Determination device, determination method, and determination program

Abstract

To more objectively evaluate the project management capability.SOLUTION: A determination device includes: an evaluation part which evaluates the performance of a user according to the project experience based on the performance information on the project participated in by the user and also evaluates the user's ability to meet requirements based on the requirements required for an individual in performing the project; and a determination part for comprehensively determining the project management capability of the user based on the evaluation result by the evaluation part.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

[Technical Field]

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

[0002] In recent years, services have been proposed for corporate and other customers, such as a service that assesses the project management capabilities of each project member.

[0003] For example, Non-Patent Document 1 provides a service that diagnoses project management capabilities based on knowledge competency, practical competency, and personality competency.

[0004] Furthermore, for example, Non-Patent Document 2 provides a service that diagnoses the skill status of personnel involved in IT-related work through self-evaluation and objective tests. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0005] [Non-Patent Document 1] IPROS Urban Planning, "Objective Diagnostic Tool / PM Competency Checker", [online], November 5, 2019, Next Education Think Co., Ltd., [Retrieved May 18, 2021], Internet<https: / / kensetsu.ipros.jp / product / detail / 2000476997 / > [Non-patent document 2] Fujitsu Learning Media, "Human Resources Assessment Service / SkillCompass", [online], April 21, 2021, Fujitsu, [Retrieved May 18, 2021], Internet<https: / / www.knowledgewing.com / kcc / consul / service / skillcompass / > Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0006] However, the above-mentioned conventional technology does not quantify the experience gained by users through their actual participation in and action in projects, in accordance with the characteristics of the projects, and does not diagnose the users' project management skills from the quantified results. Therefore, the above-mentioned conventional technology may not be able to provide a more objective evaluation of project management capabilities.

[0007] Therefore, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a judgment device, a judgment method, and a judgment program that can more objectively evaluate project management capabilities. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] A judgment device according to one embodiment of the present invention is characterized by having an evaluation unit that evaluates a user's performance in accordance with project experience based on performance information regarding projects in which the user has participated, and evaluates the user's ability to meet requirements based on standards for the requirements required of individuals in carrying out projects, and a judgment unit that comprehensively judges the user's project management ability based on the evaluation results by the evaluation unit.

[0009] A judgment method according to one aspect of the present invention is a judgment method executed by a judgment device, and is characterized by including an evaluation step of evaluating a user's performance in accordance with project experience based on performance information regarding projects in which the user has participated, and evaluating the user's ability to meet requirements based on standards for the requirements required of individuals in carrying out projects, and a judgment step of comprehensively assessing the user's project management ability based on the evaluation results from the evaluation step.

[0010] A judgment program according to one embodiment of the present invention is characterized in that it causes a computer to execute an evaluation procedure that evaluates a user's performance in accordance with project experience based on performance information on projects in which the user has participated, evaluates the user's ability to meet requirements based on standards for the requirements required of individuals in carrying out projects, and comprehensively assesses the user's project management ability based on the evaluation results of the evaluation procedure. [Effects of the Invention]

[0011] According to the present invention, the above-described aspects make it possible to more objectively evaluate, for example, project management capabilities. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0012] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an example of a system according to an embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of the configuration of a determination device according to an embodiment. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a first questionnaire information database according to the embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the second questionnaire information database according to the embodiment. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of the third questionnaire information database according to the embodiment. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a score pattern table database according to the embodiment. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a diagnosis result database according to the embodiment. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of project management capability determination logic. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an example of the actual PMS point calculation logic. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of knowledge / practical ability PMS point calculation logic. [Figure 11] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of human skill PMS point calculation logic. [Figure 12] FIG. 12 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the determination process according to the embodiment. [Figure 13] FIG. 13 is a block diagram illustrating an example of the hardware configuration of the determination device according to the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0013] An example of a mode for carrying out a determination device, a determination method, and a determination program (hereinafter referred to as an "embodiment") will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings. Note that the determination device, the determination method, and the determination program are not limited to this embodiment. Furthermore, the same components in the following embodiments are given the same reference numerals, and duplicated descriptions will be omitted.

[0014] [Embodiment] 1. Introduction For example, as mentioned in the non-patent literature, there is a technique for diagnosing project management capabilities using three evaluation axes: the knowledge that a project manager should know (knowledge competency), the ability to carry out project management activities (practical competency), and the attitude and behavioral characteristics when carrying out projects and activities (personality competency).

[0015] In contrast, this invention has been conceived to enable a more objective evaluation of project management capabilities by using the user's project performance, that is, the user's experience gained by actually participating in and acting on projects, as a new evaluation axis. Specifically, this invention diagnoses a user's project management capabilities by using three elements as evaluation axes: the user's project performance, project knowledge / practical ability, and the human skills required to carry out the project.

[0016] In the following embodiment, the determination process according to the embodiment will be described using the determination device 100 as an example of an information processing device that performs a diagnosis of project management capability using such a diagnosis technique (a determination method according to the embodiment). Note that in the following embodiment, project management capability may be abbreviated as "PM capability."

[0017] [2. System] First, a system configuration according to an embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a diagram illustrating an example of a system according to an embodiment. Fig. 1 illustrates a determination system 1 as an example of a system according to an embodiment.

[0018] 1, the determination system 1 includes a terminal device 10 and a determination device 100. The terminal device 10 and the determination device 100 are connected to each other via a predetermined network N (not shown) so as to be able to communicate with each other via a wired or wireless connection. The determination system 1 may include any number of terminal devices 10 and any number of determination devices 100.

[0019] The terminal device 10 is an information processing terminal used by a user, and may be, for example, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a notebook PC (Personal Computer), a desktop PC, a mobile phone, or a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant). Fig. 1 shows an example in which the terminal device 10 is a smartphone. The term "user" here refers to a user whose PM ability is to be judged, and may be, for example, a member of a specific organization (company organization).

[0020] In the following embodiment, the terminal device 10 may be described by distinguishing it from terminal devices 10-1 to 10-xn, as shown in Fig. 1. For example, Fig. 1 shows an example in which the terminal device 10 used by a user Uxn who is an arbitrary member among members (employees) belonging to an arbitrary organization ORx is terminal device 10-xn. As an example, Fig. 1 also shows an example in which the terminal device 10 used by an arbitrary user U1n who belongs to organization OR1 is terminal device 10-1n. More specifically, Fig. 1 shows an example in which the terminal device 10 used by a user U1 who belongs to organization OR1 is terminal device 10-11, and the terminal device 10 used by a user U2 who belongs to organization OR1 is terminal device 10-12.

[0021] The determination device 100 is an information processing device that performs determination processing according to the embodiment. The determination device 100 may be, for example, a server device, and may be a cloud computer that performs processing on the cloud side if the terminal device 10 is an edge computer (edge ​​device) that performs data processing (edge ​​processing) near a user.

[0022] The determination device 100 also diagnoses the user's PM ability using a determination method according to the determination program of the embodiment. Specifically, the determination device 100 evaluates the user's performance according to project experience based on performance information on projects in which the user has participated, and evaluates the user's ability to meet requirements based on standards for requirements required of individuals in carrying out projects. The determination device 100 then comprehensively determines the user's PM ability based on the evaluation results.

[0023] Furthermore, the evaluation of a user's performance here may include two concepts: an evaluation of the user's project performance and an evaluation of practical ability based on project experience. In this way, the determination device 100 comprehensively determines the user's PM ability by using three elements as evaluation axes: the user's project performance, project knowledge / practical ability, and the human skills required to carry out the project.

[0024] Furthermore, performance information regarding a project in which the user has participated may be collected from the user as responses to questions (e.g., questions regarding project performance) given as part of a questionnaire. Furthermore, the user's ability level relative to the standards of requirements required of individuals in carrying out a project may also be collected from the user as responses to questions given as part of a questionnaire.

