) severity of a criminal offense, b) age of the information obtained, and c) corporate size. A rating based upon the adjusted information may optionally be created. The information obtained, and optionally the ratings are made available to a predetermined group. Further, the past corporate performance of a target manager may be adjusted by the target manager's level in the company. The rating may also be based upon the ratings of a plurality of target managers.
- FIG. 1 shows a system diagram of an automated system according to one embodiment of the current invention.
- FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating the steps of a method of rating the employee screening practices of industry entities (IEs).
- IEs industry entities
- FIG. 3 is a more detailed breakdown of the step of FIG. 2 of selecting screening practices for a selected industry.
- FIG. 4 is a more detailed breakdown of the step of FIG. 2 of determining a relative weighting factor for each selected screening practice.
- FIG. 5 is a more detailed breakdown of the step of FIG. 2 of adding/modifying values for a selected screening practice of FIG. 2 .
- FIG. 6 shows a system diagram of an automated system according to another embodiment of the current invention.
- a product produced by an employee that accurately follows the rules and training, and is conscientious about his/her work produces a product that is more likely to perform its expected function than one produced by an employee that does not follow the rules and training and is not conscientious about his/her work.
- HHCs home healthcare companies
- a more detailed description of the HHCs will provide specific examples of how the uses and advantages of the current invention are applied to the HHC industry. Even though the current invention will be described in detail here for the HHC industry, please note that the principles described here apply equally to many other industries and may easily be translated to these industries. The spirit of the current invention is asserted to cover not only the HHC industry, but also numerous other industries which screen employees before employment.
- HHCs provide people to assist these older individuals in their homes. These HHCs employ and train employees (HHC Assistants) to provide care for older individuals. The HHCs then place these HHC Assistants in the homes of the elder persons (consumers).
- HHCs tend to advertise their strongest features. They also tend to refrain from advertising any aspects of the HHC that would be considered negative. Therefore it is difficult to compare HHCs in a uniform manner.
- HHCs must be licensed by state licensing departments in order to operate. Therefore, a decision maker may feel that since the HHCs are licensed, they all would provide the same standard of care and protections for the elder person.
- high quality is defined as efficiently providing services in a timely manner that meet or exceed the expectations of proper service of the consumer (elder person in the HHC, for example) with no negative aspects, such as crimes being committed, defrauding of the consumer, or less than respectful attitudes and treatment.
- HHCs Due to the rapid increase in the population of older individuals in the U.S., some HHCs have had a hard time keeping up with demand. In doing so, some have cut corners on their screening of potential employees, the employment verification, background checks, training, oversight, and other tasks performed by the eldercare companies. These have caused problems with the services provided by these HHCs. Due to the less rigorous employee screening practices, HHC employees hired exhibit repeated behavior of being unresponsive, lacking required skills, or not being as diligent as they should be.
- the HHC Assistants are placed in the elder person's home and are generally unsupervised when performing services for the elder person.
- the HHC Assistants spend many hours in an elder person's home. After working with the same elder person for a while, the HHC Assistant develops intimate knowledge of the person's home, routine, finances, and other personal information. They are usually alone with the elder person and unsupervised.
- the HHC Assistant may also become familiar with locations where the elder person hides money and valuables, as well as have access to financial information, credit card numbers, etc. These pose significant problems for the HHC. Therefore, it is not surprising that HHC Assistants have abused or otherwise mistreated elder persons, stolen items of value and financial information from the elder person.
- a manager being analyzed is referred to as a “target manager”.
- FIG. 1 shows a system diagram of an automated system 100 according to one embodiment of the current invention.
- the system provides objective information and ratings of the tasks of employee screening practices performed by industry entities (IEs) 3 .
- the IEs 3 may be home health care companies for the home health care industry, or other companies for other industries. This is an on-line system wherein at least part of it is remotely located and remotely accessible.
- IEs 3 communicate through IE communication devices 241 through local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), Internet, private network, or other intercomputer connection means (collectively referred to as a “computer network”) 11 to an IE storage 110 .
- the IE storage 110 is the main depository of information of the IEs 3 , as will be explained further below.
