Program, apparatus, method for performing evaluation support, and system

Abstract

To select an appropriate respondent without relying on experience or intuition of a personnel department, for example.SOLUTION: An evaluation support apparatus 10 includes: an acquisition unit 11 configured to acquire communication information among a plurality of employees; and a selection unit 12 configured to determine the degrees of relationships among the plurality of employees on the basis of the communication information, and to select at least one employee other than an evaluation target person, whose degree of relationship with the evaluation target person, among the plurality of employees is at least a predetermined value, as evaluators for evaluating the evaluation subject.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a technique for supporting the evaluation of personnel within an organization. [Background technology]

[0002] BACKGROUND ART In recent years, organizations such as companies have been conducting interviews known as surveys to evaluate personnel within the organization (for example, personnel evaluations and various other evaluations) (see, for example, Patent Document 1). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2006-185080 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] However, the quality of survey results in companies and other organizations is greatly influenced by who is selected as the evaluator and respondent. In particular, in evaluation methods such as so-called 360-degree evaluations, which require evaluation from multiple angles, including superiors, colleagues, subordinates, and even people outside the organization such as customers and partners, in order to evaluate the performance and skills of the person being evaluated from multiple angles, it is necessary to select respondents from outside the target employee's reporting line or organization (for example, people working on the same project across organizations), making it even more difficult to select the right person. For this reason, the reality is that respondents are selected based on the experience and intuition of the human resources department, etc. As a result, it has been difficult to conduct efficient surveys while ensuring the quality of the results.

[0005] An object of the present invention is to support the selection of an appropriate evaluator when evaluating personnel belonging to an organization. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] The present invention provides a program for causing a computer to execute a process for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an individual to be evaluated, the process including the steps of acquiring communication information between multiple personnel within an organization, determining the degree of relationship between the multiple personnel based on the communication information, and selecting one or more personnel from the multiple personnel whose degree of relationship with the evaluator is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as an evaluator who will evaluate the individual to be evaluated.

[0007] In a preferred embodiment, in the selecting step, a predetermined number of people are selected as the evaluators in descending order of the degree of relationship.

[0008] In another preferred embodiment, the acquisition step further acquires event information for events in which at least the person being evaluated and the evaluator are included as participants, and the selection step determines the degree of relationship based on the acquired event information.

[0009] In another preferred embodiment, the event information includes at least one of event detail information of the number of times the event has been attended, the number of participants, and the frequency of the event, and in the selection step, the degree of relationship is determined based on the event detail information.

[0010] In another preferred aspect, the method further includes a step of determining priority evaluators with relatively high priority from among the personnel, and if the number of priority evaluators is greater than the predetermined number, the selection of a number of evaluators exceeding the predetermined number is permitted.

[0011] In another preferred embodiment, in the selecting step, the number of times that one person can be selected as the evaluator is limited so as not to exceed a preset upper limit value.

[0012] In another preferred embodiment, in the acquiring step, frequency information indicating the frequency with which each person viewed information about the person being evaluated is further acquired, and in the selecting step, the evaluator is selected further based on the frequency information.

[0013] In another preferred embodiment, in the acquiring step, attributes of each personnel are further acquired, and in the selecting step, the evaluator is selected based further on at least one of the attributes of the evaluator and the attributes of the person being evaluated.

[0014] In another preferred embodiment, when the one person is set as the prioritized evaluator in the selecting step, the person is allowed to be selected a number of times exceeding the upper limit.

[0015] In another preferred aspect, the computer is further configured to execute the steps of setting a deadline for the selected evaluator to make the evaluation, and, if the selected evaluator is selected as the evaluator for a predetermined number or more of evaluation subjects within a certain period, adjusting the set deadline so that the period during which the evaluation can be made is longer.

[0016] The present invention also provides an evaluation support device for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an individual to be evaluated, the evaluation support device having an acquisition unit that acquires communication information between multiple personnel within an organization, and a selection unit that determines the degree of relationship between the multiple personnel based on the communication information, and selects one or more personnel from the multiple personnel whose degree of relationship with the individual to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, as an evaluator who will evaluate the individual to be evaluated.

[0017] The present invention also provides an evaluation support method for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an individual to be evaluated, the evaluation support method including an acquisition step of acquiring communication information between multiple personnel within an organization, and a selection step of determining the degree of relationship between the multiple personnel based on the communication information, and selecting one or more personnel from the multiple personnel whose degree of relationship with the individual to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, as evaluators who will evaluate the individual to be evaluated.