[0025] [3. About the Survey] Here, the questionnaires provided to the user by the determination device 100 will be described using the example of Fig. 1. For example, the determination device 100 can collect the above-mentioned responses from the user by providing three types of questionnaires, namely, a first questionnaire, a second questionnaire, and a third questionnaire, to the user.

[0026] In the example of FIG. 1, the first questionnaire is a questionnaire that includes questions about various achievements related to projects in which the user has participated. The questions about achievements here may, for example, require the user to input the characteristics of the projects in which the user has participated (e.g., the scale of the projects, the progress toward achieving the goals, etc.). The questions about achievements here may also require the user to input the user's work history in the projects (e.g., the user's role in the projects, the length of time the user has been employed in the projects, etc.).

[0027] As a result of this first questionnaire, the determination device 100 will be able to obtain performance information regarding the projects in which the user has participated, such as characteristic information (project profile) that indicates the characteristics of the projects in which the user has participated, and career information that indicates the user's work history in the projects (personal profile).

[0028] Also, according to the example of FIG. 1, the first questionnaire is conducted to evaluate the user's degree of contribution to the project (how much the user has been involved in the project). For this reason, the determination device 100 calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the user's degree of contribution to the project from the responses to the first questionnaire. In the following embodiment, the evaluation value that evaluates the degree of contribution will be described as "actual PMS points." For example, actual PMS points are used as an index for evaluating the user's project performance.

[0029] Example questions and answers for the first questionnaire are shown in Figure 3.

[0030] The second questionnaire is a questionnaire that includes questions to investigate the management ability according to the results of the projects that the user has participated in. Furthermore, the questions to investigate the management ability according to the results may, for example, ask the user to rate the management ability according to the scale of each project in which the user has participated.

[0031] As a result of this second questionnaire, the judgment device 100 can obtain performance information regarding the projects in which the user has participated, for example, scoring results in which the management ability according to the scale of the projects in which the user has participated is scored.

[0032] 1, the second questionnaire is conducted to evaluate the user's level of knowledge and practical ability required for a PM. Based on the responses to the second questionnaire, the determination device 100 calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the user's practical ability according to their project experience. In the following embodiments, the evaluation value that evaluates practical ability will be described as "knowledge / practical ability PMS points."

[0033] Example questions and answers for the second questionnaire are shown in Figure 4.

[0034] The third questionnaire is a questionnaire containing questions to investigate the user's personal abilities (human skills) relative to the requirements required of individuals to carry out a project. The questions to investigate human skills here may, for example, ask the user to rate the level of their abilities relative to the standards of the requirements required of individuals to carry out a project.

[0035] 1, the third questionnaire is conducted to evaluate the user's level of ability in the human skills required for a PM. For this reason, the determination device 100 calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the user's human skills relative to the project execution requirements from the responses to the third questionnaire. In the following embodiment, the evaluation value that evaluates the user's human skills will be described as "human skill PMS points."

[0036] Example questions and answers for the third questionnaire are shown in Figure 5.

[0037] [4. Overview of the Judgment Process] Next, an overview of the determination process performed by the determination device 100 will be shown with reference to Fig. 1. For example, when a user Uxn (e.g., user U11) wishes to have his / her PM ability diagnosed, he / she accesses the determination device 100 using a terminal device 10-xn (e.g., terminal device 10-11). Upon receiving access from the user Uxn, the determination device 100 provides the user Uxn with a questionnaire consisting of a first questionnaire, a second questionnaire, and a third questionnaire (step S1).

[0038] The questionnaires are prepared with questions such as those described above, and the user Uxn enters answers to the questions in the questionnaire form. In response to an operation by the user Uxn, the terminal device 10-xn transmits the questionnaire form with the entered answers to the determination device 100 (step S2).

[0039] Upon receiving the answer from the user Uxn, the determination device 100 executes an evaluation value calculation process based on the received answer (step S3). For example, the determination device 100 calculates performance PMS points (evaluation values ​​for evaluating the degree of contribution), knowledge / practical ability PMS points (evaluation values ​​for evaluating practical ability), and human skill PMS points (evaluation values ​​for evaluating human skill) based on the answer received from the user Uxn.

[0040] Then, the determination device 100 comprehensively determines the PM ability of the user Uxn based on the evaluation value (step S4). For example, the determination device 100 determines the level of the PM ability of the user Uxn by converting the overall points obtained by adding up the performance PMS points, knowledge / practical ability PMS points, and human skill PMS points into a level.

[0041] According to the assessment device 100, in addition to knowledge / practical ability and human skills, project performance obtained by the user through actual project experience is also used, so that, for example, project experience can be quantified according to the characteristics of the project. As a result, the assessment device 100 can more objectively assess project management ability.

[0042] For example, the above-mentioned conventional technology uses knowledge competencies, practical competencies, and personality competencies, but does not take project performance into account. Therefore, it can be said that the above-mentioned conventional technology aims to provide a highly versatile diagnostic service. However, in recent years, the indicators for person evaluation have become more diverse depending on the company and industry, and there is a demand for person evaluation indicators that are more specialized for the internal circumstances of the company. Therefore, the determination device 100 has an advantageous effect in that it enables person evaluation that is more specialized for a specific company, rather than being more versatile than the conventional technology.

[0043] 5. Configuration of the Determination Device Next, the determination device 100 according to the embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 2. Fig. 2 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of the determination device 100 according to the embodiment. As shown in Fig. 2, the determination device 100 includes a communication unit 110, a storage unit 120, and a control unit 130.

[0044] (Regarding the communication unit 110) The communication unit 110 is realized by, for example, a network interface card (NIC), etc. The communication unit 110 is connected to the network N by wire or wirelessly, and transmits and receives information to and from the terminal device 10, for example.

[0045] (Regarding the storage unit 120) The storage unit 120 is realized by, for example, a semiconductor memory element such as a RAM (Random Access Memory) or a flash memory, or a storage device such as a hard disk, an optical disk, etc. The storage unit 120 has a first questionnaire information database 121, a second questionnaire information database 122, a third questionnaire information database 123, a score pattern table database 124, and a diagnosis result database 125.

[0046] (Regarding the first questionnaire information database 121) The first questionnaire information database 121 stores information (answers) entered by the user in response to items (questions) that the user is requested to fill in within the first questionnaire. An example of the first questionnaire information database 121 according to the embodiment is shown in FIG. 3.

[0047] In the example of FIG. 3, the first questionnaire information database 121 has items such as "organization ID (Identifier)", "user ID (Identifier)", "project profile", "personal profile", and "PMS points".

[0048] The "Project Profile" corresponds to characteristic information that indicates the characteristics of the project in which the user participated, and is composed of items such as "Project Name," "Project Scale," "Goal Achievement Status (Income and Expenditure)," "Project Period," and "Project Type." Note that the items that make up the "Project Profile" are not limited to the example in Figure 3. Furthermore, these items correspond to the items, i.e., questions, that the user is asked to fill out, and Figure 3 shows examples of answers that users actually gave to these questions.

[0049] The "personal profile" corresponds to the user's work history in the project and is made up of items such as "role," "term of appointment," "participation process," "reorganization," "new customer," "new technology," "multiple customer PGM," "same customer PGM," and "ultra-upstream." The items that make up the "personal profile" are not limited to the example in Figure 3. These items correspond to the items, or questions, that the user is asked to fill out, and Figure 3 shows examples of answers that the user actually gave to these questions.

[0050] "PMS points" refer to points calculated based on the score (first score) determined by comparing answers to questions on the "Project Profile" side with the score pattern table described below, and points (second score) added according to answers to questions on the "Personal Profile" side. "PMS points" are calculated for each project identified by, for example, a pair of "No." and "Project Name."

[0051] We will now explain each item. "Organization ID" indicates identification information that identifies an organization (e.g., a company). "User ID" indicates identification information that identifies a user who belongs to the organization identified by the "Organization ID." "No." is a number assigned to each project (1 record) identified by the "Project Name," and may be assigned dynamically depending on the number of projects in which the user has participated.