- Users 5 are allowed to access, search, and view, but not modify or delete information on the IE storage 110 using user communication devices 243 .
- a system administrator 7 communicates directly (or through an optional systems administrator communication device 247 ) with other elements of system 100 to configure, initialize and otherwise manage the system 100 .
- the system administrator 7 interacts through a system administrator communication device 247 with a controller 210 to determine a listing of relevant screening practices for at least one industry covered by the current invention.
- Controller 210 may incorporate a specific device and/or software routines that aid in determining the screening practices to be used. These screening practices differ by industry since certain screening practices may be highly relevant to one industry but not relevant to another. There are various methods of selecting the relevant screening practices for an industry. A few such methods are listed below:
- an expert 9 in the industry acting through a system administrator communication device 247 , communicates with a controller 210 which may employ a processor 220 .
- the expert 9 can simply input the screening practices to be used in the rating process. These screening practices can then be stored in the parameter storage 130 .
- controller 210 may include a parameter selection device 230 that may receive published studies in the industry relating to screening practices.
- the parameter selection device 230 controlled by the system administrator 7 , searches for relevant screening practices and analyzes them. The most relevant and/or commonly mentioned screening practices will be stored in the parameter storage 130 and used to rate the IEs 3 .
- the parameter selection device 230 may also search published expert surveys dealing with screening practices. These may be digested to provide the few most commonly mentioned screening practices that will be used for rating the IEs 3 .
- the parameter selection device 230 may also analyze numerous publications dealing with publications of experts' experience in the field, selecting the most commonly mentioned screening practices that will then be stored in the parameter storage 130 and used in rating the IEs 3 employee screening practices.
- a number of experts 9 log into the automated interactive system 100 through systems administrator communication device 247 .
- the experts 9 can log in at their leisure over a period of time.
- the parameter selection device 230 may then interactively send questions to the experts 9 requesting information that would identify screening practices that they believe are relevant.
- the parameter selection device 230 receives the experts' 9 responses, then selects the most commonly mentioned screening practices for use in determining a rating. These screening practices are then stored in the parameter storage 130 .
- one or more experts 9 in the industry can provide input as to the relative impact of each selected screening practice on the quality of the employee hired.
- an expert 9 may simply input his/her weighting of each selected screening practice in the parameter storage 130 .
- a weighting factor synthesis device 260 can search published studies in the industry and identify the screening practices mentioned having the greatest impact upon hiring quality employees. The relative number of studies indicating that a given screening practice is important may be used in assigning weighting factors to each screening practice.
- a weighting factor synthesis device 260 can search expert surveys in the industry and identify the screening practices mentioned having the greatest impact upon hiring quality employees. The relative number of surveys indicating that a given screening practice is important may be used in assigning weighting factors to each screening practice.
- the system 100 interacts with the IEs 3 . It allows the IEs 3 to view the information about themselves that is currently in the IE storage 110 that is being provided to the public.
- the IEs 3 is allowed to search through the IE storage 110 , view records, and provide updated information about its own records in the IE storage 110 .
- the updated information is verified by the system administrator 7 . Once it is verified, the information is updated in the IE storage 110 .
- Table 1 below lists the screening practices selected as relevant for creating a rating (score) of the employee screening practices of a Home Healthcare facility, listed by type. It also indicates the relative weighting factor of each.
- FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating the steps of a method of rating the employee screening practices of industry entities (IEs) 3 .
- IEs industry entities
- FIGS. 1 and 2 The functioning of the present invention may be described in connection with FIGS. 1 and 2 .
- An on-line system is provided in step 310 .
- step 320 initial information is acquired for each IE 3 from public and private databases. This is general information to set up a record for each IE 3 which may include the name, address, and similar information.
- step 330 the industry that is to be analyzed is identified.
- step 340 the relevant screening practices for this industry are identified and then stored in the parameter storage 130 . As indicated above, several different methods may be used, one of which is illustrated in FIG. 3 , which will be described later.
- step 350 the weighting factors which identify the relative importance of each screening practice are determined. There are several methods of determining the weighting parameters. One method includes having several experts in the field rate the relative importance of selected screening practices, then performing a statistical analysis, such as average, mean, median, or other known statistical methods to develop the relative weighting factors.