[0018] The present invention also provides an evaluation support system for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an individual to be evaluated, the evaluation support system having an acquisition unit that acquires communication information between multiple personnel within an organization, and a selection unit that determines the degree of relationship between the multiple personnel based on the communication information, and selects one or more personnel from the multiple personnel whose degree of relationship with the individual to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, as an evaluator who will evaluate the individual to be evaluated. [Effects of the Invention]

[0019] According to the present invention, when evaluating personnel belonging to an organization, it is possible to assist in selecting an appropriate evaluator. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0020] [Figure 1] 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an evaluation system using an evaluation support device according to a first embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the evaluation support device. [Figure 3] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a relationship table according to the embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of operation of the third embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 5] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of operation of the fourth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 6] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of operation of the embodiment. [Figure 7] FIG. 11 is a diagram for explaining an operation algorithm of the fifth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 8] FIG. 13 is a diagram for explaining an operation algorithm of the sixth embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0021] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

[0022] First Embodiment FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of an evaluation system 100 including an evaluation support device 10 according to a first embodiment of the present invention. The evaluation support device 10 is installed in an organization such as a company, and is a device that supports the implementation of a survey of personnel within the organization. The evaluation support device 10 is connected to a network 20 that includes an internal LAN of the organization and the external Internet, etc. Terminals of personnel within the organization are connected to the network 20 (not shown). Surveys are conducted via these terminals. A database 30 is also connected to the network 20.

[0023] The database 30 stores various information about personnel within the organization (such as gender, age, occupation, work history, years of service, and various personnel and appraisal information). Additionally, the database 30 stores communication information indicating communications between personnel within the organization. The database 30 is connected to, for example, a conference reservation system or a calendar (schedule management) system (not shown) shared by personnel within the organization. The database 30 acquires information from such systems periodically or in response to a request from the evaluation support device, and stores the acquired information temporarily or permanently. In this case, if the information is about an event, such as a conference, in which personnel within the organization participate, information about participants, the date and time of the event, etc. is included in the communication information. Furthermore, if the information is calendar information, information about the activities of each personnel, such as their planned activities or past activity records, is included in the communication information. For example, the communication information may also include information about communications between personnel within the organization and those outside the organization, such as those related to collaborative work with those outside the organization. The database 30 may also include various information about those outside the organization. In short, as long as the information can be used to select a person to request an evaluation of a certain personnel, it does not matter whether the organization to which the person belongs is the same as the organization to which the evaluator belongs.

[0024] Database 30 may also store, as communication information, information regarding communications between personnel using various communication tools, such as email, telephone, and SNS (social networking systems) such as Slack (registered trademark). For example, in the case of telephone (voice communication), database 30 connects to a system (not shown) that manages the status of telephone calls and appropriately acquires from this system information such as the caller, the date and time of the call, and the duration of the call. In the case of email, database 30 connects to an email server, for example, and acquires information such as the sender, recipient, and transmission and reception time of sent and received email. In the case of an SNS in which content information including text messages and images (still images, videos) is posted to unspecified or specific recipients, information such as the poster of the content, the recipient, the time the post was made, whether the recipient viewed the post, and whether a reply was sent to the poster is acquired.

[0025] The communication information may also be information indicating communication between personnel within an organization and personnel outside the organization. For example, communication information indicating participation in events such as meetings as part of work or social gatherings outside of work is stored in the database 30.

[0026] The evaluation support device 10 is a computer that executes processing to support a survey, specifically to select an evaluator who will evaluate an evaluation target in the survey. The evaluation support device 10 includes at least a processor and a storage unit. The storage unit includes a non-volatile storage unit that stores a program and a volatile storage unit used as a work area by the processor. In this embodiment, the processor of the evaluation support device 10 functions as the acquisition unit 11 and the selection unit 12 by executing the program stored in the non-volatile storage unit.

[0027] Here, as shown in FIG. 2, the acquisition unit 11 is a means for acquiring communication information c between multiple target personnel h from the database 30. In the figure, the object represented by h indicates each person who is the target of communication (multiple people may appear on the same day), and the object represented by dotted lines indicates that communication occurred between the multiple people surrounded by it as a result of an event (such as a meeting) in which the multiple people participated. For example, communication 910, a meeting, took place between personnel 901, 902, and 903, and information c1 about this communication is acquired by the acquisition unit. The acquisition unit 11 acquires all communication information (c1, c2, c3... = c) that took place between the multiple target personnel h.

