Information processing device, information processing method, and program

Abstract

This involves using metrics to measure the strengths of individuals and organizations, and combining their strengths to improve performance beyond the sum of the individual strengths of multiple people. [Solution] The input information acquisition unit 11 of the server 10 acquires information as input information that represents the first target force, which is either the "individual strength" of user Ua1 or the "organizational strength" of the accounting department Y of Company X, and the "individual strength" of user Ub1 or the "organizational strength" of the general affairs department Z of Company X, which is either the "individual strength" of user Ub1 or the "organizational strength" of the general affairs department Z of Company X, respectively. The recommendation unit 13 generates recommendation information that represents the "trends" and "recommended communications" for at least some of users Ua1, Ub1, accounting department Y, and general affairs department Z.

Description

Technical Field

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

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, there has been a human resource development support system that diagnoses a user's skills and supports human resource development based on the diagnosis results (see, for example, Patent Document 1).

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] Here, skill refers to the skills that a person has acquired through training or the like. Not only this skill index, but also the ability of that person to accomplish work, that is, the index of "human power" has been attracting attention recently. However, how to specifically use indices such as individual skills and "human power" has become an issue for the future.

[0005] The present invention has been made in view of such a situation, and aims to improve performance by combinations of individuals and organizations, and to improve performance beyond the sum of multiple people in an organization, using indices such as skills and "human power".

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] To achieve the above object, an information processing apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention is An input information acquisition means that acquires information indicating the first target force and the second target force, with the "human power" relating to the first person or the "organizational power" relating to the first organization being the first target force, and the "human power" relating to the second person or the "organizational power" relating to the second organization being the second target force, as input information. A recommendation means that compares the first target force and the second target force based on the input information, and generates recommendation information such as "trends" and "recommended communication" for at least some of the first person, the second person, the first organization, and the second organization, based on the comparison results. It is equipped with. An information processing method and program corresponding to the above-mentioned information processing apparatus according to one aspect of the present invention are also provided as an information processing method and program according to one aspect of the present invention. [Effects of the Invention]

[0007] According to the present invention, by using indicators of individual and organizational strength such as skills and "human power," it is possible to improve performance through combinations of individuals and organizations, and to improve performance beyond the sum of the individual performance of multiple people within an organization. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0008] [Figure 1] This figure shows the overall configuration of an information processing system including a server according to one embodiment of the information processing device of the present invention. [Figure 2] This block diagram shows the hardware configuration of the server in the information processing system shown in Figure 1. [Figure 3] This is a functional block diagram showing the functional configuration of a server with the hardware configuration shown in Figure 2. [Figure 4] This figure shows an example of the skill evaluation results (scores) of individual users, correlated with business skill evaluation metrics. [Figure 5] This is a process diagram showing the processing flow of a server in one embodiment of the information processing apparatus according to the present invention. [Figure 6]This figure shows the evaluation metrics data derived from input information to generate the performance of retail sales staff. [Figure 7] This figure shows an example of visualizing development progress information generated based on the evaluation indicator data in Figure 6. [Figure 8] This diagram shows the process from the server acquiring input information to outputting recommendation information. [Figure 9] This diagram shows an example of basic information for person A and person B, as the first example of recommending individuals by comparing them. [Figure 10] This figure shows the test scores of person A and person B in the first case study. [Figure 11] In the first example, the radar charts comparing the strengths of person A and person B are displayed side-by-side for visualization, and the output of recommendation information [Output1] includes the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" for each of the individuals being compared. [Figure 12] In the first example, a radar chart is superimposed to show the difference between the strengths of person A and person B in a comparative manner, and the output of recommendation information for each of the comparison subjects is shown in the figure [Output2]. [Figure 13] In the first example, the radar charts of Person A's strength and Person B's strength are superimposed, and the output example [Output3] shows recommendation information that improves the relationship between the two individuals being compared. [Figure 14] This diagram shows an example of basic information for person A (individual) and person C (individual), as the first example of recommending them as a comparison. [Figure 15] This figure shows the test scores of person A and person C in the second case study. [Figure 16] In the second example, the radar charts of Person A and Person C are displayed side-by-side for comparison, and the output of recommendation information [Output1] shows the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" for each of the individuals being compared. [Figure 17]In the second case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that superimposes and displays the divergence (deviation) between the power of person A and the power of person C, and also shows an output example [Output2] of recommendation information for each of the comparison target persons. [Figure 18] In the second case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that superimposes and displays the radar charts of the power of person A and the power of person C, and also shows an output example [Output3] of recommendation information for improving the relationship between the comparison target persons. [Figure 19] As a third case for making recommendations with person D (individual) and organization E (organization) as comparison targets, it is a diagram showing an example of the basic information of person D and organization E. [Figure 20] It is a diagram showing the scores of the diagnosis results of the power of people of person D and organization E in the third case. [Figure 21] In the third case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that arranges and visualizes the power of person D and the power of organization E side by side so that they can be compared, and also shows an output example [Output1] of recommendation information listing the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" of the people of each of the comparison targets. [Figure 22] In the third case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that superimposes and displays the divergence (deviation) between the power of person D and the power of organization E so that they can be compared, and also shows an output example [Output2] of recommendation information for each of the comparison targets. [Figure 23] In the third case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that superimposes and displays the radar charts of the power of person D and the power of organization E, and also shows an output example [Output3] of recommendation information for improving the relationship between the comparison targets. [Figure 24] As a fourth case for making recommendations with organization F and organization G as comparison targets, it is a diagram showing an example of the basic information of organization F and organization G. [Figure 25] It is a diagram showing the scores of the diagnosis results of the power of people of organization F and organization G in the fourth case. [Figure 26] In the fourth case, it is a diagram showing a radar chart that arranges and visualizes the power of organization F and the power of organization G side by side so that they can be compared, and also shows an output example [Output1] of recommendation information listing the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" of the people of each of the comparison targets. [Figure 27] In the fourth example, a radar chart is superimposed to show the discrepancy (difference) between the strengths of organization F and organization G, and the output of recommendation information for each of the comparison subjects is shown in the figure [Output2]. [Figure 28] In the fourth case study, the radar charts of the strengths of organization F and organization G are superimposed, and the output example [Output3] shows recommendation information that improves the relationships between the comparison subjects. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0009] Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. Figure 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 such that a server 10 and n user terminals T21 to T2n and T31 to T3m (where n is any integer value of 1 or more) are interconnected via a predetermined network NW such as the Internet.

[0010] User terminals T21 to T2n are information processing devices managed for each user Ua1 to Uan in, for example, the accounting department Y of company X, and consist of, for example, tablet terminals or smartphones. User terminals T31 to T3m are information processing devices managed for each user Ub1 to Ubm in the General Affairs Department Z of Company X, for example, and consist of, for example, tablet terminals or smartphones. In the following, when it is not necessary to distinguish between user terminals T21 through T2n and T31 through T3m individually, they will be collectively referred to as "user terminal T". Furthermore, when it is not necessary to distinguish between users Ua1 through Uan and Ub1 through Ubm individually, they are collectively referred to as "User U".

[0011] Server 10 is managed by the service provider. Server 10 controls the operations of user terminals T21 through T2n and T31 through T3m, and performs various processes.

[0012] The services provided by this service provider include training services, and members of the general public are required to register as users to receive these services. The training service involves companies applying to have their employees participate in courses as users, conducting online training, and administering business fundamentals diagnostic tests (hereinafter simply referred to as "tests") before, during, or after the training. Furthermore, the service provider will support the growth of not only individuals but also companies and departments within those companies, based on the test results of each employee, and will provide optimal solutions for future growth, thereby contributing to the development of society.

[0013] Specifically, in this embodiment, the server 10 operates in cooperation with the user terminal T as follows. Specifically, server 10 first conducts a test on users Ua1 to Uan and Ub1 to Ubm. Specifically, server 10 sends one or more tests consisting of multiple questions pre-stored in the database to each of user terminals T21 to T2n and T31 to T3m, and receives the answers entered by each of users Ua1 to Uan and Ub1 to Ubm for each of these one or more questions.

[0014] The test will be administered by the service provider. The test questions are designed to assess the user's fundamental business skills (basic business skills), and will be prepared by the service provider for one or more business skills to be evaluated, and for one or more themes within each skill. Basic business skills refer to the skills or abilities that are useful for working as a professional.

[0015] This section explains the relationship between skills and themes used to assess fundamental business abilities. A skill is defined in m units (where m is any integer greater than or equal to 1), and for each of the one or more skills, p units (where p is any integer greater than or equal to 1, independent of m) of themes are defined. The test will consist of questions covering topics related to each theme, presented item by item.

[0016] Each of the user terminals T21 through T2n and T31 through T3m receives the test sent by server 10. User U then operates user terminal T to input answers for each of the multiple questions that make up the test. User terminal T sends the test answers entered by the user (a collection of answers to each question) to server 10.

[0017] Server 10 sequentially acquires and scores the test answers as they are sent from user terminals T21 to T2n and T31 to T3m, respectively. Server 10 also normalizes the scoring results for each item and stores and manages them as scores for each user.

[0018] Server 10 sets and stores extraction conditions for extracting scores from a predetermined population from the scores managed for each user. The specified population is not particularly limited, and various groups can be adopted, such as a group of users whose various attribute information matches one or more specified attribute information, or a group of users whose scores fall within a certain range. It is assumed that, for each user, server 10 manages various attribute information (age, gender, industry, occupation, position, year of employment, etc.) associated with the score indicating the scoring result. In this case, the extraction criteria for extracting scores from a given population could include, for example, the same age, same occupation, same industry, same position, same year of joining the company, and past score values ​​or ranges.

[0019] Server 10 extracts the score of a specified user and the score of a specified population that includes that specified user, and compares the two scores. Specifically, for example, the score of a given user can be compared with the mean, maximum, or minimum score of a given population that includes that user.

[0020] Furthermore, the server 10 displays a graph plotting the score of the specified user against the score of the specified population that includes the specified user, on the image of the specified user's user terminal T (see Figure 3).