- step 360 a rating equation is created from the selected screening practices and their weighting parameters. At this point most of the initial setup of the system has been completed. The remaining steps generally cover adding information and updating the information and ratings.
- One method of creating the rating equation is to give a value of “1” for each screening practice that an IE 3 performs to an acceptable level and a “0” for those screening practices that an IE 3 does not perform to an acceptable level.
- Each of the screening practice values is then multiplied by its corresponding weighting factor. All of the screening practice values multiplied by their weighting factors are summed and multiplied by a normalization factor to normalize the equation to a desired maximum value. For example, if the maximum value is selected to be “100”, a normalization factor is selected such that if all employee screening practices were performed to an acceptable level, then the resulting score of the equation would be “100”.
- step 370 the IEs 3 are then allowed to access the IE storage 110 and request information about themselves. If there is no entry for this IE 3 , it is allowed to provide information to request that a record be created for it. The IE 3 is then allowed to suggest additions or changes to the information in the record of IE storage 110 .
- This information includes values of the screening practices. The values indicate if each screening practice was completed to a sufficient degree. Step 370 is described in a more detailed manner in connection with FIG. 5 .
- step 380 the values of screening practices for each IE 3 are entered into the ratings equation to result in the current rating or score.
- step 390 the ratings are stored in the IE storage 110 , making them accessible to users 5 , IEs 3 and the system administrator 7 .
- FIG. 3 is a more detailed breakdown of the step 340 of FIG. 2 of selecting screening practices for a selected industry.
- FIG. 4 will be described with reference to elements of system 100 shown in FIG. 1 .
- step 341 experts are identified in the industry.
- step 343 the parameter selection device 230 of controller 210 interacts with the experts 9 to request their input to determine the screening practices which should be used. These are the screening practices which directly affect the quality of the employee hired.
- step 345 the parameter selection device 230 receives and stores the responses of the experts 9 . Their responses are stored in parameter storage 130 .
- the parameter selection device 230 determines the most common screening practices found in the experts' 9 responses. It may perform statistical analyses on the experts' 9 responses to find and only use those that are statistically significant.
- FIG. 4 is a more detailed breakdown of the step 350 of FIG. 2 of determining a relative weighting factor for each selected screening practice.
- FIG. 4 will be described with reference to elements of system 100 shown in FIG. 1 .
- step 351 experts in the industry are identified. The experts are requested to rate the impact of each selected screening practice in step 353 .
- step 355 the weighting factor synthesis device 260 receives and stores the responses of the experts.
- the weighting factor synthesis device 260 analyzes the responses from the experts and creates weighting factors which weight the selected screening practice based upon their relative impact. This will involve how many experts identified the screening practice and how highly they rated the importance of that screening practice. These are combined to create the weighting factors. A large weighting factor means that the corresponding screening practice is very important in determining a quality employee (one that performs well during employment) in the pre-employment screening.
- FIG. 5 is a more detailed breakdown of step 370 of FIG. 2 of adding/modifying values for a selected screening practice. It also mentions parts of the system diagram of FIG. 1 .
- FIG. 5 identifies the steps involved with an IE 3 logging into the IE storage 110 and updating its own information.
- the IE 3 accesses the on-line system 100 .
- the IE 3 may search through records of many different IEs 3 and view their records.
- the IE 3 may also request information on itself.
- step 373 If the record was found in step 373 , then the record is presented to the IE 3 and processing continues at step 375 .
- the IE 3 is authenticated. This may be by any currently known means of authentication. It may be passwords, biometrics, or use of additional security devices.
- step 376 the IE 3 is allowed to enter information or submit modifications to existing information in its own record.
- This information is verified in step 377 by the system administrator 7 , and if it verifies correctly, it is entered into IE storage 110 .
- the IE 3 Since the IE 3 is now interacting with the system, it can also optionally indicate a free basic listing, or opt for a more detailed listing for a small fee in step 378 .
- step 379 the IE 3 is given the opportunity to choose different advertising options, wherein the more advanced advertising is provided for a fee.
- One such choice would be to select a free listing, an enhanced listing, or a premium listing.
