WO1999059093A1 - Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances - Google Patents

Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO1999059093A1
WO1999059093A1 PCT/US1999/010143 US9910143W WO9959093A1 WO 1999059093 A1 WO1999059093 A1 WO 1999059093A1 US 9910143 W US9910143 W US 9910143W WO 9959093 A1 WO9959093 A1 WO 9959093A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
user
performance
operable
levels
evaluation system
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US1999/010143
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Michael C. Powers
Douglas A. Sudberry
James A. Eiler
Robert S. Bennett
Clifford R. Phillips
Original Assignee
E-Talk Corporation
Priority date (The priority date 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 date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Priority claimed from US09/110,106 external-priority patent/US6615182B1/en
Priority claimed from US09/110,109 external-priority patent/US6901426B1/en
Priority claimed from US09/110,103 external-priority patent/US20020040309A1/en
Priority claimed from US09/110,108 external-priority patent/US6604084B1/en
Application filed by E-Talk Corporation filed Critical E-Talk Corporation
Priority to CA002331188A priority Critical patent/CA2331188A1/fr
Priority to AU38924/99A priority patent/AU765187B2/en
Priority to EP99921812A priority patent/EP1076870A1/fr
Publication of WO1999059093A1 publication Critical patent/WO1999059093A1/fr
Priority to AU2003268607A priority patent/AU2003268607B2/en
Priority to AU2003268606A priority patent/AU2003268606B8/en

Links

Classifications

    • 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
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management

Definitions

  • This invention relates generally to evaluation tools, and more particularly to a system and method for defining the organizational structure, of an enterprise in a performance evaluation system, for generating an evaluation in a performance evaluation system, for providing access privileges for users in a performance evaluation system, for importing performance data into a performance evaluation system and for generating results in a performance evaluation system.
  • Evaluation tools are used to gather and record productivity and quality statistics for a business or other organization. Analysis of such information allows inefficiencies and other problems of the business to be identified and corrected. In this way, business performance is maximized.
  • a performance evaluation system that substantially eliminates or reduces disadvantages or problems associated with the previously developed systems.
  • the present invention provides a performance evaluation system in which the organizational structure of an enterprise is accurately defined to custom fit quality and productivity tools to the structure of the enterprise; that uses performance areas to generate performance evaluations; that uses views in connection with class of services to provide access privileges; in which users may define configurations for importing performance data into the performance evaluation system; and a performance evaluation system that uses user-defined filters to specify performance criteria for a result.
  • the organizational structure of an enterprise is defined in a performance evaluation system by storing a plurality of user-defined levels.
  • a user-defined hierarchy is stored for the levels.
  • a plurality of user-defined members are also stored. Each member is associated with a level.
  • the performance evaluation system is operable to generate the organizational structure of the enterprise based on the user-defined levels, hierarchy, and members.
  • an evaluation is generated in a performance evaluation system by defining a plurality of questions and a plurality of performance areas.
  • the performance areas are each associated with at least one of the questions.
  • questions associated with the performance area are included in the evaluation.
  • access privileges for a user are provided in a performance evaluation system by storing an organizational structure for an enterprise and a view and a class of services for the user.
  • the organizational structure includes a plurality of levels and a plurality of members assigned to the levels.
  • the view specifies the levels and the members of the organizational structure to which the user is allowed access.
  • the class of services specify services of the performance evaluation system that the user is allowed to perform.
  • the user has access privileges to perform services within the class of services for levels and members within the view.
  • a data file is imported into the performance evaluation system by storing a plurality of user-defined data elements.
  • a user-defined configuration is stored for the data file. The configuration is operable to identify a data item in the data file and to map the data item to a data element in the performance evaluation system.
  • results are generated in a performance evaluation system by storing a user-defined filter specifying performance criteria for a result.
  • the user-defined filter is applied to a set of performance evaluation data to identify a subset of the performance evaluation data matching the performance criteria.
  • the performance evaluation system uses a web- base architecture that allows performance evaluation methodology to be standardized throughout an enterprise.
  • users can take advantage of the Internet or other network to remotely access the performance evaluation system and complete member evaluations. Members can also remotely track their progress.
  • Another technical advantage of the present invention includes providing a performance evaluation system that can be customized to fit the organizational structure of an enterprise.
  • users may define levels and a hierarchy for the levels within the performance evaluation system that match that of the enterprise. As a result, quality and productivity tools are customized to fit the structure of the enterprise.
  • Another technical advantage of the present invention includes providing an improved performance evaluation system.
  • evaluations can be automatically generated for disparate groups by selecting different performance areas.
  • members in a group are evaluated against the same set of criteria to provide fairness and objectivity.
  • managers can perform consistent, objective evaluations efficiently.
  • Another technical advantage of the present invention includes an improved method and system for providing access privileges for users in a performance evaluation system.
  • a user is assigned a view and a class of services.
  • the view specifies the levels and members of an organizational structure to which the user is allowed access.
  • the class of services specifies services of the performance evaluation system that the user is allowed to perform.
  • the user has access privileges to perform services within the user's class of services for levels and members within the user's view. In this way, access privileges may be easily updated and maintained for the user in response to changes in allowed services or organizational structure. As a result, system administration cost is reduced.
  • Another technical advantage of the present invention includes providing an improved performance evaluation system.
  • the performance evaluation system allows users to define configurations for importing external productivity data into the performance evaluation system.
  • data can be imported from a wide variety of external devices.
  • the evaluation process is streamlined by having data in a centralized location for data analysis.
  • Yet another technical advantage of the present invention includes providing an improved performance evaluation system.
  • the performance evaluation system allows users to define configurations for importing external productivity data into the performance evaluation system.
  • data can be imported from a wide variety of external devices.
  • the evaluation process is streamlined by having data in a centralized location for data analysis.
  • FIGURE 1 is a block diagram illustrating a performance evaluation system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example call center using the performance evaluation system of
  • FIGURE 1 illustrates details of the organization tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 4 illustrates details of the privilege tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 5 illustrates details of the plan tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 6 illustrates details of the productivity tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 7 illustrates details of the data import tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIGURE 8 illustrates details of an evaluation file stored in the evaluation tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIGURE 9 illustrates details of the filter tables of FIGURE 1 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIGURE 1 illustrates a performance evaluation system 10 in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
  • the performance evaluation system 10 uses productivity and quality data to evaluate the performance of an individual, group, process or other suitable type of item or operation.
  • the performance evaluation system 10 is deployed on a three-tiered architecture.
  • the three-tiered architecture includes client space 12, server application space 14 and database space 16.
  • the client space 12 is implemented on a client platform 18 such as a work station, personal computer or other device capable of communicating between a user and a server.
  • the server application and database spaces 14 and 16 are implemented on a server platform 20 such as a personal computer or other device capable of being remotely accessed over a network. 7
  • the client and server platforms 18 and 20 are connected by a network 22.
  • the network 22 may the Internet or other wide area network (WAN) , an enterprise intranet or other a local area network (LAN) , or other suitable type of link capable of communicating data between the client and server platforms 18 and 20.
  • WAN wide area network
  • LAN local area network
  • the client space 12 includes a web-browser 30 having a graphical user interface (GUI) 32.
  • GUI graphical user interface
  • the graphical user interface 32 displays web pages 34 downloaded over the network 22 from the server application space 14.
  • the web pages 34 may use HTML or Active X controls 36.
  • the Active X controls 34 provide a rich interface 32 with superior scripting control.
  • the server application space 14 includes a server engine 40, business objects 42, reports 44, charts 46, and a data importer 48.
  • the server engine 42 includes active server pages (ASP) 50 that include server-side components and scripting.
