Automatic generation system for meeting participant skill maps

Abstract

To evaluate speakers according to their roles in a conference.SOLUTION: A system for automatically generating conference participant skill map including a processor configured: identify roles of participants, respectively, based on conference information; analyze using the conference information, for respective participants with their roles having been identified, respectively, evaluation information indicating reaction to the participants by other participants than the participants with their roles having been identified; and generate a skill map related to the participants with their roles having been identified on the basis of the analyzed evaluation information and predetermined evaluation criteria established for the respective participants with their roles having been identified.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 7

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a conference participant skill map automatic generation system and a conference participant skill map automatic generation method. [Background technology]

[0002] An example of a conference support system is the technology described in Patent Document 1. Patent Document 1 describes that "when a speaker's statement elicits a statement from another speaker, the statement is evaluated." [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Publication No. 2020-154673 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] Each speaker who attends a conference has a role, and each role contributes differently. However, the technology described in Patent Document 1 does not take into consideration the role of the speaker. It is necessary to change the evaluation method for the speaker depending on the role of the speaker.

[0005] An object of the present invention is to provide a technique that enables evaluation of speakers in a conference according to their roles. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] The conference participant skill map generation system of the present invention is a conference participant skill map generation system that evaluates conference participants and generates skill maps for the participants using a computer having a processor and memory, wherein the processor identifies the roles of the participants based on conference information, analyzes evaluation information for each participant whose role has been identified that indicates the reactions of participants other than the participant whose role has been identified using the conference information, and generates a skill map for the participants whose role has been identified based on the analyzed evaluation information and predetermined evaluation criteria set for each of the participants whose role has been identified. [Effects of the Invention]

[0007] According to the present invention, it is possible to evaluate speakers in a conference according to their roles. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0008] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the entire skill map. [Figure 2] This is a diagram of the individual skill maps for each actor, including the document creator. [Figure 3] This is a diagram of the individual skill maps for each actor, including the idea originator. [Figure 4] This is a diagram of the individual skill maps for each actor, focusing on the decision maker. [Figure 5] FIG. 1 is a physical model diagram of a skill map automatic generation system. [Figure 6] This is a logical model diagram of a skill map automatic generation system. [Figure 7] A diagram showing the flow of a series of processes for automatic skill map generation. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the process flow of a document creator in automatic skill map generation. [Figure 9] This figure shows the flow of the process by the originator in the automatic skill map generation. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the flow of processing by a decision maker in automatic skill map generation. [Figure 11] 10 is a screen showing the evaluation results for the material creator that are output after the meeting. [Figure 12] 10 is a screen showing the evaluation results for the proposer that are output after the meeting. [Figure 13] This is a screen showing the evaluation results for the decision maker that is output after the meeting. [Figure 14] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a computer. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0009] An embodiment of the present invention will be described below with reference to Figures 1 to 13. The following description and drawings are examples for explaining the present invention, and some omissions and simplifications have been made as appropriate for clarity of explanation. The present invention can be implemented in various other forms. Unless otherwise specified, each component may be singular or plural.

[0010] In order to facilitate understanding of the invention, the position, size, shape, range, etc. of each component shown in the drawings may not represent the actual position, size, shape, range, etc. Therefore, the present invention is not necessarily limited to the position, size, shape, range, etc. disclosed in the drawings.

[0011] In the following explanation, various types of information may be described using expressions such as "database," "table," and "list," but the various types of information may also be expressed in data structures other than these. To indicate that the information is not dependent on the data structure, "XX table," "XX list," etc. may be referred to as "XX information." When describing identification information, expressions such as "identification information," "identifier," "name," "ID," and "number" are used, and these are interchangeable.

[0012] When there are multiple components with the same or similar functions, they may be described using the same reference numeral with different subscripts. However, when there is no need to distinguish between these multiple components, the subscripts may be omitted.

[0013] Furthermore, in the following description, processing performed by executing a program may be described, but the program is executed by a processor (e.g., a CPU (Central Processing Unit) or a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)) to perform the specified processing while appropriately using storage resources (e.g., memory) and / or interface devices (e.g., communication ports), and therefore the processor may be the subject of the processing. Similarly, the subject of the processing performed by executing a program may be a controller, device, system, computer, or node having a processor. The subject of the processing performed by executing a program may be any computing unit, and may include a dedicated circuit (e.g., an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array) or an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit)) that performs specific processing.

[0014] A program may be installed on a device such as a computer from a program source. The program source may be, for example, a program distribution server or a computer-readable storage medium. If the program source is a program distribution server, the program distribution server may include a processor and storage resources for storing the program to be distributed, and the processor of the program distribution server may distribute the program to be distributed to other computers. Also, in the following description, two or more programs may be realized as one program, and one program may be realized as two or more programs. As will be described in detail later using Figure 5, the terminals and servers used in this system can be realized, for example, by a general computer 1600 as shown in Figure 14 (schematic computer diagram), which includes a CPU 1601, memory 1602, an external storage device 1603 such as an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), a reading / writing device 1607 for reading and writing information from a portable storage medium 1608 such as a CD (Compact Disk) or USB memory, an input device 1606 such as a keyboard or mouse, an output device 1605 such as a display, a communication device 1604 such as a NIC (Network Interface Card) for connecting to a communication network, and an internal communication line (referred to as a system bus) 1609 such as a system bus that connects these together.

[0015] Furthermore, various data stored in or used for processing in each terminal or server can be realized by the CPU 1601 reading it from the memory 1602 or the external storage device 1603. Furthermore, each functional unit of each terminal or server (for example, each functional unit shown in FIG. 6 such as the conference information receiving unit 601, the material creator determining unit 602, the conference information reference unit 603, etc.) can be realized by the CPU 1601 loading a predetermined program stored in the external storage device 1603 into the memory 1602 and executing it.

[0016] The above-mentioned predetermined program may be stored (downloaded) into the external storage device 1603 from the storage medium 1608 via the reading / writing device 1607 or from a network via the communication device 1604, and then loaded onto the memory 1602 and executed by the CPU 1601. Alternatively, the program may be directly loaded onto the memory 1602 from the storage medium 1608 via the reading / writing device 1607 or from a network via the communication device 1604, and then executed by the CPU 1601.

[0017] In the following, we will explain an example in which this system is configured using a single computer, but all or part of these functions may be distributed across one or more computers, such as a cloud, and similar functions may be realized by communicating with each other via a network.

[0018] First, an overview of the skill map according to this embodiment will be explained using FIG. The phase column 101 indicates the phases that mark the divisions in the progress of a meeting. Generally, a meeting begins with a pre-preparation phase 104, and after the meeting begins, it moves through an introduction phase 105, a progress phase 106, a divergence phase 107, and a convergence phase 108, before ending and transitioning to a post-meeting phase 109. The skill name column 102 indicates the skills required for each phase to smoothly progress the meeting. The actor with skills column 103 indicates the actors who should have each skill. Figure 1 lists several skills for each phase as an example. In this example, a technology for automatically generating a skill map for the actors, including the document creator, proposer, and decision maker, will be described.

[0019] Next, the individual skill maps for each actor will be explained using Figures 2 to 4.

[0020] Figure 2 shows an individual skill map for a document creator. The evaluation viewpoint column 201 shows the viewpoints for evaluating the skills of a document creator. As examples, Figure 2 lists three major viewpoints: the ease of understanding of the document 202, the degree to which the written content is based on evidence 203, and the degree to which opinions are elicited 204. Each of these major viewpoints is further subdivided into smaller viewpoints. Each smaller viewpoint will be explained in detail in the description of Figure 8 below. The items in the evaluation viewpoint column 201 are predetermined, and the specific contents are set by the process shown in Figure 8 below.

[0021] Figure 3 shows an individual skill map for the proposer. The evaluation viewpoint column 301 shows the viewpoints for evaluating the skills of the proposer. Figure 3 lists, as examples, areas of expertise 302, specialized processes 303, quantitative analysis 304, and project contribution 305. PJ is an abbreviation for project. Each of these broad viewpoints is further subdivided into sub-viewpoints. Each sub-viewpoint will be explained in detail in the description of Figure 9 below. The items in the evaluation viewpoint column 301 are predetermined, and the specific settings are performed by the process shown in Figure 9 below.