- Table 2 The features of each of these choices is shown in Table 2 below:
- child care centers would be more sensitive to screening out applicants for employment that indicate a propensity to misbehavior relating to children. This may have more stringent or additional employee screening practices relating to sexual crimes with children, or physical abuse of children. Therefore, each industry (and possibly sub-industry) may employ different employee screening practices which may be determined to be included under the spirit of the current application.
- the rating or score described above for an IE 3 rated by the system of the current application can be expressed a single scalar number, or can be expressed in terms of one or more of the intermediate calculations used to arrive at the final score.
- the score may be expressed along with one or more subscores for different categories of the employee screening practices used to determine the final score.
- Any of the scores may be expressed as coded colors with a spectrum from low to high. They may be categorized into segments of the overall score range, or expressed in any currently known method for indicating ratings.
- a user or IE 5 can request additional information for an additional charge.
- the basic information identifying an IE 5 is made available, along with the final score (rating). For a small fee, this score may be broken down into its component scores for different subcategories of the employee screening practices to more clearly study the scores of the subcategories. This may lead to a better understanding of the employee screening practices of the subject IE 3 .
- Additional abilities could be implemented in the system of the current application, such as time tagging information to acquire a time dimension.
- the IEs 3 will be expected to enter the date which they began to implement each of their employee screening practices.
- a default date could be the date that they enter the information into the system which could be updated to reflect the actual date they had implemented the practice. This can give an indication of how an IE 3 supplemented their employee screening practices over time to the present time.
- the system may also implement a score history. This will store the various scores for an IE 3 as the score changes over time. One may look at the history of the IE 3 to see the advancements it has made over time and the continual increase in score. This is particularly important to an IE 3 which had a low score that has worked to improve its score over continuous improvement.
- the goal is to use publically-available information to minimize the subjectiveness of the report or rating.
- the research is limited to the executive management, who are the decision makers.
- the rating may take into account all of the offenses above a certain level of seriousness. These will be accumulated as part of the rating.
- Each offense may have a severity based upon the actual sentence or fine, the sentence/fine suggested in applicable sentencing guidelines (state or federal). These may be used to estimate the relative severity, based upon a given sentence/fine relative to a calculated average sentence/crime for a defined population.
- Each offense considered should be weighted with decreasing weight based upon when the offense was committed. This is based upon an assumption that the person being examined may have changed over time.
- a rating can be created which considers the company's dollar sales when the target manager was an executive at the company. This may be the dollar sales when the target manager left the executive position of the previous company as compared with the company dollar sales when the target manager started the executive position. This is normalized for the number of levels the target manager was removed from the top position. For example, if there is a company with three management levels and the target manager was the CEO, the multiplier will be 1.0 for the top level. If the target manager was one level removed from the top level, level 2 of 3 levels, the multiplier would be 2 ⁇ 3 or 0.67. This adjusts for the amount of control the target manager has over the company's decisions.
- the dollar sales difference during the target manager's tenure should be normalized by the company's average sales for the target employee's tenure.
- the number of consumer complaints can also be an indicator of problems with management of a company.
- the actual raw numbers must be normalized for the size of the company.
- One way is to determine consumer complaints per annual income, or consumer complaints per number of employees.
- FIG. 6 shows a system diagram of an automated system 100 ′ according to another embodiment of the current invention.
- the system 100 ′ provides objective information and ratings of the tasks of employee screening practices performed by industry entities (IEs) 3 , and adds information regarding the executive management.
- IEs industry entities
- the IEs 3 are home health care companies for the home health care industry, or other companies for other industries. This also is an on-line system wherein at least part of it is remotely located and remotely accessible.
- IEs 3 communicate through IE communication devices 241 through local area network (LAN), wide area network (WAN), Internet, private network, or other inter-computer connection means (collectively referred to as a “computer network”) 11 to an IE storage 110 .
- the IE storage 110 is the main depository of information of the IEs 3 , as will be explained further below.
- Users 5 are allowed to access, search, and view, but not modify or delete information on the IE storage 110 using user communication devices 243 .
