Program, apparatus, and method for displaying survey response results

Abstract

We provide a program that selects improvement items based on the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item, according to the elapsed time. [Solution] In a program that operates a computer that stores expectations and satisfaction levels based on user questionnaire responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, the program displays a graph on the display consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis, plots each evaluation item for each period based on expectations and satisfaction levels, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. The computer then operates as an improvement item selection means that selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrows.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a questionnaire technique for asking questions to multiple users.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, there is a technique for conducting a questionnaire on the degree of expectation and satisfaction in each evaluation item from employees (see, for example, Patent Document 1). According to this technique, for each evaluation item, items to be improved are extracted based on an evaluation score that gives a high evaluation when the difference between the degree of expectation and the degree of satisfaction is small.

Prior Art Documents

Non-Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] However, when extracting items to be improved based only on the difference between the degree of expectation and the degree of satisfaction as in Patent Document 1, there is a problem that only uniform evaluation items are always extracted. In contrast, the inventor of the present application first considered whether it is possible to select improvement items according to the elapsed time from the degree of expectation and the degree of satisfaction for each evaluation item. Second, the inventor considered whether it is possible to display the degree of expectation and the degree of satisfaction for each evaluation item in a way that is easy for an operator to visually recognize. Third, the inventor considered whether it is possible to derive an evaluation index that is easy for an operator to understand from the degree of expectation and the degree of satisfaction for each evaluation item. Fourth, the inventor considered whether it is possible to display the distribution range of the answers of users for each evaluation item in a way that is easy for an operator to visually recognize.

[0005] Therefore, the first objective of the present invention is to provide a program, apparatus, and method that can select improvement items according to the elapsed time based on the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] <First Invention> According to the first aspect of the present invention, in a program that operates a computer that accumulates expectations and satisfaction levels based on user questionnaire responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, A graph display means that shows a graph consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis on a display, plots each evaluation item for each period based on expectation and satisfaction, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. An improvement item selection means that selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrow. It is characterized by enabling the computer to function in this way.

[0007] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The evaluation items are survey questions for multiple users belonging to an organization or service, structured in a hierarchical manner. Expectations and satisfaction levels are based on responses to questions related to the organization or service. The graphing method plots only the expected and satisfaction levels for multiple evaluation items at the hierarchy specified by the administrator. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0008] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The graphing means connects the plots of the first expectation level and first satisfaction level in the first period and the plots of the second expectation level and second satisfaction level in the second period with arrows pointing towards the passage of time for each evaluation item. The method for selecting improvement items involves selecting improvement items where the second expectation level is higher than the first expectation level, and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0009] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The method for selecting improvement items involves using a 45-degree angle as the central axis, where expectations are high but satisfaction levels are low, and selecting arrows that fall within a predetermined angle from this central axis as improvement items. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0010] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The improvement item selection method selects improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction and length of the arrow. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0011] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The method for selecting improvement items involves selecting evaluation items as improvement items if, for each arrow pointing in the direction where the second expectation is higher than the first expectation and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level, the length of the arrow is greater than or equal to a predetermined length. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0012] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The graph display method uses a first reference peak, representing the highest expectation and lowest satisfaction level, as the first color, and displays the graph in a gradient from the first reference peak towards the normalization line between expectation and satisfaction levels, transitioning from the first color to the second color. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0013] According to another embodiment of the first program of the present invention, The graph display method uses a third color for the normalization line between expectation and satisfaction levels, and displays the graph in a gradient from the third color to the second or fourth color, moving towards a second reference peak representing the lowest expectation level and highest satisfaction level. It is also preferable to cause the computer to function as described above.

[0014] According to another embodiment of the first invention program, The graph display means assigns the color of the plotted part for each evaluation item It is also preferable to cause the computer to function as described above.

[0015] According to another embodiment of the first invention program, For the selected evaluation item, a prompt for further obtaining an evaluation comment from the expectancy and satisfaction is transmitted to the generation AI (Artificial Intelligence) server, and from the generation AI server, an evaluation comment for the evaluation item is received, and an evaluation acquisition means for displaying the evaluation comment It is also preferable to cause the computer to function as described above.

[0016] According to another embodiment of the first invention program, For each user, a user attribute database that stores attribute information, A target user extraction means for extracting only the expectancy and satisfaction derived only from target users having attribute information specified by an administrator, An item-by-item response calculation means for calculating the expectancy and satisfaction for each item from the expectancy and satisfaction of the plurality of extracted target users It is also preferable to cause the computer to function as described above.

[0017] According to the first invention, in a management device that stores the expectancy and satisfaction based on the responses to questionnaires to users in a plurality of periods for each evaluation item, A graph display means that displays a graph consisting of an expectancy axis and a satisfaction axis on a display, plots each evaluation item for each period based on the expectancy and satisfaction, and connects between the plots with an arrow pointing in the direction of the passage of time, An improvement item selection means for selecting an improvement item from among a plurality of evaluation items based on the direction of the arrow Characterized by having.

[0018] According to the first aspect of the present invention, in a method for displaying a device that has accumulated expectations and satisfaction levels based on user questionnaire responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, The device is The first step involves displaying a graph on the screen consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis, plotting each evaluation item for each period based on expectation and satisfaction, and connecting the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. The second step is to select improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrows. It is characterized by performing the following.