[0028] This communication information may include, for example, the number of meetings attended and the total time spent in those meetings during a given period, as well as information about other participants who attended at the same time. Alternatively, it may include information identifying the sender and receiver of messages exchanged using various communication tools (email, telephone, Slack, etc.), the amount of information exchanged, and the number and frequency of exchanges. Furthermore, in addition to past communication records, future planned communication may also be taken into consideration by extracting information about various events from calendar information. In short, it is sufficient to estimate people who are likely to have a high level of communication with the person being evaluated (in other words, people who are considered appropriate as evaluators for the person being evaluated).

[0029] The selection unit 12 is a means for calculating the degree of relationship between multiple personnel h based on the communication information c, and selecting one or more personnel from the multiple personnel h whose degree of relationship with the person being evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as evaluators to evaluate the person being evaluated. Here, the degree of relationship can be expressed in any format, such as a number ranging from "0" (e.g., the lowest level of relationship or no contact with the person being evaluated) to "1" (e.g., the highest level of relationship or the only person who is connected to the person being evaluated). The evaluation may be a 360-degree evaluation, assessment evaluation, interview, personnel evaluation, or appraisal, and the type, content, perspective, method, purpose, or format of the evaluation results are not important. In this embodiment, the selection unit 12 selects a predetermined number of people as evaluators in descending order of the degree of relationship (rank as evaluator candidates). By excluding from the respondents those who are (or were) related to the person being evaluated but are presumed to have a weak relationship, it is possible to prevent the burden of answering from being concentrated on a specific person, such as someone who has a broad but shallow relationship with many people. The predetermined number may be set, for example, to seven people, depending on the burden on respondents, such as the number and volume of questions to be asked for the evaluation.

[0030] Next, an example of the operation of this embodiment will be described. When a survey of personnel belonging to a certain organization is conducted, the evaluation support device 10 is started up prior to the survey. In the evaluation support device 10, the selection unit 12 generates a relationship table 121, as shown in FIG. 3, based on communication information c acquired by the acquisition unit 11.

[0031] This relationship table 121 is a table in which the degree of relationship between each person being evaluated and other personnel is calculated based on communication information c as a value between "0" (presumed to have no relationship at all) and "1" (presumed to have the highest level of relationship), and the names of other personnel with a degree greater than "0" (i.e., those who are presumed to have some kind of relationship) are ranked in order of degree. Specifically, the first row indicates the person being evaluated, and the names in the second row and onward indicate the evaluator candidates. For example, the degree of relationship between the person being evaluated, Nakamura Masaru, is as follows: Sato Rieko is first, Ohara Taizo is second, ..., and Konno Shigeo is eighth.

[0032] The threshold (lower limit) for the number of people to be recorded in the relationship table 121 is not limited to "0" and may be any value (e.g., 0.1). Alternatively, whether or not to record a person in the relationship table 121 may be determined not by a threshold but by whether or not the degree is within a predetermined number of positions (e.g., 10th) from the top. For example, if there is an evaluation target with a broad but shallow relationship, there may be people with a relationship degree greater than 0. Even in this case, however, names ranked 11th or lower or 0.1 or lower are excluded from the relationship table 121. This prevents a person with an intimate relationship with the evaluation target from being selected as an evaluator, which would result in a decrease in the content (validity) of the evaluation.

[0033] Next, the selection unit 12 selects a predetermined number of people as evaluators in descending order of the degree of relationship. This predetermined number may be set according to the number of questions in the survey (response burden). For example, if the number of questions is greater than a predetermined standard value, the predetermined number of people may be selected according to the standard value ( The number of evaluators to be selected should be fewer (e.g., five) than the usual number (e.g., seven). If the human resources required for a survey are calculated by multiplying the number of questions per evaluator (the number of items to be answered) or the response burden calculated based on this by the number of evaluators to be selected, it is preferable to set the number of questions in the survey and the number of evaluators to be selected within the scope of these human resources. This makes it possible to balance the burden on the evaluators with the quality of the responses (survey results) obtained from the evaluators. The predetermined number or resources may be predetermined depending on the content of the survey, or may be freely set by the person formulating the survey, such as the human resources department. 3, the predetermined number is 7. Therefore, the selection unit 12 selects the people with the highest to seventh highest degrees of relationship as evaluators.