- system administrator 7 communicates directly (or through an optional systems administrator communication device 247 ) with other elements of system 100 ′ to configure, initialize and otherwise manage the system 100 ′.
- the system administrator 7 interacts through a system administrator communication device 247 with a controller 210 to determine a listing of relevant screening practices for at least one industry covered by the current invention in the same manner as described for FIG. 1 .
- Controller 210 may incorporate a specific device and/or software routines that aid in determining the screening practices to be used. The methods listed above are also used in this embodiment:
- an expert 9 in the industry acting through a system administrator communication device 247 , communicates with a controller 210 which may employ a processor 220 .
- the expert 9 can simply input the screening practices to be used in the rating process. These screening practices can then be stored in the parameter storage 130 .
- controller 210 may include a parameter selection device 230 that may receive published studies in the industry relating to screening practices.
- the parameter selection device 230 controlled by the system administrator 7 , searches for relevant screening practices and analyzes them. The most relevant and/or commonly mentioned screening practices will be stored in the parameter storage 130 and used to rate the IEs.
- the parameter selection device 230 may also search published expert surveys dealing with screening practices. These may be digested to provide the few most commonly mentioned screening practices that will be used for rating the IEs 3 .
- the parameter selection device 230 may also analyze numerous publications dealing with publications of experts' experience in the field, selecting the most commonly mentioned screening practices that will then be stored in the parameter storage 130 and used in rating the IEs' employee screening practices.
- a number of experts 9 log into the automated interactive system 100 through systems administrator communication device 247 .
- the experts 9 can log in at their leisure over a period of time.
- the parameter selection device 230 may then interactively send questions to the experts 9 requesting information that would identify screening practices that they believe are relevant.
- the parameter selection device 230 receives the experts' 9 responses then selects the most commonly mentioned screening practices for use in determining a rating. These screening practices are then stored in the parameter storage 130 .
- the weighting factors may be determined as described above.
- the system 100 ′ allows the IEs 3 to view the information about them that is currently in the IE storage 110 that is being provided to the public.
- the IE 3 is allowed to search through the IE storage 110 , view records, and provide updated information about its own records in the IE storage 110 .
- the updated information is verified by the system administrator 7 . Once it is verified, the information is updated in the IE storage 110 .
- the theory of this embodiment is that the executive management has significant power and influence over the employees and how they behave. Therefore, an analysis of the executive management will provide significant information on how services are provided. Therefore, each executive analyzed is referred to as a “target manager”.
- the processor 220 looks at a record in the IE storage 110 for an IE 3 to determine the top executives. If this information is not available there, the processor 220 then accesses a corporate information database or corporate information service 310 through the web 11 . Once the name or other identifying information of the target manager is obtained, processor 220 may perform a criminal background check by accessing criminal Background check database or service 270 through the cloud 11 . Similarly, the processor may then access civil background check database or service 290 . This may have information such as past and current litigations, bankruptcies, and other adverse actions.
- the processor 220 may then access the financial background check database or service 290 to find information on current and past debts, liens, and other financial information.
- the processor 220 may also access a corporate database or service to find past companies which the target manager has managed.
- This information is implemented as indicated above to determine if there are any known items which may affect the target manager's decisions, bias his/her decisions. These may be indicated as a report or reduced to a rating in several categories. Selected portions of this information and/or ratings can be stored in the IE storage 110 for the users 5 to view and for the IE 3 to view and request updates.
- This process is repeated for the top executives of an IE 3 .
- the entire process may then be repeated for several of the IEs now resulting in ratings of the thoroughness of the employment process, and information on potential weaknesses of management of an IE 3 .