[0019] <The Second Invention> According to the second aspect of the present invention, in a program that operates a computer that stores the level of expectation and satisfaction based on the user's responses to a questionnaire for each evaluation item, A graph display means that shows a graph on the display consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis, plots each evaluation item based on expectation and satisfaction, and uses the first reference peak, which is the highest expectation and lowest satisfaction, as the first color, and displays the graph in a gradient from the first color to the second color towards the normalization line between expectation and satisfaction from the first reference peak. It is characterized by enabling the computer to function in this way.

[0020] According to another embodiment of the second invention, The graph display method uses a third color for the normalization line between expectation and satisfaction levels, and displays the graph in a gradient from the third color to the second or fourth color, moving towards a second reference peak representing the lowest expectation level and highest satisfaction level. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0021] According to another embodiment of the second invention, The graph display means assigns a color to the plotted portion for each evaluation item. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0022] <The Third Invention> According to the third aspect of the present invention, in a program that operates a computer that stores the level of expectation and satisfaction based on the user's responses to a questionnaire for each evaluation item, An evaluation index calculation means for each evaluation item, which calculates an evaluation index based on the value obtained by dividing satisfaction by expectation, or by dividing expectation by satisfaction, A means for selecting improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on an evaluation index. It is characterized by enabling the computer to function in this way.

[0023] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, The method for selecting improvement items is to select them in order from the lowest satisfaction / expectation ratio, and then in order from the highest expectation / satisfaction ratio. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0024] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, The method for selecting improvement items involves selecting evaluation items with values ​​outside a predetermined range relative to the median value of the evaluation index, which is 1.0, as improvement items. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0025] According to another embodiment of the third invention, A graph display means that displays a graph on the display that serves as the axis of the evaluation index, and then plots each evaluation item based on the evaluation index. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0026] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, The evaluation index calculation method normalizes the distribution range of the evaluation index so that the median is the same for both above and below 1.0, and determines the evaluation index for each evaluation item. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0027] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, If the evaluation index is the division of satisfaction / expectation, the lowest-rated index is designated as the first color, and the range extends from that lowest-rated index toward the median, or If the evaluation index is the division of expectation / satisfaction, the highest-rated index is designated as the first color, and from that highest-rated index toward the median, A graph display means that displays a graph in which the evaluation index for each evaluation item is set to a color in a gradient that transitions from the first color to the second color. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0028] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, The graph display method sets the median of the evaluation index as the third color, and sets the color of the evaluation index for each evaluation item in a gradient, moving from the third color to the second or fourth color, either from the median to the highest evaluation index when the evaluation index is the division of satisfaction / expectation, or from the median to the lowest evaluation index when the evaluation index is the division of expectation / satisfaction. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0029] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, For each evaluation item, expectations and satisfaction levels are accumulated over multiple periods. The evaluation index calculation method calculates the evaluation index for each period, The graphing method plots the evaluation index for each evaluation item for each period, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0030] According to another embodiment of the third program of the present invention, The means for selecting improvement items selects evaluation items as improvement items if the evaluation index is the result of dividing satisfaction level by expectation level, the arrow points in the direction of decreasing the evaluation index, or if the evaluation index is the result of dividing expectation level by satisfaction level, the arrow points in the direction of increasing the evaluation index, and the length of the arrow is equal to or greater than a predetermined length. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0031] <Fourth Invention> According to the fourth aspect of the present invention, in a program that operates a computer that stores evaluation indices based on user responses to questionnaires for each evaluation item, A graph display means that displays a graph on the display that serves as the axis of the evaluation index, identifies the distribution range of evaluation indices from multiple users for each evaluation item, connects the highest and lowest evaluation indices within that distribution range with a whisker line, and displays the distribution range included in a predetermined deviation centered on the mean value of that distribution range with a box line. It is characterized by enabling the computer to function in this way.

[0032] According to another embodiment of the fourth invention, The graph display means sets the predetermined deviation to a value between ±1σ and ±2σ of the standard deviation. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0033] According to another embodiment of the fourth invention, The graph display method shows a mark within a box line for each evaluation item, representing the median of the distribution range of the evaluation index. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0034] According to another embodiment of the fourth invention, For each evaluation item, we accumulate expectations and satisfaction levels based on the responses to surveys given to each user. For each evaluation item, an evaluation index is calculated for each user based on the value obtained by dividing satisfaction by expectation, or expectation by satisfaction. These evaluation indices are then normalized so that their distribution range is the same for both above and below the median of 1.0, and the evaluation index for each evaluation item is determined. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way.

[0035] According to another embodiment of the fourth invention, Among multiple evaluation items, the method for selecting improvement items is to select an evaluation item based on a box line that is close to the lowest evaluation index when satisfaction is divided by expectations, or an evaluation item based on a box line that is close to the highest evaluation index when expectations are divided by satisfaction. It is also preferable to make the computer function in this way. [Effects of the Invention]

[0036] According to the program, apparatus, and method of the present invention, firstly, improvement items can be selected according to the elapsed time based on the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0037] [Figure 1] This is a diagram illustrating the basic functional configuration of the control device in the first part of the present invention. [Figure 2] This is an explanatory diagram of a statistical database. [Figure 3] This is the graph display screen in the first part of the present invention. [Figure 4] This is an explanatory diagram showing the direction of the arrow from Period 1 to Period 2. [Figure 5] This is a diagram illustrating the optional functional configuration of the control device in the first invention. [Figure 6] This is a diagram illustrating the user attribute database. [Figure 7] This is an explanatory diagram of the answer database. [Figure 8] This is an explanatory diagram of the item-by-item answer calculation section. [Figure 9]This is an explanatory diagram of the evaluation acquisition unit. [Figure 10] This is the second graph display screen of the present invention. [Figure 11] This is a functional configuration diagram of the control device in the third invention. [Figure 12] This is an explanatory diagram of the evaluation index calculation unit. [Figure 13] This is the first screen of the graph display according to the third aspect of the present invention. [Figure 14] This is the second screen for the graph display in the third aspect of the present invention. [Figure 15] This is an illustrative diagram showing the sub-items used as evaluation criteria. [Figure 16] This is a functional configuration diagram of the control device according to the fourth invention. [Figure 17] This is the graph display screen in the fourth part of the present invention. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0038] Embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings.