[0034] In the example of Fig. 3, for the evaluation target person Tanaka Sueko, there are only five people whose relationship degree is greater than "0." Therefore, in this case, the selection unit 12 selects the five people ranked from 1st to 5th whose relationship degree is greater than "0" as evaluators.

[0035] When the survey is conducted, questions related to the person being evaluated are sent to the selected evaluators via email or the like, and responses are collected from each evaluator. Based on the list of evaluators received by another system connected to the evaluator support device, emails or the like may be created by a person (administrator) in the human resources department or the like operating an email client application on a terminal of that system, who inputs addresses, questions, and instructions to send the emails, etc. Alternatively, upon receiving the list of evaluators, the device may identify the addresses, automatically input predetermined questions, and automatically execute the process of sending the emails to the addresses. In this way, according to this embodiment, it is possible to select a rational and appropriate evaluator based on the subject's communication situation and conduct a survey without relying on the experience or intuition of the human resources department, etc.

[0036] Second Embodiment In a second embodiment of the present invention, the acquisition unit 11 further acquires event information for events that include at least the person being evaluated and the evaluator as participants. Here, an event refers to, for example, a business conference, a meeting, or a social gathering outside of work. The event information includes information such as the date and time of the event, the venue, and the participants. The event information also includes detailed event information on at least one of the following: the number of times the event was attended, the number of participants, and the frequency of the event. The event may be an event within an organization to which the person being evaluated belongs, such as within a reporting line, or may be an event attended by people outside the organization to which the person being evaluated belongs, such as a meeting related to a cross-departmental project.

[0037] The selection unit 12 then determines the degree of the relationship based on the event information acquired by the acquisition unit 11. For example, it is estimated that the greater the number of events, frequency, and total time spent together with the person to be evaluated, the greater the degree of relationship between the person to be evaluated. Furthermore, the fewer the attendees at a conference or other event, the higher the density of communication is estimated to be, and therefore the higher the degree of relationship is estimated to be. Also, events with a certain number of attendees (e.g., 10 people) or more may be excluded from the calculation of the degree of relationship. This is because in the case of events with a large number of attendees, there is a possibility that communication with the person being evaluated is weak or virtually nonexistent. This allows the selection of more appropriate evaluators to conduct the survey depending on the content of the event.

[0038] The timing of the event may also be taken into consideration when estimating the degree of relationship. For example, it may be estimated that the degree of relationship is higher if the event is held outside of business hours than if it is held during business hours. Alternatively, the attributes or characteristics of the event may be taken into consideration. For example, the event format may be taken into consideration. For example, it may be estimated that the degree of relationship is higher if the event is held offline (participants participate in the same physical location) than if it is held online (participants are physically separated, such as in a web conference). Alternatively, the openness (confidentiality) of the event may be taken into consideration. For example, it may be estimated that the degree of relationship is higher if the event is not open to non-participants (private event) than if it is open to non-participants (public event). Furthermore, the necessity of attending the event may be taken into consideration. For example, it may be estimated that the degree of relationship is higher if the person being evaluated or the evaluator is a required attendee than if they are an optional attendee. This allows the degree of relationship to be calculated more accurately.

[0039] <Third embodiment> In this embodiment, the evaluation support device 10 further includes a means for determining priority evaluators with relatively high priority among personnel. When the number of priority evaluators is greater than the predetermined number, the selection unit 12 may exceptionally select more than the predetermined number. A priority evaluator is, for example, a person designated as an evaluator in the survey (e.g., a direct superior), including a person designated as a required evaluator in a personnel evaluation or assessment. In such a case, the selection unit 12 selects the priority evaluator as an evaluator in preference to an evaluator determined based on the degree of relationship.

[0040] 4 is a diagram illustrating a method for determining a preferred evaluator in this embodiment. Note that the method for determining a preferred evaluator described below is only an example, and the survey creator can freely determine the preferred evaluator each time a survey is conducted, for example. As shown in Figure 4, conditions regarding the preferred evaluator are specified for each type of survey. Regarding the types of surveys, 360-degree evaluation is a survey that aims to evaluate the person being evaluated from multiple angles by collecting evaluations from a wide range of people. Assessment evaluation is a survey that mainly aims to evaluate the degree of achievement of work goals set by the person being evaluated or their superiors. Interviews are basically surveys that aim to obtain detailed information from a small number of people who have close relationships with the person being evaluated. "Personnel evaluation / assessment" is a survey that aims to collect information necessary for personnel evaluations prepared by superiors or the human resources department.