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Computer Security & Cryptography (AREA)
- Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Finance (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Stored Programmes (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Priority Applications (4)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US14/799,459 US20160019555A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2015-07-14 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
US16/010,382 US20180329717A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2018-06-15 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
US16/711,219 US20200133684A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2019-12-11 | Automated system for rating employer screening practices and corporate management |
US17/832,494 US20220300293A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2022-06-03 | Risk quantification system |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US201462024816P | 2014-07-15 | 2014-07-15 | |
US14/799,459 US20160019555A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2015-07-14 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
Related Child Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US16/010,382 Division US20180329717A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2018-06-15 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20160019555A1 true US20160019555A1 (en) | 2016-01-21 |
Family
ID=53761571
Family Applications (3)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US14/799,459 Abandoned US20160019555A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2015-07-14 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
US14/800,401 Active US9798552B2 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2015-07-15 | Cloud computing architecture for managing hardware resources on network elements |
US16/010,382 Abandoned US20180329717A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2018-06-15 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
Family Applications After (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US14/800,401 Active US9798552B2 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2015-07-15 | Cloud computing architecture for managing hardware resources on network elements |
US16/010,382 Abandoned US20180329717A1 (en) | 2014-07-15 | 2018-06-15 | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (3) | US20160019555A1 (zh) |
EP (1) | EP3161621B1 (zh) |
CN (1) | CN106537336B (zh) |
WO (1) | WO2016011184A1 (zh) |
Cited By (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20180365779A1 (en) * | 2017-06-14 | 2018-12-20 | Global Tel*Link Corporation | Administering pre-trial judicial services |
US10841294B2 (en) * | 2017-07-09 | 2020-11-17 | Abdullah Rashid Alsaifi | Certification system |
US11729298B2 (en) | 2017-08-31 | 2023-08-15 | Global Tel*Link Corporation | Video kiosk inmate assistance system |
Families Citing this family (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US10728106B1 (en) | 2016-04-29 | 2020-07-28 | Architecture Technology Corporation | Multi-domain cloud computing |
US11416553B2 (en) | 2019-03-28 | 2022-08-16 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Spatial indexing |
US11436217B2 (en) | 2019-03-28 | 2022-09-06 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Ordered append-only log based data storage |
US11106502B2 (en) | 2019-03-28 | 2021-08-31 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Object domains |
US11150960B2 (en) * | 2019-03-28 | 2021-10-19 | Amazon Technologies, Inc. | Distributed application allocation and communication |
US11061666B1 (en) * | 2020-01-07 | 2021-07-13 | International Business Machines Corporation | Distributing computing tasks to individual computer systems |
CN111953526B (zh) * | 2020-07-24 | 2022-05-27 | 新华三大数据技术有限公司 | 一种分层算力网络编排方法、装置及存储介质 |
Citations (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20020029159A1 (en) * | 2000-09-06 | 2002-03-07 | Longden David Robert | System and method for providing an automated interview |
US20050071185A1 (en) * | 2003-08-06 | 2005-03-31 | Thompson Bradley Merrill | Regulatory compliance evaluation system and method |
US20080306750A1 (en) * | 2007-06-08 | 2008-12-11 | Adp, Inc. | Employment screening system and method |
US20090327006A1 (en) * | 2008-06-26 | 2009-12-31 | Certiclear, Llc | System, method and computer program product for authentication, fraud prevention, compliance monitoring, and job reporting programs and solutions for service providers |
US20130013807A1 (en) * | 2010-03-05 | 2013-01-10 | Chrapko Evan V | Systems and methods for conducting more reliable assessments with connectivity statistics |