[0021] This allows users to easily visualize their current skill level compared to their past skill level, as well as the effectiveness of the company's training, by looking at the distribution of their own score values ​​for each skill theme and the score values ​​of a predetermined population to which the user belongs, as shown in the graph displayed on the user terminal T.

[0022] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing the hardware configuration of the server in the information processing system 1 shown in Figure 1.

[0023] Server 10 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 101, ROM (Read Only Memory) 102, RAM (Random Access Memory) 103, a bus 104, an input / output interface 105, an output unit 106, an input unit 107, a storage unit 108, a communication unit 109, and a drive 110.

[0024] The CPU 101 executes various processes according to the program recorded in the ROM 102 or the program loaded into the RAM 103 from the storage unit 108. RAM103 also stores data and other information necessary for the CPU101 to perform various processes.

[0025] The CPU 101, ROM 102, and RAM 103 are interconnected 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.

[0026] The output unit 106 consists of a display, speakers, etc., and outputs various information as images and sounds. The input unit 107 consists of a keyboard, mouse, etc., and is used to input various types of information.

[0027] The memory unit 108 consists of a hard disk, DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory), etc., and stores various types of data. The communication unit 109 communicates with other devices (such as the user terminal T in the example in Figure 1) via a network NW, including the Internet.

[0028] A removable media 111, such as a magnetic disk, optical disk, magneto-optical disk, or semiconductor memory, is appropriately mounted in the drive 110. Programs read from the removable media 111 by the drive 110 are installed in the storage unit 108 as needed. Furthermore, the removable media 111 can store various types of data stored in the storage unit 108, just as the storage unit 108 can store them.

[0029] Figure 3 is a functional block diagram showing the functional configuration of a server with the hardware configuration shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 3, DB60 is provided in one area of ​​the storage unit 108 (Figure 2) of the server 10. DB60 stores various user information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11. Specifically, DB60 stores logs of the results of business basic skills diagnostic tests taken by each user (Ua1 to Uan, Ub1 to Ubm), behavioral characteristic evaluation results from competency surveys, internal company data on the users held within the company, and information about the users (basic user attributes), industry attributes, and personality traits. Broadly speaking, test results, behavioral characteristic assessment results, and in-house data are categorized into current value groups, while basic attributes, industry attributes, personality tendencies, etc., are categorized into attribute groups. The test results are the primary source of information indicating the current level of the user's inherent abilities. In addition to the test results, past logs, such as the user's history of training sessions conducted by the service provider, are also stored in DB60. The behavioral characteristics assessment results are a secondary source of information that indicates the current level of the user's ability to act. Corporate data refers to quantitative third-party information about a user's work performance within the company, their participation in internal training, or their work results. Basic attributes include the user's work history, work history, and work experience, and are considered the fourth type of information. Other basic attributes may include, for example, the user's name, age, gender, and occupation. Industry attributes are the fifth piece of information. Personality traits are the sixth piece of information. User information includes, for example, information used by employees working at companies to take courses and training programs offered by service providers in order to improve their skills. User information includes user attribute information such as the company and industry to which the user belongs.

[0030] Specifically, DB60 stores information such as the name, age, gender, and occupation of employees who are enrolled in training services at a company or other organization, their current and past departments (divisions, etc.) within the company, their position, the industry of the company, information about the courses and training they are taking (course name and course number, training name and training number, date of enrollment, and enrollment history), and sets of questionnaires (questions) and answers that the service provider has given to each user, all of which are stored in correspondence with information that identifies the individual user (user ID or user number, etc.).

[0031] User attributes are divided into basic attributes (such as age, gender, and occupation) representing the current and ideal (desired) state, and additional attributes (such as job title and industry), and are stored in DB60. Basic attributes are automatically registered for all users. Additional attributes are optionally registered through user input. Note that user attributes and scores are sometimes referred to as user information.

[0032] Here, we will briefly explain one of the training services offered by this service provider. Users can select and take training courses from a list of training themes. Multiple courses are stored for each course. A course is, for example, a training session or workshop that implements a training program, and multiple users can participate in multiple courses. Each of the courses is associated with one or more evaluation elements. While there are no particular limitations on the number of evaluation elements, the following explanation assumes that a theme or sub-theme is adopted. That is, in the following examples, one or more (mainly one) themes or sub-themes are associated with each course. The theme is a subject that names each element of business skills and corresponds to the course name. Sub-themes are smaller themes included within the main theme, and courses focusing solely on these sub-themes are also offered. The same applies to training programs.

[0033] Here, we will explain how the user's skills are evaluated using the Business Basics Diagnostic Test, referring to Figure 4. Figure 4 shows an example of user skill evaluation results (scores) correlated with business skill evaluation indicators. The indicators for evaluating fundamental business skills are defined (categorized) into four skills, such as "Business knowledge," "Planning & Control," "Thinking," and "Communication," as shown in the graph in Figure 4. Each of these four defined (categorized) skills has skill items set for it. Skill items are one of the evaluation elements for each skill. Training (courses) are set for each skill item.

[0034] For example, skill items used to measure fundamental business skills in the "business knowledge" skill category include current events, legal affairs, human resources, labor relations, finance, accounting, marketing, and management. Although not shown in the diagram, the legal affairs, human resources, and labor relations skill item includes sub-items such as human resources, labor relations, and compliance.

[0035] The skill items used to measure the fundamental business skills of "Planning & Control" include objectives and goals, planning, task management, review and evaluation, and improvement. Although not shown in the diagram, the skill item "Objectives and Goals" includes a sub-item called "Purpose-Oriented Thinking." Also, the skill item "Planning" includes a sub-item called "Action Plan Development."

[0036] Skill items used to measure fundamental business skills related to "thinking" include numerical processing, application of thinking methods, information gathering, problem setting, and solution planning. Although not shown in the diagram, the theme of application of thinking methods includes the sub-theme of element decomposition ability.

[0037] Skill items used to measure fundamental business skills in "communication" include negotiation, written communication, oral communication, active listening, and business etiquette. Although not shown in the diagram, the written communication skill item includes a sub-item, slide creation ability.

[0038] Here, we will explain how to categorize (classify) skills for evaluating business skills. Skills, when considered in the context of talent development, can be broadly categorized into four main types based on the skills necessary for growth. For people to achieve results, planning and execution skills are necessary. To improve these planning and execution skills, thinking skills such as willpower and judgment, communication skills for building relationships, and foundational knowledge such as business knowledge are all necessary simultaneously. By presenting evaluation results that assess fundamental business skills by dividing them into four skill categories and five further subdivisions of each category, the characteristics of the user's skills become easier to see. Presenting evaluation results means, for example, plotting the numerical values ​​of the test results for each item on a radar chart and presenting them to the user as a waveform.

[0039] Business fundamentals are developed by providing training in units of individual skill items or courses that cover multiple themes, thereby improving the user's business skills. Before, during, and after the training, users will be given business fundamentals assessment tests as part of their training.

[0040] DB60 stores information about tests conducted by service providers. This information includes, for example, test questions, answers, individual user test results (scores for each skill item), and the overall business fundamentals assessment results (scores for each category and item). In addition, DB60 also stores human resource development log information, including user questionnaires and responses, the number of companies using the training, the number of trainees, the number of companies that have started hierarchical training, the number of trainees by training theme and hierarchical level, the lead time for decision-making regarding the introduction of training, and the number of registered service user IDs. The score is a numerical value (from "1" to "5") that evaluates the score for each test item, for example on a 5-point scale, and the total score for each skill item is also stored. If there are five skill items in one category, the maximum score for each category is 25 points, and the user's evaluation for each category is shown by the sum of the scores for each individual skill item in this case.

[0041] DB60 stores information about the company to which the user belongs (company size (number of employees), organizational structure (hierarchy, etc.), departments, divisions, etc.), linked to the user ID. The user ID is the identification information used when a user logs into this server 10 and is managed in conjunction with the password. Furthermore, DB60 stores information about each employee (user) within a company (for example, employee's name, age, date of joining the company, length of service, organizational position, job title, etc.), linked to the employee's personal identification information such as employee number and the user ID. Please note that the past logs mentioned above, such as those from one year or several years ago, are just examples; past performance data from three years ago is also acceptable. DB60 stores past performance information for each user, from Ua1 to Uan, and from Ub1 to Ubm. This performance information includes, for example, the results of each user's tests, the user's attributes at the time, and the date the test was taken. In addition, DB60 stores performance information of companies taking courses and training programs (for example, information that is publicly available in economic magazines, etc.) in a way that allows for comparison with other companies in the same industry. Users Ua1 through Uan and Ub1 through Ubm belong to a designated organization such as the company they work for. The scores and attributes of each user Ua1 through Uan and Ub1 through Ubm are included in information (such as performance evaluations) created by the company. In this way, by adopting the personnel evaluation of the company where the user works (affiliation, etc. = attributes, evaluation = skills (score)) as one of the recommendation materials, as well as the current score and current attributes, and the target score and target attributes, it becomes possible to visualize "individual strength" as the individual strength of the user, and "organizational strength" which is calculated as the average value of "individual strength" for each department, taking objective evaluations into consideration.

[0042] Here, we will explain the scores from the Business Fundamentals Diagnostic Test, the behavioral characteristics assessment based on the competency survey, and the evaluation (score) of "human capabilities," which represent a person's ability to achieve. These numerical values ​​that evaluate an individual's capabilities are called "individual capabilities." The evaluation derived from the results of the Business Fundamentals Diagnostic Test is based on the inherent abilities of the individual, that is, the knowledge, skills, and other capabilities they have acquired. For example, skills are categorized (defined) into four areas: "Business Knowledge," "Planning & Control," "Thinking," and "Communication," with five items (see Figure 4) set for each category.