[0041] "Required evaluator" means whether or not a required evaluator must be set. That is, if there is a required evaluator, it means that a person who meets certain conditions must be selected as the preferred evaluator. "Setting of evaluators outside the reporting line or outside the organization" means whether or not it is permissible to select a preferred evaluator from outside the reporting line or outside the organization when selecting a preferred evaluator. That is, "Yes" means that it is permissible to select a preferred evaluator from outside the reporting line or outside the organization, and "No" means that a preferred evaluator cannot be selected from outside the reporting line or outside the organization. In the example shown in the figure, when conducting a 360-degree evaluation, the person being evaluated must be the person who is in a supervisor or mentor relationship with the person being evaluated, and it is stipulated that if other priority evaluators are selected, they may be selected from outside the reporting line or from outside the organization.

[0042] The algorithm for selecting the preferred evaluator may be set for each job type. For example, in the case of a 360-degree evaluation, if the person being evaluated is an engineer, the supervisor and mentor may be set as the preferred evaluators, whereas if the person being evaluated is a manager, in addition to the supervisor and mentor, at least one of the subordinates may be set as the preferred evaluator.

[0043] This ensures the validity of the survey and the quality of the response results.

[0044] <Fourth embodiment> In this embodiment, the selection unit 12 limits the number of times that one person can be selected as an evaluator so that it does not exceed a preset upper limit.

[0045] An example of the operation of this embodiment will now be described with reference to Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 illustrates the number of times each person has been selected as an evaluator when evaluators are selected based on the degree of relationship. For example, if the upper limit is "4," Ichiro Hashiguchi's selection count of "6" exceeds the upper limit of "4."

[0046] Meanwhile, in this example, the relationship table 121 is as shown in Figure 6. Therefore, the selection unit 12 selects the degree of relationship between Hashiguchi Ichiro and each person to be evaluated in this relationship table 121 in ascending order of degree, and performs an operation to exclude Hashiguchi Ichiro from the evaluators, thereby keeping the number of times Hashiguchi Ichiro has been selected as an evaluator within the upper limit of "4". In the example of Figure 6, since the degree of relationship with the evaluation subjects Tamamura Naoki and Hori Misako is low, Hashiguchi Ichiro is excluded from the evaluators for these evaluation subjects. As a result, for the evaluation subjects Tamamura Naoki and Hori Misako, from whom Hashiguchi Ichiro has been excluded as an evaluator, evaluators are selected from those with the highest degree of relationship. For example, for the subjects Tamamura Naoki and Hori Misako, the subjects to be evaluated would be selected in the following order of priority: Aoyama Tarou, Kuro Mayumi, Takei Yuko... However, in this example, Aoyama Tarou (ranked 5th), Kuro Mayumi (ranked 6th), and Takei Yuko (ranked 7th) are ranked 4th or higher in relation to the other subjects to be evaluated. As a result, they have a relationship with each other and have already been selected four or more times, so they are excluded from the selection list. Maekawa Miyu, ranked 8th, has not yet been selected four times. As a result, for Tamamura Naoki and Hori Misako, Maekawa Miyuki and Takei Yuko, who are ranked 8th in relation to each other, are selected as evaluators instead of Hashiguchi Ichiro.

[0047] In this way, according to this embodiment, it is possible to prevent the burden of evaluation work from being concentrated on a particular person due to the fact that a particular person is selected as an evaluator far more times than other people.

[0048] Fifth Embodiment In this embodiment, the acquiring unit 11 further acquires the attributes of each person. The selecting unit 12 selects an evaluator based on at least one of the attributes of the person and the attributes of the person to be evaluated.

[0049] Here, "attributes" refers to job position, job grade, job responsibilities, job type, job content, age, gender, year of joining the company, evaluation of the employee, etc. "Selecting an evaluator based further on at least one of the attributes of the employee and the attributes of the person being evaluated" specifically means the following:

[0050] Example 1: Based only on the attributes of the evaluator candidate For example, from the perspective of job position, a managerial position is more likely to be selected as an evaluator than a section manager, because such managers are accustomed to evaluations and their responses are presumed to be more reliable.