US20130196868A1 (en) * | 2011-12-18 | 2013-08-01 | 20/20 Genesystems, Inc. | Methods and algorithms for aiding in the detection of cancer |
US20140258305A1 (en) * | 2013-03-06 | 2014-09-11 | Tremus, Inc. D/B/A Trustfactors, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing contextual trust scores |
Family Cites Families (21)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8645965B2 (en) * | 2007-12-31 | 2014-02-04 | Intel Corporation | Supporting metered clients with manycore through time-limited partitioning |
US8516481B2 (en) | 2008-04-04 | 2013-08-20 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Virtual machine manager system and methods |
CN101398768B (zh) * | 2008-10-28 | 2011-06-15 | 北京航空航天大学 | 一种分布式虚拟机监视器系统的构建方法 |
US9250973B2 (en) * | 2009-03-12 | 2016-02-02 | Polycore Software, Inc. | Apparatus and associated methodology of generating a multi-core communications topology |
US9058183B2 (en) * | 2009-12-29 | 2015-06-16 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Hypervisor isolation of processor cores to enable computing accelerator cores |
US8250090B2 (en) * | 2010-02-22 | 2012-08-21 | Brignoli Winthrop A | Method for performing message-based distributed computing, involves executing expression of matched message response on members identified by set instance definition using dimension values derived from message |
KR101647818B1 (ko) * | 2010-04-13 | 2016-08-12 | 삼성전자주식회사 | 멀티 코어 사이의 데이터 전송 장치 및 방법 |
US8856504B2 (en) * | 2010-06-07 | 2014-10-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Secure virtual machine bootstrap in untrusted cloud infrastructures |
TWI594128B (zh) * | 2010-07-10 | 2017-08-01 | 鄭尚澈 | 可更換智慧核心元件之智慧平台 |
TW201214187A (en) * | 2010-09-17 | 2012-04-01 | Nat Univ Tsing Hua | Embedded anti-thief system and method thereof for executing anti-thief |
JP2012128721A (ja) | 2010-12-16 | 2012-07-05 | Sony Computer Entertainment Inc | 情報処理装置、情報処理システム、情報処理方法、プログラム及び情報記憶媒体 |
US10176018B2 (en) | 2010-12-21 | 2019-01-08 | Intel Corporation | Virtual core abstraction for cloud computing |
KR101757961B1 (ko) * | 2011-04-21 | 2017-07-14 | 휴렛-팩커드 디벨롭먼트 컴퍼니, 엘.피. | 가상 bios |
US8873398B2 (en) * | 2011-05-23 | 2014-10-28 | Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ) | Implementing EPC in a cloud computer with openflow data plane |
BR112014003390A2 (pt) | 2011-08-30 | 2017-02-21 | Hewlett Packard Development Co Lp | sistema de computação, método para lidar com pedidos de gerenciamento de sistema em um sistema de computação e meio lido por computador |
US9311107B2 (en) * | 2011-09-12 | 2016-04-12 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Booting devices via the cloud |
IN2014DN03053A (zh) | 2011-10-21 | 2015-05-08 | Hewlett Packard Development Co | |
US8909989B2 (en) | 2011-11-21 | 2014-12-09 | Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | Method for outputting power-on self test information, virtual machine manager, and processor |
US8719560B2 (en) * | 2011-12-13 | 2014-05-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Virtual machine monitor bridge to bare-metal booting |
US9424089B2 (en) * | 2012-01-24 | 2016-08-23 | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Hardware acceleration of web applications |
US10185331B2 (en) * | 2013-03-11 | 2019-01-22 | Ice Computer, Inc. | Modular computer and thermal management |
-
2015
- 2015-07-14 US US14/799,459 patent/US20160019555A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2015-07-15 WO PCT/US2015/040621 patent/WO2016011184A1/en active Application Filing
- 2015-07-15 EP EP15742506.7A patent/EP3161621B1/en active Active
- 2015-07-15 US US14/800,401 patent/US9798552B2/en active Active
- 2015-07-15 CN CN201580038009.4A patent/CN106537336B/zh active Active
-
2018
- 2018-06-15 US US16/010,382 patent/US20180329717A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20020029159A1 (en) * | 2000-09-06 | 2002-03-07 | Longden David Robert | System and method for providing an automated interview |
US20050071185A1 (en) * | 2003-08-06 | 2005-03-31 | Thompson Bradley Merrill | Regulatory compliance evaluation system and method |
US20080306750A1 (en) * | 2007-06-08 | 2008-12-11 | Adp, Inc. | Employment screening system and method |
US20090327006A1 (en) * | 2008-06-26 | 2009-12-31 | Certiclear, Llc | System, method and computer program product for authentication, fraud prevention, compliance monitoring, and job reporting programs and solutions for service providers |
US20130013807A1 (en) * | 2010-03-05 | 2013-01-10 | Chrapko Evan V | Systems and methods for conducting more reliable assessments with connectivity statistics |
US20130196868A1 (en) * | 2011-12-18 | 2013-08-01 | 20/20 Genesystems, Inc. | Methods and algorithms for aiding in the detection of cancer |