[0052] Below, we will explain in more detail each item that makes up the "Project Profile" and each item that makes up the "Personal Profile." Specifically, we will explain each item using as an example user U11, who belongs to an organization (organization OR1) identified by the organization ID "OR1" and is identified by the user ID "U11."

[0053] "Project Name" indicates the name of the project. In the example of Figure 3, one of the projects in which user U11 has participated is a project named "PJ♯111" (Project PJ♯111).

[0054] "Project Size" is a field that prompts users to enter the size of the project they participated in. For example, the information used to indicate the project size can be the budget. In the example shown in Figure 3, budget options are pre-prepared, such as "Over 10 billion yen," "Over 5 billion to less than 10 billion yen," "Over 1 billion to less than 5 billion yen," "Over 500 million to less than 1 billion yen," "Over 100 million to less than 500 million yen," "Over 50 million to less than 100 million yen," and "Less than 50 million yen." The user is then prompted to select the option that best suits the project they participated in. Figure 3 also shows how user U11 selected "Over 1 billion to less than 5 billion yen" as the "Project Size" for project PJ♯111.

[0055] Although FIG. 3 shows an example in which the information that indicates the scale of the project is the budget, the scale of the project may be indicated by information other than the budget (for example, the number of members participating).

[0056] "Goal achievement status (income and expenditure)" is an item that asks users to input the achievement status of the income and expenditure goals set for the project in which they are participating. In the example of Figure 3, there are pre-prepared options for goal achievement status, such as "Operating profit target achieved," "Operating profit target not achieved (profit)," and "Operating profit target not achieved (loss)," and the user is asked to select the option that applies to the project in which they are participating. As a result, the example of Figure 3 shows that user U11 selected "Operating profit target achieved" as the "Goal achievement status (income and expenditure)" for project PJ♯111.

[0057] "Project Period" is an item that asks you to enter the "start date" and "end date" of the project you participated in. In the example in Figure 3, user U11 has entered "April 2000" as the "start date" of project PJ♯111 and "January 2002" as the "end date" of project PJ♯111.

[0058] Furthermore, a configuration may be adopted in which the "project period" is automatically calculated when the "start time" and "end time" are input.

[0059] "Project Type" is an item that asks the user to enter the type of project in which they have participated. In the example of Figure 3, project type candidates such as "New Development," "Maintenance Development," and "Other" are pre-prepared, and the user is asked to select the one that applies to the project in which they have participated. As a result, in the example of Figure 3, user U11 has selected "New Development" as the "Project Type" for project PJ♯111.

[0060] "Role" is a field that prompts users to enter their role (position) at the time of joining and at the time of leaving in the project in which they participated. In the example in Figure 3, role candidates such as "PM" (Project Manager), "PL / GL" (Project Leader or Group Leader), "TL" (Team Leader), and "Member" (General Member) are pre-prepared, and the user is asked to select from these the role they will play at the time of joining and at the time of leaving. As a result, the example in Figure 3 shows that user U11 selected that they joined project PJ♯111 in the role of "Member" and left project PJ♯111 in the role of "TL."

[0061] "Date of appointment" is an item that asks you to enter the "date of appointment" and "date of departure" for the projects you participated in. In the example in Figure 3, user U11 has entered "April 2000" as the "date of appointment" for project PJ♯111 and "January 2002" as the "date of departure" for project PJ♯111.

[0062] Furthermore, a configuration may be adopted in which, when the "starting date" and "starting date" are input, the "term of appointment" is automatically calculated.

[0063] "Participating Process" is an item that asks the user to enter "1" for the process that the user is responsible for (participating in) among the business processes corresponding to the participating project. In the example of Figure 3, candidates for participating processes such as "requirements definition," "internal design," and "external design" are prepared in advance, and the user is asked to enter "1" for the process that the user is responsible for. In the example of Figure 3, an example is shown in which user U11 has entered "1" for all of "requirements definition," "internal design," and "external design" among the "participating processes" of project PJ♯111. This example shows an example in which user U11 participated in all of "requirements definition," "internal design," and "external design" among the "participating processes" included in project PJ♯111.

[0064] Note that the candidate participating processes are not limited to the example in Figure 3, and for example, test processes such as "PT", "IT", and "ST" may also be prepared. Also, the reason why the user is required to input "1" for the process in which he / she is in charge (participated) is to reflect the points according to the business process and the number of business processes in which he / she participated in the actual PMS points. Also, the points referred to here can be said to be points according to the difficulty of the task.

[0065] "Reconstruction" is an item that requires the entry of "1" if the purpose of joining the project is "reconstruction." More specifically, "reconstruction" is an item that requires the entry of "1" if the purpose of joining the project is to recover a failing project. In the example of Figure 3, user U11 has left the "reconstruction" field for project PJ#111 blank. This example shows that user U11 was not assigned to project PJ#111 for the "reconstruction" purpose, but rather was involved in project PJ#111 from the beginning.

[0066] "New Customer" is an item that requires the user to enter "1" if the project in which the user is participating is a project involving a new customer. In the example of Figure 3, user U11 has entered "1" for "New Customer" for project PJ#111. This example shows that user U11 has participated in project PJ#111 involving a new customer. Note that the reason for requiring the user to enter "1" for "New Customer" is, for example, to reflect the points corresponding to the difficulty of the project's tasks in the actual PMS points.

[0067] "New Technology" is an item that requires the user to enter "1" if the technology required for the project in which the user is participating is a technology that has not been used in the past at a specified rate or more. The example in Figure 3 shows user U11 entering "1" for "New Technology" for project PJ#111. This example shows that user U11 participated in project PJ#111, which has a specified rate or more of technology that has not been used in the past. Note that the reason for requiring the user to enter "1" for "New Technology" is, for example, to reflect points based on the difficulty of the project's tasks in the actual PMS points.

[0068] "Multiple Client PGM" is an item that requires the entry of "1" if the concurrent period during which projects for different clients were managed simultaneously exceeds a specified period. In the example of Figure 3, user U11 has left "Multiple Client PGM" for project PJ♯111 blank. The entry of "1" for "Multiple Client PGM" is required, for example, to reflect the points corresponding to the difficulty of the project's tasks in the actual PMS points.

[0069] "Same Customer PGM" is an item that requires you to enter "1" if the concurrent period of managing projects for the same customer is longer than a specified period. In the example in Figure 3, user U11 has left "Same Customer PGM" for project PJ♯111 blank. Note that the reason why you are required to enter "1" for "Same Customer PGM" is, for example, to reflect the points based on the difficulty of the project's tasks in the actual PMS points.

[0070] "Ultra-upstream" is an item where a user is asked to enter "1" if the project in which the user is involved includes in its scope anything before the "Requirements Definition" of the "Participating Process." In the example in 3, user U11 has left the "Ultra-upstream" field blank for project PJ♯111. Note that the reason for entering "1" for "Ultra-upstream" is, for example, to reflect the points corresponding to the difficulty of the project's tasks in the actual PMS points.

[0071] (Regarding the second questionnaire information database 122) The second questionnaire information database 122 stores information (answers) entered by the user in response to items (questions) that the user is requested to fill in within the second questionnaire. An example of the second questionnaire information database 122 according to the embodiment is shown in FIG. 4.

[0072] In the example of Figure 4, the second survey information database 122 has items such as "Organization ID (Identifier)", "User ID (Identifier)", "Ability Category", "No", "Ability Definition", "Difficulty", "Project Scale (Scoring Result)", "Scoring Result Correction (Considering Difficulty)", and "Total Score".

[0073] "Organization ID" indicates identification information for identifying an organization (for example, a company). "User ID" indicates identification information for identifying a user who belongs to the organization identified by the "Organization ID."