[0051] Example 2: Based on the attributes of the person being evaluated and the attributes of the candidate evaluator For example, people in the same occupation as the person being evaluated are more likely to be selected as evaluators. This is because it is believed that people in the same occupation, work content, and department as the person being evaluated are more likely to be able to make an accurate evaluation. This takes into account the relative relationship between the person being evaluated and the evaluator.

[0052] Example 3: Based only on the attributes of the person being evaluated If the person being evaluated has a special occupation, it is appropriate to consider only the attributes of the person being evaluated. For example, there may be cases where the occupation or work content is very specialized or special, and only people engaged in the same or similar occupation or work content (with a certain degree of relevance) can be evaluated accurately.

[0053] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating the operation algorithm of this embodiment. The acquisition unit 11 acquires job title, job type, and evaluation as attributes of the candidate evaluator. The relationship score is the degree of relationship with the person being evaluated, calculated based on the communication information c. In this embodiment, a score is calculated by taking into account the degree of relationship according to job title, job type, and evaluation, and the priority order for selecting evaluators is determined based on this score.

[0054] According to this embodiment, by taking into consideration the attributes of each person, a person who is more suitable to evaluate the person to be evaluated can be selected as an evaluator, compared to the first embodiment.

[0055] Sixth Embodiment In this embodiment, when determining the priority of selecting personnel within an organization as evaluators, the status of access to the information of the person being evaluated is taken into consideration. For example, it can be reasonably assumed that a person who regularly accesses the information of the person being evaluated is likely to be the right person to evaluate the person.

[0056] In this embodiment, the acquisition unit 11 further acquires frequency information indicating the frequency with which each person viewed information about the person to be evaluated. The selection unit 12 further selects evaluators based on the frequency information. 8 is a diagram for explaining the operation algorithm of this embodiment. The acquisition unit 11 acquires information indicating the browsing status of information about the person to be evaluated, in addition to the information according to the fifth embodiment. The information about the person to be evaluated may be, for example, a file held by a personnel system that manages information such as attendance and performance of the person to be evaluated, or a page held by the person to be evaluated on an in-house SNS for transmitting various information. Specifically, as shown in the figure, the number of times information about the person to be evaluated has been viewed (the number of views) within a predetermined period (for example, from the present to the past) is acquired as information indicating the viewing status. The score calculated in the fifth embodiment is then corrected according to this number of views. In this example, if the number of views is 10 or more, 5 to 9, or 1 to 4, "0.1," "0.05," and "0.03" are added to the score, respectively. Note that the information about the person to be evaluated is generated, for example, by a system (not shown) connected to the network 20 and operated and managed by the human resources department, and when the information is viewed, the viewer, the timing of the view, and the person (the person to be evaluated) involved in the viewed content are stored in the database 30. In this example, the calculation of the score value is based on attribute information such as job position, job type, and evaluation, but the score (and priority) may also be determined based only on communication information and viewing status information without using such attribute information.

[0057] This allows the selection of evaluators who are best suited to evaluate the person being evaluated.

[0058] Seventh Embodiment This embodiment is an exception to the fourth embodiment, which corresponds to the third embodiment. In this embodiment, when one person is set as a prioritized evaluator, the selection unit 12 allows the person to be selected a number of times exceeding the upper limit.

[0059] In this embodiment, priority evaluators (e.g., obligated responders) are not subject to adjustments to reduce their response burden. This is because, in order to ensure the quality of evaluations, evaluations by priority evaluators are necessary even if they impose a certain degree of burden.

[0060] Eighth Embodiment In this embodiment, the evaluation support device 10 has a deadline setting unit that sets a deadline for the selected evaluator to perform the evaluation, and a deadline adjustment unit that adjusts the set deadline so that the period during which the selected evaluator can perform the evaluation is extended when the selected evaluator is selected as the evaluator for a predetermined number of evaluation targets within a certain period. For example, the evaluation support device 10 may send a set of evaluators and response deadlines set for each evaluator to the terminal of a person who operates a terminal to create a survey request email, or may provide the set to a system that automatically distributes emails.

[0061] Here, "adjusting the deadline" means delaying the reply deadline, temporarily suspending the reply request itself, extending the reply period, etc. According to this embodiment, the number of reply requests cannot be adjusted, but delaying the reply deadline can reduce the burden on respondents.