[0039] Figure 1 is a basic functional configuration diagram of the control device in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0040] According to Figure 1, the management device 1 displays the survey results from multiple users to the administrator. In recent years, "engagement," which refers to "trust" and "favorability" towards an organization or service, has become increasingly important. If the organization is a company, for example, the managers would be executives and the users would be employees. If the service is a financial service, for example, the managers would be customer managers and the users would be customer users. For example, managers can identify areas for improvement within the company based on the results of employee surveys. Similarly, customer service managers can identify areas for improvement in their services based on the results of customer surveys. As a manager or customer service manager, it is desirable to operate in a way that ensures high levels of engagement among the members of the organization or service.

[0041] Let's consider a system where company managers evaluate employee engagement as an example. Managers are required to maintain a high level of employee engagement so that employees can work together as a team. However, even if managers improve the "work environment" for their employees, in reality, employees may prioritize "evaluation and compensation." In this case, improving the work environment becomes irrelevant to the employee. Furthermore, this is a problem that cannot be directly measured, as it varies depending on the employee's organizational attributes (department, position, work location, years of service) and personal attributes (gender, age, education level, family structure).

[0042] In contrast, there is a system that collects responses to survey questions based on members' "expectations" and "satisfaction levels." This system asks members to rate their expectations and satisfaction levels on a scale, for example, from 1 to 5. By visualizing expectations and satisfaction levels based on member engagement, it becomes easier to identify areas for improvement within the organization or service.

[0043] According to Figure 1, the management device 1 functions as a website server and has a web interface to the browser of the administrator terminal 2. The management device 1 of the present invention comprises a statistical database 101, a graph display unit 11, and an improvement item selection unit 12. These functional components may be realized by executing a program that makes the computer installed in the device function. Furthermore, the processing flow of these functional components can also be understood as a method of displaying graphs.

[0044] [Statistical Database 101] Figure 2 is an explanatory diagram of the statistical database.

[0045] As shown in Figure 2, the statistical database 101 categorizes employee engagement in a company, for example, into major, medium, and minor categories in a hierarchical structure. These categories are survey items for multiple users belonging to an organization or service, arranged in a hierarchical manner. In the embodiment of the present invention, an example is described in which the "evaluation item" is a medium category, but of course, it may also be a major category or a minor category.

[0046] According to Figure 2, assuming an organization such as a company, the major categories are divided into three, for example, "Job Content / Environment," "Human Relations," and "Organizational Policies / Culture." Each major category is further divided into four subcategories, for a total of 12 categories. Each subcategory is further divided into five subcategories.

[0047] The administrator can edit item categories and item names as they see fit from administrator terminal 2. In other words, the administrator can decide at their discretion which aspects to focus on in order to improve the evaluation items. The content of the questions can also be changed as needed in conjunction with changes to the content and number of major, medium, and minor items.

[0048] According to Figure 2, expectations and satisfaction levels are based on responses to questions related to the organization or service. In other words, expectations and satisfaction levels are statistical values ​​calculated from responses collected from multiple users. Specifically, for example, the expectation and satisfaction levels for sub-items are statistical values ​​such as the average or median of expectation and satisfaction levels collected from multiple users. Furthermore, the expected value and satisfaction level of a sub-item may be statistical values ​​such as the average and median expected value and satisfaction level of all sub-items belonging to that sub-item, respectively. Similarly, the expectations and satisfaction levels for major categories may be statistical values ​​such as the average and median of the expectations and satisfaction levels for all subcategories belonging to that major category.

[0049] <Regarding the relationship between questions and responses to expectations and satisfaction levels> According to embodiments of the present invention, the user is not directly asked questions in which expectations or satisfaction levels are defined. In other words, the answers are not based on answers directly obtained through questions such as the following. Expectation Level: "What are your expectations regarding ~?" (Answer on a scale of 1 to 5) Satisfaction level: "Are you satisfied with ~?" (Answer with one of the following: 1-5) In contrast, according to the embodiment of the present invention, questions are created by sending prompts to a generating AI server to create questions for the members. Furthermore, the level of expectation and satisfaction are obtained from the answers to these questions using a machine learning model and the generating AI server. This makes it possible to derive the level of expectation and satisfaction even when diverse answers are obtained from diverse questions.

[0050] <First Invention> Figure 3 shows the graph display screen in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0051] [Graph display section 11] The graph display unit 11 displays a graph consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis on the display of the administrator terminal 2. According to the graph in Figure 3, a "normalization line" is drawn between the expectation axis and the satisfaction axis. The normalization line extends diagonally upward to the right from the reference point. When the range of expectation and the range of satisfaction are the same, the normalization line becomes a straight line connecting expectation and satisfaction. Of course, when the range of expectation and the range of satisfaction are different, normalizing within a predetermined range results in a straight line connecting expectation and satisfaction becoming the normalization line.

[0052] The positions of the plots in the graph in Figure 3 have the following meanings: (1) High expectations and high satisfaction: Users have high expectations of the organization or service and are actually highly satisfied (an ideal positive item). (2) High expectations, low satisfaction: Users had high expectations for the organization or service, but were dissatisfied due to unmet expectations (areas for improvement). (3) Low expectations, high satisfaction: Users did not have high expectations for the organization or service, but were more satisfied than expected (a potentially unnecessarily positive item). (4) Low expectations / low satisfaction: Users have no expectations of the organization or service and are not satisfied (items that are not receiving attention). According to these views, it is preferable that the plots for all evaluation items be located as far to the upper right as possible (high expectations and high satisfaction).

[0053] According to the graph in Figure 3, evaluation items plotted diagonally to the right and below the normalization line indicate high expectations but low satisfaction levels. In this case, there is a risk of employee turnover due to decreased motivation or service member cancellations due to dissatisfaction. In other words, managers need to identify items that need improvement from among the evaluation items. For example, in the case of the evaluation item "Internal Communication" plot for period 2 (t2), the deviation from the normalization line is large, suggesting that it is an item that needs improvement.

[0054] Furthermore, according to the graph in Figure 3, evaluation items plotted diagonally above and to the left of the normalization line indicate high satisfaction levels despite low expectations. In this case, it is possible that the organization or service is providing excessive facilities or costs to users. In other words, managers need to identify unnecessary items from among the evaluation items. For example, the plot for the evaluation item "organizational culture" in the second period (t2) shows a large deviation from the normalization line, suggesting that it is an item that deserves attention.

[0055] On the other hand, according to the graph in Figure 3, evaluation items plotted near the normalization line have a small difference between expectations and satisfaction, indicating a moderate state between the organization / service and the user. In this case, satisfaction levels are in line with expectations, and managers can recognize this as a suitable state. For example, the plot for the evaluation item "Work Environment" in the second period (t2) is assumed to be in a good (moderate) state.

[0056] In the present invention, according to the first version, as shown in the graph in Figure 3, each evaluation item is plotted for each period based on the expected level and satisfaction level, and the plots are connected by arrows pointing towards the passage of time. The graph display unit 11 connects the plots of the first expectation level and first satisfaction level in the first period with the plots of the second expectation level and second satisfaction level in the second period for each evaluation item, using arrows pointing towards the passage of time. This allows administrators to recognize the passage of time in terms of expectations and satisfaction levels for each evaluation item.

[0057] [Improvement Item Selection Section 12] The improvement item selection unit 12 selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrow.

[0058] Figure 4 is an explanatory diagram showing the direction of the arrows moving from the first period to the second period.

[0059] Regarding the expectations and satisfaction levels collected during the first and second periods, the engagement criteria in the evaluation can be broadly classified into eight categories, as follows: As shown in Figure 4, the expected value and satisfaction level for the first period (t1) for any given evaluation item are plotted on a graph. An arrow pointing towards the second period (t2) is then shown, using these coordinate points as a reference. (Direction a) Upward: Expectations remain unchanged, but satisfaction levels have increased. (Direction b) Upward and to the right: Expectations are high, and satisfaction levels are also high. (Orientation c) Right sideways: Expectations increased, but satisfaction remained unchanged. (Direction d) Downward and to the right: Expectations have increased, but satisfaction has decreased. (Direction e) Downward: Expectations remain the same, but satisfaction levels have decreased. (Direction f) Downward diagonal to the left: Expectations are low, and satisfaction levels are also low. (Orientation g) Left sideways: Expectations have decreased, but satisfaction remains the same. (Direction h) Upward diagonal to the left: Expectations have decreased, but satisfaction has increased.

[0060] Here, the improvement item selection unit 12 selects an "arrow pointing d" as an improvement item where the second expectation level is higher than the first expectation level, and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level. In this case, the improvement item selection unit 12 may use a 45-degree angle as its central axis (axis of direction d) where expectations are high but satisfaction is low, and select arrows that are within a predetermined angle (for example, 45 degrees) from that central axis as improvement items.

[0061] Furthermore, the improvement item selection unit 12 may also select improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on "length" in addition to the direction of the arrow. Specifically, the improvement item selection unit 12 selects as improvement items evaluation items where the length of the arrow in "direction d" is greater than or equal to a predetermined length, and where the second expectation level is higher than the first expectation level, and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level.

[0062] Figure 5 is an optional functional configuration diagram of the control device in the first aspect of the present invention.

[0063] According to Figure 5, in addition to the functional components shown in Figure 1, the system further includes a user attribute database 102, a response database 103, a target user extraction unit 13, an item-specific response calculation unit 14, and an evaluation acquisition unit 15. These functional components may be implemented by executing a program that enables the operation of a computer installed in the device. Furthermore, the processing flow of these functional components can also be understood as a method of displaying graphs.

[0064] [User Attribute Database 102] Figure 6 is an explanatory diagram of the user attribute database.

[0065] The user attribute database 102 stores attribute information for each user. For example, in the case of an organization such as a company, there are organizational attributes and / or individual attributes. According to Figure 6, for each user ID (Identifier), organizational attributes such as "department," "position," "work location," and "years of service" are recorded, and personal attributes such as "gender," "age," "educational background," and "family structure" are recorded. Examples of departments include sales, development, and general affairs. Examples of positions include department head, section chief, group leader, no position, and performance evaluation rank.

[0066] [Answer Database 103] Figure 7 is an explanatory diagram of the response database.

[0067] As shown in Figure 7, for each user, the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item (e.g., sub-items) for each period are recorded. For each period (for example, the first half of the year and the second half of the year), multiple questions, as shown in Figure 2 above, are presented to the user, for example, based on major and medium categories, and the answers to these questions are collected. Then, in the response database 103, the expectation level and satisfaction level are derived and recorded for each evaluation item and / or sub-item from the collected responses. The expectation level and satisfaction level may be expressed as numerical values, for example, from 1 to 5. Furthermore, for example, regarding the major category "Job Content and Environment," the subcategory "Job Characteristics," and the minor category "Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities," multiple questions may be asked, and multiple answers may be obtained. Expectations and satisfaction levels can then be derived from these answers.

[0068] [Target User Extraction Unit 13] The target user extraction unit 13 refers to the user attribute database 102 and extracts only the expected and satisfaction levels derived from target users who have the "attribute information" specified by the administrator. For example, the target users could be defined as "all employees." This would allow for the selection of improvement items for all employees in the company. Alternatively, the target users could be filtered to include, for example, "only employees with less than 3 years of service," or "only employees with the position of section manager." The extracted target users (e.g., IDs) are output to the item-specific response calculation unit 14.

[0069] [Item-specific answer calculation section 14] Figure 8 is an explanatory diagram of the item-by-item response calculation unit.

[0070] The item-specific response calculation unit 14 calculates item-specific expectations and satisfaction levels from the expectations and satisfaction levels of multiple target users extracted by the target user extraction unit 13. According to Figure 8, a data set is created for only the target users, which is then stored in the statistical database 101 shown in Figure 2. This allows the graph display unit 11 to plot only the expected and satisfaction levels for multiple evaluation items at the hierarchy specified by the administrator.

[0071] [Evaluation Acquisition Section 15] Figure 9 is an explanatory diagram of the evaluation acquisition unit.

[0072] The evaluation acquisition unit 15 sends a "prompt" to the generating AI server 3 requesting further evaluation comments based on the expected level and satisfaction level for the selected evaluation items, or for all evaluation items. The evaluation unit 15 sends a prompt to the generation AI server 3, for example, like the following: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on {company_profile}, Regarding the major category "Job Content and Environment" and the subcategory "Job Characteristics" Clarity of roles and responsibilities: <Expectations> <Satisfaction> Meaning of the job: <Expectations><Satisfaction> Skill utilization: <Expectation level> <Satisfaction level> ······························· Please create your review comment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {company_profile}: Organization attribute information

[0073] The evaluation acquisition unit 15 then receives the "evaluation comments" for the evaluation item from the generation AI server 3 and displays the evaluation comments. The evaluation comments are presented to the administrator as AI insights to help understand the current situation and encourage improvement.

[0074] [Generating AI Server 3] Generative Artificial Intelligence (Generative AI) Server 3 understands the context of a question and generates natural language text. Examples include OpenAI's ChatGPT (registered trademark), Anthropic's Claude (registered trademark), Google's Gemini (registered trademark), and Meta's Llama (registered trademark). These are pre-trained using general linguistic knowledge from large text corpora. Furthermore, Generative AI Server 3 can improve the accuracy of its evaluation comments through repeated fine-tuning.

[0075] <The Second Invention> Figure 10 shows the graph display screen in the second aspect of the present invention.

[0076] According to the second aspect of the present invention, the intensity of improvement items among the evaluation items is made intuitively visible to the manager. According to Figure 10, the graph display unit 11 uses the first reference peak, which represents the highest expectation and lowest satisfaction level, as the first color, and displays the graph in a gradient from the first color to the second color, moving towards the normalization line between the expectation level and satisfaction level from the first reference peak. For example, you could use "red" as the first color and "white" as the second color. This allows you to intuitively visualize the intensity of improvement items, as evaluation items with a stronger red color indicate higher expectations and lower satisfaction levels.

[0077] Furthermore, it is preferable that the graph display unit 11 uses a third color for the normalization line between the expectation level and the satisfaction level, and displays the graph in a gradient from the third color to the second or fourth color, moving towards a second reference peak representing the lowest expectation level and highest satisfaction level. For example, you could use "blue" as the third color and "white" as the second color. Of course, you could also use "yellow" as the fourth color. This allows you to intuitively see that evaluation items with a strong blue color are closer to the normalization curve, and that the expected level and satisfaction level are closer in value.

[0078] Furthermore, the graph display unit 11 may assign a color to the plotted portion for each evaluation item. The "color" assigned to an evaluation item itself represents the evaluation level derived from the expectation and satisfaction levels for that evaluation item. In other words, when displaying evaluation items, they are displayed using their respective "colors." This allows users to intuitively see the relationship between the expected level and the satisfaction level based on the color in which the evaluation items are displayed.

[0079] <The Third Invention> Figure 11 is a functional configuration diagram of the control device in the third aspect of the present invention.

[0080] According to the third aspect of the present invention, an evaluation index is calculated for each evaluation item, and improvement items are selected based on that evaluation index. According to Figure 11, the management device 1 has an evaluation index calculation unit 16 in addition to the functional components shown in Figure 1. Consequently, the functions of the graph display unit 11 and the improvement item selection unit 12 also differ in some respects. Furthermore, according to the third aspect of the present invention, the statistical database 101 only needs to store the level of expectation and satisfaction levels from responses to questionnaires conducted over at least one period.

[0081] [Evaluation Index Calculation Unit 16] Figure 12 is an explanatory diagram of the evaluation index calculation unit.

[0082] The evaluation index calculation unit 16 calculates an "evaluation index" for each evaluation item based on the value obtained by "dividing satisfaction by expectation" or "dividing expectation by satisfaction". Evaluation index = Satisfaction level / Expectation level or = Expectation level / Satisfaction level The evaluation index may be the division value itself, calculated from the expected value and the satisfaction value, but it is preferable that the division value be a normalized value.

[0083] In other words, according to the embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation index is not calculated based on the difference between expectations and satisfaction. Nor is it simply calculated for each evaluation item, where a small difference between expectations and satisfaction results in a high evaluation index.

[0084] In addition, according to the third embodiment of the present invention, the numerical range of the expected value and the numerical range of the satisfaction value are described as being the same as 1 to 5, but the numerical range of the expected value and the numerical range of the satisfaction value may be different. In that case, the evaluation index calculation unit 16 normalizes the distribution range of the expected value and the distribution range of the satisfaction value so that they become the same numerical range.

[0085] According to the example in Figure 12, if the numerical range for expectation and the numerical range for satisfaction are set to 1 to 5, the division value will be as follows. <Expected level><Satisfaction level> <Division value> (Satisfaction level / Expectations level) (Satisfaction level / Expectations level) 5 1 1 / 5 = 0.20 5 / 1 = 5.00 5 / 2 2 / 5 = 0.40 5 / 2 = 2.50 5 3 3 / 5 = 0.60 5 / 3 = 1.66 5 4 4 / 5 = 0.80 5 / 4 = 1.25 5 5 5 / 5=1.00 5 / 5=1.00 4 1 1 / 4 = 0.25 4 / 1 = 4.00 4 2 2 / 4 = 0.50 4 / 2 = 2.00 4 3 3 / 4 = 0.75 4 / 3 = 1.33 4 4 4 / 4=1.00 4 / 4=1.00 4 5 5 / 4 = 1.25 4 / 5 = 0.80 ························· 1 1 1 / 1=1.00 1 / 1=1.00 1 2 2 / 1 = 2.00 1 / 2 = 0.50 1 3 3 / 1 = 3.00 1 / 3 = 0.33 1 4 4 / 1 = 4.00 1 / 4 = 0.25 1 5 5 / 1 = 5.00 1 / 5 = 0.20

[0086] Furthermore, as shown in Figure 12, the evaluation index calculation unit 16 normalizes the distribution range of the division values ​​so that they are in the same range both above and below the median of 1.0, and determines the evaluation index for each evaluation item. Specifically, the distribution range of the evaluation index is normalized to a range from 20% for the lowest evaluation index to 180% for the highest evaluation index (80% above and below the median of 100%).

[0087] If the result is a division between satisfaction level and expectation level, normalize it as follows: <Satisfaction Level / Expectation Level> <Rating Index> 1 / 5 = 0.20 20% 2 / 5 = 0.40 40% 3 / 5 = 0.60 60% 4 / 5 = 0.80 80% 5 / 5 = 1.00 100% (median) 1 / 4 = 0.25 25% 2 / 4 = 0.50 50% 3 / 4 = 0.75 75% 4 / 4 = 1.00 100% (median) 5 / 4 = 1.25 110% ························· 1 / 1 = 1.00 100% (median) 2 / 1 = 2.00 120% 3 / 1 = 3.00 140% 4 / 1 = 4.00 160% 5 / 1 = 5.00 180% In this example, the division values ​​range from 0.20 to 5.00 (median 1.00), falling within the evaluation index range of 20% to 180% (median 100%).

[0088] Furthermore, if the result is the division of expectation level / satisfaction level, it should be normalized as follows. <Expectation Level / Satisfaction Level> <Rating Index> 5 / 1 = 5.00 20% 5 / 2 = 2.50 40% 5 / 3 = 1.66 60% 5 / 4 = 1.25 80% 5 / 5 = 1.00 100% (median) 4 / 1 = 4.00 25% 4 / 2 = 2.00 50% 4 / 3 = 1.33 75% 4 / 4 = 1.00 100% (median) 4 / 5 = 0.80 110% ························· 1 / 1 = 1.00 100% (median) 1 / 2 = 0.50 120% 1 / 3 = 0.33 140% 1 / 4 = 0.25 160% 1 / 5 = 0.20 180% In this example, the division values ​​between 5.00 and 0.20 (median 1.00) fall within the evaluation index range of 20% to 180% (median 100%).

[0089] Here, the meaning of the evaluation index is as follows: (1) The closer the rating index is to the lowest value of 20%, the higher the expectations and the lower the satisfaction level. In other words, it means that the rating item should be selected as an item for improvement. (2) The closer the value is to the median of 100%, the more appropriate the relationship between expectations and satisfaction is. In other words, it means that the item is favorable. (3) The closer the score is to the highest rating index of 180%, the lower the expectations and the higher the satisfaction level. In other words, it means that the evaluation items are unnecessarily detailed.

[0090] [Improvement Item Selection Section 12] The improvement item selection unit 12 in Figure 11 selects improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on the evaluation index. The improvement item selection unit 12 selects improvement items in order from the lowest evaluation index. Note that in the case of unnormalized division values, improvement items are selected in the following order. • Evaluation items are ranked from lowest to highest satisfaction / expectation ratio. • The evaluation items are ranked from highest to lowest based on the ratio of expected value to satisfaction.

[0091] Furthermore, the improvement item selection unit 12 may also select evaluation items as improvement items if their numerical values ​​fall outside a predetermined range when viewed from 100% of the evaluation index (median value 1.0). In this case, evaluation items with relatively high evaluation indices will also be selected as improvement items. This would result in the extraction of evaluation items with unnecessarily high satisfaction levels.

[0092] Figure 13 is the first screen of the graph display in the third aspect of the present invention.

[0093] As shown in Figure 13, the graph display unit 11 displays a graph on the display that serves as the axis of the evaluation index, and then plots each evaluation item based on the evaluation index. According to Figure 13, the evaluation items are listed on the vertical axis, and the evaluation index for each evaluation item is on the horizontal axis. As mentioned earlier, the evaluation index is, for example, contained within a range of 20% to 180%.

[0094] In a third embodiment of the present invention, a graph is displayed in which the evaluation index for each evaluation item is color-coded. Specifically, the graph display unit 11 sets the lowest evaluation index as the first color, and sets the color for each evaluation item in a gradient manner, transitioning from the first color to the second color from the lowest evaluation index towards the median. For example, you could use "red" as the first color and "white" as the second color. This way, evaluation items with a stronger red color are considered items that need improvement, allowing you to intuitively visualize the strength of the improvement items.

[0095] Furthermore, the graph display unit 11 sets the color of the evaluation index for each evaluation item in a gradient pattern, with the median value of the evaluation index being the third color, and transitioning from the third color to the second or fourth color towards the highest evaluation index from the median value. For example, you could use "blue" as the third color and "white" as the second color. Of course, you could also use "yellow" as the fourth color. This allows you to intuitively see that the stronger the blue color in an evaluation item, the better the item is.

[0096] Figure 14 is a second screen of the graph display in the third aspect of the present invention.

[0097] As a third embodiment of the present invention, as in the first invention, the expected level and satisfaction level may be accumulated for each evaluation item over multiple periods. In that case, the evaluation index calculation unit 16 will calculate the evaluation index for each period. As shown in Figure 14, the graph display unit 11 plots an evaluation index for each evaluation item for each period, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time.

[0098] The improvement item selection unit 12 then selects as improvement items evaluation items that have an arrow pointing in the direction of decreasing evaluation index and whose arrow length (displacement amount) is equal to or greater than a predetermined length. The length of the arrow may be the number of pixels in the extension direction, or it may be in centimeters or millimeters.

[0099] Figure 15 is an illustrative diagram showing the sub-items used as evaluation criteria.

[0100] According to Figure 15, the following items are displayed hierarchically. Main category [Job content and environment] ->Subcategory [Job Characteristics] ->Sub-item [Clarity of roles and responsibilities] [The meaning of work] [Utilizing skills] [Opportunities for growth] Here, when an administrator selects a sub-item, multiple sub-items belonging to that sub-item are displayed. Each sub-item and sub-item displays "Expectation Level," "Satisfaction Level," and "Evaluation Index (Value Index)." The evaluation index displayed to the administrator does not include the difference between expectation level and satisfaction level; instead, it displays a normalized value within a predetermined range (e.g., 20% to 180%). A lower evaluation index indicates that the evaluation item needs improvement. Conversely, a higher evaluation index indicates that the evaluation item is unnecessarily extensive.

[0101] <Fourth Invention> According to the fourth aspect of the present invention, the management device 1 stores an evaluation index based on the user's responses to a questionnaire for each evaluation item. That is, an evaluation index is stored for each user. The evaluation index here may be based on the division of expectation level and satisfaction level as described above, or it may be based on other responses.

[0102] Figure 16 is a functional configuration diagram of the control device according to the fourth aspect of the present invention.

[0103] According to Figure 16, the management device 1, similar to Figure 12 described above, includes a graph display unit 11 and an improvement item selection unit 12. The evaluation index for each user, which is input into the graph display unit 11, is derived from the response database 103 and the evaluation index calculation unit 16.

[0104] [Graph display section 11] Figure 17 shows the graph display screen in the fourth aspect of the present invention.

[0105] The graph display unit 11 in Figure 17 displays a graph on the display that serves as the axis of the evaluation index, similar to Figures 13 and 14 described above. In contrast to the third invention which displayed evaluation indices for multiple users for each evaluation item, the fourth invention displays the distribution range of evaluation indices for multiple users for each evaluation item.

[0106] Furthermore, the graph display unit 11 connects the highest-rated index and the lowest-rated index within the distribution range of the evaluation index for each evaluation item with "wicks." These wicks allow users to easily see the presence of users with the highest-rated index and users with the lowest-rated index.

[0107] Furthermore, the graph display unit 11 displays the distribution range included in a predetermined deviation, centered on the mean value of the distribution range, using a "box line." The predetermined deviation is preferably set to a value between ±1σ and ±2σ of the standard deviation. Specifically, it may be set to a range that includes 75% of the standard deviation. The box line allows for a quick visual representation of the distribution of evaluation indices of user groups included in the predetermined deviation relative to the mean value.

[0108] Furthermore, the graph display unit 11 displays a "mark" within the box line displayed for each evaluation item, which represents the median of the distribution range of the evaluation index. By looking at the median, it is immediately possible to see whether the box line or the whiskers are biased towards the high or low end of the evaluation index.

[0109] The response database 103 stores expectations and satisfaction levels for each evaluation item, based on the responses of each user to the questionnaire.