US20140258305A1 (en) * | 2013-03-06 | 2014-09-11 | Tremus, Inc. D/B/A Trustfactors, Inc. | Systems and methods for providing contextual trust scores |
Non-Patent Citations (1)
Title |
---|
"Every Nursing Home You Consider Should Be Able To Answer These Questions", February 14, 2015, ROHM Services Corporation. (Year: 2015) * |
Cited By (6)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20180365779A1 (en) * | 2017-06-14 | 2018-12-20 | Global Tel*Link Corporation | Administering pre-trial judicial services |
US10841294B2 (en) * | 2017-07-09 | 2020-11-17 | Abdullah Rashid Alsaifi | Certification system |
US20210067508A1 (en) * | 2017-07-09 | 2021-03-04 | Abdullah Rashid Alsaifi | Certification System |
US11671420B2 (en) * | 2017-07-09 | 2023-06-06 | Abdullah Rashid Alsaifi | Certification system |
US20230308431A1 (en) * | 2017-07-09 | 2023-09-28 | Abdullah Rashid Alsaifi | Certification system |
US11729298B2 (en) | 2017-08-31 | 2023-08-15 | Global Tel*Link Corporation | Video kiosk inmate assistance system |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
CN106537336A (zh) | 2017-03-22 |
EP3161621B1 (en) | 2020-10-07 |
US20180329717A1 (en) | 2018-11-15 |
CN106537336B (zh) | 2020-04-28 |
WO2016011184A1 (en) | 2016-01-21 |
US20160019069A1 (en) | 2016-01-21 |
US9798552B2 (en) | 2017-10-24 |
EP3161621A1 (en) | 2017-05-03 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US20180329717A1 (en) | Automated system for rating employee screening practices and corporate management | |
Choi | Managing flexible work arrangements in government: Testing the effects of institutional and managerial support | |
Steiner et al. | Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers | |
Graham et al. | The decision making ecology of placing a child into foster care: A structural equation model | |
Eiriz et al. | Quality evaluation in health care services based on customer‐provider relationships | |
Pighills et al. | A critical review of the effectiveness of environmental assessment and modification in the prevention of falls amongst community dwelling older people | |
Hyatt et al. | Reform in motion: The promise and perils of incorporating risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis into Pennsylvania sentencing | |
US20210012254A1 (en) | Safety risk, auditing, and compliance system and process | |
Paoline III et al. | Police officer use of force mindset and street-level behavior | |
US20070015125A1 (en) | Automated updating of job assessments | |
Mühlbacher et al. | Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment | |
Herda et al. | How the auditor-client relationship affects the extent of value-added service provided to the client | |
Staton et al. | Clarity and compliance in the Inter-American human rights system | |
US20130262131A1 (en) | Tenant screening method and system using personality assessment | |
Cohen et al. | Manager-in-Chief: Applying Public Management Theory to Examine White House Chief of Staff Performance | |
Pejović et al. | Towards medicines regulatory authorities' quality performance improvement: value for public health | |
Crowhurst et al. | Unlocking prison performance | |
US20200133684A1 (en) | Automated system for rating employer screening practices and corporate management | |
John et al. | Health care service quality: the importance of consumer perceptions | |
Wooldridge et al. | US sub-national governmental response to the ‘Great Recession’: implications for the ‘equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of public services’ | |
Rehman | The perceptions of costs and benefits of affirmative action public procurement programs by racial minority business owners | |
Aghajanian et al. | 'Ask not what your country can do for you': Legacies of the Great Recession and the consequences of the'trust crisis' | |
Coffie et al. | Stakeholder views of prevalent unethical practices in the Ghanaian construction industry | |
Frain et al. | The Time Is Ripe for Entrepreneurship in Vocational Rehabilitation: A Four-Pronged Approach | |
Maloletko | A new approach to independent evaluation of the quality of social service organizations |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: FINAL REJECTION MAILED |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: RESPONSE AFTER FINAL ACTION FORWARDED TO EXAMINER |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: ADVISORY ACTION MAILED |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: DOCKETED NEW CASE - READY FOR EXAMINATION |
|
STPP | Information on status: patent application and granting procedure in general |
Free format text: NON FINAL ACTION MAILED |
|
STCB | Information on status: application discontinuation |
Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION |