Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program

Abstract

To enable the selection of suitable personnel for an organization using indexes that represent the strength of the organization.SOLUTION: A server 10 comprises a survey execution unit 11, a degree calculation unit 12, and a matching unit 15. The survey execution unit 11 asks first to fourth questions to each of a plurality of employees belonging to a company, and obtains the answers to the respective questions as survey results. The degree calculation unit 12 calculates the degree to which each company has achieved N types (N is an integer value of 1 or more) of index elements for each of the first to fourth questions based on the survey results. The matching unit 15 calculates the degree of match (degree of compatibility) between a specific user among a plurality of users and an organization such as a company or department based on M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of N types of index elements.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 3

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an information processing device, an information processing method, and a program. [Background technology]

[0002] BACKGROUND ART Conventionally, there have been human resource development support systems that diagnose the skills of users and support human resource development based on the results of the diagnosis (see, for example, Patent Document 1). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2004-246507 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Here, skills refer to the abilities that a person has acquired through training, etc. However, the indicator of skills alone cannot measure the current strength of the organization to which the person belongs, such as a company, or the organization's ability to change and grow, in other words, the "strength of the organization," and the current situation is that there is no way to express this.

[0005] The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and aims to make it possible to select personnel or units suitable for an organization using an index that expresses the "strength of an organization." [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] In order to achieve the above object, an information processing device according to one embodiment of the present invention comprises: a question answer information acquisition means for acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) among a first question about the state of the individual, a second question about the state of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the structure of the organization, all of which are posed to each of a plurality of individuals belonging to a predetermined organization; an activity level calculation means for calculating the degree of achievement of the predetermined organization for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) based on the question answer information for each of the L questions, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of the N types of index elements based on the total degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation means for calculating a compatibility between a predetermined individual among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; Equipped with. An information processing method and a program corresponding to the information processing device according to one aspect of the present invention are also provided as an information processing method and a program according to one aspect of the present invention. [Effects of the Invention]

[0007] According to the present invention, it becomes possible to select personnel or units suitable for an organization using an index that expresses the "strength of an organization." [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0008] [Figure 1] 1 shows the overall configuration of an information processing system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] 2 is a block diagram showing a hardware configuration of a server in the information processing system of FIG. 1. FIG. [Figure 3] 3 is a functional block diagram showing the functional configuration of a server having the hardware configuration of FIG. 2. [Figure 4] FIG. 1 illustrates the concept of human power. [Figure 5] FIG. 1 illustrates the concept of organizational power. [Figure 6]FIG. 1 illustrates the concept of tissue activity levels. [Figure 7] FIG. 1 is a conceptual diagram showing the relationship between factors that derive tissue force and activation levels. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the contents of a questionnaire result among the elements to be input. [Figure 9] This is a diagram showing an example in which the servers in Figures 2 and 3 derive "organizational power" in a company. [Figure 10] FIG. 4 is a process diagram showing the operation (processing flow) of the server in FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 11] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the "organizational power" presented by the server as a result of the processing of FIG. 10. [Figure 12] 4 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength" and the like of the first company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. 2 and 3. FIG. [Figure 13] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength," etc. of the second company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 14] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength," etc. of the third company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 15] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength," etc. of the fourth company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 16] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength," etc. of the fifth company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 17] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of aptitude determination logic by a matching unit of the server shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. [Figure 18] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing priority determination [1] (first priority determination) according to the suitability determination logic of FIG. [Figure 19] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing priority determination [2] (second priority determination) according to the suitability determination logic of FIG. [Figure 20] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing priority determination [3] (third priority determination) according to the suitability determination logic of FIG. [Figure 21] This figure shows the results of the suitability assessment conducted in step [A] S1 of Figure 17 for candidates who meet the industry and job characteristics, based on whether they meet the IT industry standards (industry-specific characteristics). [Figure 22] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing the determination results for the items in step [B-1] S2 of FIG. [Figure 23] This figure shows the results of determining suitability for candidates who meet the industry and job characteristics based on whether they meet Company Z's standards (company-specific characteristics) in step [A] S1 of Figure 17. [Figure 24] This is a diagram showing the results of the determination of whether candidate A meets the criteria for industry, job type, and company. [Figure 25] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing the determination results for the items in step [B-1] S2 of FIG. [Figure 26] This is a diagram showing the results of calculating the degree of match between the industry, job type, and company criteria for each of the two candidates, A and B. [Figure 27] FIG. 18 is a diagram showing the determination result of "widen / connect" in the determination process of step [C] S4 of FIG. [Figure 28] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on new graduate employees in their first to third years at a company. [Figure 29] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on a candidate (a specified employee) employed by a company. [Figure 30] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the judgment process in step [B-1] S2 performed on candidates (predetermined employees) employed by a company. [Figure 31] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on a candidate (a specified employee) employed by a company. [Figure 32] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of matching in terms of rewards. [Figure 33] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of matching in terms of applicants' desired remuneration. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0009] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 shows the overall configuration of an information processing system 1 according to one embodiment of the present invention. The information processing system 1 shown in Figure 1 is configured by connecting a server 10 and n (n is any integer value equal to or greater than 1) user terminals 20-1 to 20-n to each other via a predetermined network NW such as the Internet. In the following description, when there is no need to distinguish between the user terminals 20-1 to 20-n, they will be collectively referred to as "user terminal 20."

[0010] The service provided by the service provider using the information processing system 1 of FIG. 1 visualizes the power of change and growth of member companies as "organizational power" and provides it to members. The user terminal 20 is an information processing device managed for each user, and is configured, for example, as a personal computer, tablet terminal, smartphone, or the like, and is each employee of a company that has become a member of this service. The server 10 is an information processing device managed by the service provider, and executes various processes while controlling the operations of the user terminals 20-1 to 20-n.

[0011] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the hardware configuration of a server in the information processing system 1 of FIG.

[0012] The server 10 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 101, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 102, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 103, a bus 104, an input / output interface 105, an output unit 106, an input unit 107, a memory unit 108, a communication unit 109, and a drive 110.

[0013] The CPU 101 executes various processes according to a program recorded in the ROM 102 or a program loaded from the storage unit 108 into the RAM 103 . The RAM 103 also stores data and the like necessary for the CPU 101 to execute various processes.

[0014] The CPU 101, ROM 102, and RAM 103 are connected to one another via a bus 104. An input / output interface 105 is also connected to this bus 104. An output unit 106, an input unit 107, a storage unit 108, a communication unit 109, and a drive 110 are connected to the input / output interface 105.

[0015] The output unit 106 is composed of a display, a speaker, etc., and outputs various information as images and sounds. The input unit 107 is made up of a keyboard, a mouse, etc., and is used to input various types of information.

[0016] The storage unit 108 is configured with a hard disk, a DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory), etc., and stores various data. The communication unit 109 communicates with other devices (such as the user terminal 20 in the example of FIG. 1) via a network NW including the Internet.

[0017] Removable media 111, such as a magnetic disk, optical disk, magneto-optical disk, or semiconductor memory, is appropriately loaded into the drive 110. A program read from the removable media 111 by the drive 110 is installed in the storage unit 108 as needed. Furthermore, the removable medium 111 can also store various data stored in the storage unit 108 in the same manner as the storage unit 108 .

[0018] FIG. 3 is a functional block diagram showing the functional configuration of a server having the hardware configuration of FIG. As shown in FIG. 3, a DB 60 is provided in one area of ​​the storage unit 108 (FIG. 2) of the server 10. The DB 60 stores answers to questions in a questionnaire given to users. Specifically, the answers to questions 1 to 4 in a questionnaire given to each employee of the company are stored as the survey results. The first question concerns the individual's state, such as whether they are taking action. The second question concerns the state of the organization from the individual's perspective. The third question concerns the relationship between the individual and those around them. The fourth question concerns the structure of the organization.

[0019] Furthermore, the DB 60 stores calculation results 61 of the calculation processes executed by the CPU 101. Specifically, the calculation results 61 include visualized numerical values ​​for each index element in an organization such as a company or department, a total visualized numerical value, a final visualized numerical value obtained by correcting the total visualized numerical value, an activity level, a total activity level, and "strength of the entire organization" information, as well as visualized numerical values ​​for each index element in an individual user, a total visualized numerical value, a final visualized numerical value obtained by correcting the total visualized numerical value, an activity level, a total activity level, and the like.

[0020] In addition, the DB 60 stores the judgment conditions for converting the final visualization value into an activity level, deriving the total activity level from multiple activity levels, coefficients for correcting the total visualization value, and the company's organizational attributes 62.

[0021] The judgment condition is a judgment condition for replacing the final visualized numerical value with an activity level ("A" to "D"). For example, if the final visualized numerical value is in the first range Y1-Y2, it is converted to "A", if the final visualized numerical value is in the second range Y2-Y3, it is converted to "B", if the final visualized numerical value is in the third range Y3-Y4, it is converted to "C", and if the final visualized numerical value is in the fourth range Y4-Y5, it is converted to "D". The organizational attributes 62 of a company include, for example, the year of establishment of the company, the number of employees, the industry, the department, etc. Specific examples of organizational attributes will be explained later in the examples.

[0022] In the CPU 101 of the server 10 (see Figure 2), when the visualization process of the "organizational strength" information is executed, as shown in Figure 3, a survey execution unit 11, a degree calculation unit 12, a "total organizational strength" information generation unit 13, a visualization presentation unit 14, a matching unit 15, and a group activity level prediction unit 16 function.

[0023] The survey execution unit 11 acquires, as survey results (question response information), responses to each of the following questions in a survey administered to each of multiple employees belonging to a company: a first question regarding the individual's state, such as whether they are taking action; a second question regarding the state of the organization from the individual's perspective; a third question regarding how the individual interacts with those around them; and a fourth question regarding the organization's structure. Specifically, when each employee of a company becomes a member, i.e., a user, of this service, the survey execution unit 11 reads out the survey stored in DB60, sends the survey to each user terminal 20, and at each user terminal 20, obtains the information on each user's responses to the survey, i.e., the survey results, and stores the survey results in DB60 in association with the user.

[0024] Based on the question response information, the degree calculation unit 12 calculates the degree to which the company has achieved each of N types (N is an integer value of 2 or more) of index elements such as ``notice,'' ``learn,'' ``be able to change,'' ``expand and connect,'' and ``continue'' for each of the first to fourth questions. "Awareness" is an indicator element for determining whether a person recognizes their own role and has a correct self-awareness of their lack of knowledge and skills. "Learning" is an indicator element used to determine whether new knowledge or skills are acquired to address gaps in knowledge or skills. "Can change" is an indicator element used to determine whether or not a person can actually take action in their work and change the way they do things from before. "Spreading and connecting" is an indicator element used to determine whether awareness, learning, and practice can be shared with those around you. "Continue" is an index element for determining whether the above can be continued. Specifically, the degree calculation unit 12 reads out the organizational attributes and the questionnaire results stored in DB 60, and assigns a visualized numerical value (score) to each index element ("notice," "learn," "can do and change," "expand and connect," and "continue") based on the organizational attributes (individual attributes in the case of an individual) and the questionnaire results (question answer information). Here, the current score is assigned to the score to be achieved for each index element. In the case of an organization, the answers to all items in questions 1 to 4 are used, and in the case of an individual, the answers to the items in questions 1 to 4 that relate to the individual (for example, questions 1 and 3) are used. Furthermore, the degree calculation unit 12 processes (for example, performs summing or correction processing, conversion processing into level symbols such as activity level and total activity level) the visualized numerical values ​​(scores) assigned to each index element ("notice," "learn," "be able to change," "expand and connect," and "continue") respectively. The activity level is expressed, for example, by level symbols "A" to "D." Such conversion is performed by AI. The level symbol "A" indicates a high level, and the level symbol "D" indicates a low level.

[0025] The degree calculation unit 12 includes a visualization numerical value totaling unit 31, a visualization numerical value total correcting unit 32, an activity level calculation unit 33, and a total activity level calculation unit .

[0026] The visualization numerical value totaling unit 31 calculates a visualization numerical value total (total degree) by totaling the visualization numerical values ​​of the first to fourth questions for each of the N types of index elements.

[0027] The visualization numerical value total correction unit 32 sets a coefficient (predetermined weight) (see, for example, FIG. 12) for each of the N types of index elements, and corrects the visualization numerical value total (total degree) for each of the N types of index elements according to the coefficient for each of the N types of index elements to generate a corrected visualization numerical value total value for each index element. The corrected visualization numerical value total value is referred to as the "final visualization numerical value." Note that the coefficient is set to a larger value for an item that contributes more to the activity level of the tissue. Correction is not essential.

[0028] The activity level calculation unit 33 calculates M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of the N types of index elements based on the total of the visualization numerical values ​​(total degree) for each of the N types of index elements. Specifically, the visualization numerical value total (total degree) corrected by the visualization numerical value total correcting unit 32 is converted into one of the level symbols "A" to "D" of the activity levels in FIG.

[0029] The total activity level calculation unit 34 calculates (derives) a total activity level (see FIG. 12) that is a combination of the five types (N types) of activity levels calculated by the activity level calculation unit 33.

[0030] The calculation of the visualized numerical values ​​and the determination of the activity level are performed by an AI model. The calculation of the degree and the determination of the activity level performed by the AI ​​model utilize five types of index elements and organizational attributes acquired by the questionnaire execution unit 11. In addition to the AI ​​model, the calculation of the degree and the determination of the activity level may also be performed based on a preset algorithm.

[0031] The "strength of the entire organization" information generation unit 13 generates "strength of the entire organization" information that indicates the "strength of the entire organization," which is the power of multiple employees and the company to at least one of change and growth, based on the degree of each of the N types of index elements for each of the first to fourth questions. Specifically, the "total tissue force" information generating unit 13 generates the total activity level itself or its processed information as "total tissue force" information based on the visualized numerical value and activity level calculated by the degree calculating unit 12. The "tissue force" and the tissue activity level or its processed information are collectively referred to as the "total tissue force." The "total organizational strength" information generation unit 13 generates the total activity level (see FIG. 12) itself or its processed information (such as by converting the total activity level into a numerical value) as "total organizational strength" information. The total activity level itself is a synthesis of the activity levels. In the example of FIG. 12, the level symbols "D," "D," "B," "C," and "C" obtained for each index element are synthesized to generate the level symbol "C." Such a comprehensive judgment is performed by AI.

[0032] The visualization presentation unit 14 presents the "strength of the entire organization" information as visualized information. Specifically, the visualization presentation unit 14 generates and presents a bar graph of "organizational strength" shown in Figure 10, a level symbol display of "organizational activity level", and a distribution diagram (also called a radar chart, pattern, etc.) shown in Figure 11 from the visualization numerical values ​​(scores) and activity levels (level symbols).

[0033] The matching unit 15 calculates the degree of compatibility (match) between a specified user among multiple users and a specified company (specified organization) based on M levels of activity levels for each of N types of index elements. Specifically, the matching unit 15 calculates the degree of compatibility between a specified user and a specified company based on the pattern of M levels of activity for each of N types of index elements, as a first degree of compatibility that is above a certain level (suitable) or a second degree of compatibility that is below a certain level (not suitable).

[0034] The matching unit 15 further calculates whether each of the M activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for a specified user and a specified company is suitable (first suitability degree) or not (second suitability degree) based on the suitability degree. Specifically, as in step [A] S1 of FIG. 17, if the activation pattern for each element is compatible, it is determined to be suitable, and if not, it is determined to be incompatible.

[0035] The matching unit 15 determines that the activity levels of all of the N types of index elements are appropriate if the degree of suitability is equal to or greater than a certain level. Specifically, as in step [B-1] S2 of FIG. 17, if the activation pattern is suitable for all items, it is determined to be suitable, and if not, it is determined to be unsuitable.

[0036] In addition, the matching unit 15 determines that the activity levels of P types (P is an integer value less than N) out of N types of index elements have a compatibility level equal to or higher than a first level, and the compatibility levels of the remaining types of activity levels have a compatibility level equal to or higher than a second level (a level lower than the first level). Specifically, as shown in step [B-2] S3 of Figure 17, if the product conforms to P items but also meets the minimum standards for other items, it is judged to be appropriate; otherwise, it is judged to be inappropriate.

[0037] For each of the multiple attributes, an activity level standard is set to distinguish between suitable and unsuitable, and the matching unit 15 further calculates the final degree of suitability, whether suitable or unsuitable, for a combination of a specified user and a specified company that has been determined to be suitable, using the standard of a specific attribute from among the multiple attributes. Specifically, when specific requirements are required, from among those who are judged to be suitable as a result of the judgments in step [B-1] S2 and step [B-2] S3, as shown in step [C] S4 of Figure 17, if the activity pattern of specific attributes such as job type or position matches, then the person is judged to be suitable, and if not, then the person is judged to be unsuitable, thereby further narrowing down the number of more suitable people.

[0038] The group activity level prediction unit 16 predicts the M-stage activity level for each of the N types of index elements for a predetermined unit (a group divided by business type, industry, or job title) based on the M-stage activity level for each of the N types of index elements for each of the multiple individuals belonging to the predetermined unit. In this case, the matching unit 15 calculates the degree of match (fit) between a predetermined individual and a predetermined group (predetermined unit) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for each of the predetermined user and the predetermined group. Alternatively, the matching unit 15 may calculate the degree of match between a predetermined group (predetermined unit) and a predetermined organization (e.g., a predetermined company) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for each of the predetermined group and the predetermined organization.

[0039] Here, an organization refers to a group of two or more individuals. In this embodiment, an organization will be described by taking a company as an example of an organization, such as a company, a corporation, or a department. "Organizational strength" refers to the capabilities of the entire organization, which is a collection of individuals. "Organizational strength" is derived based on the answers obtained from questions and the attributes of the organization. Not only skills, but also abilities, attitudes, and personalities are included as elements of "organizational strength." The elements represent the current state of the organization through "organizational strength" and the activity level of the organization. The specific names and contents of the elements are not disclosed, and the number of elements is assumed to be N. The activity level of an organization is one of the indicators that indicates whether the organization is currently in an active state. An active state refers to a state in which positive relationships that promote mutual growth are built within an organization. The level of an organization's activity is determined based on the answers to the questions and the attributes of the organization. The higher the activity level, the greater the tissue's ability to change and grow.

[0040] Attributes for a user (individual) include age, gender, career history, etc. In the case of a company (organization), attributes include, for example, industry, company size, year of establishment, department, position, job type, level of investment in education, etc. Attributes are optional information and can be omitted, but the more attribute information there is, the more precise the results you can obtain.

[0041] Skills are something that can be improved through appropriate training, such as the skills acquired through training, and the skills of an organization as a whole are often the cumulative value of individual skills. On the other hand, "organizational strength" is composed of the skills, abilities, personality, etc. of each individual, and therefore is thought to be not a simple total value, as positive or negative interactions (or no interactions) occur. Interactions contribute to the activity level of the organization, and it can be said that the higher the activity level of the organization, the more positive interactions are occurring. In this embodiment, "organizational strength" and activity level together are called the PDS score.

[0042] This configuration of the server 10 calculates the degree of achievement (e.g., a visualized numerical value such as 60 points or 100%) of an organization, such as a company or department, for each of the five indicator elements (e.g., notice, learn, continue, etc.) based on the survey results (questions X1 through X4). Based on the degree of each of the five indicator elements, the server calculates the activity level (e.g., one of the levels "A" through "D") for each indicator element (the numerical value is converted into a level code). Based on the activity level pattern (e.g., "A," "B," "B," "C," "A," etc.), the server calculates the match between the user and the organization. This enables the selection of personnel suitable for the organization using indicators such as activity levels that represent the "strength of the organization." Human resources include not only individual users but also groups (units of people smaller than an organization). The activity level pattern is referred to as a characteristic. As an example of the rules for converting numerical values ​​into level codes, if 100 points is the maximum score, for example, 0 points or more but less than 25 points would be "D," 25 points or more but less than 50 points would be "B," 50 points or more but less than 75 points would be "B," and 75 points or more would be "A." Other examples are also possible, for example, points less than 50 could be "D," and scores of 50 points or more could be divided into predetermined intervals and assigned in the order of levels "C," "B," and "A." Furthermore, the activation level of the organization is calculated using the degree calculated from the answers to all of the multiple questions (e.g., questions X1 to X4), and the activation level of the user is calculated using the degree calculated from the answers to the questions that focus on individual behavior (e.g., questions X1 and X3).

[0043] The server 10 of the embodiment can derive the following from the results of the PDS (current organizational strength, activity level, possessed attributes, etc.). You can find people who are suitable for your industry, business, organization (company, department, division, etc.), position, job type, etc. Individuals can find the industry, business, position, job type, etc. that is suitable for them.

[0044] Here, we will explain the outline of this service. This service visualizes the strength of an organization, its changes, and its ability to grow (including its ability to continue to change) and provides this information to member users. This service asks questions in the form of a questionnaire to people who belong to an organization (a group of two or more individuals), and from their answers, it derives the organization's ability to change and grow. The ability to change and grow is derived from the answers to the questionnaire questions and the organization's attribute information. Some questions are about individuals who belong to the organization, while others are about the organization as a whole. In addition, some questions are only administered to people in specific roles, such as organizational managers. By conducting a survey with questions tailored to various angles and perspectives, it is possible to determine the current strength of the organization and its ability to change and grow (the organization's activity level).

[0045] The unique feature of this service is that it derives organizational change and growth potential through questions. Specifically, it asks about individual and organizational efforts regarding "behaviors that lead to growth." Many of the services mentioned above that visualize the state of an organization primarily diagnose based on "emotions (motivation)," but because emotions are temporary and easily changed by external factors, it is difficult to derive the ability to continuously grow by simply asking about emotions.

[0046] On the other hand, this service can derive the organization's ability to change and grow by asking about the "behaviors that lead to growth" of individuals within the organization and the "behaviors that lead to growth" of the organization.

[0047] In this way, this service can achieve the following effects by visualizing the changes and growth potential of people and organizations. For example, it can tell you the current organization's growth potential. It can also recommend initiatives to change the organization and increase its growth potential. Furthermore, by matching companies (organizations) with users (individuals) using activity levels as an indicator, it becomes possible to select the right talent for the organization. This makes it possible to identify, for example, the right talent to bring in from outside the company or from other departments in order to increase the company's growth potential and change. It is also possible to predict what state the organization will be in in the future. When predicting the future state of an organization, the server 10 can derive the future state of the organization from the current state and the visualization results.

[0048] Next, "organizational power," "human power," and "activation level" will be explained with reference to FIGS. Figure 4 is a diagram showing the concept of human power, Figure 5 is a diagram showing the concept of organizational power, and Figure 6 is a diagram showing the concept of organizational activity level. As shown in Figure 4, "human power" is defined as the ability of a person to accomplish things in a business setting, and is composed of n elements, including skills. Elements include skills as well as capabilities, personality, emotions, and attitudes. In other words, "people power" can be said to be a broad definition of skill. Skill refers to the ability acquired through training, and the overall skill of an organization is often the cumulative value of individual skills. To assess a person's business skills, tests such as the Business Basics Diagnostic Test are usually conducted. The results of these tests are often used to derive a person's "ability." When evaluating a person's "ability," the evaluation criteria are the abilities that the person possesses, that is, the ability values ​​of the knowledge and skills that the person has acquired. For example, skills are categorized (defined) into four categories, such as "business knowledge," "planning and control," "thinking," and "communication," and five items are set for each category. The score obtained as an evaluation for each item and category is considered to be that person's skill. The ability of a person to accomplish, which includes these skills, is considered to be "personal power."

[0049] As shown in Figure 5, organizational strength refers to the capabilities of the entire organization, which is a collection of individuals. Organizational strength is composed of the "human strength" and activity level of n people, and is derived based on users' responses to the questionnaire explanations and organizational attributes. The elements of organizational strength include not only skills, but also abilities, attitudes, and personalities.

[0050] As shown in Figure 6, the activity level of an organization indicates whether the organization is currently in an active state. An active state refers to a state in which positive relationships that encourage mutual growth have been built within the organization. It is derived based on the answers obtained from the questions and the attributes of the organization. The higher the activity level, the greater the organization's potential for change and growth. On the other hand, because the power of an organization is made up of the skills, abilities, and personalities of each individual, positive or negative interactions (or no interactions) occur, and it is thought that the power is not a simple sum. Interactions contribute to the activity level of the organization, and the higher the activity level of the organization, the more positive interactions are occurring.

[0051] Next, a method for deriving "tissue forces" and activation levels will be described with reference to FIGS. Fig. 7 is a conceptual diagram showing the relationship between elements for deriving organizational strength and activity level. Fig. 8 is a diagram showing the contents of the questionnaire results among the elements to be input. Fig. 9 is a diagram showing an example of deriving "organizational strength" in a company.

[0052] In this case, as shown in Figure 7, the input information (INPUT) is the survey results (each user's answer to questions X1-X4) and organizational attributes, and by combining this information, the organizational strength and organizational activity level are generated and output (OUTPUT). There are four types of questions, from question X1 to question X4. Question X1 is about the individual's state (whether they are taking action). Question X2 is about the state of the organization from the individual's perspective. Question X3 is about the relationship between the individual and those around them. Question X4 is about the structure of the organization.

[0053] As shown in Figure 8, the survey results show that the subject and respondent differ for each type of question. The subject of question X1 is the individual and the respondent is all employees. The subject of question X2 is the organization and the respondent is all employees. The subject of question X3 is the organization and the respondent is all employees. However, question X3 is also available for managers. The subject of question X4 is the organization and the respondent is human resources.

[0054] As such, questionnaires contain questions about the state of individuals and questions about the state of the organization, and some questions are only asked to specific people (management, human resources, executives, etc.).By answering the same questions, such as "Am I doing what I do?" and "Are the people around me doing what I do?", and evaluating them from both the "self" and "organization" perspectives, and by obtaining responses from multiple people to the same questions, it is possible to objectively grasp the state of the organization. Provide specific examples of the questions. For example, question X1 (asked of each employee) asks whether the employee is engaging in actions that will lead to growth, and whether there is an environment that will lead to growth. Question X2 (asked of each employee) asks, for example, whether the employees around you are taking actions that lead to growth, and whether the organization has an environment that leads to growth. Question X3 (for managers) asks whether they are taking actions that lead to the growth of their subordinates and whether they are providing an environment that leads to growth. Question X4 (question to human resources) asks whether there is a system in place that leads to the growth of individuals and the organization.

[0055] Other information that can be entered is organizational attributes. Organizational attributes are information about the organization to be evaluated, such as the company's industry, business type, job type, type, year of establishment, and organizational size. Organizational size can be, for example, the number of employees (headcount). In addition, the "strength of the organization" and the activity level of the organization are expressed as the current state of the organization using N indicator elements (for example, five indicator elements such as "notice," "learn," "be able to change," "spread and connect," and "continue"). "To be aware" means to recognize one's own role and have a correct self-awareness of the knowledge and skills that one lacks. "To learn" means to gain new knowledge and skills that one lacks. "To be able to change" means to actually take action in one's work and change the way one does things from before. "To spread and connect" means to share one's awareness, learning, and practice with those around oneself. "To continue" means to continue doing the above. Among the above elements, the "expanding and connecting" element in particular contributes greatly to the activity level, and the higher the "expanding and connecting" value, the higher the activity level of the organization. Although five index elements have been described here, other index elements may be used, and the number of index elements is not limited, and N elements are sufficient.

[0056] Here, with reference to FIG. 9, an example of deriving the "organizational strength" of a company, for example, where the organization is a company, will be described. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example in which the servers in FIGS. 2 and 3 derive the "organizational power" in a company. As shown in FIG. 9, the input information (INPUT) input to CPU 101 includes, for example, the organizational attributes of the company (year of establishment, number of employees, industry, department, etc.), questions for each employee, questions for management, questions for human resources, etc. For example, questions for each employee include, "Are you personally taking actions that will lead to growth?" and "Do the employees around you appear to be taking those actions?" By asking both the employee and those around them in this way, it is possible to objectively grasp the state of the organization. The questions for managers include whether or not their subordinates are taking actions that will lead to their growth. Questions to the HR department include whether or not there are systems in place that lead to growth. In addition, questions are also provided that allow us to understand the respondent's response tendencies (sweet / spicy, etc.).

[0057] The CPU 101 refers to (reads out) the survey results of companies with attributes similar to the target company and performs a relative evaluation based on the input information and the history (survey results) of companies that have responded in the past stored in the DB 60. Responses that are judged to be lenient / harsh are corrected by a preset correction value before being relatively evaluated.

[0058] Then, the CPU 101 outputs the results of the relative evaluation, such as "organizational strength," the activity level of the organization, the type of the organization, the strengths and challenges of the organization, and recommendations for the organization, as output information (OUTPUT). The type of organization is determined and presented (extracted) from the state and trends of the organization obtained from the results of the questions. Recommendations to the organization include measures that will lead to the growth of the organization.

[0059] In this example of deriving a company's "organizational strength," multifaceted answers can be obtained by asking not only employees (individuals belonging to the organization) but also people in specific roles such as managers and human resources. As a result, input information (INPUT) is not only accumulated, but is also used to correct the accumulated data (for example, removing outliers or correcting by median). Regarding the correction of results, questions that are commonly understood or that produce absolute values ​​(questions that do not require subjectivity, such as sales or results) are asked, and certain answers, such as those from managers, are used as the standard value, and answers that fall outside a certain range are not included in the calculation or are subject to correction. By excluding or correcting the results of respondents that are subject to correction, highly accurate results can be derived.

[0060] Here, the operation of the server will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 10 is a process diagram showing the operation (processing flow) of the server in FIGS. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the "power of the organization" presented by the server as a result of the processing of FIG.

[0061] In this case, the survey execution unit 11 conducts a survey among users, acquires responses to the survey from each user in step S11 of FIG. 10, and stores the responses in the DB 60 as survey results.

[0062] In step S12, the degree calculation unit 12 and the "organization's overall strength" information generation unit 13 generate the "organization's strength" and the activity level of the organization from the questionnaire results and the organization attributes. The "Strength of the Organization" generates results (degrees) for each of N elements. These results (degrees) are compared with organizations with similar or identical attributes and based on accumulated past data, the current state (current value) of the "Strength of the Organization" is generated.

[0063] Regarding the activity level of the organization, results are generated for each of the N elements, and the overall activity level is also generated as a total activity level. In this example, the indicator elements of "notice" and "learn" have high activity levels, but the activity level of "expand and connect" is low, rated as "C," so the overall total activity level is rated as "C."

[0064] In step S13, the visualization presentation unit 14 outputs (OUTPUT) the type, strengths, challenges, recommendations, etc. as an evaluation of the organization based on the "organizational strength" and activity level of the organization generated in step S12, and presents them to the user. For example, the type may be a type dependent on individual learning. For this type dependent on individual learning, the national average score on the business fundamentals diagnostic test will likely rise to some extent in the future, but will likely plateau. Strengths include individuals taking the initiative to change and grow. As a challenge, for example, they do not teach each other or encourage each other to learn. As a recommendation (measure for growth), for example, create a system where employees can teach each other what they have learned. Create a system to encourage change and growth in new employees. Bring in external personnel who have high scores for their own situation in "expanding and connecting."

[0065] An example of display on the user terminal 20 is shown in Fig. 11. In addition to the information output in Fig. 10, a distribution map (radar chart) is displayed on the screen 70 in Fig. 11. The distribution map (radar chart) displays graphs of individual employees and graphs of the company's organization superimposed on each other, so the user can easily see not only the distribution of the user's company's "organizational strength," but also the discrepancy between employees (human strength) and the company (organizational strength).

[0066] In this way, according to the operation of server 10, the "organizational strength" and the activity level of the organization are generated from the results of a questionnaire administered to users and the organizational attributes, and based on the "organizational strength" and activity level of the organization, the type, strengths, challenges, recommendations, etc. are presented to the user as an evaluation of the organization, so that the user can visually confirm the "organizational strength" and activity level of the organization of the company.

[0067] Next, a first example of the visualization process of the "power of an organization" in the server will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 12 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength", etc. of the first company, which have been visualized by the servers of FIGS. FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength", etc. of the second company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. FIG. 14 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength", etc. of the third company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS.

[0068] It is assumed that the visualization process performed by the server 10 has resulted in the visualization results of the first to third companies, as shown in FIGS.

[0069] First, we will explain the visualization results for the first company. The organizational attributes of the company that is the basis for the visualization results of the first company shown in Figure 12 are: year of establishment: 1980, number of employees: 120, industry: food wholesale, departments: sales department, purchasing department, inventory management department, and human resources and general affairs department. The summary of the survey results for the employees of the first company is as follows: Many employees have low scores (X1·X2) regarding their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "notice," "learn," and "be able to change." Many employees gave low scores regarding the promotion of "notice" by their managers (X3). The score on the question to the HR staff about whether or not there is a system in place to promote "notice" was low (= the score on "continue" was also low) (X4).

[0070] For example, the final visualization results for Company 1 were as follows: "Notice" score 55, "Learn" score 58, "Can do and change" score 102, "Expand and connect" score 94, and "Continue" score 69, and the individual activity levels were assigned "D", "D", "B", "C", and "C". The total activity level, combining these, was assigned "C".

[0071] Then, from the visualization results of FIG. 12, type, strengths, issues, recommendations, etc. are output as an evaluation of the first company. For example, there is a type where growth stagnation occurs due to a lack of promotion of "awareness." For this type, it is highly likely that the national average score on the business fundamentals diagnostic test will not increase in the future. There are no particular strengths, for example. When presenting this to users, we will provide follow-up information such as "There is room for various initiatives to achieve significant growth." One issue is that there is no environment in place where managers can make employees aware of what knowledge or skills they lack, which means that neither learning nor practice is taking place. As a recommendation (measure for growth), for example, a system is created where managers communicate to their subordinates what knowledge and skills they want them to acquire for their roles. For example, suggestions include defining ideal personnel and holding one-on-one meetings. External personnel with high scores in their own situations of "noticing" and "expanding and connecting" are brought in.

[0072] The visualization results for the second company are explained below. The organizational attributes of the company that is the basis for the visualization results of the second company shown in Figure 13 are: year of establishment: 2000, number of employees: 80, industry: food wholesale, departments: sales department, purchasing department, inventory management department, and human resources and general affairs department. The summary of the survey results for employees of the second company is as follows: Many employees have low scores (X1·X2) regarding their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "notice," "learn," and "be able to change." Many employees gave low scores regarding the promotion of "notice" by their managers (X3). The score on the question to the HR staff about whether or not there is a system in place to promote "notice" was low (= the score on "continue" was also low) (X4).

[0073] For example, the final visualization results for the second company were: "Notice" score 43, "Learn" score 48, "Can do and change" score 60, "Expand and connect" score 206, and "Continue" score 63, and the respective activity levels were assigned "D", "D", "C", "A", and "D". The total activity level, combining these, was assigned "A".

[0074] Then, from the visualization results of FIG. 13, the type, strengths, issues, recommendations, etc. are output as an evaluation of the second company. For example, there is the misunderstanding type, where each person thinks they are teaching others, but the receiving party is just hearing the noise. For this type, it is highly likely that the national average score on the business basics diagnostic test will not increase in the future. One of our strengths is that many of our employees have the desire to teach others (or to teach others). One of the challenges is that even if someone tries to teach someone else, the recipient may not feel the need for it or see it as an opportunity to learn. As a recommendation (measure for growth), for example, management and executives will communicate that sharing knowledge with each other will be beneficial for both the individuals involved and the organization as a whole.

[0075] The visualization results for the third company are explained below. The organizational attributes of the company that is the basis for the visualization results of the third company shown in Figure 14 are: year of establishment: 2009, number of employees: 40, industry: consulting, departments: consulting headquarters, administration department. In addition, the summary of the survey results for employees of the third company is as follows: Many employees scored high on their own situations regarding "notice," "learn," and "be able to change" (X1). Many employees have low scores regarding the surrounding circumstances of "notice," "learn," and "be able to change" (X2). Many employees have low scores (X1·X2) regarding their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "expanding and connecting." Many managers gave low scores in terms of promotion from managers regarding "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" (X3). The scores for questions to HR regarding the existence of systems to promote "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" were all low (= the score for "continue" was low) (X4).

[0076] For example, the final visualization results for the third company were: "Notice" score of 70, "Learn" score of 70, "Can do and change" score of 99, "Expand and connect" score of 36, and "Continue" score of 54, and the respective activity levels were assigned "B", "B", "A", "D", and "C". The total activity level, combining these, was assigned "C".

[0077] Then, from the visualization results of FIG. 14, the type, strengths, challenges, recommendations, etc. are output as an evaluation of the third company. For example, there is the type that relies on individual learning. For this type, the national average score on the Business Fundamentals Diagnostic Test will likely rise to some extent in the future, but it is likely to plateau. One strength is that individuals take the initiative to change and grow. One of the challenges is that, for example, they do not teach each other or encourage each other to learn. As a recommendation (measure for growth), for example, create a system where employees can teach each other what they have learned. Create a system to encourage change and growth in new employees. Bring in external personnel who have high scores for their own situation in "expanding and connecting."

[0078] Based on this first example, the following can be determined: After aggregating the responses for the first company (see Figure 12) and the second company (see Figure 13), there was no significant difference in the total visualized values ​​for four of the five indicator elements: "Aware," "Learn," "Can change," and "Continue." On the other hand, in the "expand and connect" category, the first company had a low total value, while the second company had a high total value. The total activity level is derived from the results of each activity level calculated by multiplying the sum of each index element by the activity level. As a result, the first company's total activity level was assigned a "C." The second company's activity level was assigned an "A," indicating that the second company has a high potential for future growth. Also, like the third company, if the other elements have high values ​​but the value for "expanding and connecting" is low, the final activity level will be assigned a "C," resulting in a low result.

[0079] Next, a second example of the visualization process of the "power of the organization" in the server will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 15 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength", etc. of the fourth company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS. FIG. 16 is a diagram showing the visualization results of the visualization numerical values, activity level, "organizational strength", etc. of the fifth company, which have been visualized by the server of FIGS.

[0080] First, we will explain the visualization results for the fourth company. The organizational attributes of the company that is the basis for the visualization results of the fourth company shown in Figure 15 are: year of establishment: 1975, number of employees: 260, industry: manufacturing, departments: sales, design, development, and administration. Furthermore, the summary of the survey results for employees of the fourth company is as follows: Employees in their 20s and 30s scored high (X1·X2) in terms of their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "notice," "learn," "be able to do and change," and "spread and connect." Employees in their 40s and older had low scores (X1·X2) regarding their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "notice," "learn," "be able to do and change," and "spread and connect." Many managers gave moderate scores regarding the promotion of "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" from their managers (X3). The scores for questions to HR regarding the existence of systems to promote "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" were all low (= low score for "continue") (X4).

[0081] For example, the final visualization results for the fourth company were: "Awareness" score of 57, "Learn" score of 73, "Can do and change" score of 114, "Expand and connect" score of 134, and "Continue" score of 99, and the respective activity levels were assigned "D", "D", "B", "C", and "C". The total activity level, combining these, was assigned "C".

[0082] Then, from the visualization results of FIG. 15, the type, strengths, challenges, recommendations, etc. are output as an evaluation of the fourth company. For example, there is a type where only young people grow. In this type, even if the average score of employees in their 40s or older on the business basics diagnostic test is currently high, there is no chance of further growth, while employees in their 20s and 30s are likely to grow. One of the strengths is that young employees learn and teach each other. One issue is that veteran employees are not learning, so they are content with the skills they currently possess. Since there is no system for continuing work and it relies on the individual efforts of younger employees, there is a possibility that the ratio of employees who do not learn will increase when younger employees retire. As a recommendation (measure for growth), for example, we encourage veteran employees to "notice" things, such as by making them aware of the roles they are supposed to play. As a company, we create a system that encourages "notice" and "learning."

[0083] First, we will explain the visualization results for the fifth company. The organizational attributes of the company that is the basis for the visualization results of the fifth company shown in Figure 16 are that the company was founded in 1990, the number of employees is 300, the industry is manufacturing, and the departments are sales, design, development, and administration. Furthermore, the summary of the survey results for employees of the fifth company is as follows: Regarding their own situation and the situation around them in terms of "notice," "learn," "be able to do and change," and "spread and connect," all age groups scored in the middle range. Scores for many managers in the areas of "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" are moderate (X3). The scores for questions to HR regarding the existence of systems to promote "notice," "learn," "be able to change," and "spread and connect" were all low (= low score for "continue") (X4).

[0084] For example, the final visualization results for Company 5 were: "Aware" score of 56, "Learn" score of 69, "Can do and change" score of 117, "Expand and connect" score of 136, and "Continue" score of 102, and the individual activity levels were assigned "D", "D", "B", "C", and "C". The total activity level, combining these, was assigned "C".

[0085] Then, from the visualization results of FIG. 16, the type, strengths, challenges, recommendations, etc. are output as an evaluation of the fifth company. For example, there is a type that shows moderate growth in all age groups, but there are concerns about continuity. This type is likely to see some improvement in the average score on the Business Basics Diagnostic Test in all age groups. One of our strengths is that people of all ages are equally involved in learning. One challenge is that, for example, none of the categories are high-level or sustainable, so after a few years, people may become content with the skills they currently possess. As a recommendation (measure for growth), we will encourage more "awareness" by, for example, making employees aware of the role they should play from a medium- to long-term perspective. As a company, we will create a system that encourages "awareness" and "learning."

[0086] Based on this second case, the following can be determined: There was not much difference between the total values ​​of the index elements of the fourth and fifth companies, and the activity level and total comprehensiveness level for each element also showed the same results. On the other hand, when the visualization results were examined in detail by level, the fourth company had high scores overall for young employees but low scores for other veteran employees. Also, the fifth company did not have a significant difference in the averages for any level. As a result, although the total visualized values ​​of the indicator elements for the fourth and fifth companies were not significantly different and the activity levels were the same, there were differences in the results for each level, resulting in different evaluations being output.

[0087] The logic for determining matching (the degree of match between a human resource and a company) performed by the server of the embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 17 is a diagram showing an example of the suitability determination logic by the matching unit of the server shown in FIGS.

[0088] In this case, in step [A] S1 of Fig. 17, the matching unit 15 of the server 10 determines the degree of match by comparing the activity level patterns (activity patterns) for each element between the candidate and the company. If they match, it is determined that there is aptitude, and if not, it is determined that there is no aptitude. When comparing activity patterns, the matching is determined from the perspective of at least one of similar patterns, correlation patterns, complementary patterns, etc. Since the matching is determined from the perspective of each pattern, similarity is not necessarily good. A conformance judgment can be made in step [A] S1 alone, but if a more precise judgment is required, proceed to step [B-1] S2 and step [B-2] S3.

[0089] In step [B-1] S2 and step [B-2] S3, the matching unit 15 compares the scores for each item of the index elements of the activity levels of the candidate and the company. In step [B-1] S2, if the patterns of activity levels of the candidate and the company match in all items, the candidate is deemed suitable; otherwise, the candidate is deemed unsuitable. That is, if the degree of match of the activity levels of all of the N types of index elements is equal to or greater than a certain first level (first threshold), it is determined to be appropriate.

[0090] Even if the criteria in step [B-1] S2 are not met, the applicant will be deemed suitable in step [B-2] S3 if the following conditions are met: Specifically, in step [B-2] S3, the matching unit 15 determines that the document is suitable if it meets, for example, three of the five items, but also meets the minimum standards for the other items (the remaining two items); otherwise, it determines that the document is unsuitable. That is, if the matching degree (degree of suitability) of the activity levels of P types (P is an integer value less than N) out of N types of index elements is equal to or higher than the first level, and the matching degree of the activity levels of the remaining types is equal to or higher than the second level (a second threshold value lower than the first threshold value), it is determined to be appropriate.

[0091] In addition to the judgment processes of step [A] S1, step [B-1] S2, and step [B-2] S3, if further specific criteria are required of the candidate, such as job type or position, or if criteria similar to those of the candidate's assigned department are required, suitability is determined using the specific criteria in step [C] S4. For example, when selecting from among multiple candidates to transfer to a department with a particularly high average score for a specific element, a candidate who shows a similar trend to the results of the target department may be selected, or when selecting a manager, a judgment based on specific criteria required of the manager may be made using this step [C]S4. Specifically, when specific requirements are required, in step [C] S4, the matching unit 15 determines that a person is suitable if the activity pattern of a specific attribute, such as job type or position, matches those determined to be suitable as a result of the judgments in step [B-1] S2 and step [B-2] S3, and otherwise determines that the person is not suitable. In more detail, for each of the multiple attributes, an activity level standard (threshold value for each attribute) is set to distinguish between suitable and unsuitable, and the matching unit 15 further determines (calculates) the final degree of match as suitable or unsuitable for the combination of a specified user and a specified company that was determined to be suitable in steps S2 and S3, using the standard for a specific attribute from among the multiple attributes.

[0092] Here, specific examples of criteria will be described. For example, regarding the characteristics of a department, whether or not the criteria for the appropriate balance of elements in the department are met is judged from the perspective of step [A] S1, step [B-1] S2, and step [B-2] S3. In addition, as a characteristic of the position, whether or not the standard for the balance of appropriate elements for a person in a position is met is determined from the perspectives of step [A] S1, step [B-1] S2, and step [B-2] S3. When a desired state is sought for a specific element, an ideal value is defined and the element is judged based on whether or not it satisfies that standard.

[0093] Here, with reference to FIGS. 18 to 20, several examples of determining candidates on a priority basis when multiple candidates are qualified will be described. FIG. 18 is a diagram showing priority determination [1] (first priority determination) according to the suitability determination logic of FIG. If multiple candidates are deemed suitable, the candidates will be narrowed down based on the following priorities: As shown in Figure 18, candidate A is judged to be suitable based on the criteria in step [A] S1 of Figure 17. Candidate B also meets the criteria in step [A] S1, and does not meet the criteria in step [B-1] S2, but meets the criteria in step [B-2] S3, so is also judged to be suitable. In this way, if both candidates A and B are judged to be suitable, the candidate who meets the criteria in both steps [B-1] S2 and S3 [B-2] is judged to be more suitable. Therefore, in this example, candidate A is selected as the suitable candidate for the matching organization.

[0094] FIG. 19 is a diagram showing priority determination [2] (second priority determination) according to the suitability determination logic of FIG. If multiple candidates are judged to be suitable for each attribute (industry, job type, company, etc.), the candidate with the higher total score for questions X1 and X3 for each element of the PDS score is judged to be more suitable, thereby narrowing down the candidates. In the example of Figure 19, the total score for questions X1 and X3 for each element of the PDS score of candidate A is 147 points, and the total score for questions X1 and X3 for each element of the PDS score of candidate B is 142 points, so when comparing their total scores, candidate A is judged to be more suitable.

[0095] Figure 20 is a diagram showing priority determination [3] (third priority determination) based on the aptitude determination logic of Figure 17. When multiple candidates are determined to be both aptitude and inaptitude for each attribute (industry, job type, company, etc.), the priorities of the attributes are used to determine the candidates. As shown in Figure 20, Candidate A does not meet the industry criteria but meets the company criteria. Candidate B meets the industry criteria but does not meet the company criteria. In this way, if candidates A and B meet the criteria for two different attributes out of the three attributes, the judgement will be made according to the pre-set priority for judging between attributes. In this example, the priority for judging between attributes is job type > company > industry. In this case, candidate A is deemed more suitable because he meets the company's standards, even if he does not meet the industry's standards.

[0096] Next, specific cases in which the server 10 of the embodiment is used will be described with reference to FIGS.

[0097] The following cases are assumed as specific situations in which the server 10 of the embodiment is used. 1. Use cases when recruiting personnel in a company (organization → looking at individuals) It is used when hiring to determine whether a candidate is a good fit for the company and organizational culture. Determine whether the candidate will have a positive impact if they join the company or organization. Find the right department to assign the candidate to. If there are multiple departments to which a candidate can be assigned, the system will identify the most suitable department. 2. Use cases when personnel changes occur within a company (viewing individuals from the organization) It is used to determine whether the target person is suited to the culture of the relevant department or organization. Determine whether the target person will have a positive effect when joining the relevant department or organization. Find the appropriate department for the person to be assigned to. If there are multiple departments to which the target person could be assigned, the most suitable department will be identified. 3. When job seekers choose a company that is a good fit for them (individual → organization) It is used to determine whether a job seeker is a good fit for the department and organizational culture they are applying for. Determine whether the job seeker will have a positive effect when they apply and join the department or organization in question. Find the right department for job seekers to apply to. If a job seeker has multiple potential companies to apply to, it will identify the most suitable company.

[0098] First, a first example of matching with mid-career recruits by a company will be described with reference to FIGS. Figure 21 shows the results of the suitability assessment conducted in step [A] S1 of Figure 17 for candidates who meet the industry and job characteristics, based on whether they meet the IT industry standards (industry-specific characteristics). FIG. 22 is a diagram showing the determination results for the items in step [B-1] S2 of FIG. Figure 23 shows the results of determining suitability for candidates who meet the industry and job characteristics based on whether they meet Company Z's standards (company-specific characteristics) in step [A] S1 of Figure 17.

[0099] The company planning to hire mid-career employees is Company Z, with a size of 100 employees. Company Z's industry is IT. The position for which Company Z is planning to hire mid-career employees is technical. There are two candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B, and one of them will be hired.

[0100] In step [A] S1 of FIG. 17, the activity levels of candidates A and B are determined based on the standards of the IT industry, and as a result, the activity levels are obtained for each element item as shown in FIG. Specifically, Candidate A received an "A" for the "notice" element, a "B" for the "learn" element, a "B" for the "be able to / change" element, an "A" for the "expand / connect" element, and a "C" for the "continue" element. Candidate B received a "B" for the "notice" element, a "B" for the "learn" element, a "C" for the "be able to / change" element, an "A" for the "expand / connect" element, and an "A" for the "continue" element.

[0101] In step [B-1] S2 of Figure 17, based on the IT industry standards, candidates A and B are judged to be "compliant in all items" for each element, as shown in Figure 22. From the above data, it is assumed that candidates A and B meet both the industry standards required for the IT industry (for example, activity level "C" or higher) in the judgment process of steps [A] S1 and [B-1] S2. Although data is not shown, it is assumed that candidates A and B also meet the job type standards required for technical positions. In this way, since candidates A and B meet the industry and job type standards, they will proceed to judgment based on the company's standards.

[0102] In step [A] S1 of FIG. 17, the activity levels of candidates A and B are determined according to the company's standards, and as a result, the activity levels are obtained for each element item as shown in FIG. Specifically, Candidate A received an "A" for the "notice" element, a "B" for the "learn" element, a "B" for the "be able to / change" element, an "A" for the "expand / connect" element, and a "C" for the "continue" element. Candidate B received a "B" for the "notice" element, a "B" for the "learn" element, a "C" for the "be able to / change" element, an "A" for the "expand / connect" element, and an "A" for the "continue" element. The standards required by Company Z are that the element of "notice" is "A," the element of "learn" is "B," the element of "be able to do / change" is "C," the element of "expand / connect" is "A," and the element of "continue" is "C."

[0103] Candidate B meets the industry and job criteria, but compared to Company Z, his activation level for the "notice" element is "B," so he was unable to meet Company Z's activation level of "A." Company Z employees are characterized by their "notice" scores being higher than the IT industry standard, while candidate B is suited to the industry and field, but is less suited to Company Z. On the other hand, Candidate A meets Company Z's standards in all elements and also possesses a high level of "noticing," which is a characteristic of Company Z. From these results, it is determined that Candidate A is more suitable for Company Z than Candidate B, so the match degree is output as "A" for Candidate A and "B" for Candidate B.

[0104] Next, a second example of matching a mid-career recruit in a company with an appropriate department (division) to which the recruit will be assigned after being hired will be described with reference to FIGS. 24 and 25. FIG. FIG. 24 is a diagram showing the results of the determination as to whether or not Candidate A meets the criteria for the industry, occupation, and company. FIG. 25 is a diagram showing the determination results for the items in step [B-1] S2 of FIG. The company planning to hire mid-career employees is Company Y, which is in the retail industry. The candidate is Candidate A. The position that Company Y is planning to hire mid-career employees for is a sales position, and the candidate will be assigned to one of the three sales divisions (1st Business Division, 2nd Business Division, 3rd Business Division).

[0105] As a result of determining whether Candidate A meets the criteria for the industry, job type, and company, as shown in Figure 24, the results show that Candidate A is suitable for all criteria for the industry, job type, and company, so Company Y decides to hire Candidate A.

[0106] Company Y hires Candidate A for a sales position, but because Company Y has three sales departments, it will use Candidate A's results to match him with each department in order to determine which department is more suitable for him.

[0107] Assume that the activity level data for each element of candidate A and the three sales divisions (1st Business Division, 2nd Business Division, and 3rd Business Division) has been obtained as shown in Figure 25. The score is the sum of the values ​​calculated from the answers to questions X1 and X2. Specifically, Candidate A received an "A" for the "notice" element, an "A" for the "learn" element, a "B" for the "be able to do / change" element, a "C" for the "expand / connect" element, and a "C" for the "continue" element. The First Business Division received a "C" for the "Awareness" element, a "C" for the "Learning" element, a "B" for the "Being able to do / change" element, an "A" for the "Expanding / connecting" element, and an "A" for the "Continuing" element. The 2nd Business Division received a B for the elements of "notice," "learn," "be able to do and change," "expand and connect," and "continue" respectively. The 3rd Business Division received an "A" for the "notice" element, an "A" for the "learn" element, a "C" for the "be able to do / change" element, a "C" for the "expand / connect" element, and a "B" for the "continue" element.

[0108] From Figure 25, Candidate A's characteristics show high activation levels for "notice" and "learn." The First Business Division's characteristics show high activation levels for "expand / connect" and "continue," while the activation levels for "notice" and "learn" are low. The Second Business Division's characteristics show a certain level of activation for all elements. The Third Business Division's characteristics show high activation levels for "notice" and "learn." In terms of similarity, the characteristics of Candidate A and the characteristics of Business Division 3 are highly similar, but there is a correlation between the results that Candidate A's characteristics have high activation levels for "notice" and "learn" and low activation levels for "expand / connect" and "continue" and the results that Business Division 1 has high activation levels for "expand / connect" and "continue" and low activation levels for "notice" and "learn", and it was determined that by combining them they would be able to demonstrate greater strength for both parties and that Candidate A would contribute to improving organizational strength, and the match results were output as "A" for Business Division 1, "C" for Business Division 2, and "B" for Business Division 3. As an assignment for Candidate A, Business Division 1 was rated "A" and was therefore the most suitable.

[0109] Next, a third example of narrowing down the candidates (including job type requirements) for mid-career recruitment in a company will be described with reference to FIGS. 26 and 27. FIG. FIG. 26 is a diagram showing the results of calculating the degree of match between the industry, job type, and company criteria for each of the two candidates, A and B. FIG. 27 is a diagram showing the determination result of "expand / connect" in the determination process of step [C] S4 in FIG. This third example is one in which the applicant meets the standards for the industry, job type, and company, but suitability is assessed based on special requirements for the job type.

[0110] The company planning to hire mid-career employees is Company X, which is in the manufacturing industry. The position Company X is planning to hire mid-career employees for is technical positions, and they are looking for leadership candidates for the role (position).

[0111] There were two candidates for mid-career recruitment, Candidate A and Candidate B. For each candidate, the degree of match of industry, job type, and company was determined in step [A] S1, step [B-1] S2, and step [B-2] S3 of Figure 17. As a result, as shown in Figure 26, the industry, job type, and company were all rated "B," and it was determined that the candidate met the industry, job type, and company standards (for example, "C" or above).

[0112] Candidates A and B meet the criteria for the industry, job type, and company, but the position for which the candidate is being recruited is a leadership candidate, and spreading a positive influence to those around them is emphasized. Therefore, in addition to the above items, a high score in "Spreading / Connecting" is required, so the judgment process is performed based on the criteria in step [C] S4 of Figure 17.

[0113] In step [C] S4 of FIG. 17, the result of the determination of "expand / connect" was obtained as shown in FIG. In the table (determination results) of FIG. 27, the ideal level for each item is derived from the activity level of employees in leadership positions or leader candidate positions at Company X (hereinafter referred to as the leader group). The leaders of Company X have higher than average scores for both the activity level determined from their responses to questions X1 and X3, which indicates that the leaders of Company X are suited to individuals with high scores in the "Expand / Connect" category. In other words, candidates are required to achieve levels above the ideal in each category. Candidate A and candidate B have the same activation level for "expanding and connecting," but when viewed by item, candidate A's result level for question X1 does not meet the ideal level. On the other hand, candidate B's results for both questions X1 and X3 meet the ideal level. In step [C]S4 of Figure 17, based on these results, candidate B is determined to be more suitable as a leader candidate for Company X, and the match degree is output as "A" for candidate B and "B" for candidate A.

[0114] Next, a fourth example of matching with new personnel (new graduate applicants) to be newly hired by a company will be described with reference to FIG. The fourth example is one in which candidates are screened based on whether or not they meet certain criteria, and the number of candidates who proceed to the second round of selection is narrowed down to a certain number. FIG. 28 is a diagram showing activity levels (PDS scores) derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on new graduate employees in their first to third years working at a company.

[0115] As shown in Figure 28, the elements of "notice" for new graduate employees in their first to third year were "C," "learn" were "C," "be able to do / change" were "D," "expand / connect" were "D," and "continue" were "D." In this way, the PDS scores of new graduates in their first to third years are used as the benchmark.

[0116] Normally, the determination of suitability is made by proceeding to step [C] S4 based on the results of the determination processes in step [A] S1, step S1 [B-1], and step [B-2] S3 in Figure 17. However, in the fourth example, the purpose is not to make an individual determination but to screen applicants to see if they meet certain criteria, so the determination will be made based only on the criteria in step [A] S1. In addition, since new graduates in their first to third years lack knowledge and skills and have little experience in many areas of work, the matching unit 15 sets the above conditions in advance and uses the elements of "notice" and "learn" as the main criteria for making a decision.

[0117] Next, a fifth example of matching a specific department with personnel (employees) in a personnel transfer in a company will be described with reference to FIGS. 29 and 30. FIG. The fifth example is a case in which personnel suited to a particular department are selected from among employees in the same job category in other departments. FIG. 29 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on candidates (predetermined employees) employed by a company. FIG. 30 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the determination process in step [B-1] S2 performed on candidates (predetermined employees) employed by a company.

[0118] The company is in the manufacturing industry. A vacancy has occurred in one of the sales departments, so suitable employees are selected from other sales departments to fill the gap. Several candidates were selected based on employee attributes (seniority, position, etc.), but in order to select employees who are more suited to the department, the characteristics of the sales department were compared with the scores of the candidate group. There were three candidates for personnel transfer: Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C. For each candidate, the degree of match with the characteristics of the sales department was determined in step [A] S1 of Figure 17, and the results were derived as the determination results shown in Figure 26.

[0119] In the determination results shown in FIG. 26, it can be noted that the Sales Department 1 is characterized by a particularly high activity level of "learning" compared to the other departments. Candidate C's "Learning" score does not meet the criteria for the aptitude range. Compared to other elements, his "Learning" score is low, and it is highly likely that he will not be able to keep up with the daily learning required in the department. Based on the judgment results of this step [A] S1, candidate C is excluded, and the remaining candidates A and B proceed to the judgment process of step [B-1] S2.

[0120] The determination process in step [B-1] S2 resulted in the determination results shown in FIG. Specifically, in the evaluation results shown in Figure 30, Candidate A met the criteria for all elements. Candidate B was evaluated as "partially incompatible" for the elements of "notice," "expand / connect," and "continue," and did not meet the criteria.

[0121] In step [B-1] S2, candidate A meets the criteria, but candidate B does not, so the process proceeds to step [B-2] S3 for judgment. However, in step [B-2] S3, candidate B's judgment result also shows that he does not meet the criteria, and so he is found to be unsuitable. From these results, candidate A is judged to be the most suitable for the first sales department, and the match degree for candidate A is output as an evaluation of "A," while the match degree for candidate B is output as an evaluation of "B."

[0122] Next, a sixth example of deriving an appropriate organization by matching a supervisor of a specific department with human resources will be described with reference to FIG. The sixth example is a case in which personnel suited to a particular department are selected based on their compatibility with the department's supervisor. FIG. 31 is a diagram showing the activity level (PDS score) for each element derived as a result of the determination process in step [A] S1 performed on candidates (predetermined employees) employed by a company.

[0123] A sixth example is when a person (say a candidate) is looking to change jobs and is in the process of being selected by multiple companies in the same industry (say, Organization A, Organization B, and Organization C), and receives job offers from all of them, and it is necessary to determine which organization the person is most suited to.

[0124] In step [A] S1 of Figure 17, for a candidate and multiple organizations, the patterns (characteristics) of the activity levels of the candidate and each of organizations A, B, and C were calculated, and the results were derived as the judgment results shown in Figure 31.

[0125] In the evaluation results shown in Figure 31, Organization A is an organization with varying levels for each element, while Organization B has stable levels for each element. When considering the candidate's elemental tendencies, attributes, thoughts, etc., there are similarities between the candidate and Organization B, and if selection is based on match degree, Organization B is the better choice. As a result, the match degree is output as an evaluation of "B" for Organization A, "A" for Organization B, and "C" for Organization C.

[0126] As a secondary effect of the activity level calculation and matching function in the server 10 of the embodiment, company interviewers can conduct interviews based on the PDS scores of interviewees, enabling them to ask questions that will more clearly reveal their challenges and thoughts. For example, students can find out what kind of business, industry, or occupation they are suited to by using a matching service provided by a service provider or a matching site that the server 10 makes available on the Internet. Furthermore, for example, the matching service can be commercialized by having a recruitment agency or the like enter into a license agreement to use the server 10 and the matching service.

[0127] (Second embodiment) Next, as a second embodiment, matching in terms of rewards by PDS will be described.

[0128] In the above-described embodiment, an example of matching in terms of business type / industry, organization (company, department, division, etc.), job title, occupation, etc. is described, but in the second embodiment, an example of matching in terms of remuneration is described. In describing the second embodiment, the same functional components as those shown in FIG. 3 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and the description thereof will be omitted.

[0129] The matching unit 15 of the server 10 of the second embodiment has the following functions for matching from the viewpoint of reward. It has the function of detecting personnel suitable for the compensation offered by an organization (company, department, etc.) (company-offered compensation), the function of detecting the appropriate compensation (desired compensation) from the perspective of the individual candidate for employment (hereinafter referred to as "candidate"), and the function of comparing each other's compensation to determine the degree of compensation match.Company-offered compensation includes not only the compensation set by the company in advance as part of a system, but also the average compensation derived from the compensation of multiple employees at the same level as the candidate who work at the company.

[0130] Specifically, the matching unit 15 has a remuneration match calculation function that calculates the degree of match between the company-offered remuneration offered by a specified organization and the desired remuneration indicated by a specified individual (such as a candidate for employment) as the remuneration match degree.

[0131] Then, the matching unit 15 calculates the degree of match (degree of compatibility) between the specified individual and the specified organization based on the degree of match (degree of activity level compatibility) between the activity level of the specified individual and the activity level of the specified organization and the degree of reward match (degree of reward compatibility). This makes it possible to determine the suitability of an individual (Candidate A) (whether the candidate is suitable for the company) based on the overall match, which takes into account not only the match in terms of the individual's (candidate's) ability (PDS score) based on the organization's (company's) industry, job type, and department, but also the match in terms of compensation (comparison with other employees who receive similar compensation).

[0132] Below, we will explain examples of matching, including the perspective of compensation, using specific examples. First, referring to FIG. 32, a case where the hiring of candidate A is being considered will be described. The example shown in Figure 32 shows an example in which candidate A is being considered for employment. In this case, Candidate A meets the company's ability standards for industry, job type, department, etc., but the company is still determining whether he is a suitable candidate for the compensation offered by the company. Specifically, Candidate A meets the company's criteria for industry, job type, department, etc., but the position he is applying for has a relatively high salary, so the company will also check his salary from the perspective of individual PDS scores.

[0133] In this case, the matching unit 15 compares the activity level of candidate A for each of N types of index elements such as "notice," "learn," "be able to do / change," "expand / connect," and "continue" with the activity level of each index element of employees X, Y, and Z who receive the same remuneration, and determines the suitability of candidate A based on the results of the comparison.

[0134] As shown in Figure 32, Candidate A's characteristics include high activity levels in "notice" and "learn," and overall higher results compared to other employees receiving the same compensation. This means that Candidate A is deemed suitable from the perspective of compensation as well.

[0135] Next, referring to FIG. 33, an example of matching based on the applicant's desired remuneration will be described. FIG. 33 is a diagram showing an example of matching in terms of applicants' desired remuneration.

[0136] The example shown in Figure 33 shows an example of considering the hiring of candidate A. Candidate A meets the criteria for the industry, job type, and company, and at the same time, their individual PDS score is checked from the perspective of compensation to ensure that the compensation they desire is appropriate.

[0137] In this example, the matching unit 15 compares the activity level of candidate A for each of N types of index elements such as "notice," "learn," "be able to do / change," "expand / connect," and "continue" with the activity level of each index element of employees X, Y, and Z who are receiving remuneration equivalent to the desired remuneration.

[0138] As shown in Figure 33, the characteristics of candidate A are generally higher than those of other employees at the same company who are receiving compensation at the same level as the candidate's desired compensation. This determines that the desired remuneration is reasonable from the perspective of PDS, and also determines that there is room for consideration of offering a remuneration that exceeds the desired remuneration.

[0139] In this way, according to the second embodiment, by performing matching from the perspective of remuneration as well, more appropriate personnel allocation and remuneration setting becomes possible. For companies, the benefit is being able to hire the right people at appropriate compensation, and for individuals, the benefit is being able to receive appropriate compensation that matches their abilities and activity level.

[0140] Although one embodiment of the present invention has been described above, the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment, and modifications, improvements, etc. within the scope of achieving the object of the present invention are included in the present invention.

[0141] In the above-described embodiment, a company was used as an example of an organization, but the organization is not limited to a company and may be, for example, an organization, a company, a group, an association, a collection of people, etc., and any organization consisting of a collection of multiple individuals will suffice.

[0142] For example, in the above-described embodiment, the user may be any person who is registered as a member of this service, such as an employee (employee, officer, etc.) of a company (organization, group, etc.) or an ordinary person.

[0143] In the above embodiment, the activity level and the total activity level are expressed by "A" to "D" and the like, but other examples are also possible.

[0144] In the above embodiment, four questions were described, including the first question regarding the individual's condition, the second question regarding the state of the organization from the individual's perspective, the third question regarding the individual's relationship with those around them, and the fourth question regarding the organization's structure, but this is merely an example and other questions may be used, and the number of questions is not limited to four, but may be three or less, or five or more. That is, answers to each of L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) may be acquired as question answer information (for example, questionnaire results, etc.). The questions can be broadly divided into questions about how individuals interact with those around them, and questions about the structure of the organization from the individual's perspective.

[0145] In the above embodiment, five types of index elements such as "notice," "learn," "be able to do and change," "expand and connect," and "continue" are used as examples. However, the types of index elements are not limited to five, and may be N types (N is an integer value of 1 or more).

[0146] In the above embodiment, the matching unit 15 operates according to the matching logic of FIG. 17, but the matching unit 15 may be configured to operate as an AI model that has learned from past teaching data, and the AI ​​model may output a matching judgment result by inputting information on the survey results of people or organizations to be matched into the AI ​​model. In the above embodiment, the operation of the "organizational strength" information generation unit 13 has been described as being performed by an AI model, but for example, the "organizational strength" of various companies may be used as learning data, and machine learning may be performed to generate or update the AI ​​model to adapt to changes in the "organizational strength" of the industry, including other companies. Furthermore, instead of using an AI model, rule-based logic may be used to generate, for example, "organizational strength" information.

[0147] For example, the hardware configuration shown in FIG. 2 is merely an example for achieving the object of the present invention, and is not particularly limited.

[0148] 3 is merely an example and is not particularly limited. That is, it is sufficient for the information processing device to have the function of executing the above-described series of processes as a whole, and the functional blocks and databases used by the information processing device to realize this function are not particularly limited to the example in FIG.

[0149] Furthermore, although the example in which the functional blocks and databases are arranged on one server has been described, the arrangement location is not limited to that shown in FIG. 3, and they may be distributed and arranged on a plurality of information processing devices, or any other suitable location. Furthermore, one functional block and database may be configured as a single piece of hardware, may be provided in separate pieces of hardware, may be configured as a single piece of software, or may be configured as a combination of these.

[0150] When the processing of each functional block is executed by software, the program that constitutes the software is read from a network or a recording medium into a computer such as a CPU of an information processing device. The computer may be a computer built into dedicated hardware, or may be implemented in an information processing device capable of executing various functions by loading various programs, such as a server, or a general-purpose smartphone or personal computer.

[0151] The recording medium containing such a program may not only be composed of removable media that is distributed separately from the device itself in order to provide the program to each user, but may also be composed of recording media that are provided to each user in a state where they are pre-installed in the device itself.

[0152] In this specification, the steps describing the program to be recorded on the recording medium include not only processes that are performed in chronological order, but also processes that are not necessarily performed in chronological order but are performed in parallel or individually.

[0153] In addition, in this specification, the term "system" refers to an overall device that is made up of a plurality of devices, a plurality of means, and the like.

[0154] In summary, the information processing apparatus to which the present invention is applied is sufficient if it has the following configuration, and can take on a variety of different embodiments. That is, an information processing device to which the present invention is applied (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3) (1) A question response information acquisition means (e.g., the questionnaire execution unit 11 in FIG. 3) for acquiring, as question response information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals (e.g., a plurality of users, candidates, or personnel) belonging to a predetermined organization, the answers being a first question about the individual's status, a second question about the status of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the structure of the organization (e.g., a company, a department, a division, etc.); an activity level calculation means (for example, the degree calculation unit 12 in FIG. 3) that calculates the degree (for example, a visualized numerical value) that the predetermined organization (for example, a company, a division, a department, etc.) has reached for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) based on the question answer information, and calculates an activity level (for example, any one of "A" to "D") in M ​​stages (M is an integer value of 2 or more) for each of the N types of index elements based on the degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation means (e.g., matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) that calculates the compatibility (e.g., match) between a predetermined individual (e.g., a candidate) among the plurality of individuals and a predetermined organization (e.g., a company, a division, a department, etc.) based on the M-stage activity levels (pattern similarity, correlation, etc.) for each of the N types of index elements; Equipped with. This makes it possible to match organizations (companies) with individuals (people) using an indicator called activity level, which consists of N types of elements and expresses a company's "organizational strength," and to select personnel who are suitable for the company.

[0155] (2) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3 ), The matching degree calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) Calculating a first compatibility degree (suitability) of a certain level or more or a second compatibility degree (insuitability) of less than a certain level as a compatibility degree between the specified individual (e.g., candidate) and the specified organization (e.g., company, department, etc.) based on the pattern (characteristic) of the M levels of activity for each of the N types of index elements for each of the specified individual and the specified organization; It is possible.

[0156] (3) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), The matching degree calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) Furthermore, for each of the predetermined individual (e.g., candidate) and the predetermined organization (e.g., company, division, department, etc.), calculate the activity level compatibility degree for each of the M stages of activity levels for each of the N types of index elements, and calculate the first compatibility degree (suitable) or the second compatibility degree (unsuitable) based on the calculated activity level compatibility degree. It is possible.

[0157] (4) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), The compatibility calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) determines that the activity level compatibility of all of the N types of index elements is equal to or greater than a certain level as the first compatibility. It is possible.

[0158] (5) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), The compatibility calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) determines that the compatibility is the first compatibility when the activity level compatibility of P types (P is an integer value less than N) of the N types of index elements is equal to or higher than a first level, and the activity level compatibility of the remaining types is equal to or higher than a second level (a level lower than the first level). It is possible.

[0159] (6) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), a standard of the activity degree that distinguishes between the first suitability degree and the second suitability degree is set for each of a plurality of attributes; The suitability calculation means (e.g., the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) further calculates the first suitability degree (suitable) or the second suitability degree (unsuitable) as a final suitability degree (e.g., match degree) for the combination of the predetermined individual (e.g., candidate) and the predetermined organization (e.g., company, department, division, etc.) determined to have the first degree, using the criteria of a specific attribute (e.g., job type, position, etc.) among the multiple attributes. It is possible.

[0160] (7) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), a predetermined unit activity level prediction means (e.g., the group activity level prediction unit 16 of FIG. 3) for predicting the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for a predetermined unit (a group divided by business type, industry, or job title) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for each of the plurality of individuals belonging to the predetermined unit; Furthermore, The compatibility calculation means (e.g., the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) calculates the compatibility (e.g., match) between the predetermined individual (e.g., user) and the predetermined unit (e.g., group) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements. It is possible.

[0161] (8) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), The matching degree calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) Calculating a degree of match between the remuneration offered by the predetermined organization and the desired remuneration indicated by the predetermined individual as a remuneration match degree; The degree of compatibility between the specified individual and the specified organization is calculated based on the activity level compatibility between the activity level of the specified individual and the activity level of the specified organization, and the reward compatibility. In this way, by calculating the degree of compatibility between the compensation offered by a specific organization and the compensation desired by a specific individual as the compensation compatibility degree, and by calculating the compatibility degree between the specific individual and the specific organization based on the activity level compatibility degree between the activity level of the specific individual and the activity level of the specific organization and the compensation compatibility degree, it is possible to achieve comprehensive matching that takes into account not only the ``strength of the organization'' but also the compensation perspective.This makes it possible to match talent and organizations that takes into account compensation compatibility in addition to ``strength of the organization,'' for example, when hiring, to determine whether a candidate is a talent that matches the compensation offered by the company, or to determine whether a job seeker's desired compensation is within an appropriate range.

[0162] (9) In the information processing device (for example, the server 10 in FIG. 3), The matching degree calculation means (for example, the matching unit 15 in FIG. 3) The activity level of the M stages for each of the N types of index elements for the specified individual is compared with the activity level of the M stages for each of the N types of index elements for other individuals in the specified organization who receive the same level of remuneration, and the degree of remuneration compatibility is calculated based on the results of the comparison. In this way, by comparing the M-stage activity level for each of N types of index elements for a specific individual with the M-stage activity level for each of N types of index elements for other individuals in a specific organization who receive similar compensation, and calculating the degree of compensation compatibility based on the results of this comparison, it becomes possible to determine the compatibility of compensation (determine whether the compensation desired by the specific individual is appropriate) based on a comparison with the objective standard of "human resources receiving equivalent compensation" within the organization. This makes it possible to more precisely determine whether the compensation desired by the specific individual or the compensation offered by the organization is commensurate with the individual's "organizational strength," thereby enabling appropriate compensation settings and the optimization of personnel allocation based on this.

[0163] (10) An information processing method to which the present invention is applied is An information processing method executed by an information processing device, a question answer information acquisition step of acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals (e.g., a plurality of users, candidates, or personnel) belonging to a predetermined organization, including a first question about the individual's status, a second question about the status of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the structure of the organization (e.g., a company, a division, a department); an activity level calculation step of calculating the degree (e.g., visualized numerical value) reached by the predetermined organization (e.g., enterprise, company, division, department) for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) based on the question answer information for each of the L questions, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level (e.g., any one of "A" to "D") for each of the N types of index elements based on the degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation step of calculating a compatibility (e.g., a match) between a predetermined individual (e.g., a candidate) among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization (e.g., a company, a division, a department) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; Including, It is possible.

[0164] (11) The program to which the present invention is applied is On the computer, a question answer information acquisition step of acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals (e.g., a plurality of users, candidates, or personnel) belonging to a predetermined organization, including a first question about the individual's status, a second question about the status of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the structure of the organization (e.g., a company, a division, a department); an activity level calculation step of calculating the degree (e.g., visualized numerical value) reached by the predetermined organization (e.g., enterprise, company, division, department) for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) based on the question answer information for each of the L questions, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level (e.g., any one of "A" to "D") for each of the N types of index elements based on the degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation step of calculating a compatibility (e.g., a match) between a predetermined individual (e.g., a candidate) among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization (e.g., a company, a division, a department) based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; Execute a control process including It is possible. [Explanation of symbols]

[0165] 1. Information processing system, 10. Server, 20, 20-1, 20-n. User terminal, 101. CPU, 102. ROM, 103. RAM, 104. Bus, 105. Input / output interface, 106. Output unit, 107. Input unit, 108. Storage unit, 109. Communication unit, 110. Drive, 111. Removable media, 11···Survey execution unit, 12···Degree calculation unit, 13···"Strength of the entire organization" information generation unit, 14···Visualization presentation unit, 15···Matching unit, 16···Group activity level prediction unit, 31···Visualized value sum unit, 32···Visualized value total correction unit, 33···Activity level calculation unit, 34···Total activity level calculation unit, 60···DB, NW···Network

Claims

1. a question answer information acquisition means for acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L being an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals belonging to a predetermined organization, the answers being a first question about the individual's state, a second question about the state of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the organization's structure; an activity level calculation means for calculating the degree of achievement of the predetermined organization for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) based on the question answer information for each of the L questions, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of the N types of index elements based on the total degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation means for calculating a compatibility between a predetermined individual among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization based on the M activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; An information processing device comprising:

2. The compatibility calculation means calculating a first compatibility degree equal to or greater than a certain level or a second compatibility degree less than a certain level as a compatibility degree between the predetermined individual and the predetermined organization based on the pattern of the M levels of activity for each of the N types of index elements for each of the predetermined individual and the predetermined organization; The information processing device according to claim 1 .

3. The compatibility calculation means Furthermore, the first degree of fitness or the second degree of fitness is calculated based on the degree of fitness of each of the M levels of activity for each of the N types of index elements for each of the specified individual and the specified organization. The information processing device according to claim 2 .

4. The fitness calculation means determines the fitness to be the first fitness when the fitness levels of all of the N types of index elements are equal to or greater than a certain level. The information processing device according to claim 3 .

5. The compatibility calculation means determines the compatibility to be the first compatibility level when the compatibility levels of P types (P is an integer value less than N) of the N types of index elements are equal to or higher than a first level and the compatibility levels of the remaining types are equal to or higher than a second level. The information processing device according to claim 3 .

6. a standard of the activity degree that distinguishes between the first suitability degree and the second suitability degree is set for each of a plurality of attributes; the compatibility calculation means further calculates the first compatibility degree or the second compatibility degree as a final compatibility degree for the combination of the specified individual and the specified organization determined to have the first degree, using the criterion for a specific attribute among the plurality of attributes; The information processing device according to claim 3 .

7. a predetermined unit activity level prediction means for predicting the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for a predetermined unit based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements for each of the plurality of individuals belonging to the predetermined unit; Furthermore, the compatibility calculation means calculates a compatibility between the predetermined individual and the predetermined unit based on the M activity levels for each of the N types of index elements. The information processing device according to claim 1 , comprising:

8. The compatibility calculation means Calculating a degree of match between the remuneration offered by the predetermined organization and the desired remuneration indicated by the predetermined individual as a remuneration match degree; calculating the degree of compatibility between the specified individual and the specified organization based on the activity level compatibility between the activity level of the specified individual and the activity level of the specified organization and the reward compatibility; The information processing device according to claim 1 .

9. The compatibility calculation means comparing the M-stage activity level for each of the N types of index elements for the specific individual with the M-stage activity level for each of the N types of index elements for other individuals in the specific organization who receive a similar level of remuneration, and calculating the remuneration compatibility degree based on the result of the comparison; The information processing device according to claim 8 .

10. An information processing method executed by an information processing device, a question answer information acquisition step of acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals belonging to a predetermined organization, the answers being a first question about the individual's state, a second question about the state of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the organization's structure; an activity level calculation step of calculating the degree of achievement of the predetermined organization for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) for each of the L questions based on the question answer information, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of the N types of index elements based on the total degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation step of calculating a compatibility between a predetermined individual among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; An information processing method including:

11. On the computer, a question answer information acquisition step of acquiring, as question answer information, answers to L questions (L is an integer value of 1 or more) posed to each of a plurality of individuals belonging to a predetermined organization, the answers being a first question about the individual's state, a second question about the state of the organization from the individual's perspective, a third question about the relationship between the individual and those around them, and a fourth question about the organization's structure; an activity level calculation step of calculating the degree of achievement of the predetermined organization for each of N types of index elements (N is an integer value of 1 or more) for each of the L questions based on the question answer information, and calculating M (M is an integer value of 2 or more) levels of activity level for each of the N types of index elements based on the total degree for each of the N types of index elements; a compatibility calculation step of calculating a compatibility between a predetermined individual among the plurality of individuals and the predetermined organization based on the M-stage activity levels for each of the N types of index elements; A program that executes control processing including:

Images