[0110] The evaluation index calculation unit 16 refers to the response database 103 and calculates an evaluation index for each user for each evaluation item. This evaluation index is based on the third invention described above and is calculated for each user for each evaluation item. The evaluation index calculation unit 16 then normalizes the distribution range of these evaluation indices so that they are in the same range above and below 100% (median value 1.0). As a result, each user's evaluation index for each evaluation item is input into the graph display unit 11.

[0111] The improvement item selection unit 12 refers to the graph in Figure 15 displayed by the graph display unit 11 and selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items. • In the case of a division between satisfaction and expectation, the evaluation item based on the box closest to the lowest-rated index will be selected as an improvement item. • In the case of dividing expectation by satisfaction, the evaluation item based on the box line closest to the highest rating index is selected as the improvement item.

[0112] As described in detail above, according to the first program, apparatus, and method of the present invention, improvement items can be selected according to the elapsed time based on the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item. Furthermore, according to the second program, apparatus, and method of the present invention, the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item can be displayed in a way that is easily recognizable to the operator visually. Furthermore, according to the third program, apparatus, and method of the present invention, an evaluation index that is easy for the operator to understand can be derived from the expected level and satisfaction level for each evaluation item. Furthermore, according to the fourth program, apparatus, and method of the present invention, the distribution range of user responses for each evaluation item can be displayed in a way that is easily recognizable to the operator.

[0113] Various changes, modifications, and omissions to the scope of the technical concept and viewpoint of the present invention can be readily made by those skilled in the art with respect to the various embodiments of the present invention described above. The above description is merely illustrative and is not intended to limit the present invention in any way. The present invention is limited only to what is limited by the claims and their equivalents. [Explanation of symbols]

[0114] 1 Management device 101 Statistical Databases 102 User Attribute Database 103 Answer Database 11 Graph display section 12. Improvement Item Selection Section 13. Target User Extraction Unit 14 Item-specific answer calculation section 15. Evaluation Acquisition Department 16. Evaluation Index Calculation Unit 2 Administrator terminal 3. Generation AI Server

Claims

1. In a program that operates a computer that accumulates expectations and satisfaction levels based on user survey responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, A graph display means that shows a graph consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis on a display, plots each evaluation item for each period based on expectation and satisfaction, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. An improvement item selection means that selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrow. A program characterized by its ability to make a computer function.

2. The evaluation items are survey questions for multiple users belonging to an organization or service, structured in a hierarchical manner. Expectations and satisfaction levels are based on responses to questions related to the organization or service. The graphing method plots only the expected and satisfaction levels for multiple evaluation items at the hierarchy specified by the administrator. The program according to claim 1, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

3. The graph display means connects the plots of the first expectation level and first satisfaction level in the first period and the plots of the second expectation level and second satisfaction level in the second period with arrows pointing towards the passage of time for each evaluation item. The method for selecting improvement items involves selecting improvement items where the second expectation level is higher than the first expectation level, and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level. The program according to claim 1, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

4. The method for selecting improvement items involves using a 45-degree angle as the central axis, where expectations are high but satisfaction levels are low, and selecting arrows that fall within a predetermined angle from this central axis as improvement items. The program according to claim 3, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

5. The improvement item selection method selects improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction and length of the arrow. The program according to claim 3, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

6. The improvement item selection means selects evaluation items as improvement items if the length of the arrow is greater than or equal to a predetermined length, and the arrow points in the direction where the second expectation level is higher than the first expectation level, and the second satisfaction level is lower than the first satisfaction level. The program according to claim 5, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

7. The graph display means uses a first reference peak, which represents both the highest expectation and the lowest satisfaction level, as the first color, and displays the graph in a gradient from the first reference peak toward the normalization line between the expectation and satisfaction levels, transitioning from the first color to the second color. The program according to claim 1, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

8. The graph display means uses a third color for the normalization line between expectation and satisfaction levels, and displays the graph in a gradient from the third color to the second or fourth color, moving towards a second reference peak representing the lowest expectation level and highest satisfaction level. The program according to claim 7, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

9. The graph display means assigns a color to the plotted portion for each evaluation item. The program according to claim 7 or 8, characterized in that it causes the computer to function in such a way.

10. The system includes an evaluation acquisition means that sends a prompt to a generating AI (Artificial Intelligence) server requesting further evaluation comments based on expectations and satisfaction for the selected evaluation items, receives evaluation comments for the evaluation items from the generating AI server, and displays those evaluation comments. The program according to claim 1, characterized in that it causes a computer to function.

11. A user attribute database is used to store attribute information for each user, A target user extraction means that extracts only the expected level and satisfaction level derived from target users who have attribute information specified by the administrator, A means for calculating item-specific expectations and satisfaction levels from the expectations and satisfaction levels of multiple extracted target users, and The program according to claim 1, characterized in that it causes a computer to function.

12. In a management system that accumulates expectations and satisfaction levels based on user survey responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, A graph display means that shows a graph consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis on a display, plots each evaluation item for each period based on expectation and satisfaction, and connects the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. An improvement item selection means that selects an improvement item from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrow. A control device characterized by having the following features.

13. In a display method for a device that accumulates expectations and satisfaction levels based on user survey responses over multiple periods for each evaluation item, The device is The first step involves displaying a graph on the screen consisting of an expectation axis and a satisfaction axis, plotting each evaluation item for each period based on expectation and satisfaction, and connecting the plots with arrows pointing towards the passage of time. The second step is to select improvement items from among multiple evaluation items based on the direction of the arrows. A method for displaying an apparatus, characterized by performing the following actions.

Images