[0074] "Capability Category" corresponds to the category of management capabilities. "No." indicates a numerical value assigned to identify the "Capability Definition." "Capability Definition" corresponds to an explanatory statement that defines the specific capabilities of the management capabilities indicated by the "Capability Category." The example in Figure 4 shows an example in which the capability category "Review Management" corresponds to the capability definition "Ability to plan reviews necessary to ensure quality." This example shows an example in which "Review Management" is defined as the capability "Ability to plan reviews necessary to ensure quality." "Difficulty" indicates the difficulty of realizing the content indicated by the "Capability Definition."

[0075] "Project size (scoring results)" corresponds to actual information about projects in which the user has participated, and consists of items such as "less than 50 million," "50 million to less than 200 million," and "200 million or more."

[0076] Additionally, the items "Less than 50 million," "50 million to less than 200 million," and "200 million or more" are information that indicate the scale of the project. Therefore, the example in Figure 4 shows a situation in which the user is asked to self-assess the management capabilities appropriate to each project scale for each "capability category," for example, by referring to the "capability definition." In other words, the items "Less than 50 million," "50 million to less than 200 million," and "200 million or more" correspond to the items, or questions, that the user is asked to fill in and score, and Figure 4 shows examples of the scores that users actually gave themselves for these questions.

[0077] 4, six levels from 0 to 5 may be prepared as scoring options, so that the more independently a user performs the content indicated in the "ability definition" and the more experience the user has in providing guidance to other members, the higher the score. Below, the scoring results will be explained using as an example user U11, who belongs to an organization (organization OR1) identified by organization ID "OR1" and is identified by user ID "U11".

[0078] For example, Figure 4 shows an example in which "5" has been entered in the input field corresponding to the capability definition "Able to plan reviews necessary to ensure quality" and the project size "less than 50 million." In this example, user U11 has experience participating in a project with a size of "less than 50 million," and in this project, he or she independently carried out the aspect of "planning reviews necessary to ensure quality" and also has experience instructing other members, so this example shows an example in which user U11 has scored the highest "5 points" for his or her own "review management" capability.

[0079] Figure 4 also shows an example in which "3" has been entered in the input field corresponding to the capability definition "Able to plan reviews necessary to ensure quality" and the project size "50 million to less than 200 million." In this example, user U11 has experience participating in projects with a size of "50 million to less than 200 million," and in this project, he independently carried out the aspect of "planning reviews necessary to ensure quality" but did not provide guidance to other members. Therefore, he has scored his own "review management" capability as medium, with "3 points."

[0080] Also, Figure 4 shows an example in which "1" has been entered in the input field corresponding to the capability definition "Able to plan reviews necessary to ensure quality" and the project size "over 200 million." This example shows that user U11 has a history of participating in projects with a size of "over 200 million," and in this project, he only partially implemented the aspect of "planning reviews necessary to ensure quality" under the direction of others, so he has scored his own "review management" capability as the lowest, "1 point."

[0081] "Scoring result correction (taking difficulty into consideration)" indicates the value obtained by correcting the scoring results of the management capabilities corresponding to each scale of project by a coefficient corresponding to the "difficulty." For example, coefficients may be predetermined, such as a difficulty coefficient of "1.0" for "high" difficulty and a difficulty coefficient of "0.9" for "medium" difficulty, and each scoring result is corrected using this coefficient.

[0082] Using the above example, Figure 4 shows an example in which a score of "5" for a project of "less than 50 million yen" based on the degree of experience demonstrating "review management" capabilities has been corrected to "4.5" based on a difficulty coefficient of "0.9" for the corresponding "medium" level of difficulty. Similarly, Figure 4 shows an example in which a score of "3" for a project of "50 million to less than 200 million yen" based on the degree of experience demonstrating "review management" capabilities has been corrected to "2.7" based on a difficulty coefficient of "0.9" for the corresponding "medium" level of difficulty. Figure 4 also shows an example in which a score of "1" for a project of "200 million or more" based on the degree of experience demonstrating "review management" capabilities has been corrected to "0.9" based on a difficulty coefficient of "0.9" for the corresponding "medium" level of difficulty.

[0083] The "total score" is the score of management capabilities for each project size, and indicates the overall score calculated based on the corrected score (score result correction). For example, the "total score" may be the score for each project size, and may be the average of the corrected score.

[0084] Figure 4 shows an example in which the ability category "review management" is associated with "4.5" for less than 50 million, "2.7" for between 50 million and 200 million, "0.9" for 200 million or more, and an overall score of "1.9." Using the above example, this shows an example in which an overall score of "1.9" for the ability category "review management" is calculated by averaging the corrected score result of "4.5," the corrected score result of "2.7," and the corrected score result of "0.9."

[0085] (Regarding the 3rd Survey Information Database 123) The third questionnaire information database 123 stores information (answers) entered by the user in response to items (questions) that the user is requested to fill in within the third questionnaire. An example of the third questionnaire information database 123 according to the embodiment is shown in FIG. 5.

[0086] In the example of Figure 5, the third survey information database 123 has items such as "Organization ID (Identifier)", "User ID (Identifier)", "Requirements", "Requirement details", "Level 5 definition", "Level 3 definition", "Level 1 definition", and "Scoring results".

[0087] "Organization ID" indicates identification information for identifying an organization (for example, a company). "User ID" indicates identification information for identifying a user who belongs to the organization identified by the "Organization ID."

[0088] "Requirements" indicate the human skills required of individuals to carry out the project. "Requirements Details" correspond to more specific breakdowns of "Requirements," and provide specific examples of the human skills indicated by the "Requirements."

[0089] The third questionnaire allows users to self-assess their level of competence in the human skills required for PMs. For example, the third questionnaire asks users to rate themselves on a five-point scale (1 to 5), with the information provided as a reference for rating corresponding to the "Level 5 Definition," "Level 3 Definition," and "Level 1 Definition." In the example shown in Figure 5, the detailed requirement "Take the initiative" corresponds to the Level 5 definition "Try to walk the talk...," the Level 3 definition "Be a role model for team members...," and the Level 1 definition "What should be done..." This example shows how, when self-assessing the level of leadership, users are asked to compare the details of the Level 5 definition, the Level 3 definition, and the Level 1 definition to determine which of the six levels (1 to 5) they are at.

[0090] The "Scoring Result" indicates the user's self-assessment of the level of the human skills given as "Requirement Details" based on the "Level 5 Definition," "Level 3 Definition," and "Level 1 Definition."

[0091] (About the score pattern table database 124) The score pattern table database 124 is information used to determine the score of a user's project performance (i.e., to quantify the user's project performance) when calculating performance PMS points. More specifically, the score pattern table included in the score pattern table database 124 is mainly compared with the answers to questions on the "Project Profile" side in order to quantify the user's project performance.

[0092] An example of the score pattern table database 124 according to the embodiment is shown in Fig. 6. According to the score pattern table shown in Fig. 6, for each of four items, namely, "operating profit target achieved," "operating profit target not achieved (profit)," "operating profit target not achieved (loss)," and "turnaround," a score is associated with each combination of "role (at time of departure)" and "project scale." The score here corresponds to the first score, which is a point according to the difficulty level of the project.

[0093] Here, using the example of the first questionnaire information database 121 shown in FIG. 3, an example will be described in which user U11 answers for project PJ#111, "Operating profit target achieved" as the goal achievement status (income and expenditure), "Time Lapse" as the role (at time of leaving) as "TL", and "Project scale" as "1 billion or more to less than 5 billion." In this example, the determination device 100 applies the goal achievement status (income and expenditure) "Operating profit target achieved", "Time Lapse" as the role (at time of leaving) as "TL", and "Project scale" as "1 billion or more to less than 5 billion" to the score pattern table stored in the score pattern table database 124, and determines the first score corresponding to this answer. According to the example of FIG. 6, the determination device 100 can calculate the first score "1.40" from user U11's answer for project PJ#111.

[0094] 3, a case will be described in which user U11 answers for project PJ♯113, "Operating profit target not achieved (profit)" for goal achievement status (income / expenses), "PL / GL" for role (at time of departure), "5 billion to less than 10 billion," and "Restructuring" for "1." In this example, the determination device 100 applies "Restructuring," "PL / GL" for role (at time of departure), and "5 billion to less than 10 billion" to the score pattern table, and determines the first score corresponding to this answer.

[0095] (About Diagnostic Result Database 125) The diagnostic result database 125 is a storage unit that stores various results. An example of the diagnostic result database 125 according to the embodiment is shown in Fig. 7. In the example of Fig. 7, the diagnostic result database 125 has items such as "organization ID (Identifier)", "user ID (Identifier)", "evaluation result", and "determination result".

[0096] "Organization ID" indicates identification information for identifying an organization (for example, a company). "User ID" indicates identification information for identifying a user who belongs to the organization identified by the "Organization ID."

[0097] The "evaluation result" includes various evaluation values ​​calculated by the evaluation unit 133. The "judgment result" includes information related to the management ability judged by the judgment unit .

[0098] That is, in the example of Fig. 7, evaluation result #11 is obtained for user U11 from responses to a questionnaire, and judgment result #11 is determined based on evaluation result #11. Note that in Fig. 7, for ease of explanation, evaluation results and judgment results are conceptually shown using "#", but in reality, legitimate information indicating the results is registered.

[0099] (Regarding the control unit 130) 2, the control unit 130 is realized by a CPU (Central Processing Unit), an MPU (Micro Processing Unit), or the like executing various programs (for example, the determination program according to the embodiment) stored in a storage device inside the determination device 100 using a RAM as a work area. The control unit 130 is also realized by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array).

[0100] As shown in Fig. 2, the control unit 130 has a providing unit 131, a response receiving unit 132, an evaluating unit 133, a determining unit 134, and a result control unit 135, and realizes or executes the functions and actions of the information processing described below. Note that the internal configuration of the control unit 130 is not limited to the configuration shown in Fig. 2, and may have other configurations as long as they perform the information processing described below. Furthermore, the connection relationship between the processing units included in the control unit 130 is not limited to the connection relationship shown in Fig. 2, and may be other connection relationships.

[0101] (About the provider 131) The providing unit 131 provides various information to the user. For example, the providing unit 131 provides a questionnaire to the user. For example, when the providing unit 131 determines that it is time to provide a questionnaire in response to access from the user, the providing unit 131 provides the user with a questionnaire consisting of a first questionnaire, a second questionnaire, and a third questionnaire. The first questionnaire, the second questionnaire, and the third questionnaire include, for example, questions corresponding to the questionnaire content shown in FIG. 1.

[0102] (Regarding the response receiving unit 132) The answer receiving unit 132 receives answers to the questionnaires provided by the providing unit 131. The answer receiving unit 132 stores the received answers in the storage unit. For example, when the answer receiving unit 132 receives an answer to a question included in a first questionnaire, the answer receiving unit 132 stores answer information indicating the received answer in the first questionnaire information database 121. When the answer receiving unit 132 receives an answer to a question included in a second questionnaire, the answer receiving unit 132 stores answer information indicating the received answer in the second questionnaire information database 122. When the answer receiving unit 132 receives an answer to a question included in a third questionnaire, the answer receiving unit 132 stores answer information indicating the received answer in the third questionnaire information database 123.

[0103] (Regarding the evaluation unit 133) The evaluation unit 133 evaluates the user's performance in accordance with the project experience based on performance information on the projects in which the user has participated, and evaluates the user's ability to meet the requirements based on the standards of the requirements required of individuals to carry out the projects.

[0104] For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the user's contribution to the project as an evaluation of the user's performance based on the performance information. As described in Fig. 1, the performance information may include characteristic information that indicates the characteristics of the project in which the user participated and career information that indicates the user's work history in the project, and the evaluation unit 133 calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the contribution based on the characteristic information and the career information.

[0105] For example, the evaluation unit 133 may calculate an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution using, as the characteristic information, the scale of the project in which the user participated. Also, for example, the evaluation unit 133 may calculate an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution using, as the characteristic information, the achievement status of the goal set for the project in which the user participated.

[0106] As an example, the evaluation unit 133 may calculate an evaluation value to evaluate the degree of contribution based on at least one of the following career information: the user's role in the project, the length of time they have been in the project, the work processes that the user has been responsible for among the work processes according to the content of the project, or the purpose of participating in the project.

[0107] In this state, the evaluation unit 133 calculates a score based on the characteristic information and career information according to the level of difficulty of the project in which the user participated and the difficulty of the task the user was in charge of within the project, and calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the degree of contribution from the calculated score. For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates a score for each project in which the user participated based on the characteristic information and work history corresponding to the project, and calculates a statistical value obtained from the calculated score as the evaluation value.

[0108] Furthermore, as explained in Figure 1, the performance information may further include scoring results in which the management ability according to the scale of the project in which the user participated is scored, and the evaluation unit 133 further calculates an evaluation value that evaluates the user's practical ability according to project experience as an evaluation of the user's performance based on the scoring results.

[0109] (Regarding the determination unit 134) The determination unit 134 comprehensively determines the project management ability of the user based on the evaluation results (evaluation values) by the evaluation unit 133. For example, the determination unit 134 calculates a total point by summarizing the evaluation results by the evaluation unit 133, and determines the level corresponding to this total point as the project management ability of the user from among several levels prepared.

[0110] (Regarding the result control unit 135) The result control unit 135 performs various controls according to the evaluation result by the evaluation unit 133 and the judgment result by the judgment unit 134. For example, the result control unit 135 can generate a sheet (self-diagnosis result sheet) in which content according to the evaluation result or judgment result is displayed as a self-diagnosis result, and provide the generated sheet to the user.

[0111] In addition, examples of content that corresponds to the evaluation results and judgment results include a project performance chart that shows the actual PMS points in a bar graph, a knowledge / practice chart that shows the total scores calculated for each ability category (from Figure 4) in a radar chart format, and a human skills chart that shows the human skills PMS points calculated for each requirement in a radar chart format.

[0112] [6. Evaluation value calculation logic] Next, using Figures 8 to 11, we will show specific examples of calculation logic for calculating "Actual PMS Points," which is an evaluation value that evaluates contribution (degree of contribution to the project), "Knowledge / Practical Ability PMS Points," which is an evaluation value that evaluates practical ability (amount of knowledge and practical ability required for a PM), and "Human Skill PMS Points," which is an evaluation value that evaluates personal ability (human skills) in relation to project execution requirements.

[0113] [6-1. PM Ability Assessment Logic] Before explaining the calculation logic for each evaluation value, we will first explain the logic for determining the PMS level (project management skill level) as PM ability from each evaluation value using Figure 8. Figure 8 is a diagram showing an example of the project management ability determination logic. The example in Figure 8 shows an example in which the performance PMS points, knowledge / practical ability PMS points, and human skill PMS points have already been calculated by the evaluation unit 133.

[0114] In this state, the determination unit 134 assigns weights to each of the performance PMS points, knowledge / practical ability PMS points, and human skill PMS points. Specifically, the determination unit 134 multiplies each PMS point by a weight coefficient that is set in advance according to the importance in determining the PMS level.

[0115] As shown in Fig. 8, weighting coefficients are set in advance for each of the performance PMS points, knowledge / practical ability PMS points, and human skill PMS points according to their importance in determining the PMS level. According to the example of Fig. 8, a weighting coefficient of "0.5" may be set for the performance PMS points. According to the example of Fig. 8, a weighting coefficient of "0.2" may be set for the knowledge / practical ability PMS points. According to the example of Fig. 8, a weighting coefficient of "0.3" may be set for the human skill PMS points.

[0116] In this example, the judgment unit 134 weights the performance PMS points using a weighting coefficient of "0.5," weights the knowledge / practical ability PMS points using a weighting coefficient of "0.2," and weights the human skill PMS points using a weighting coefficient of "0.3," and then calculates the total PMS points by adding up the weighted PMS points.

[0117] Next, the determination unit 134 converts the calculated PMS total points into a PMS level, thereby determining the PMS level that indicates the level of the user's PM ability. For example, the determination unit 134 can convert the PMS total points into a PMS level using a level conversion table such as that shown in FIG.

[0118] According to the level conversion table shown in FIG. 8, when the determination unit 134 calculates a PMS total point between "0.0" and "1.5," it can convert it to a PMS level of "1," and a user with a PMS level of "1" can be determined to be a "talented talent." Furthermore, when the determination unit 134 calculates a PMS total point between "1.5" and "2.2," it can convert it to a PMS level of "2," and a user with a PMS level of "2" can be determined to be a "quasi-potential talent." Furthermore, when the determination unit 134 calculates a PMS total point between "2.2" and "2.8," it can convert it to a PMS level of "3," and a user with a PMS level of "3" can be determined to be a "ready-to-hit talent."

[0119] Furthermore, when the determination unit 134 calculates a PMS total point between "2.8" and "3.5," it can convert it to a PMS level of "4," and can determine that a user with a PMS level of "4" is a "core talent." Furthermore, when the determination unit 134 calculates a PMS total point between "3.5" and above, it can convert it to a PMS level of "5," and can determine that a user with a PMS level of "5" is a "highly skilled talent."

[0120] [6-2. Actual PMS point calculation logic] Next, the calculation logic of actual PMS points will be described with reference to Fig. 9. Fig. 9 is a diagram showing an example of the calculation logic of actual PMS points. The actual PMS points calculated by the logic described here are used in the PM ability determination logic of Fig. 8.

[0121] 9 will be described using an example in which user U11 inputs information to answer each question given in the first questionnaire in response to his / her participation in projects PJ111, PJ#112, PJ#113, PJ#114, and PJ#115 (projects PJ#111 to PJ#115), following the example of FIG. 3. According to this example, the determination device 100 acquires, as performance information regarding the projects in which user U11 has participated, for example, characteristic information (project profile) indicating the characteristics of each of projects PJ#111 to PJ#115 in which user U11 has participated, and career information indicating user U11's work history (personal profile) in each of projects PJ#111 to PJ#115.

[0122] In this state, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the PMS points that are the basis of the achieved PMS points for each project in which the user U11 has participated. Specifically, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the PMS points that are the basis of the achieved PMS points for each of the projects PJ#111 to PJ#115 based on the corresponding achievement information. This point will be explained below, focusing on the project PJ#111.

[0123] First, the evaluation unit 133 calculates a first score corresponding to the answer by comparing the answer of user U11 about project PJ#111 with the score pattern table of Figure 6. In project PJ#111, user U11 did not join midway for the purpose of restructuring, but has been involved in project PJ#111 since its inception. Therefore, the evaluation unit 133 performs a normal score determination according to the goal achievement status (income and expenditure).

[0124] For example, the evaluation unit 133 determines the first score corresponding to this answer by applying the goal achievement status (income and expenditure) "operating profit target achieved", the role (at time of leaving) "TL", and the project scale "1 billion or more and less than 5 billion" to the score pattern table. As explained in Fig. 6, the evaluation unit 133 can calculate the first score "1.40" by applying the goal achievement status (income and expenditure) "operating profit target achieved", the role (at time of leaving) "TL", and the project scale "1 billion or more and less than 5 billion" to the score pattern table.

[0125] In this way, the first score takes into consideration items such as the status of goal achievement (income and expenditure), project scale, role (at the time of departure), and recovery, so the first score can be said to be points based on the difficulty of the project.

[0126] Furthermore, the evaluation unit 133 calculates a second score, which is a score to be added individually, according to the answers of the user U11 regarding the project PJ♯111. For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the second score to be added to the first score according to the answers indicating the work history (personal profile) among the answers of the user.

[0127] For example, the determination device 100 may have an individual bonus point table in advance, and the evaluation unit 133 can calculate the second score according to the contents defined in the individual bonus point table. For example, the individual bonus point table may define points according to work experience, such as development type "0.2," new customer "0.3," new technology "0.2," multiple customer program "0.1," same customer program "0.05," and ultra-upstream "0.1." According to this example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the second score "0.7" based on the fact that user U11 has input the project type "development type," new customer "1," and new technology "1" for project PJ#111 (see FIG. 3).

[0128] In this way, the second score is determined by taking into consideration factors such as development type, new customer, new technology, multiple customer PGM, same customer PGM, and ultra-upstream, so the second score can be said to be points based on the difficulty of the mission.

[0129] Next, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the PMS points by adding the second score to the first score. According to the above example, the evaluation unit 133 adds the first score "1.40" and the second score "0.7" to calculate the PMS points "2.10." Here, the evaluation unit 133 may weight the PMS points using a weighting coefficient according to the period of time in office and the process involved. In other words, the evaluation unit 133 may calculate the actual PMS points by further taking into account the period of time in office and the process involved.

[0130] So far, we have focused on project PJ♯111 as an example of how the PMS points that form the basis of actual PMS points are calculated, but PMS points are calculated using the same method for each of PJ♯112, PJ♯113, PJ♯114, and PJ♯115.

[0131] After calculating the PMS points for each of projects PJ#111 to PJ#115, the evaluation unit 133 calculates one actual PMS point corresponding to project PJ#111 to PJ#115, for example, based on a predetermined number of the PMS points with the highest values. For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the actual PMS point by adding up and averaging the predetermined number of the PMS points with the highest values.

[0132] [6-3. Knowledge / Practical Ability PMS Point Calculation Logic] Next, the calculation logic for knowledge / practical ability PMS points will be explained using Fig. 10. Fig. 10 is a diagram showing an example of the knowledge / practical ability PMS point calculation logic. The knowledge / practical ability PMS points calculated by the logic explained here are used in the PM ability judgment logic of Fig. 8.

[0133] 10, following the example of FIG. 4, an example will be explained in which user U11 self-assessed the management capabilities (specifically, five management capabilities: review management, issue management, cost management, procurement management, and resource management) corresponding to each project scale ("less than 50 million," "50 million to less than 200 million," "200 million or more") in accordance with the project scale. According to this example, the determination device 100 acquires, as performance information regarding the projects in which user U11 participated, for example, a scoring result in which the management capabilities corresponding to each scale of the projects in which user U11 participated are scored.

[0134] In this state, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an overall score that forms the basis of knowledge / practical ability PMS points based on the scoring results for management capabilities corresponding to each project scale. Specifically, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an overall score from the scoring results for each management capability for each project scale, such as "less than 50 million," "50 million to less than 200 million," and "200 million or more." The following explanation focuses on review management, one of the five management capabilities classified by capability category.

[0135] 10, the determination device 100 acquires scoring results for the review management capabilities of projects of "less than 50 million," projects of "50 million to less than 200 million," and projects of "200 million or more." For example, the determination device 100 acquires "5 points" as the scoring result for the review management capabilities of projects of "less than 50 million," "3 points" as the scoring result for the review management capabilities of projects of "50 million to less than 200 million," and "1 point" as the scoring result for the review management capabilities of projects of "200 million or more."

[0136] In response to this, the evaluation unit 133 corrects the scoring result by weighting with a predetermined weighting coefficient. Here, according to the example of Fig. 4, the ability category "review management" is associated with a difficulty level of "medium." Also, as explained in Fig. 4, it is assumed that difficulty coefficients for weighting are predetermined, such as a difficulty coefficient of "1.0" for a difficulty level of "high" and a difficulty coefficient of "0.9" for a difficulty level of "medium."

[0137] In such a case, the evaluation unit 133 uses a difficulty coefficient of "0.5" to correct the score of "5 points" for a project of a scale of "less than 50 million" to "4.5." The evaluation unit 133 also uses a difficulty coefficient of "0.5" to correct the score of "3 points" for a project of a scale of "50 million or more but less than 200 million" to "2.7." The evaluation unit 133 also uses a difficulty coefficient of "0.5" to correct the score of "1 point" for a project of a scale of "200 million or more" to "0.9."

[0138] Next, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an overall score corresponding to the review management based on the corrected scoring results. Specifically, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an overall score that takes the difficulty level into consideration by adding up and averaging the corrected scoring results of "4.5," "2.7," and "0.9." That is, the evaluation unit 133 calculates an overall score of "1.9."

[0139] So far, we have focused on review management and shown an example of how the overall score that forms the basis of knowledge / practical ability PMS points is calculated, but the same method is used to calculate overall scores for issue management, cost management, procurement management, and resource management.

[0140] After calculating the total scores for each of review management, issue management, cost management, procurement management, and resource management, the evaluation unit 133 calculates one knowledge / practical ability PMS point based on each of the calculated total scores. For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the knowledge / practical ability PMS point by adding up and averaging each total score.

[0141] Note that FIG. 10 illustrates an example in which the evaluation unit 133 corrects the scoring results using a difficulty coefficient. However, the evaluation unit 133 may also correct the scoring results using a scale coefficient. In such a case, a scale coefficient corresponding to the scale may be predetermined for each project scale. For example, a scale coefficient for weighting may be predetermined, such as a scale coefficient of "1 / 9" for a project scale of "less than 50 million," a scale coefficient of "3 / 9" for a project scale of "50 million to less than 200 million," and a scale coefficient of "5 / 9" for a project scale of "200 million or more." The evaluation unit 133 may also correct the scoring results using both the difficulty coefficient and the scale coefficient.

[0142] [6-4. Human Skills PMS Point Calculation Logic] Next, the calculation logic for human skill PMS points will be explained using Fig. 11. Fig. 11 is a diagram showing an example of the human skill PMS point calculation logic. The human skill PMS points calculated by the logic explained here are used in the PM ability judgment logic of Fig. 8.

[0143] 11, following the example of FIG. 5, an example will be described in which user U11 self-assessed the human skills indicated in the detailed requirements (e.g., skills to take initiative, skills to make quick decisions, skills to prepare for risks and changes in circumstances, etc.). According to this example, the determination device 100 acquires the scoring results for each human skill scored by user U11 based on the level 5 definition, level 3 definition, and level 1 definition. Note that while FIG. 11 shows three examples of human skills, namely, skills to take initiative, skills to make quick decisions, and skills to prepare for risks and changes in circumstances, the skill items used to calculate the human skill PMS points are not limited to this example.

[0144] In this state, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the human skill PMS points based on the scoring results of the user U11's ability level against the standard for each human skill. For example, in the example of Fig. 11, the determination device 100 has acquired the skill of taking initiative (5 points), the skill of making quick decisions (3 points), and the skill of preparing for risks and changes in the situation (3 points).

[0145] Then, the evaluation unit 133 calculates the human skill PMS points by adding up and averaging the scores of "5", "3" and "3".

[0146] [7. Processing Procedure] Next, the procedure of the determination process performed by the determination device 100 will be described with reference to Fig. 12. Fig. 12 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the determination process according to the embodiment.

[0147] First, the providing unit 131 determines whether it is time to submit an annotated table (step S101). While it is determined that it is not time to submit an annotated table (step S101; No), the providing unit 131 waits until it can determine that it is time to submit an annotated table.

[0148] On the other hand, when the providing unit 131 determines that it is time to provide a questionnaire (step S101; Yes), it provides, for example, a questionnaire consisting of a first questionnaire, a second questionnaire, and a third questionnaire to the user who made the request (step S102).

[0149] Next, the answer receiving unit 132 determines whether or not an answer to the question given in the questionnaire has been received from the user (step S103). While it is determined that an answer has not been received (step S103; No), the answer receiving unit 132 waits until it can determine that an answer has been received.

[0150] On the other hand, if it is determined that an answer has been received (step S103; Yes), the evaluation unit 133 executes an evaluation value calculation process based on the received answer (step S104). For example, the evaluation unit 133 calculates achievement PMS points (an evaluation value that evaluates the degree of contribution), knowledge / practical ability PMS points (an evaluation value that evaluates practical ability), and human skill PMS points (an evaluation value that evaluates human skill) based on the answer received from the user. For example, the evaluation unit 133 can calculate each evaluation value according to each calculation logic described with reference to FIGS. 9 to 11.

[0151] Next, the determination unit 134 comprehensively determines the PM ability from the evaluation values ​​calculated by the evaluation unit 133 (step S105). For example, the determination unit 134 determines the level of the user's PM ability by converting the total points (PMS total points) obtained by adding up the performance PMS points, knowledge / practical ability PMS points, and human skill PMS points into a level. For example, the determination unit 134 can determine the PM ability level according to the determination logic described in FIG. 8.

[0152] Next, the result control unit 135 performs control according to the result. For example, the result control unit 135 generates a sheet (self-diagnosis result sheet) showing the evaluation result by the evaluation unit 133 and the content according to the judgment result by the judgment unit 134 as the self-diagnosis result (step S106). Then, the result control unit 135 provides the generated sheet to the user (step S107).

[0153] [8. Modifications] In the above embodiment, an example has been shown in which the determination process is performed by the determination device 100 located on the cloud side. However, the determination process may be performed by the terminal device 10 on the edge side. Furthermore, the terminal device 10 may perform the determination process in a so-called standalone manner. Furthermore, in such a case, the terminal device 10 may be equipped with a determination program according to the embodiment.

[0154] [9. Hardware Configuration] Next, an example of the hardware configuration of the determination device 100 according to the embodiment will be described. FIG. 13 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the determination device 100 according to the embodiment. Referring to FIG. 13, the determination device 100 includes, for example, a processor 801, a ROM 802, a RAM 803, a host bus 804, a bridge 805, an external bus 806, an interface 807, an input device 808, an output device 809, a storage 810, a drive 811, a connection port 812, and a communication device 813. Note that the hardware configuration shown here is an example, and some of the components may be omitted. Furthermore, the determination device 100 may further include components other than those shown here.

[0155] (Processor 801) The processor 801 functions, for example, as an arithmetic processing device or control device, and controls the overall operation of each component or part of it based on various programs recorded in the ROM 802, RAM 803, storage 810, or removable recording medium 901.

[0156] (ROM802, RAM803) The ROM 802 is a means for storing programs to be read into the processor 801, data to be used for calculations, etc. The RAM 803 temporarily or permanently stores, for example, the programs to be read into the processor 801, and various parameters that change as appropriate when the programs are executed.

[0157] (host bus 804, bridge 805, external bus 806, interface 807) The processor 801, ROM 802, and RAM 803 are interconnected via, for example, a host bus 804 capable of high-speed data transmission. On the other hand, the host bus 804 is connected to an external bus 806, which has a relatively low data transmission speed, via, for example, a bridge 805. Furthermore, the external bus 806 is connected to various components via an interface 807.

[0158] (input device 808) Examples of the input device 808 include a mouse, keyboard, touch panel, button, switch, and lever. Furthermore, a remote controller (hereinafter referred to as a remote control) capable of transmitting control signals using infrared rays or other radio waves may also be used as the input device 808. The input device 808 also includes an audio input device such as a microphone.

[0159] (output device 809) The output device 809 is a device capable of visually or audibly notifying the user of acquired information, such as a display device such as a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube), LCD, or organic EL, an audio output device such as a speaker or headphones, a printer, a mobile phone, a facsimile, etc. The output device 809 according to this embodiment also includes various vibration devices capable of outputting tactile stimuli.

[0160] (Storage 810) The storage 810 is a device for storing various types of data. For example, a magnetic storage device such as a hard disk drive (HDD), a semiconductor storage device, an optical storage device, or a magneto-optical storage device may be used as the storage 810.

[0161] (Drive 811) The drive 811 is a device that reads information recorded on a removable recording medium 901 such as a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a magneto-optical disk, or a semiconductor memory, or writes information to the removable recording medium 901 .

[0162] (Connection port 812) The connection port 812 is a port for connecting an external device 902, such as a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port, an IEEE1394 port, a Small Computer System Interface (SCSI), an RS-232C port, or an optical audio terminal.

[0163] (Communication device 813) The communication device 813 is a communication device for connecting to a network, such as a communication card for wired or wireless LAN, Bluetooth (registered trademark), or WUSB (Wireless USB), a router for optical communication, a router for ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line), or a modem for various types of communication.

[0164] (Removable recording medium 901) The removable recording medium 901 is, for example, a DVD medium, a Blu-ray (registered trademark) medium, an HD DVD medium, various semiconductor storage media, etc. Of course, the removable recording medium 901 may also be, for example, an IC card equipped with a contactless IC chip, or an electronic device.

[0165] (External connection device 902) The externally connected device 902 is, for example, a printer, a portable music player, a digital camera, a digital video camera, or an IC recorder.

[0166] The storage unit 120 according to the embodiment is realized by the ROM 802, the RAM 803, and the storage 810. The control unit 130 according to the embodiment, which is realized by the processor 801, reads out and executes each control program (for example, a determination program according to the embodiment) that realizes the providing unit 131, the answer receiving unit 132, the evaluation unit 133, the determination unit 134, and the result control unit 135 from the ROM 802, the RAM 803, etc.

[0167] [10. Other] Of the above processes, all or part of the processes described as being performed automatically may be performed manually. Furthermore, all or part of the processes described as being performed manually may be performed automatically using known methods. Furthermore, the information, including the processing procedures, specific names, various data, and parameters shown in the above documents and drawings, may be changed as desired unless otherwise specified. For example, the various information shown in each drawing is not limited to the information shown.

[0168] Furthermore, the components of each device shown in the figure are functional concepts and do not necessarily have to be physically configured as shown. In other words, the specific form of distribution and integration of each device is not limited to that shown. Furthermore, all or part of each component may be functionally or physically distributed and integrated in any unit depending on various loads, usage conditions, etc. Furthermore, each of the processes described above may be executed in appropriate combinations within a range that does not contradict each other.

[0169] The above describes in detail the embodiments of the present application based on several drawings, but these are merely examples, and the present invention can be implemented in other forms that include the embodiments described in the Disclosure of the Invention section and that have been modified and improved in various ways based on the knowledge of those skilled in the art. [Explanation of symbols]

[0170] 1 Judgment System 10 Terminal Equipment 100 Judgment device 120 Storage section 121 First Survey Information Database 122 Second Survey Information Database 123 Third Survey Information Database 124 Score Pattern Table Database 125 Diagnostic Results Database 130 control section 131 Provision Department 132 Response Reception Department 133 Evaluation Department 134 Judgment section 135 Results Control Section

Claims

1. A system comprising: a reception unit that receives responses from a user to a questionnaire that includes questions regarding the user's performance in a project in which the user has participated and questions regarding the skills required to carry out the project; an evaluation unit that calculates an evaluation value for evaluating the user's level of contribution to the participating project by quantifying performance information indicating the answers to the performance-related questions using conditions according to the characteristics of the participating project, and that calculates an evaluation value for evaluating the user's individual ability level in carrying out the project based on the degree to which the user has answered that they meet the evaluation criteria for determining the abilities required to carry out the project as answers to the ability-related questions; a determination unit that calculates an index value indicating how suitable a person is for project management based on a comprehensive value obtained by combining the evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution and the evaluation value for evaluating the ability level, and determines the user's project management ability based on the calculated index value; A determination device comprising:

2. The performance information includes characteristic information indicating the characteristics of the participating project and career information indicating the user's work history in the participating project, The evaluation unit calculates an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution based on a total score obtained by adding a first score obtained by quantifying the feature indicated by the feature information using a first condition corresponding to the feature and a second score obtained by quantifying the work history indicated by the career information using a second condition corresponding to the work history.

2. The determination device according to claim 1.

3. The evaluation unit calculates the first score using the first condition according to the scale of the participating project as the feature indicated by the feature information.

3. The determination device according to claim 2.

4. The evaluation unit calculates the first score using an achievement status of a goal set for the participating project as the feature indicated by the feature information.

4. The determination device according to claim 2 or 3.

5. The evaluation unit calculates the second score using the second condition according to at least one of the following as the work history indicated by the career information: the role of the user in the participating project; the period of time of appointment in the participating project; a process in which the user was in charge of among work processes according to the content of the participating project; or a purpose for participating in the participating project.

5. The determination device according to claim 2, wherein:

6. The evaluation unit calculates the second score as a score indicating the difficulty of the participating project and the difficulty of the task that the user was in charge of in the project, and thereby calculates an evaluation value that evaluates how much the user contributed to a difficult project as an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution.

6. The determination device according to claim 2, wherein:

7. The evaluation unit calculates the total score for each participating project by adding the first score and the second score calculated for each participating project, and calculates a statistical value obtained from the total score for each participating project as an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution.

3. The determination device according to claim 2.

8. The reception unit receives responses from the user to the questionnaire, the questionnaire further including questions about the management skills demonstrated in the participation project, The evaluation unit further calculates an evaluation value for evaluating the practical management ability of the user in the participating project based on the degree of management ability that the user responded that he / she was able to demonstrate in response to the questions regarding the management ability according to the scale of the participating project; The determination unit calculates the index value based on a total value obtained by combining an evaluation value for evaluating the degree of contribution, an evaluation value for evaluating the ability level, and an evaluation value for evaluating the practical ability.

8. The determination device according to claim 1, wherein:

9. The judging unit calculates a total score by summarizing the evaluation results by the evaluating unit, and judges the level corresponding to the calculated total score as the project management ability of the user.

9. The determination device according to claim 1, wherein:

10. A determination method executed by a determination device, a receiving step of receiving answers from the user to a questionnaire including questions about achievements in projects in which the user has participated and questions about abilities required to carry out the projects; an evaluation process in which performance information indicating the answers to the performance-related questions is quantified using conditions according to the characteristics of the participating project to calculate an evaluation value that evaluates the user's contribution to the participating project, and an evaluation process in which an evaluation value is calculated that evaluates the user's personal ability level in carrying out the project based on the degree to which the user has answered that they meet the evaluation criteria for determining the abilities required to carry out the project as answers to the ability-related questions; a determining step of calculating an index value indicating how suitable a person is for project management based on a comprehensive value obtained by combining the evaluation value for the degree of contribution and the evaluation value for the ability level, and determining the user's project management ability based on the calculated index value; A determination method comprising:

11. A receiving procedure for receiving responses from the user to a questionnaire that includes questions about the user's achievements in a project in which the user has participated and questions about the skills required to carry out the project; an evaluation procedure for calculating an evaluation value for evaluating the user's level of contribution to the participating project by quantifying performance information indicating the answers to the performance-related questions using conditions according to the characteristics of the participating project, and calculating an evaluation value for evaluating the user's personal ability level in carrying out the project based on the degree to which the user has answered that they meet the evaluation criteria for determining the abilities required to carry out the project as answers to the ability-related questions; a judgment procedure for calculating an index value indicating how suitable a person is for project management based on a total value obtained by combining the evaluation value for the degree of contribution and the evaluation value for the ability level, and judging the user's project management ability based on the calculated index value; A determination program that causes a computer to execute the above.

Images