[0043] Furthermore, competency surveys, which assess behavioral characteristics, emphasize the actions necessary for practical work and evaluate the ability to take action. Behavioral characteristic assessments are characterized by their more specific evaluation items compared to ability score assessments, making them effective for talent development based on a clearer profile of the individual. The evaluation criteria will be tailored to each company's specific needs. For example, it is divided into six categories: achievement / behavior, assistance / interpersonal support, impact / interpersonal influence, management domain, intellectual domain, and individual effectiveness, with several competency items set for each category. For example, the Achievement and Behavior category includes competency items such as achievement thinking, order, quality, attention to accuracy, initiative, and information gathering. The Helping and Interpersonal Support category includes competency items such as interpersonal understanding and customer support orientation. The Impact and Interpersonal Influence category includes competency items such as impact, influence, organizational awareness, and relationship building. The Management category includes competency items such as developing others, mentoring, teamwork and collaboration, and team leadership. The Intellectual Category includes competency items such as analytical thinking, conceptual thinking, technical, professional, and managerial expertise. The Individual Effectiveness category includes competency items such as self-management, confidence, flexibility, and organizational commitment.

[0044] "Human power" is defined as the ability to achieve results in a business context. The evaluation criteria are divided into three categories, such as demeanor, customer service skills, and personal qualities, as shown in Figures 6 and 7, with several items (elements) set within each category. For example, the "Demeanor" category might include items (elements) such as personal grooming, facial expressions / attitude, language, and greetings. The "Customer Service Skills" category might include items (elements) such as observation, active listening, questioning, and making suggestions. The "Personal" category might include elements such as finance, product / industry knowledge, information gathering, and health. The categories and items (elements) mentioned above are merely examples for implementation and can be modified based on the individual's inherent strengths, ability to act, and ability to achieve.

[0045] In the CPU 101 of server 10 (see Figure 2), when acquiring the "individual capabilities" and "organizational capabilities" of each user, and comparing them to recommend "trends" and "recommended communication," the input information acquisition unit 11, comparison unit 12, recommendation unit 13, and display control unit 14 function as shown in Figure 3.

[0046] The input information acquisition unit 11 acquires information representing the first and second target forces as input information, for example, the individual strength of user Ua1 ("human strength" relating to the first person) or the "organizational strength" relating to the accounting department Y of company X (first organization), for example, as the first target force, and the individual strength of user Ub1 ("human strength" relating to the second person) or the "organizational strength" relating to the general affairs department Z of company X (second organization), for example, as the second target force. In this embodiment, different departments within the same company (Accounting Department Y and General Affairs Department Z) were used for comparison, but the organizations may be different companies, organizations, sections, or units, and the organization is not limited to this embodiment. The input information acquisition unit 11 acquires one or more pieces of information from among the following as target user input information: the test results of a business basic skills diagnostic test that show the current level of the person's inherent abilities (first information), the results of a behavioral characteristics evaluation by a competency survey that show the current level of the ability to act (second information), internal company data on achievements and results (third information), job attributes (fourth information), industry attributes (fifth information), and personality tendencies (attribute information related to personality) (sixth information). Specifically, the input information acquisition unit 11 aggregates the scores obtained from the business basic skills diagnostic test administered to the user by category and item, and stores the test results in DB 60. In addition, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires the results of a questionnaire survey conducted with the user using a competency survey and stores them in DB 60 as behavioral characteristics evaluation results. Furthermore, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires data such as personnel evaluations, work performance, and results that the company has independently conducted for users, as internal company data, and stores it in DB 60. Furthermore, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires business attributes, industry attributes, personality traits, etc., from information input by the user and stores them in DB 60. In addition to storing the above information in DB 60 from the input information acquisition unit 11, it may also be output to the comparison unit 12.

[0047] The input information acquisition unit 11 includes an individual skills acquisition unit 21 and an organizational skills acquisition unit 22. The individual skills acquisition unit 21 acquires the scores of each individual user, such as Ua1 to Uan and Ub1 to Ubm, as "individual skills". The organizational strength acquisition unit 22 acquires the average score of multiple users belonging to a department, categorized and element by element, as "organizational strength." Specifically, the organizational strength acquisition unit 22 reads at least one of the six types of information (input information) stored in DB 60 for each department, and generates the "organizational strength" of the department by calculating (for example, averaging) the values ​​of one or more elements set for each of the multiple categories based on the input information. For example, the visualized values ​​in the table shown in Figure 6 correspond to this. The visualized values ​​are quantified (scored) in the range of, for example, 1 to 5. These values ​​can be generated not only by reading from DB60, but also by averaging scores obtained directly from each user. Beyond test scores, for example, survey results (responses, etc.) are evaluated and quantified by an AI model. Of the six types of information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11, one or more are used for numerical conversion. In addition to the AI ​​model, numerical values ​​may also be generated based on a pre-set algorithm.

[0048] In addition, the input information acquisition unit 11 uses at least a portion of the "individual capabilities" and "organizational capabilities" to generate information indicating the current level of development of the "individual capabilities" and "organizational capabilities" of the user or department, based on the "human capabilities" at the time the user reaches their goal. Development level refers to the user's current position and degree of achievement towards the desired state (goal). It is an indicator that shows what percentage of the goal you are currently at. For example, if the development level is 100%, it means that you possess the skills required to reach the desired state (standard). Specifically, the input information acquisition unit 11 calculates the numerical values ​​of the table shown in Figure 6 by multiplying them by element coefficients, which are weighted for each element and are not added unless certain criteria are met. In the example described later, the element coefficients correspond to compatibility coefficients.

[0049] The comparison unit 12 compares the "individual strength" of the first person or the "organizational strength" of the first organization (first target strength) with the "individual strength" of the second person or the "organizational strength" of the second organization (second target strength) based on the input information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11, and outputs the comparison result between the first target strength and the second target strength. Specifically, the comparison unit 12 compares two specified values ​​from, for example, the "individual capabilities" of user Ua1 (first person), the "individual capabilities" of user Ub1 (second person), the "organizational capabilities" of accounting department Y (first organization), and the "organizational capabilities" of general affairs department Z (second organization), and outputs the comparison results. In this example, we compared two specified items, but the comparison is not limited to just two items; it could also be one-to-many, many-to-one, or many-to-many.

[0050] Based on the input information or the comparison results from the comparison unit 12, the recommendation unit 13 generates recommendation information that includes the "tendency" of deviation from the comparison target for at least some of the comparison targets, such as user Ua1 (first person), user Ub1 (second person), accounting department Y (first organization), and general affairs department Z (second organization), as well as "recommended communication" initiatives to improve the relationship with the comparison target resulting from the deviation. In other words, the comparison unit 12 and the recommendation unit 13 function as recommendation means that compare the first target force and the second target force based on the input information, and based on the comparison results, generate recommendation information such as "trends" and "recommended communications" for at least some of the users Ua1, Ub1, accounting department Y, and general affairs department Z. Specifically, the "individual capabilities" of the first or second person are the capabilities obtained as a result of evaluating the first or second person based on multiple pieces of information that include at least information indicating basic business skills, and the "organizational capabilities" of the first or second organization are the capabilities obtained as a result of evaluations based on the "individual capabilities" of multiple people belonging to the first or second organization.

[0051] If the comparison targets are individuals, such as user Ua1 and user Ub1, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires user Ua1's "personal power" (individual power) as the first target power and user Ub1's "personal power" (individual power) as the second target power, and these first and second target powers as input information. The comparison unit 12 and the recommendation unit 13 then generate recommendation information based on the input information, including the "tendency" and "recommended communication" of at least one of user Ua1 and user Ub1.

[0052] Furthermore, if the comparison targets are, for example, an individual and an organization such as user Ua1 and General Affairs Department Z, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires input information using user Ua1's "human capabilities" as the first target capability and General Affairs Department Z's "organizational capabilities," which are the average scores of users Ub1 to Ubm, as the second target capability. The comparison unit 12 and the recommendation unit 13 then generate recommendation information based on the "tendencies" and "recommended communication" of at least one of user Ua1 and General Affairs Department Z.

[0053] Furthermore, if the comparison targets are organizations, such as Accounting Department Y and General Affairs Department Z, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires input information using the average score of users Ua1 to Uan of Accounting Department Y as the first target force, and the average score of users Ub1 to Ubm of General Affairs Department Z as the second target force, and the comparison unit 12 and recommendation unit 13 generate recommendation information based on the "trends" and "recommended communications" of at least one of Accounting Department Y and General Affairs Department Z.

[0054] The display control unit 14 presents the generated recommendation information to the comparison request source, such as user Ua1, user Ub1, accounting department Y, and general affairs department Z, and other user terminals T. Furthermore, the display control unit 14 presents quantified information on individual and organizational capabilities (a collection of values ​​for each element in each category) as visualized information. Specifically, the "visualized values" in the table shown in Figure 6 are presented as waveforms on the radar chart shown in Figure 7, representing the visualized information. The radar chart is a pie chart in which multiple circles are drawn at equal intervals from a center, and axes representing each element are drawn radially from that center. The axes are assigned numbers such as 1, 2, ... 5 (not shown) in order of proximity to the center. The waveforms were generated for each individual and each organization using the table shown in Figure 6. Two of these were then plotted on the radar chart in Figure 7, with the plotted points connected by lines different from the waveforms, or the areas enclosed by the lines being colored. By simply comparing the graphs of these two waveforms, users can instantly see which elements differ, approximate, or match within the two waveforms used to compare "individual strength" and "organizational strength."

[0055] Furthermore, the display control unit 14 can not only visualize and present "individual capabilities" and "organizational capabilities" (illustrating scores), but can also present the visualization information extracted according to predetermined extraction conditions stored in DB60 as a radar chart (distribution waveform). For example, the results of a business fundamentals diagnostic test (see Figure 4) combined with behavioral characteristics assessment results from a competency survey and other attributes can be used to visualize "human capabilities," which can then be presented as a radar chart (see Figure 7). The results of the Business Fundamentals Diagnostic Test can extract a population based on any number (including 1) of any combination of past scores from the same age, occupation, industry, position, and year of joining the company, or from the user themselves, and simultaneously display the waveforms of the population scores and the waveforms of the user's own scores on a radar chart. The results of the behavioral characteristics evaluation can also be similarly displayed as waveforms on a radar chart.