  • the server-side components are specialized Active X components executed prior to delivery of web pages to the client space 12.
  • the server-side scripting accesses the interfaces of the server-side components. Use of the active server pages 50 allows the web pages to be updated in response to changing system and database settings.
  • the business objects 42 call stored procedures in the database space 16 and perform preprocessing and expressions processing functions.
  • the business objects 42 include an organization object, a plan object, an evaluation object, an import service object, and a results object.
  • the organization object provides an interface for basic organizational functionality.
  • the organization object also provides an interface to a class of services table giving the client space 12 access to allowed functions.
  • the plan object provides an interface for the manipulation and use of evaluation guidelines.
  • the evaluation objecc provides interfaces for performing evaluations.
  • the import service object schedules and retrieves external data and places it into a delimited file.
  • the import service object also provides a basic interface to the configuration settings.
  • the results object receives information from the client space 12 for selecting reports based on the requested filters.
  • Each of the objects may comprise one or more objects .
  • the reports 44 may include both detail and summary reports.
  • the detail reports provide information for members and elements of each member.
  • the detail reports include a productivity and quality report, a quality evaluation report, a productivity analysis report, a quality question report, a productivity element report, and a detail evaluation report.
  • the productivity and quality report presents actual scores, maximum scores, and percentages of maximum for both quality and productivity by an evaluation date for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels.
  • the quality evaluation report presents notes, actual scores, maximum score, and percentages of maximum for each question of an evaluation with subtotals by performance areas, evaluation, member, and any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the productivity analysis report presents actual scores, maximum score, and percentage of maximum for each equation of productivity analysis with subtotals by member and by any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the quality and question report presents actual scores for each question along with the total actual score, maximum score, and percentage of maximum for each performance area with subtotals by evaluation, member, and any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the productivity element report presents actual data along with the equation-produced actual score, maximum score, and percentage of maximum for each element of productivity data with subtotals by member and any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the detail evaluation report presents evaluation date, time, and status of all evaluations for a member subtotal by status, date, member, and evaluator.
  • the summary reports provide average scores for a particular member or level.
  • the summary reports include a productivity and quality report, a quality evaluation report, a productivity analysis report, a quality question report and a productivity and quality comparison report.
  • the productivity and quality report presents average scores for both quality and productivity for each member with group averages for all hierarchical levels.
  • the quality evaluation report presents average scores by performance areas, evaluation, member, and any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the productivity analysis report presents average scores for each equation of productivity data with subtotals by member and any additional hierarchical levels.
  • the quality question report presents the total score for each question and the percentage of maximum scores for each performance area.
  • the productivity and quality comparison report presents average scores, maximum scores and percentage of maximum for both quality and productivity by member with comparison averages for a chosen hierarchical level. Additional detail and summary reports can be created by selecting various categories of information.
  • the charts 46 display graphic and textual information useful in determining the overall performance of a member and identifying ways to improve that performance.
  • the charts 46 include sets of productivity and quality charts, productivity charts and quality charts.
  • the productivity and quality charts plot productivity and quality scores for date, member, users and hierarchical levels.
  • the productivity charts present productivity data plotted against time for members, users, 10 and other hierarchical levels.
  • the quality charts present quality data plotted against time for members, users, questions and hierarchical levels.
  • the data importer 48 imports productivity data from external sources such as a telephony switch.
  • the data importer 48 includes preprocessors 52 and a work area 54.
  • the preprocessors 52 are tools used to create an instruction file for interpreting the information in a data file.
  • the instruction files are operable to parse data files.
  • the preprocessors 52 include Nortel Datastream, Rockwell Spectrum IMS, and Monarch.
  • the Nortel Datastream preprocessor is used for converting Nortel Datastream report information into a delimited format.
  • the Rockwell Spectrum IMS preprocessor is used for converting Rockwell report information.
  • the Monarch preprocessor can be used to create custom preprocessors.
  • the performance evaluation system 10 can be configured to import any type of suitable data file 56 from an external device 58.
  • the preprocessors 52 create a delimited file 60 from a data file 56.
  • columns of data are each separated by a delimiter character such as a comma, hyphen, colon, and the like.
  • the delimiter acts as reference point telling the data importer 48 where one column of data stops and a new column starts. If the data file 56 is already in a delimited format, a preprocessor 52 is not used.
  • the delimited file 60 is a temporary file stored in the work area 54. As described in more detail below, the delimited file 60 is moved to the database space 16 and the productivity data mapped into the database based on the configuration defined in the database. Accordingly, the evaluation process is streamlined by having data in a central location for analysis. 1 1
  • the database space 16 includes a database manager 70 and a database 72.
  • the database manager 70 calls stored procedures 80 to access the database 72.
  • the stored procedures 80 are a precompiled collection of SQL statements and optional control-of-flow statements stored under a name and processed as a unit.
  • the stored procedures 80 are stored within a database 72, can be executed with one call from the database manager 70, and allow user-declared variables, conditional executions, and other programming features.
  • the database 72 includes organization tables 82, privileges tables 84, plans tables 86, data import tables 88, productivity tables 90, evaluation tables 92 and filter tables 94.
  • the organization tables 82 allow an enterprise to set up the performance evaluation system 10 to correspond to its organizational structure.
  • the privileges tables 84 store user access privileges based on views of the organizational structure and on class of services.
  • the plan tables 86 store questions, performance areas, and guidelines for generating performance evaluations in the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the data import tables 88 store configurations for importing productivity data into the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the productivity tables 90 store productivity data for members of the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the evaluation tables 92 store responses and scores for completed evaluations.
  • the filter tables 94 store filters for sorting data and displaying results in the reports 44 and charts 46.
  • the client and server platforms 18 and 20 are each a personal computer connected via the Internet, In this embodiment, the client and server 18 and 20 may each operate using MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT version 4.0 that provides TCP/IP connectivity over the 12
  • the web-browser 30 may be Internet Explorer 3.2x or higher.
  • the server engine 40 may be Internet Information Server 3.0 or higher.
  • the database may be a relational database and the database manager 70 an SQL Server 6.5.
  • the web-base architecture of the performance evaluation system 10 allows performance evaluation methodology to be standardized throughout an enterprise.
  • users can take advantage of the Internet or other network to remotely access the performance evaluation system and complete member evaluations. Members can also remotely track their progress.
  • FIGURE 2 illustrates an exemplary call center 100 using the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the call center 100 includes a server 102 connected to a plurality of clients 104 through a local area network (LAN) 106.
  • the call center 100 includes a system administrator (user 1) , a service manager (user 10), a technical manager (user 20), a sales manager (user 30), a product A manager (user 31), and a product B manager (user 35) .
  • Service agents members 11 and 12 report to the service manager.
  • Technical agents (members 21 and 22) report to the technical manager.
  • Product A agents (members 32 and 33) report to the product A manager.
  • Product B agents (members 36 and 37) report to the product B manager.
  • the product A and B managers report to the sales manager.
  • FIGURE 3 illustrates details of the organization tables 82.
  • the organization tables 82 allow an enterprise to set up the performance evaluation system 10 to fit the 13 organizational structure of the enterprise.
  • the organization tables 82 may store any number of user-defined levels in any user-defined hierarchy. In this way, quality and productivity tools are customized for the enterprise.
  • the organization tables 80 include a level table 120, an interlevel assignment table 122, member tables 124, a user table 126, a user-member table 128, a keyword table 130, and a keyword assignment table 132.
  • the level table 120 lists all the levels of the enterprise by a level ID.
  • the levels are a collection of members who can be grouped together.
  • the level IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the levels. For the call center 100 of FIGURE 2, the levels are the company, the service group, the technical group, the sales group, the product A team, and the product B team.
  • the interlevel assignment table 122 assigns lower level in the enterprise hierarchy to a higher level in the hierarchy.
  • a first field identifies a higher level to which a lower level is assigned and a second field identifies the lower level.
  • the labels "first" and "second" are used to distinguish between fields and not to specify a particular order for the fields.
  • the lower levels may be assigned to a next higher level in the hierarchy or to each higher level in the hierarchy.
  • the levels are identified in the interlevel assignment table 122 by the level IDs. For the call center 100 of FIGURE 2, the service, technical, and sales group levels are assigned to the company level and the product A and B team levels are assigned to the sales group level.
  • the member tables 124 list in a first field all the members of the enterprise by a member ID.
  • the members are those individuals of the enterprise on which functions of the system 10 are performed.
  • Each member ID may be unique 14 codes assigned by the performance evaluation system 10 when the member is first defined in the system 10.
  • a second field assigns the member to a level. Additional fields provide member attributes, such as first and last name, password, comments, and the like. In another embodiment, some or all of the member attributes may be stored in a separate table.
  • service agents members 11 and 12
  • technical agents members 21 and 22
  • product A agents members 31 and 32
  • product B agent member 37
  • the user table 126 lists all the users of the enterprise by a user ID.
  • the users are people in the performance evaluation system 10 that perform the evaluations and that carry out the various tasks associated with the evaluation process such as defining all of the information needed to perform the evaluations.
  • the user IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the users.
  • the users are the system administrator (user 1), the service manager (user 10), the technical manager (user 20), the sales manager (user 30) , the product A manager (user 31), and the product B manager (user 35) .
  • the users-member table 128 cross-references user IDs with member IDs for users who are also members in the system 10.
  • a user is also a member when the user reports to and is evaluated by a user higher in the enterprise hierarchy.
  • users 31 and 35 report to user 30. Accordingly, users 31 and 35 are cross-referenced as members in the users-member table 128.
  • the keyword table 130 lists all the keywords defined in the performance evaluation system 10 by a keyword ID.
  • the keywords provide an easy way to classify members and 15 other items of the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the keywords can also be used to filter performance data for analysis or printing reports.
  • the keyword IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the keywords in the system 10.
  • the keywords may relate to the experience of an agent or to an agency from which the agent was hired. In this way, the performance of the agents may be compared based on their experience, the agency from which they were hired, and the like.
  • the keyword assignment table 132 assigns keywords to a member.
  • a first field identifies a member by a member ID and a second field identifies a keyword assigned to the member by a keyword ID.
  • One or more keywords may be assigned to each of the members. For the call center 100 of FIGURE 2, if the service agent (member 11) is hired from the AA Agency and has less than two years' experience, keywords "Temp-AA Agency" and "2 years experience” are assigned to the service agent (member 11) .
  • FIGURE 4 illustrates details of the privilege tables 84.
  • the privilege tables 84 assign each user a view and a class of services.
  • the view specifies the levels and members of an organizational structure to which the user is allowed access.
  • the class of services specifies services of the performance evaluation system 10 that the user is allowed to perform.
  • the user has access privileges to perform services within the user's class of services for levels and members within the user's view. In this way, access privileges may be easily updated and maintained for the user in response to changes in allowed services or organizational structure. As a result, system administration cost is reduced.
  • the privilege tables 84 include a user view table 140, a class of service assignment table 1 6
  • the user view table 140 specifies levels and members of the organizational structure to which the user is allowed access .
  • a first field identifies a user by user ID
  • a second field identifies a level or member associated with the user by the level or member ID
  • a third field identifies whether the item in the second field is a level or a member
  • a fourth field enables the stored association between a user and a level or member in the user's view.
  • each user is associated with each level in the user's branch of the organizational structure and with members that report to the user.
  • Each association between a user and a level or member may be enabled or disabled in the user's view and deselected using column 196 to be excluded from the user's view.
  • the user view table 140 may include only associations that are included in the user's view.
  • the fourth field is omitted.
  • the system administrator (user 1) is associated with each level and member in the performance evaluation system 10. All of the associations for the system administrator are enabled and thus included in the system administrator's view to allow the system administrator to access each level and member of the system.
  • the service manager (user 10) is associated with each level in the service manager's branch of the organizational structure and with members that report to the service manager.
  • the service manager is associated with the company and service group levels and with the service agents (members 10 and 11) that report to the service manager.
  • the associations between the service manager, the service level and the service agents are enabled to allow the service manager to access the level and members to configure and perform performance 17 evaluations and other functions for the members and level.
  • the association with the company level is not enabled and thus excluded from the service manager's view.
  • the product B manager (user 35) is associated with the company, sales group, and product A and B team levels and with the product B agents (members 36 and 37) that report to the product B manager.
  • the associations with the product B team level and product B agents are enabled and included in the product B manager's view. Access to the company and the sales group levels are not enabled and thus excluded from the product B manager's view.
  • the user view table 140 may be manually populated by the system administrator or other user having suitable access privileges or may be generated based on the organizational structure defined by the organization tables 82. In the latter embodiment, a user assignment table is used to assign each user to a level. Based on that assignment, the organization tables 82 are interrogated to determine the levels within the user's branch of the organizational structure and the members that report to the user. This information is then used to populate the user view table 140. After the table is populated, associations are to be included in the user's view.
  • the class of service assignment table 142 assigns a class of service template to a user.
  • a first field identifies the user by the user ID and a second field identifies the class of service template by a service template ID.
  • the service template ID may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the service templates.
  • Use of the service templates allows a particular class of services to be defined and reused for any number of users. For example, for the call center 100 of FIGURE 2, group and team templates may be defined and associated with the group and team managers, respectively. Accordingly, the 1 8 performance evaluation system 10 is more efficiently configured and administration cost is reduced.
  • the class of service template table 144 specifies the class of services for each service template.
  • the class of service template table 144 includes a first field identifying a service template by the service template ID. Additional fields are included to specify the services to be included in the service template.
  • the class of service template table 154 also includes a field for identifying a specific user by the user ID. This is used to generate a custom class of services for the user rather than a service template .
  • the services are predefined for the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the services may include administer productivity values, administer productivity data elements, access charting and reporting and administer filters, administer keywords, administer member information, administer class of service, administer evaluation expressions, configure data import settings, import data, administer organizational structure, perform reviews, add or modify reviews, delete reviews, administer performance areas and questions, browse my reviews, browse my performed reviews, browse all reviews, and administer user information.
  • FIGURE 5 illustrates details of the plan tables 86.
  • the plan tables 86 store questions, performance areas constructed of a set of questions, and guidelines constructed of a set of performance areas.
  • the questions, performance areas, and guidelines are used to generate performance evaluations for members of the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the use and sharing of questions by multiple performance areas and the use and sharing of performance areas by multiple guidelines allows evaluations to be efficiently defined and automatically generated.
  • members in a group are evaluated against the same 1 9 set of criteria to provide fairness and objectivity. As a result, managers can perform consistent, objective evaluations efficiently.
  • the plan tables include a question table 150, an answer types table 152, a performance area table 154, a question assignment table 156, an expression table 158, an expression assignment table 160, a guideline table 162, and a performance area assignment table 164.
  • the question table 150 defines questions that will be used in the performance evaluations.
  • the question table 150 includes a first field identifying the question by a question ID, a second field providing a title for the question, a third field specifying text for the question, and a fourth field assigning a weight to the question.
  • the question ID may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the questions.
  • a first question may be directed toward schedule adherence and ask "How often does the agent work on the originally assigned shift?" and a second question to be directed toward promptness and ask "How often is the agent late for work?".
  • Relative weights are assigned to the question depending on their importance to the enterprise. Thus, if promptness is more important to the enterprise than schedule adherence, the second question will be assigned a greater weight.
  • the answer types table 152 associates each question with a predefined answer type and attributes for that answer type.
  • a first field identifies the question by the question ID
  • a second field identifies the answer type by an answer type ID
  • a .third field identifies the attributes for the answer type.
  • the answer type IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the answer types.
  • defined answer types include yes/no, drop-down lists, horizontal scroll bar, 20 edit box, and radio button answers.
  • the yes/no answer type asks for either a yes or a no response.
  • the drop-down list asks for one answer from a list of possible answers.
  • the horizontal scroll bar answer type asks for an answer on a continuum for an overall rating.
  • the edit box answer type asks for a numeric answer.
  • the radio buttons ask for one answer from a list of possible answers.
  • Attributes for the answer types include where appropriate, target values, labels, maximum and minimum values, and the like.
  • the performance area table 154 lists all the performance areas in the performance evaluation system 10 by a performance area ID. Each performance area is a grouping of questions that relates to a particular area of job performance.
  • the performance area IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the performance areas.
  • the performance areas may include on-call greeting and call closing .
  • the question assignment table 156 assigns questions to the performance areas.
  • a first field identifies a performance area by a performance area ID and a second field identifies a question assigned to the performance area by a question ID.
  • One or more questions may be assigned to each of the performance areas.
  • questions may be reused between performance areas.
  • performance areas 2, 3 and 4 may each include question 3.
  • the expression table 158 lists in a first field all the expressions in the performance evaluation system 10 by an expression ID.
  • the expression IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the expressions.
  • a second field specifies a mathematical equation for the expression.
  • the equation may contain data elements, numeric values, mathematical operations or mathematical functions.
  • the mathematical 21 operations include addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
  • the mathematical functions include sum, average, minimum, maximum, and peak.
  • the expression assignment table 160 assigns expressions to the performance areas. When associated with a performance area, the expressions are used to compute a productivity score for that performance area.
  • a first field identifies a performance area by a performance area ID and a second field identifies an expression assigned to the performance area by an expression ID.
  • One or more expressions may be assigned to each of the performance areas.
  • an expression may be reused between performance areas. For example, performance areas 1 and 6 may each include expression 1.
  • the guideline table 162 lists all the guidelines in the performance evaluation system 10 by a guideline ID.
  • Each guideline combines one or more performance areas that are of interest for a particular evaluation.
  • the guideline IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the guidelines.
  • the performance areas may include technical group, product A team, product B team, and the like.
  • the performance area assignment table 164 assigns performance areas to the guidelines.
  • a first field identifies a guideline by a guidelines ID and a second field identifies a performance area assigned to the guidelines by a performance area ID.
  • One or more performance areas may be assigned to each of the guidelines.
  • performance areas may be reused between guidelines.
  • the service, technical, product A team, and product B team guidelines may each include performance area 1. 22
  • FIGURE 6 illustrates details of the productivity tables 90.
  • the productivity tables 90 store productivity data for members of the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the productivity data is used by the expressions in the performance areas to calculate productivity scores.
  • the productivity tables 90 include a data element table 166 and a productivity table 168.
  • the data element table 166 lists all the data elements in the performance evaluation system 10 by a data element ID.
  • the data elements are items of information used to measure the productivity of members in the performance evaluation system 10.
  • the data element IDs may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the data elements.
  • the productivity table 168 includes a first field identifying members with a member ID, a second field providing dates for the records, a third field identifying the data element for the record by a data element ID, and a fourth field storing the value of the data element.
  • FIGURE 7 illustrates details of the data import tables
  • the data import tables 88 import productivity data into the performance evaluation system 10 from external devices and automatically insert it into the production table. As a result, the evaluation process is streamlined by having data in a centralized location for data analysis.
  • the data import tables 88 include configuration tables 170, an import template assignment table 172, and an import template table 174.
  • Each configuration table 170 provides information for identifying and mapping data from the delimited file 60 to the productivity table 90.
  • the configuration table 170 includes a first field identifying a column in the delimited file 60 containing a data item corresponding to a data element, a second field identifying a data name, a third field identifying a data 23 type, a fourth field identifying a data format, and a fifth field mapping the data item to the data element in the productivity table 90.
  • the data types include identity, date, duration and numeric types.
  • An identity column provides identifying information such as a name or code.
  • the date column provides the date of the information.
  • the duration column shows an amount of time for the information.
  • a numeric column contains a value.
  • the import template assignment table 172 assigns an import template to a configuration.
  • a first field identifies the configuration by a configuration ID and a second field identifies the import template by an import template ID.
  • the configuration and import template IDs may be any suitable identifiers operable to uniquely identify the configurations and import templates, respectively. Use of the import templates allows a process for imported data to be defined and reused for any number of configurations. Accordingly, the performance evaluation system 10 is more efficiently configured and administration cost is reduced.
  • the import template table 174 specifies preprocessor and other information for importing the data file 56.
  • the import template table 174 includes a first field identifying the import templates by the import template IDs.
  • a second field identifies a preprocessor, if any, to be applied to the data file 56 to generate the delimited file 60.
  • a third field identifies the delimiter used in the delimited file 60.
  • productivity data is imported by selecting a configuration, selecting users to determine how the data will be applied (members assigned to selected users receive the productivity data) , specifying how the date will be determined, selecting the data file 56 to import by selecting a drive and the file name, specifying 24 how to match productivity data to members (by name or code) , and selecting whether or not to replace existing productivity information.
  • the data importer 48 retrieves the requested data file 56 and if the import template associated with the configuration requests a preprocessor 52, applies the preprocessor 52. Using the delimiter information in the import template for the configuration and the mapping information in the configuration table, the data importer 48 inserts the productivity data into the productivity tables 90 for members in the user's view.
  • FIGURE 8 illustrates details of an evaluation stored in the evaluation tables 92. As previously described, the evaluation is automatically generated based on guidelines, performance areas, and questions selected for the evaluation.
  • the evaluation includes a member ID 180 for whom the evaluation was completed, a date 182 on which the evaluation was completed, and a plurality of performance areas 184.
  • the performance areas 184 each include one or more questions 186 and their associated answer types 188.
  • responses 190 are stored for each question and used to calculate a quality score 192 for the performance area 184.
  • the quality score 192 is a measure of "goodness" for the member's performance.
  • the quality score 192 for a performance area 184 is calculated based on the relative weight of the questions 186 in the performance area 184.
  • the score of responses 190 to all questions 186 in the performance area 184 are summed and divided by the sum of the relative weights. This produces a quality score 192 for the performance area 184. Mathematically, this is expressed in the following way: 25
  • n is the number of applicable questions in the performance area i ranges over the answered questions in the performance area achi eved 2 is the number of points the member actually earned for question i worst 2 is the lowest possible score that can be assigned to question i relWeight ⁇ is the relative weight for question i
  • the quality scores 192 are summed and divided by the sum of the relative weight for all questions to derive a total evaluation quality score 194. Mathematically, this is expressed as:
  • n is the number of applicable questions in the evaluation i ranges over the applicable questions in the evaluation
  • qScore 2 is the q-score for question i rel Weigh t is the relative weight for question i 26
  • the performance areas 184 may also each include one or more expressions 200 to calculate a productivity score 202.
  • the expression 200 is a user- defined formula to calculate a measure of productivity against a target score.
  • productivity score 202 for a performance area 184 is a direct computation of the expression 200 using the productivity data. After the productivity score has been calculated for all performance areas 184 that have an associated expression 200, the performance area productivity scores 202 are tallied to derive a total productivity score 204 for the evaluation. Mathematically, this is expressed as a median score of all performance area productivity scores:
  • n is the number of performance areas in the evaluation having an associated evaluation expression that can be successfully calculated i ranges over the performance areas in the evaluation achi eved ⁇ is the number of points the member actually earned for performance area i target -, is the target value for performance area i
  • productivity scores for the different performance areas 220 may be weighted based on importance.
  • overall productivity score for the evaluation is calculated by the following equation:
  • n the number of performance areas in the evaluation having an associated evaluation expression that can be successfully calculated i ranges over the performance areas in the evaluation
  • w x the importance factor associated with performance i's p-score achievedi is the number of points the member actually earned for performance area i target
  • ⁇ is the target value for performance area i
  • the user selects the member 180 and an existing guideline or one or more performance areas 184 for the evaluation.
  • the evaluation is then automatically generated. Quality scores are generated based on the user's responses. Productivity scores are generated based on productivity data.
  • FIGURE 9 illustrates details of the filter tables 94.
  • the filter allows the user to define certain criteria for reporting and charting. This criteria is used to sort the data and display results in the charts and reports.
  • the filter tables 94 include a first field identifying the filters with a filter ID.
  • the filter ID may be any suitable identifier operable to uniquely identify the filters.
  • a second field indicates whether the filter includes plan criteria.
  • Each category of plan criteria is specified by a separate look-up table.
  • the categories include evaluations, guidelines, performance areas, questions, expressions, and evaluators .
  • an evaluation filter table associates the filter with evaluations
  • a guideline filter table associates the filter with an identified guideline
  • a performance area filter table associates the filter with a specified performance area
  • a question filter table specifies questions for the filter
  • an expressions filter table specifies expressions for the filter
  • an evaluators filter table specifies evaluators for the filter.
  • Each of these filter's tables 28 include a first field identifying the filter with a filter ID and a second field identifying the relevant evaluation, guideline, performance area, question, expression or evaluator for the filter.
  • a set of date fields specify date(s) for the filter. The date may be a current day, current month, current quarter, current week, current year, previous day, previous month, previous quarter, previous week, previous year, or be otherwise defined by the user.
  • a set of data fields specify data for the filter. The data may be members, all members, or member levels.
  • a set of averages fields specify averages for the filter. The averages may be daily, weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly.
  • a set of sample size fields specify sample size for the filter.
  • the sample size allows data to be filtered based on any sample size entered by the user.
  • a keyword field indicates whether the filter includes any keywords. Keywords are associated with the filter in a separate lookup table as previously described for plan criteria. Thus, evaluators, guidelines, performance areas, questions, expressions, dates, data, averages, keywords, sample size, and other criteria may be specified for the filter. As a result, a user may narrowly define information and obtain meaningful results.