[0062] In each of the above embodiments, the evaluation support device 10, which is a single computer, executes the processes of the acquisition unit 11 and the selection unit 12 in accordance with a program, but multiple computers connected via a network may cooperate to execute the processes of the acquisition unit 11 and the selection unit 12. That is, the present invention may be realized as a method or system that executes the processes of the acquisition unit 11 and the selection unit 12. The same applies to the second and subsequent embodiments described below. Furthermore, the evaluation support device 10 may be incorporated as part of a system that sends requests to evaluators and collects their responses using email, a chat application, or the like. In short, in the information processing system of the present invention, one or more computers are executing a process for selecting an evaluator to evaluate an individual to be evaluated, the process including the steps of acquiring communication information between multiple personnel, determining the degree of relationship between the multiple personnel based on the communication information, and selecting one or more other personnel from the multiple personnel whose degree of relationship with the evaluator is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as an evaluator to evaluate the individual to be evaluated. [Explanation of symbols]

[0063] 100...Evaluation system, 10...Evaluation support device, 20...Network, 30...Database, 11...Acquisition unit, 12...Selection unit.

Claims

1. A process for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an evaluation target, acquiring communication information between a plurality of personnel; determining the degree of relationship between the plurality of personnel based on the communication information, and selecting one or more personnel among the plurality of personnel whose degree of relationship with the evaluator is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as evaluators who will evaluate the person to be evaluated; A program for causing a computer to execute a process including the above.

2. In the selecting step, a predetermined number of people are selected as the evaluators in descending order of the degree of the relationship. The program according to claim 1.

3. In the step of acquiring, information on an event in which at least the person to be evaluated and the evaluator are included as participants is further acquired; In the selecting step, the degree of the relationship is determined based on the acquired event information. The program according to claim 1.

4. The event information includes at least one of detailed event information of the number of times the event has been attended, the number of participants, and the frequency of the event; In the step of selecting, the degree of the relationship is determined based on the event detailed information. The program according to claim 3.

5. The method further includes a step of determining a priority evaluator having a relatively high priority from among the personnel; If the number of priority evaluators is greater than the predetermined number, the selection of a number of people exceeding the predetermined number is permitted. The program according to claim 2.

6. In the step of selecting, the number of times that one person can be selected as the evaluator is limited so as not to exceed a preset upper limit value. The program according to claim 1.

7. In the step of acquiring, frequency information indicating a frequency with which each person has viewed the information on the person to be evaluated is further acquired; In the step of selecting, the evaluators are selected further based on the frequency information. The program according to claim 1.

8. In the step of acquiring, attributes of each person are further acquired; In the step of selecting, the evaluator is selected based on at least one of the attributes of the evaluator and the attributes of the person to be evaluated. The program according to claim 1.

9. In the step of selecting, when the one person is set as the prioritized evaluator, the number of times the person is selected exceeds the upper limit. The program according to claim 6.

10. setting a deadline for the selected evaluator to perform the evaluation; a step of adjusting the set deadline so that the period for conducting the evaluations becomes longer when the selected one evaluator is selected as an evaluator for a predetermined number or more of evaluation subjects in a certain period of time; and causing the computer to further execute The program according to claim 1.

11. An apparatus for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an evaluation subject, comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires communication information between a plurality of personnel; a selection unit that determines the degree of relationship between the plurality of personnel based on the communication information, and selects one or more personnel among the plurality of personnel whose degree of relationship with the person to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as an evaluator who will evaluate the person to be evaluated; An evaluation support device having the above.

12. A method for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an evaluation subject, comprising: an acquisition step of acquiring communication information between a plurality of personnel; a selection step of determining the degree of relationship between the plurality of personnel based on the communication information, and selecting one or more personnel among the plurality of personnel whose degree of relationship with the person to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as an evaluator who will evaluate the person to be evaluated; An evaluation support method having the above.

13. A system for selecting an evaluator who will evaluate an evaluation subject, comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires communication information between a plurality of personnel; a selection unit that determines the degree of relationship between the plurality of personnel based on the communication information, and selects one or more personnel among the plurality of personnel whose degree of relationship with the person to be evaluated is equal to or greater than a predetermined value as an evaluator who will evaluate the person to be evaluated; An evaluation support system having the above.

Images