[0056] Now, let's explain the server's operation with reference to Figure 5. Figure 5 is a process diagram showing the processing flow of a server in one embodiment of the information processing apparatus according to the present invention.

[0057] In server 10, in step S1 of Figure 5, the input information acquisition unit 11 acquires, as input information, current values ​​of the user such as inherent abilities (results of the basic business skills diagnostic test), ability to act (results of the behavioral characteristics evaluation), and internal company data, as well as one or more pieces of information from the user's basic attributes, industry attributes, personality tendencies, etc. If the user has a desired future self (goals such as industry, job type, role, department, position, etc.), that information is also acquired as input information.

[0058] Next, in step S2, the input information acquisition unit 11 generates "human power" information based on one or more input pieces of information. Subsequently, in step S3, the display control unit 14 visualizes the "human power" information generated by the input information acquisition unit 11 as visualization information (for example, a radar chart or bar graph in Figure 7). In other words, it graphs the numerical values.

[0059] To describe the operation of server 10 in detail, the input information acquisition unit 11 first acquires one or more pieces of information as subject input information for the user from among the following: the test results of a business basic skills diagnostic test that show the current level of inherent abilities, the behavioral characteristics evaluation results from a competency survey that show the current level of ability to act, quantitative in-company data regarding achievements or results, and business attributes such as work history, work history, and work experience, industry attribute information that shows industry attributes, and personality attributes that show personality tendencies. Specifically, it depends on the purpose for which "human capabilities" are categorized (for example, the capabilities of retail sales staff), but for example, test results and basic attributes may be obtained, or test results, behavioral characteristic evaluation results, basic attributes, and personality information may be obtained. Next, the input information acquisition unit 11 generates "human power" information, which indicates the subject's "human power" at a predetermined point in time, based on the subject's input information, as a collection of values ​​for each element in each category.

[0060] The display control unit 14 presents the generated "human power" information as waveforms (characteristics) or bar graphs on a radar chart (characteristic distribution diagram) as shown in Figure 7 to the user terminal U of the requesting party (user, department, or division).

[0061] Next, we will explain specific examples of server-based visualization processing of "human power" with reference to Figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 shows the data of evaluation metrics derived from input information to generate "Retail Salesperson Power". Figure 7 shows an example of visualizing "the capabilities of retail sales staff" based on the evaluation indicator data in Figure 6.

[0062] As shown in Figure 6, the evaluation indicators for "the capabilities of retail sales staff" are divided into three categories: demeanor, customer service skills, and personal qualities. The "Demeanor" category includes elements such as appearance, facial expressions / attitude, language, and greetings. The "Customer Service Skills" category includes elements such as observation, active listening, questioning, and suggestion. The "Personal" category includes elements such as finance, product / industry knowledge, information gathering, and health. For each element, visualization values, required standards, minimum standards, category coefficients, element coefficients, development values ​​for each element, degree of development for each element, degree of development for each category, and degree of development for "the capabilities of retail sales staff" are derived.

[0063] In this case, the degree of development for each element is determined by calculating the ratio of the visualized value to the required standard. The development level for each category is calculated by multiplying the development level of each element by the element coefficient and then calculating the average value of each element for each category. The development level of "Retail Salesperson Skills" is derived by calculating the average of the development levels for each category, which is calculated by multiplying the development level for each category by the category coefficient. In this example, the development level of "Retail Salesperson Skills" is 79.1%.

[0064] The generated "Retail Salesperson Power" is output to the display control unit 14, and a radar chart or bar graph like the one shown in Figure 7 is presented to the requester (for example, user terminal T if user U is the requester). The radar chart shows two waveforms, 221, representing the user's level of development in "retail sales skills," and 222, representing the desired standard, depicted with different lines and colors. In this example, while the retail salesperson meets the standards for elements such as greetings, questioning, information gathering, sales, and health, their skills in elements such as appearance, proposal skills, finance, product and industry knowledge, observation, active listening, and facial expressions / attitude fall short. In particular, their appearance score is below the minimum, indicating that further improvement in this skill is essential. The bar graph shows the development level (percentage) of each element, along with the corresponding increase (length) of the bar, making it easy to see the level of development not only at the element level but also at the category level.

[0065] Next, referring to Figure 8, we will explain the process from the server acquiring input information to the output of recommendation information. Figure 8 shows the flow from the server acquiring input information to outputting recommendation information.

[0066] In this case, in step S21 of Figure 8, the input information acquisition unit 11 takes at least one of the following as input information: the score from the business basic skills diagnostic test, the results of the behavioral characteristics evaluation, internal company data, attributes, etc., and uses the categories, elements, and coefficients of DB60 to quantify, or visualize, the individual skills of the subject for each category and element. As a result, it outputs 2 to N quantified individual skills. For detailed information on the visualization process, please refer to the explanation in Figure 5. The individual strengths (or organizational strengths in the case of an organization) output as a result of step S21 will be between 2 and N, and since it is necessary to compare individual strengths under the same conditions below, the categories and elements to be compared should be selected in advance.

[0067] In step S22, the recommendation unit 13 compares the visualization results (2 to N visualization results) for the subjects designated as comparison targets with past cases in DB60 based on categories and elements, and outputs the "trends" and "recommended communication" for each subject.

[0068] In step S23, the comparison unit 12 compares the visualization results (2 to N visualization results, specifically scores) of the subject group designated as the comparison target by the input information acquisition unit 11, for each category and for each necessity, and outputs the discrepancy (difference) between the scores.

[0069] In step S24, the comparison unit 12 multiplies the divergence (difference) of the target group by the compatibility coefficient for each category and element stored in DB60, and outputs the divergence (difference) of the target group considering the synergistic effect. The compatibility coefficient is a coefficient derived from past trends.

[0070] In step S25, the display control unit 14 outputs a recommendation image (Figures 11 to 13, 16 to 18, 21 to 23, 26 to 28, etc.) that includes at least one piece of information from the following: the "tendency" and "recommended communication" for each individual subject output from the recommendation unit 13 in the processing of step S22, and the "tendency" and "recommended communication" for each individual subject, or the "tendency" and "recommended communication" between subjects, taken into account the synergistic effect, based on the deviation (discrepancy) of the subject group taken into account, output in the processing of step S24.

[0071] Furthermore, in step S26, the display control unit 14 outputs tasks, organizations, or additional personnel that would yield good results if the target group were to work on them, based on the discrepancy (deviation) of the target group considering synergistic effects, which was output by the processing in step S24, and past cases that are pre-stored in DB60.

[0072] Thus, according to this embodiment, by using the results of a business basic skills diagnostic test, behavioral characteristics evaluation results, internal company data, attributes, etc., as input information, it is possible to determine the individual strengths and organizational strengths of the comparison target and recommend the "trends" of the strengths of the comparison target or department, as well as "recommended communication" to improve relationships with the comparison target, to the individual, department, or the comparison target's superiors, managers, or higher-level organizations of the department. In other words, by using indicators such as individual business skills and people's initiative, the system can recommend combinations of employees that will improve each other, employees and departments, and departments with each other, thereby improving the performance of the combined employees and departments. Furthermore, it can improve the performance of a department by more than the sum of the performance of multiple employees within that department. In this embodiment, an example of comparing different departments within the same company is shown, but comparisons may also be made between different companies.

[0073] Here, we will explain the first to fourth cases with reference to Figures 9 to 28. First, we will explain the first case (an individual and an individual recommendation case) with reference to Figures 9 through 13. Figure 9 shows an example of basic information for Person A (individual) and Person B (individual) as the first example of a recommendation using Person A (individual) and Person B (individual) as comparison targets. Figure 10 shows the test scores of person A and person B in the first case study. Figure 11 shows an example of recommendation information output [Output1] in the first case study, where radar charts are placed side by side to visualize the strengths of person A and person B in a comparable manner, and the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" of each person being compared are listed. Figure 12 shows an example of outputting recommendation information for each of the comparison subjects [Output2], where a radar chart is superimposed to allow comparison of the difference between the strength of person A and the strength of person B in the first example. Figure 13 shows an example of output [Output 3] of recommendation information that improves the relationship between the two individuals in the first case study, with the radar charts of Person A's strength and Person B's strength superimposed.

[0074] In the second example, the information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11 includes the attributes of the comparison subject, the strengths of the comparison subject, selected attributes, elements, etc. The attributes to be compared are selected in advance by the user. By selecting the attributes and elements that the user wants to use, it becomes possible to compare subjects on the same axis. In this example, the attributes of the comparison subjects selected by the user are gender, age, occupation, and job title. Here, the user may be one of the comparison subjects, or a third party such as the comparison subject's supervisor. Specifically, as shown in Figure 9, of the two individuals A and B being compared, individual A has the following attributes: female, 43 years old, clerical occupation, and manager. Individual B also has the following attributes: female, 32 years old, clerical occupation, and manager.

[0075] When individuals A and B, possessing the attributes shown in Figure 9, took the Business Basics Diagnostic Test, the scores obtained for each category and element as input information were the numerical values ​​(visualized scores) shown in the table in Figure 10.

[0076] In this case, the numerical values ​​(visualization results) for individuals A and B, along with past cases from DB60 and category and element items, are used to generate trends and recommended communication for individuals A and B, and the image shown in Figure 11 is output as [Output1] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. In Figure 11, a radar chart showing Person A's strengths, Person A's personality traits, and Person A's recommended communication methods are arranged on the left side of the image, while a radar chart showing Person B's strengths, Person B's personality traits, and Person B's recommended communication methods are arranged on the right side of the image. In other words, in Figure 11, the information for Person A and Person B is displayed side by side. The recommended communication methods described here refer to the communication styles that a supervisor (a third party) who knows both Person A and Person B should consider when observing each of them.

[0077] According to the output of [Outpu1], the difference in the shape of the radar charts between Person A's strength and Person B's strength (such as the degree of bias in the distribution) is directly reflected as the person's tendencies. Therefore, if the person being compared looks at this image, they can understand the differences and similarities in skills with the person being compared at a glance. Furthermore, if supervisors see the recommended communication content, they can consider how to interact with individuals A and B respectively, and engage in effective communication to improve their relationships with each of them.

[0078] Furthermore, on server 10, the numerical values ​​(visualization results) of person A and person B are compared, and the image shown in Figure 12 is output as [Output2] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Figure 12 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message column for the relationship between person A and person B, a compatibility column, and a recommendation column for the person to compare them with. Each column contains text data.

[0079] In the message field for the relationship between Person A and Person B in [Output2], the trends in their relationship and recommended communication are shown as text data. Compatibility is information that indicates the compatibility between person A and person B. In this example, the compatibility between person A and person B is shown as text data, such as "Both have high scores in purpose / goals and active listening, resulting in a positive compatibility coefficient effect. At first glance, they might be judged as not being compatible, but in reality, they are a combination that produces good results in the workplace." For recommendations regarding the comparison partner, separate message fields are set up for each person, such as recommendations for person A (in building a relationship with person B) and recommendations for person B (in building a relationship with person A). Within each person's message field, information such as relationship trends, recommended communication, and recommendations is presented. Specifically, for example, when recommending person A, the relationship tendencies and recommended communication methods would include information such as, "Since they have difficulty thinking, communication that appeals to their emotions after clearly stating the purpose is best." Additionally, the recommendation would be, "It would be good to work on improving reading comprehension and document creation skills." Similar recommendations would be presented for person B.

[0080] According to the output of [Outpu2], the radar charts of the comparison subjects are superimposed, allowing individuals A and B to clearly see the difference in their abilities. Furthermore, by presenting compatibility ratings, it becomes possible to judge the level of compatibility with someone, which cannot be expressed numerically. Furthermore, the relationship between person A and person B is presented, allowing you to learn tips on how to communicate effectively with others. Furthermore, specific steps to overcome the person's weaknesses in their relationship with the other person are recommended. By implementing these recommended steps, the person can overcome their weaknesses and improve their relationship with the other person.

[0081] On server 10, considering the synergistic effect obtained by multiplying the numerical values ​​of the elements in the parts of the individual strengths (personal strengths) of person A and person B that have a discrepancy by a compatibility coefficient, the server derives recommended information such as tasks or departments that would yield good results if people A and B worked together, or additional personnel that would be beneficial to add, from the pattern (characteristics) of the radar chart that includes the discrepancy. The image shown in Figure 13 is output as [Output3] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. In this process, by comparing the track record of relationship improvement between individuals with similar patterns stored in BD60 with the patterns (characteristics) of individual A and individual B's strengths (individual capabilities), recommended information regarding tasks, departments, or additional personnel that would be beneficial is derived.

[0082] The compatibility coefficient is a coefficient multiplied by the score of the elements when determining the compatibility between them, based on the degree of agreement or similarity between them. It is a coefficient that adds points if the degree of agreement or similarity of the element scores meets a certain standard, or deducts points if it falls below that standard. For example, it is set within a range of 0.5 to 1.5. Alternatively, a scoring system may be used where the compatibility coefficient is multiplied only by the elements that contribute to the score. In this case, for elements with a high degree of agreement or similarity, the compatibility coefficient will be multiplied by the score in the range of 1.1 to 1.5. If a scoring system is used, for elements with a low degree of agreement or similarity, the compatibility coefficient may be multiplied by the score in the range of 0.5 to 0.9. In this example, a point-based system is used, and since Person A and Person B both have high scores in the elements of purpose / goals and active listening, a compatibility coefficient is multiplied by the scores for purpose / goals and active listening, according to the degree of agreement or similarity between them.

[0083] Figure 13 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message section describing the relationship between person A and person B, and a section for recommended information. Each section contains text data.

[0084] In the message field for the relationship between Person A and Person B in [Output3], a recommended work assignment is shown, such as a message (text data) that says, "It would work well if they each handled different areas, such as data collection and document creation, and public presentations and communication." Furthermore, the characteristics of other members who are recommended are indicated by messages (text data) such as, "They can each utilize their strengths in their respective areas of expertise, so the team will generally function well regardless of who joins."

[0085] According to the output of [Output3], the radar charts of the comparison subjects are superimposed, allowing individuals A and B to clearly see the difference in their abilities. Furthermore, by suggesting recommended task assignments based on the relationship between person A and person B, it becomes possible to efficiently carry out each other's work in their normal duties. Furthermore, by presenting the recommended tendencies of other members in the relationship between individuals A and B, it becomes clear that they can still perform effectively in their work even when other members join. In this [Output3] image, individuals A and B can learn about their interactions with their surroundings, including those they are comparing themselves to.

[0086] Next, we will explain the second case (the second case of an individual and individual recommendations) with reference to Figures 14 to 18. Figure 14 shows an example of basic information for Person A (individual) and Person C (individual), as the first example of a recommendation using Person A and Person C as comparison targets. Figure 15 shows the test scores of person A and person C in the second case study. Figure 16 shows an example of recommendation information output [Output1] in the second case study, where radar charts are placed side by side to visualize the strengths of person A and person C in a comparable manner, and the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" of each person being compared are listed. Figure 17 shows an example of outputting recommendation information for each of the comparison subjects [Output2] in the second example, where a radar chart is superimposed to allow comparison of the difference between the strength of person A and the strength of person C. Figure 18 shows an example of output [Output 3] of recommendation information that improves the relationship between the two individuals, along with a superimposed radar chart of the strengths of person A and person C in the second case study.

[0087] In the second example, the information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11 includes the attributes of the comparison subject, the strengths of the comparison subject, selected attributes, elements, etc. The attributes of the comparison target are selected in advance by the user. In this example, the attributes of the comparison target selected by the user are gender, age, occupation, and position. Specifically, as shown in Figure 14, of the two individuals A and C used for comparison, individual A is the same person as in the first case, and has the following attributes: female, 43 years old, clerical occupation, and manager. Individual C, on the other hand, is female, 35 years old, clerical occupation, and section chief.

[0088] When individuals A and C, possessing the attributes shown in Figure 14, took the business fundamentals diagnostic test, the scores obtained for each category and element as input information were the numerical values ​​(visualized scores) shown in the table in Figure 15.

[0089] In this case, the numerical values ​​(scores from the visualization results) for individuals A and C, along with past cases from DB60 and the categories and elements, are used to generate trends and recommended communication for individuals A and C. The image shown in Figure 16 is output as [Output1] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. In Figure 16, a radar chart showing Person A's strengths, Person A's personality traits, and Person A's recommended communication methods are arranged on the left side of the image, while a radar chart showing Person C's strengths, Person C's personality traits, and Person C's recommended communication methods are arranged on the right side of the image. In other words, in Figure 16, the information for Person A and Person C is displayed side by side. The recommended communication methods described here refer to the communication styles that a supervisor (a third party) who knows both Person A and Person C should consider when observing each of them.

[0090] According to the output of [Outpu1], the differences in the shape of the radar charts (such as the degree of bias in the distribution) between Person A's strength and Person C's strength, as shown in the radar charts placed side by side, directly represent the person's tendencies. Therefore, if the person being compared looks at this image, they can understand the differences and similarities in skills with the person being compared at a glance. Furthermore, if supervisors see the recommended communication content, they will be able to consider how to interact with individuals A and C respectively and engage in effective communication to improve their relationships with each of them.

[0091] Furthermore, on server 10, the numerical values ​​(visualization results) of person A and person C are compared, and the image shown in Figure 17 is output as [Output2] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Figure 17 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message column for the relationship between person A and person C, a compatibility column, and a recommendation column for the person to compare them with. Each column contains text data.

[0092] In the message field for the relationship between Person A and Person C in [Output2], the trends in their relationship and recommended communication are shown as text data. Compatibility is information indicating the compatibility between person A and person C. In this example, the compatibility evaluation between person A and person C is shown as text data, such as, "There is a significant difference in scores in items related to direct communication such as verbal communication and active listening, resulting in a negative compatibility effect. It is a relationship that causes stress to both of them." For recommendations regarding the comparison partner, separate message fields are set up for each individual, such as recommendations for person A (in building a relationship with person C) and recommendations for person C (in building a relationship with person A). Within each individual's message field, information such as relationship trends, recommended communication, and recommendations is presented. Specifically, for example, when recommending person A, the relationship tendencies and recommended communication would be that "since they have difficulty thinking, communication that appeals to their emotions after clearly stating the purpose is best." Additionally, the recommendation might be that "it would be good to work on improving reading comprehension and document creation skills." In this case, even though it's the same person A as in the first example, the information presented differs because the comparison partner is different. Furthermore, similar recommendations are presented for person C when building a relationship with person A.

[0093] According to the output of [Outpu2], the radar charts of the comparison subjects are superimposed, allowing individuals A and C to clearly see the difference in their abilities. Furthermore, by presenting compatibility ratings, it becomes possible to judge the level of compatibility with someone, which cannot be expressed numerically. Furthermore, the relationship between individuals A and C is presented, allowing you to learn tips on how to communicate effectively with others. Furthermore, specific steps to overcome the person's weaknesses in their relationship with the other person are recommended. By implementing these recommended steps, the person can overcome their weaknesses and improve their relationship with the other person.

[0094] Server 10 analyzes the synergistic effect obtained by multiplying the numerical values ​​of the elements in the parts of the individual strengths (personal strengths) of person A and person C that have a discrepancy by a compatibility coefficient. Based on the resulting radar chart pattern (characteristics), recommended information such as tasks or departments that would yield good results if people A and C worked together, or additional personnel that would be beneficial to add, is derived. The image shown in Figure 18 is output as [Output3] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Note that the compatibility coefficient is the same as in the first example, so the explanation is omitted. In this process, by comparing the track record of relationship improvement between individuals with similar patterns stored in BD60 with the patterns (characteristics) of individual A and individual C's strengths (individual capabilities), recommended information regarding tasks, departments, or additional personnel can be derived.

[0095] Figure 18 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message section describing the relationship between person A and person C, and a section for recommended information. Each section contains a message (text data, etc.).

[0096] In the message field for the relationship between Person A and Person C in [Output3], a recommended work assignment is indicated with a message (text data) such as, "It would be good for them to work on tasks that involve collaborative brainstorming and brainstorming, such as planning and suggesting improvements." Furthermore, the recommended characteristics of other team members are indicated by messages (text data) such as, "By working with members who generally have strong communication skills, or by entrusting management to a supervisor with strong communication skills, you can better leverage each other's strengths."

[0097] According to the output of [Output3], the radar charts of the comparison subjects are superimposed, allowing individuals A and C to clearly see the difference in their abilities. Furthermore, by suggesting recommended work assignments for the relationship between Person A and Person C, it becomes possible to efficiently carry out each other's work in their normal duties. Furthermore, by presenting the tendencies of other members who are recommended in the relationship between individuals A and C, it becomes clear that individuals can still perform well in their work even when other members join the team.

[0098] Next, we will explain the third case (a case of recommendations for individuals and organizations) with reference to Figures 19 through 23. Figure 19 shows an example of basic information for person D (individual) and organization E (organization), as a third example of a recommendation using person D (individual) and organization E (organization) as comparison targets. Figure 20 shows the scores from the human capabilities assessment results for individual D and organization E in the third case study. Figure 21 shows an example of recommendation information output [Output1] in the third case study, where radar charts are placed side by side to visualize the strengths of individual D and organization E in a comparable manner, and the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" of each individual being compared are listed. Figure 22 shows an example of outputting recommendation information for each of the comparison targets [Output2] in the third case, where a radar chart is superimposed to allow comparison of the discrepancy between the power of person D and the power of organization E. Figure 23 shows an example of output [Output 3] of recommendation information that improves the relationship between the comparison targets, superimposed radar charts of the strengths of person D and organization E in the third case study.

[0099] The third example is useful for both the woman and the planning department when a female sales representative is transferred to the planning department. In this case, the information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11 includes the attributes of the comparison target, the power of the comparison target, the selected attributes, elements, etc. The attributes to be compared are selected in advance by the user. In this example, the attributes selected by the user for comparison are gender, age, occupation, position, and company size. Specifically, as shown in Figure 19, among the comparison subjects, individual D and organization E, individual D has the following attributes: gender is female, age is 28, occupation is sales, and position is chief. Organization E has the following attributes: male-to-female ratio is 13:17, average age is 31, occupation is planning, there are no positions, and the organization size is 30 people.

[0100] Individual D and organization E, possessing the attributes shown in Figure 19, took a basic business skills diagnostic test. The scores obtained for each category and element as input information were the numerical values ​​(visualized scores) shown in the table in Figure 20. In this example, the categories of test results are "Thinking," "Human," "Communication," and "Business & Management." Furthermore, the test results for organization E are the average values ​​of the members belonging to that organization.

[0101] In this case, the numerical values ​​(visualization results scores) for person D and organization E, along with past cases from DB60 and category and element items, are used to generate trends and recommended communication for person D and organization E respectively. The image shown in Figure 21 is output as [Output1] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. In Figure 21, a radar chart showing the strengths of person D, along with person D's personality traits and recommended communication methods, are placed on the left side of the image, while a radar chart showing the strengths of organization E, along with organization E's personality traits and recommended communication methods, are placed on the right side of the image. In other words, in Figure 21, information for person D and organization E is displayed side by side. The recommended communication methods described here refer to the communication approaches that a supervisor (a third party) who knows both person D and organization E should consider when observing multiple individuals from both organization E and person D.

[0102] According to the output of [Outpu1], the difference in the shape of the radar charts (such as the degree of bias in the distribution) between the strength of person D and the strength of organization E, which are arranged side by side, directly reflects the tendencies of the person and organization. Therefore, when the person being compared looks at this image, they can understand the differences and similarities in skills with the person being compared at a glance. Furthermore, if supervisors review the recommended communication content, they will be able to consider how to interact with individual D and organization E respectively, and engage in effective communication to improve relationships with both individuals D and organization E.

[0103] Furthermore, on server 10, the numerical values ​​(visualization result scores) of person D and organization E are compared, and the image shown in Figure 22 is output as [Output2] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Figure 22 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message column showing the relationship between person D and organization E, and a recommendation column for the comparison partner. Each column contains text data.

[0104] In the message field for the relationship between Person D and Organization E in [Output2], the trends in the relationship between Person D and Organization E, as well as recommended communication, are shown as text data. Regarding the relationship between person D and organization E, information such as "the waveform trends indicate differences in their strengths and weaknesses, and they complement each other" might be presented. Regarding the relationship between person D and organization E, information such as "it is best to interact with each other after understanding that they possess different skills" is presented. For recommendations to a comparison partner, separate message fields are provided for each individual, such as recommendations for individual D (in building a relationship with organization E) and recommendations for organization E (in building a relationship with individual D). Within each individual's message field, information such as relationship trends, recommended communication, and recommendations is presented. Specifically, for example, when recommending person D, the relationship tendencies and recommended communication methods might include information such as, "Many members struggle with communication skills, but they have strong thinking abilities, so it would be good to consult them on tasks that require critical thinking." Additionally, recommendations might include information such as, "It would be good for them to take on a role that utilizes their negotiation skills." Furthermore, in the recommendations for Organization E, information such as "actively providing opportunities to improve logical thinking and problem-solving skills" is presented as relationship trends and recommended communication. Additionally, information such as "giving them a role in mentoring younger generations" is presented as a recommendation.

[0105] According to the output of [Outpu2], the radar charts of the comparison targets are superimposed, allowing person D and organization E to clearly see the difference in their respective strengths. Furthermore, the relationship between person D and organization E is presented, allowing you to learn tips on how to communicate effectively with individuals or groups of people. Furthermore, specific steps to overcome areas where the user struggles in their relationship with the other person are recommended. By implementing these recommended steps, the user can overcome their weaknesses and improve their relationship with the other person.

[0106] On server 10, considering the synergistic effect obtained by multiplying the numerical values ​​of the elements in the discrepancies between the individual strengths of person D and organization E by a compatibility coefficient, the server 10 derives recommended information such as tasks or departments that would yield good results if person D and organization E worked together, or additional personnel that would be beneficial to add, from the pattern (characteristics) of the radar chart that includes the discrepancy. The image shown in Figure 23 is output as [Output3] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Note that the compatibility coefficient is the same as in the first example, so the explanation is omitted. In this process, by comparing the track record of relationship improvement between individuals with similar patterns stored in BD60 with the patterns (characteristics) of individual D and organization E's strength (individual capabilities), recommended information regarding tasks, departments, or additional personnel can be derived.

[0107] Figure 23 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message column showing the relationship between person D and organization E, and a column for recommended information. Each column contains a message (text data, etc.).

[0108] In the message field for the relationship between Person D and Organization E in [Output3], recommended work assignments are shown as messages (text data) such as, for example, "- Entrust Person D with building a system for training junior staff, and - Utilize Person D's negotiation skills and add Person D to projects that require collaboration with other departments." Furthermore, the recommended characteristics of other members are indicated by messages (text data) such as, "Adding more people with strong communication skills will revitalize the exchange of opinions within the organization, promote knowledge sharing, and improve organizational strength."

[0109] According to the output of [Output3], the radar charts of the comparison targets are superimposed, allowing person D and organization E to clearly see the difference in their respective strengths. Furthermore, by suggesting recommended work assignments in the relationship between individual D and organization E, it becomes possible to efficiently carry out each other's work in their normal duties. Furthermore, by presenting the recommended characteristics of other members in the relationship between individual D and organization E, it becomes possible to improve the organizational strength of organization E by adding, for example, someone with strong communication skills.

[0110] Next, we will explain the fourth case (an example of an organization and its recommendations) with reference to Figures 24 through 28. Figure 24 shows an example of basic information for Organization F and Organization G, as a fourth example of a case where Organization F and Organization G are recommended as comparison targets. Figure 25 shows the scores from the human resource assessment results for organizations F and G in the fourth case study. Figure 26 shows an example of the output [Output1] of recommendation information in the fourth case study, where the strengths of organization F and organization G are visualized side by side using radar charts for comparison, and the "tendencies" and "recommended recommendations" for each of the individuals being compared are listed. Figure 27 shows an example of outputting recommendation information for each of the comparison subjects [Output2] in the fourth case study, where radar charts are superimposed to allow comparison of the discrepancies (differences) between the forces of organization F and organization G. Figure 28 shows an example of output [Output 3] of recommendation information that improves the relationship between the comparison subjects, along with a superimposed radar chart of the strengths of organization F and organization G in the fourth case study.

[0111] In the fourth example, the information acquired by the input information acquisition unit 11 includes the attributes of the comparison target, the power of the comparison target, the selected attributes, elements, etc. The attributes to be compared are selected in advance by the user. In this example, the attributes selected by the user for comparison are gender, age, occupation, position, and company size. Specifically, as shown in Figure 24, among the two organizations F and G being compared, organization F has the following attributes: a male-to-female ratio of 0:32, an average age of 29, a clerical occupation, no managerial positions, and a size of 32 members. Organization G has the following attributes: a male-to-female ratio of 16:9, an average age of 35, a planning occupation, no managerial positions, and a size of 25 members.

[0112] When personnel from organizations F and G, each possessing the attributes shown in Figure 24, took the Business Basics Diagnostic Test, the average scores obtained for each category and element as input information were the values ​​shown in the table in Figure 25 (visualized scores). In this example, the categories of the test results are "Planning & Control," "Thinking," "Communication," and "Basic Business Skills."

[0113] In this case, the numerical values ​​(visualization results scores) for organization F and organization G, along with past cases from DB60 and the categories and elements, are used to generate trends and recommended communications for organization F and organization G respectively. The image shown in Figure 26 is output as [Output1] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. In Figure 26, a radar chart showing the strengths of organization F, along with the characteristics of its members and recommended communication methods, are placed on the left side of the image. On the right side of the image, a radar chart showing the strengths of organization G, along with the characteristics of its members and organization and recommended communication methods, are placed. In other words, in Figure 26, information for organization F and organization G is displayed side by side. The recommended communication methods described here refer to the communication styles that a supervisor (a third party) familiar with both Organization F and Organization G should consider when observing multiple personnel within Organizations F and G.

[0114] According to the output of [Outpu1], the difference in the shape of the radar charts (such as the degree of bias in the distribution) between the strengths of organization F and organization G, which are placed side by side, directly reflects the organizational trends. When a person comparing organizations looks at this image, they can understand the differences and similarities in skills between their organization and the organization being compared at a glance. Furthermore, if supervisors review the recommended communication content, they will be able to consider how each organization, F and G, interact with the organization, and engage in effective communication to improve relationships with each organization.

[0115] Furthermore, on server 10, the numerical values ​​(visualization result scores) of organization F and organization G are compared, and the image shown in Figure 27 is output as [Output2] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Figure 27 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message column showing the relationship between organization F and organization G, and a column for recommendations for the comparison organization. Each column contains text data.

[0116] In the message field for the relationship between organization F and organization G in [Output2], the trends in the relationship between organization F and organization G, as well as recommended communication, are shown as text data. Regarding the relationship between Organization F and Organization G, information such as "the total scores are almost the same, but when looking at individuals, Organization F has many members with high listening skills, while Organization G has many members who are not good at verbal communication or listening" is presented. Regarding the relationship between organization F and organization G, information such as "it is best to clearly document the matters to be considered in advance and then conduct inter-organizational discussions based on that" is presented. For recommendations to comparison partners, separate message fields are provided for each individual, such as recommendations for Organization F (in building relationships with Organization G) and recommendations for Organization G (in building relationships with Organization F). Within these message fields, information such as relationship trends, recommended communication, and recommendations is presented. Specifically, for example, in a recommendation for organization F, the relationship tendencies and recommended communication might include information such as, "They generally have a strong ability to utilize thinking methods. Brainstorming together is likely to generate good ideas." Additionally, the recommendation might include information such as, "It would be beneficial for the recommender to take on a role that leverages their own negotiation skills." Furthermore, recommendations for Organization G include information such as, "When conveying specialized knowledge, explain it in a clear and easy-to-understand manner," as well as, "Since there are many members with good listening skills, it would be good to ask them to mentor new employees."

[0117] According to the output of [Outpu2], the radar charts of the organizations being compared are superimposed, so that the difference in strength between organization F and organization G can be clearly seen. Furthermore, the relationship between organization F and organization G is presented, allowing you to learn tips on how to communicate effectively with individuals or groups within the other organization. Furthermore, specific initiatives to overcome areas where one's own organization is weak in its relationship with the other organization are recommended. By implementing these recommended initiatives, the personnel of that organization can overcome their own weaknesses, leading to an even better relationship with the other organization.

[0118] On server 10, recommended information is derived from the radar chart pattern (characteristics) that includes the synergistic effect obtained by multiplying the numerical values ​​of the elements in the parts of the organizational strength (organizational strength) of organizations F and G that have a discrepancy by a compatibility coefficient. This information includes tasks, departments, or additional personnel that would yield good results if organizations F and G worked together. The image shown in Figure 28 is output as [Output3] of the processing results shown in Figure 8. Note that the explanation of the compatibility coefficient is omitted as it is the same as in the first example. In this process, by comparing the track record of improving relationships between individuals with similar patterns stored in BD60 with the patterns (characteristics) of the strengths (individual strengths) of Organization F and Organization G, recommended information regarding tasks, departments, or additional personnel can be derived.

[0119] Figure 28 shows a chart image in which two radar charts are superimposed with different line types and colors, along with a message section showing the relationship between organization F and organization G, and a section for recommended information. Each section contains a message (text data, etc.).

[0120] In the message field for the relationship between Organization F and Organization G in [Output3], recommended work assignments are shown as messages (text data) such as "- Entrust the establishment of a system for training junior staff to Organization F, and - Leverage Organization F's negotiation power and add Organization F to projects that require collaboration with other departments." Furthermore, the recommended characteristics of other members are indicated by messages (text data) such as, "Adding more people with strong communication skills will revitalize the exchange of opinions within the organization, promote knowledge sharing, and improve organizational strength."

[0121] According to the output of [Output3], the radar charts of the organizations being compared are superimposed, allowing organizations F and G to clearly see the difference in their strengths. Furthermore, by suggesting recommended work assignments in the relationship between Organization F and Organization G, it becomes possible to efficiently carry out each other's work in their normal operations. Furthermore, by presenting the recommended characteristics of other members in the relationship between organization F and organization G, it becomes possible to improve the organizational strength of organization G by adding, for example, someone with strong communication skills.

[0122] Although one embodiment of the present invention has been described above, the present invention is not limited to the embodiments described above, and any modifications, improvements, etc. that can achieve the objectives of the present invention are included in the present invention.

[0123] For example, the hardware configuration shown in Figure 2 is merely an example for achieving the objectives of the present invention and is not particularly limited.

[0124] Furthermore, the functional block diagram of server 10 shown in Figure 3 is merely illustrative and not particularly limiting. In other words, it is sufficient for the information processing device to have the functionality to execute the series of processes described above as a whole, and the functional blocks and databases used by the information processing device to realize this functionality are not particularly limited to the example in Figure 3.

[0125] Furthermore, although the example of placing the functional blocks and database on a single server was described, the placement location is not limited to Figure 3, and can be distributed across multiple information processing devices, or any other location is acceptable. Furthermore, a single functional block and database may consist of hardware alone, on separate hardware, as software alone, or as a combination of these.

[0126] When the processing of each functional block is to be executed by software, the programs that make up that software are read from the network or storage medium into the computer, such as the CPU of the information processing device. A computer may be one that is embedded in dedicated hardware. Alternatively, a computer may be implemented in an information processing device capable of executing various functions by loading various programs, such as a server, or in a general-purpose smartphone or personal computer.

[0127] Recording media containing such programs consist not only of removable media distributed separately from the main unit to provide programs to each user, but also of recording media provided to each user in a state where they are pre-installed in the main unit.

[0128] In this specification, the step of describing a program to be recorded on a recording medium includes not only processes that are performed chronologically in that order, but also processes that are not necessarily performed chronologically, but are executed in parallel or individually.

[0129] Furthermore, in this specification, the term "system" refers to an overall system composed of multiple devices, means, etc.

[0130] For example, in the above embodiment, the user can be any person, such as an employee (worker or officer, etc.) of a company (organization, group, etc.) or a member of the general public, who is registered as a member of this service. Furthermore, the present invention may not be limited to individuals, but may also target companies (organizations, groups, etc.). In other words, it is sufficient if the "target" is one to which "individual power," such as "basic business skills" or "human power," can be applied. Furthermore, while the above embodiments described examples of one-to-one comparisons between individuals, individuals and organizations, and organizations and organizations, these are merely examples, and comparisons between many and one, one and many, or many and many may also be used. In other words, the objects of comparison can be combined in various ways, such as between individuals, between individuals and organizations, or between organizations. More specifically, the comparison could be between one person and two people, between five individuals and two organizations, or between three organizations and four organizations; the comparison is not limited to a one-to-one relationship.

[0131] In the embodiment described above, the input information that serves as the basis for generating "individual capabilities" such as "basic business skills" and "human skills" was defined as six types of information, such as test results (scores) (1st information) from tests conducted by the service provider, competency survey results (behavioral characteristic evaluation results) (2nd information), internal company data (3rd information), basic attributes (4th information), industry attributes (5th information), and personality tendencies (6th information). However, other external scores, attributes, data, etc., may also be adopted and used in combination with the above 1st to 6th information.

[0132] In the above embodiment, items such as business knowledge, planning and control, communication, and thinking were used as categories for evaluating skills related to basic business abilities, and items such as thinking, human skills, communication, and business / management thinking were used as categories. However, other items may also be used as categories to create a single comparison group. In other words, any m skills (where m is an integer of 1 or more) in each category related to basic business skills can be adopted. In this case, the one or more skill items (elements) set for each skill are not particularly limited to the examples of the embodiments described above, and any p skill items (elements) (where p is an integer of 1 or more independent of m) can be adopted.

[0133] In the above embodiment, information indicating the basic business skills of one or more individuals belonging to a company was obtained, for example, by obtaining a normalized score (a numerical value on a 1-5 scale) of the scores from a business basic skills diagnostic test for each item in one or more skills that evaluate business skills. However, other examples are also possible. For example, it could be a company, an organization, or a community; any organization is sufficient. It could also be an employee, staff member, or officer; any target audience is sufficient. Furthermore, as information demonstrating fundamental business skills, tests were conducted for each skill item in each category, and normalized scores were obtained. However, other methods, such as obtaining the test scores themselves, would also suffice, as long as the information demonstrates fundamental business skills.

[0134] In the above embodiment, "target capabilities" such as "individual capabilities" and "organizational capabilities" were generated by assigning scores based on past cases, but an AI model that outputs scores according to the input information may also be used. The accuracy of the output scores can be improved by training the AI ​​model. For example, a dataset could be created from the collection of values ​​for each skill item (element) within each category. By using numerous datasets tailored to the company as training data, machine learning could be performed to generate or update an AI model that adapts to changes in the company's business, industry, and market. Furthermore, it is not limited to AI models; for example, rule-based logic can be used to generate the "basic business skills," "human capabilities," and "organizational capabilities" of a target at a predetermined point in time (as a collection of values ​​for each element in each category) based on the target input information.

[0135] In summary, the information processing device to which the present invention applies only needs to have the following configuration, and various embodiments can be adopted. (1) That is, the information processing device to which the present invention is applied (for example, the server 10 in Figure 3) is: An input information acquisition means (for example, the input information acquisition unit 11 in Figure 3) acquires information indicating the first target force and the second target force, with the first target force being the "human power" relating to the first person (for example, the individual power of user Ua1 in Figure 3) or the "organizational power" relating to the first organization (for example, the accounting department Y of company X), and the second target force being the aforementioned "human power" relating to the second person (for example, the individual power of user Ub1 in Figure 3) or the aforementioned "organizational power" relating to the second organization (for example, the general affairs department Z of company X), respectively, as input information. Based on the aforementioned input information, a recommendation means (e.g., recommendation unit 13 in Figure 3) generates recommendation information for at least some of the first person (e.g., user Ua1), the second person (e.g., user Ub1), the first organization (e.g., accounting department Y), and the second organization (e.g., general affairs department Z), including "trends" (e.g., deviations in power compared to a comparison target) and "recommended communications" (e.g., efforts to improve the relationship with the comparison target resulting from the deviation). It is equipped with. By incorporating this configuration, it is possible to input "human resources" and "organizational resources" and recommend the "trends" of the strengths of the individual or organization being compared, as well as "recommended communication" to improve relationships with the comparison target, to individuals, organizations, or third parties (for example, the supervisor or manager of the individual being compared, or the higher-level organization of the organization being compared). In other words, by using visualized indicators (numerical values) such as individual and organizational strength, and providing recommendations to individuals and organizations to improve their relationship with the comparison target, it is possible to combine the strengths of individuals and organizations to improve performance beyond the sum of the individual strengths of multiple people.

[0136] (2) In the above-mentioned information processing device (for example, the server 10 in Figure 26), The aforementioned "human power" (e.g., individual power) of the first or second person is power obtained as a result of evaluating the first or second person from a plurality of pieces of information that include at least information indicating business-related power (e.g., basic business skills) and human power (e.g., a person's ability to accomplish things), The "organizational strength" of the first or second organization is the strength obtained as a result of an evaluation based on the "human resources" of multiple people belonging to the first or second organization. This allows for more specific recommendations regarding the "tendencies" of individual and organizational strengths, as well as "recommended communication" to improve relationships with comparison targets.

[0137] (3) In the above-mentioned information processing device (for example, the server 10 in Figure 26), The input information acquisition means (for example, the input information acquisition unit 11 in Figure 3) acquires the input information using the "human power" of the first person (for example, user Ua1) as the first target force and the "human power" of the second person (for example, user Ub1) as the second target force. The recommendation means (for example, the recommendation unit 13 in Figure 3) generates the "tendency" and "recommended communication" of at least one of the first and second persons as recommendation information. It is possible. This allows us to compare the "human capabilities" (e.g., individual strengths) of the first person (e.g., user Ua1) and the second person (e.g., user Ub1), and recommend "recommended communication" to improve the "tendencies" of each person's strength and their relationship with the comparison target.

[0138] (4) In the above-mentioned information processing device (for example, the server 10 in Figure 3), The input information acquisition means (for example, the input information acquisition unit 11 in Figure 3) acquires the input information using the "human power" of the first person (for example, user Ua1) as the first target power and the "organizational power" of the second organization (for example, General Affairs Department Z) as the second target power. The recommendation means (for example, the recommendation unit 13 in Figure 3) generates the "tendency" and "recommended communication" of at least one of the first person (for example, user Ua1) and the second organization (for example, General Affairs Department Z) as recommendation information. It is possible. This allows us to compare individual strength (e.g., the individual strength of user Ua1) with organizational strength (e.g., the organizational strength of General Affairs Department Z), and recommend "recommended communications" to improve the "tendencies" of each strength and their relationship with the comparison target.

[0139] (5) In the above-mentioned information processing device (for example, the server 10 in Figure 3), The input information acquisition means (for example, the input information acquisition unit 11 in Figure 3) acquires the input information using the "organizational strength" of the first organization (for example, the accounting department Y) as the first target strength and the "organizational strength" of the second organization (for example, the general affairs department Z) as the second target strength. The recommendation means (for example, the input information acquisition unit 11 in Figure 3) generates the "trends" and "recommended communications" of at least one of the first organization and the second organization as recommendation information. It is possible. This allows us to compare the first organizational strength, "human power" (e.g., individual strength), with the second organizational strength, "organizational strength," and recommend "recommended communication" to improve the "tendencies" of each strength and their relationship with the comparison target.

[0140] (6) The information processing method performed by the information processing device to which the present invention is applied is: An input information acquisition step involves acquiring information representing the first target force and the second target force, with the first target force being defined as the "human power" of the first person (for example, the individual power of user Ua1 in Figure 3) or the "organizational power" of the first organization (for example, the accounting department Y of company X), and the second target force being defined as the "human power" of the second person (for example, the individual power of user Ub1 in Figure 3) or the "organizational power" of the second organization (for example, the general affairs department Z of company X), and input information representing the first target force and the second target force, respectively. A recommendation step that generates recommendation information for at least some of the first person (e.g., user Ua1), the second person (e.g., user Ub1), the first organization (e.g., accounting department Y), and the second organization (e.g., general affairs department Z), including "trends" (e.g., deviations in power compared to a comparison target) and "recommended communications" (e.g., efforts to improve the relationship with the comparison target resulting from the deviation), based on the input information. Includes. This allows users to input "human resources" and "organizational strength," and then recommend to individuals, organizations, or third parties (for example, the superiors or managers of the individual being compared, or the higher-level organization of the organization being compared) the "tendencies" of the individual's or organization's strengths, as well as "recommended communication" with the individual to improve the relationship with them. In other words, by using visualized indicators (numerical values) such as individual and organizational strength, and providing recommendations to individuals and organizations to improve their relationship with the comparison target, it is possible to combine the strengths of individuals and organizations to improve performance beyond the sum of the individual strengths of multiple people.

[0141] (7) A program to which the present invention is applied is: An input information acquisition step involves acquiring information representing the first target force and the second target force, with the first target force being defined as the "human power" of the first person (for example, the individual power of user Ua1 in Figure 3) or the "organizational power" of the first organization (for example, the accounting department Y of company X), and the second target force being defined as the "human power" of the second person (for example, the individual power of user Ub1 in Figure 3) or the "organizational power" of the second organization (for example, the general affairs department Z of company X), and input information representing the first target force and the second target force, respectively. A recommendation step that generates recommendation information for at least some of the first person (e.g., user Ua1), the second person (e.g., user Ub1), the first organization (e.g., accounting department Y), and the second organization (e.g., general affairs department Z), including "trends" (e.g., deviations in power compared to a comparison target) and "recommended communications" (e.g., efforts to improve the relationship with the comparison target resulting from the deviation), based on the input information. This will execute a control process that includes this process. This allows users to input "human resources" and "organizational strength," and then recommend to individuals, organizations, or third parties (for example, the supervisor or manager of the individual being compared, or the higher-level organization of the organization being compared) the "tendencies" of the strengths of the individual or organization being compared, as well as "recommended communication" to improve relationships with the comparison target. In other words, by using visualized indicators (numerical values) such as individual and organizational strength, and providing recommendations to individuals and organizations to improve their relationship with the comparison target, it is possible to combine the strengths of individuals and organizations to improve performance beyond the sum of the individual strengths of multiple people. [Explanation of symbols]

[0142] 1...Information processing system, 10...Server, 2-1, 2-n, 3-1, 3-m,...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...Input information acquisition unit, 12...Comparison unit, 13...Recommendation unit, 14...Display control unit, 60...DB, NW...Network

Claims

1. An input information acquisition means that acquires information indicating the first target force and the second target force, with the "human power" relating to the first person or the "organizational power" relating to the first organization being the first target force, and the "human power" relating to the second person or the "organizational power" relating to the second organization being the second target force, as input information. A recommendation means that generates "trends" and "recommended communications" as recommendation information for at least some of the first person, the second person, the first organization, and the second organization, based on the input information, An information processing device equipped with the following features.

2. The "human power" of the first or second person is the power obtained as a result of the evaluation of the first or second person based on a plurality of pieces of information that include at least information indicating business capabilities, The "organizational strength" of the first or second organization is the strength obtained as a result of an evaluation based on the "human resources" of multiple people belonging to the first or second organization. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.

3. The input information acquisition means acquires the input information using the "human power" of the first person as the first target force and the "human power" of the second person as the second target force. The recommendation means generates the "tendency" and "recommended communication" of at least one of the first and second persons as recommendation information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.

4. The input information acquisition means acquires the input information using the "human power" of the first person as the first target force and the "organizational power" of the second organization as the second target force. The recommendation means generates the "tendency" and "recommended communication" of at least one of the first person and the second organization as recommendation information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.

5. The input information acquisition means acquires the input information using the "organizational strength" of the first organization as the first target force and the "organizational strength" of the second organization as the second target force. The recommendation means generates the "trends" and "recommended communications" of at least one of the first and second organizations as recommendation information. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.

6. In an information processing method executed by an information processing device, An input information acquisition step in which information representing the first target force and the second target force is acquired as input information, with the first target force being the "human resources" relating to the first person or the "organizational resources" relating to the first organization, and the second target force being the "human resources" relating to the second person or the "organizational resources" relating to the second organization, respectively. A recommendation step that generates "trends" and "recommended communications" as recommendation information for at least some of the first person, the second person, the first organization, and the second organization, based on the input information, Information processing methods including

7. On the computer, An input information acquisition step in which information representing the first target force and the second target force is acquired as input information, with the first target force being the "human resources" relating to the first person or the "organizational resources" relating to the first organization, and the second target force being the "human resources" relating to the second person or the "organizational resources" relating to the second organization, respectively. A recommendation step that generates "trends" and "recommended communications" as recommendation information for at least some of the first person, the second person, the first organization, and the second organization, based on the input information, A program that executes control processes, including those mentioned above.

Images