Abstract

Une structure d'organisation d'une entreprise est définie dans un système d'évaluation de performances par le stockage de plusieurs niveaux définis par l'utilisateur. Une hiérarchie de niveaux définie par l'utilisateur est stockée. Plusieurs éléments définis par l'utilisateur sont également stockés. Chaque élément est associé à un niveau. Le système d'évaluation de performances peut être utilisé pour produire la structure d'organisation de l'entreprise sur la base des niveaux, de la hiérarchie et des éléments définis par l'utilisateur. Une évaluation est produite dans un système d'évaluation de performances par la définition de plusieurs questions. Plusieurs zones de performances sont définies, chacune étant associée à au moins une des questions. Des privilèges d'accès pour un utilisateur sont prévus dans un système d'évaluation de performances par le stockage d'une structure d'organisation pour une entreprise, d'une visualisation et d'une classe de services pour l'utilisateur. Un fichier de données est importé dans le système d'évaluation de performances par le stockage de plusieurs éléments de données définis par l'utilisateur. Une configuration définie par l'utilisateur est stockée dans le fichier de données. Des résultats sont produits dans un système d'évaluation de performances par le stockage d'un filtre défini par l'utilisateur spécifiant des critères de performances pour un résultat.
PCT/US1999/010143 1998-05-08 1999-05-07 Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances WO1999059093A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (5)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CA002331188A CA2331188A1 (fr) 1998-05-08 1999-05-07 Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances
AU38924/99A AU765187B2 (en) 1998-05-08 1999-05-07 Performance evaluation tool and method
EP99921812A EP1076870A1 (fr) 1998-05-08 1999-05-07 Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances
AU2003268607A AU2003268607B2 (en) 1998-05-08 2003-12-11 Performance evaluation tool and method
AU2003268606A AU2003268606B8 (en) 1998-05-08 2003-12-11 Performance evaluation tool and method

Applications Claiming Priority (12)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US8479498P 1998-05-08 1998-05-08
US60/084,794 1998-05-08
US11010798A 1998-07-01 1998-07-01
US09/110,106 US6615182B1 (en) 1998-05-08 1998-07-01 System and method for defining the organizational structure of an enterprise in a performance evaluation system
US09/110,107 1998-07-01
US09/110,109 1998-07-01
US09/110,109 US6901426B1 (en) 1998-05-08 1998-07-01 System and method for providing access privileges for users in a performance evaluation system
US09/110,103 US20020040309A1 (en) 1998-05-08 1998-07-01 System and method for importing performance data into a performance evaluation system
US09/110,108 US6604084B1 (en) 1998-05-08 1998-07-01 System and method for generating an evaluation in a performance evaluation system
US09/110,106 1998-07-01
US09/110,103 1998-07-01
US09/110,108 1998-07-01

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO1999059093A1 true WO1999059093A1 (fr) 1999-11-18

Family

ID=27557282

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US1999/010143 WO1999059093A1 (fr) 1998-05-08 1999-05-07 Outil et procede d'evaluation de performances

Country Status (4)

Country Link
EP (1) EP1076870A1 (fr)
AU (1) AU765187B2 (fr)
CA (1) CA2331188A1 (fr)
WO (1) WO1999059093A1 (fr)

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2004053744A1 (fr) * 2002-12-10 2004-06-24 Bhp Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd Systeme et procede d'evaluation
US7324954B2 (en) * 2001-06-29 2008-01-29 International Business Machines Corporation System and method for organizational risk based on personnel planning factors
WO2010026301A1 (fr) * 2008-09-05 2010-03-11 Suez Environnement Procédé et dispositif d'évaluation et d'amélioration des performances techniques d'une entreprise industrielle complexe, en particulier d'un service d'eau

Families Citing this family (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
AU2002250742B2 (en) * 2001-05-10 2008-03-06 Corporate Knowhow Pty Ltd A method of and system for gathering organisational information

Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0587290A2 (fr) * 1992-07-30 1994-03-16 Teknekron Infoswitch Corporation Procédé et dispositif pour surveiller et/ou régler la performance d'une organisation
EP0644510A2 (fr) * 1993-09-22 1995-03-22 Teknekron Infoswitch Corporation Surveillance d'un système de télécommunication
US5551880A (en) * 1993-01-22 1996-09-03 Bonnstetter; Bill J. Employee success prediction system
WO1997031320A1 (fr) * 1996-02-22 1997-08-28 Cullen Egan Dell Limited Systeme de management strategique
US5726914A (en) * 1993-09-01 1998-03-10 Gse Systems, Inc. Computer implemented process and computer architecture for performance analysis
US5784452A (en) * 1994-06-01 1998-07-21 Davox Corporation Telephony call center with agent work groups
US5909669A (en) * 1996-04-01 1999-06-01 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for generating a knowledge worker productivity assessment

Family Cites Families (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US4951249A (en) * 1986-10-24 1990-08-21 Harcom Security Systems Corp. Method and apparatus for controlled access to a computer system
US5233513A (en) * 1989-12-28 1993-08-03 Doyle William P Business modeling, software engineering and prototyping method and apparatus

Patent Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
EP0587290A2 (fr) * 1992-07-30 1994-03-16 Teknekron Infoswitch Corporation Procédé et dispositif pour surveiller et/ou régler la performance d'une organisation
US5551880A (en) * 1993-01-22 1996-09-03 Bonnstetter; Bill J. Employee success prediction system
US5726914A (en) * 1993-09-01 1998-03-10 Gse Systems, Inc. Computer implemented process and computer architecture for performance analysis
EP0644510A2 (fr) * 1993-09-22 1995-03-22 Teknekron Infoswitch Corporation Surveillance d'un système de télécommunication
US5784452A (en) * 1994-06-01 1998-07-21 Davox Corporation Telephony call center with agent work groups
WO1997031320A1 (fr) * 1996-02-22 1997-08-28 Cullen Egan Dell Limited Systeme de management strategique
US5909669A (en) * 1996-04-01 1999-06-01 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for generating a knowledge worker productivity assessment

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
KATZ R L: "BUSINESS/ENTERPRISE MODELING", IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, vol. 29, no. 4, 1 January 1990 (1990-01-01), pages 509 - 525, XP000265346, ISSN: 0018-8670 *

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7324954B2 (en) * 2001-06-29 2008-01-29 International Business Machines Corporation System and method for organizational risk based on personnel planning factors
WO2004053744A1 (fr) * 2002-12-10 2004-06-24 Bhp Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd Systeme et procede d'evaluation
WO2010026301A1 (fr) * 2008-09-05 2010-03-11 Suez Environnement Procédé et dispositif d'évaluation et d'amélioration des performances techniques d'une entreprise industrielle complexe, en particulier d'un service d'eau

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU3892499A (en) 1999-11-29
AU765187B2 (en) 2003-09-11
EP1076870A1 (fr) 2001-02-21
CA2331188A1 (fr) 1999-11-18

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US6604084B1 (en) System and method for generating an evaluation in a performance evaluation system
US6615182B1 (en) System and method for defining the organizational structure of an enterprise in a performance evaluation system
US6901426B1 (en) System and method for providing access privileges for users in a performance evaluation system
US20210233032A1 (en) System and method for evaluating job candidates
US7640165B2 (en) Web based methods and systems for managing compliance assurance information
US9959525B2 (en) Intelligent job matching system and method
US20020077998A1 (en) Web based system and method for managing sales deals
US8799039B2 (en) System and method for collecting and providing resource rate information using resource profiling
US8433713B2 (en) Intelligent job matching system and method
US7228284B1 (en) Method for routing and responding to sales leads between two organizations
US20080301296A1 (en) System and method for creating, tracking and analyzing tasks
US20020184085A1 (en) Employee performance monitoring system
US20080097781A1 (en) Employment sourcing system
US20020069080A1 (en) System for cataloging, inventorying, selecting, measuring, valuing and matching intellectual capital and skills with a skill requirement
US20060106638A1 (en) System and method for defining occupational-specific skills associated with job posistions
US20080040168A1 (en) Activity Based Costing Underwriting Tool
JP2007520775A (ja) 管理および組織の開発プロセスを容易にするためのシステム
US20060004612A1 (en) Systems and methods for configuring and processing insurance information
US20020040309A1 (en) System and method for importing performance data into a performance evaluation system
US20020198725A1 (en) Method and system for managing a relationship with a venture company
US20070041574A1 (en) IntelligentAdvisor TM , a contact, calendar, workflow, business method, and intelligence gathering application
AU765187B2 (en) Performance evaluation tool and method
AU2003268606B8 (en) Performance evaluation tool and method
JP2002207860A (ja) 情報に基づく営業活動支援方法
MXPA00010929A (en) Performance evaluation tool and method

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AE AL AM AT AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ CZ DE DE DK DK EE EE ES FI FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SL SZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 1999921812

Country of ref document: EP

Ref document number: 38924/99

Country of ref document: AU

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2331188

Country of ref document: CA

WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: PA/a/2000/010929

Country of ref document: MX

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: KR

WWP Wipo information: published in national office

Ref document number: 1999921812

Country of ref document: EP

REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

WWG Wipo information: grant in national office

Ref document number: 38924/99

Country of ref document: AU