[0022] Figure 4 shows an individual skill map for a decision maker. The evaluation viewpoint column 401 shows the viewpoints for evaluating the decision maker's skills. As examples, Figure 4 lists specialty areas 402, specialty processes 403, and project contribution 404. Each of these major viewpoints is further subdivided into smaller viewpoints. Each smaller viewpoint will be explained in detail in the description of Figure 10, which will be described later. The items in the evaluation viewpoint column 401 are determined in advance, and the specific contents are set by the process shown in Figure 10, which will be described later.

[0023] Next, a physical model of the skill map automatic generation system according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Figure 5. The physical model of the skill map automatic generation system according to this embodiment includes a PC (Personal Computer) 501 owned by user A, a smartphone 502 owned by user B, an analysis edge server 503 connected to them via a network, an analysis server 504 connected via the Internet, and an evaluation result DB 505. Here, as an example, user A represents a user who participates in a conference using a PC, and user B represents a user who participates in a conference using a smartphone. In other words, in this embodiment, the form of the device does not matter as long as it is a means for participating in a conference.

[0024] The analysis edge server 503 is intended to improve the analysis speed in automatic skill map generation according to this embodiment, and here, as an example, is placed in the same network segment as the user. When placed in the user's network segment, this analysis edge server can also coexist with any user's device. It can also be placed outside the Internet, such as in the cloud. It is also possible not to place the analysis edge server at all. In other words, in this embodiment, the location where the analysis edge server is placed does not matter.

[0025] The analysis server 504 is responsible for automatic skill map generation according to this embodiment. The evaluation results output by the analysis server are reflected in the skill maps for each actor stored in the evaluation result DB 505 and are accumulated.

[0026] Next, a logical model of the skill map automatic generation system according to this embodiment will be described with reference to Figure 6. This shows the internal configuration of the analysis server 504 and the analysis edge server 503 in Figure 5. The analysis server 504 includes a meeting information receiving unit 601, a material creator determination unit 602, a meeting information reference unit 603, a material determination unit 604, a proposer determination unit 605, a decision maker determination unit 606, a proposer's specialty area / process determination unit 607, a decision maker's specialty area / process determination unit 608, a user input receiving unit 609, an external function linkage unit 610, a material creator evaluation unit 611, a proposer evaluation unit 612, a decision maker evaluation unit 613, a skill map generation unit 614, a skill map storage unit 615, a past evaluation comparison unit 616, an evaluation result output unit 617, and a meeting information storage unit 618. Of these, the skill map generation unit 614, skill map storage unit 615, past evaluation comparison unit 616, and evaluation result output unit 617 are modules specific to the analysis server. The analysis edge server also has the same modules other than these. This is because functions such as generating a skill map, comparing it with past evaluation results, and storing the skill map are performed by the analysis server 504, which is directly connected to the evaluation result DB 505. Conversely, functions such as evaluating each actor are also installed in the analysis edge server in order to improve analysis speed.

[0027] Here, the flow from when the analysis server 504 receives the conference information until when it returns the evaluation results to each actor will be explained using the logical model diagram of FIG.

[0028] The conference information receiving unit 601 is a module that receives conference information. Conference information refers to various information related to a conference, such as participant conversation information of conference participants obtained from an audio device during the conference, participant surface information such as the line of sight, facial expressions, and posture of conference participants obtained from a camera device, conference reference material information referenced during the conference, conference guide information such as a conference invitation email sent when the conference is held, and other project materials related to the project to which the conference body belongs. The conference information is obtained from the PC 501 or smartphone 502 and is temporarily stored as a cache in the conference information storage unit 618. Here, an overview of each type of conference information and how to obtain it will be described in detail.

[0029] Participant conversation information refers to audio information obtained through sound-capable devices such as PCs, smartphones, and dedicated microphones owned by each meeting participant, as well as chat history information obtained from chat functions within meeting media such as Teams and Zoom.

[0030] Participant surface information is video information obtained through video recognition devices such as PCs, smartphones, and dedicated cameras owned by each meeting participant, and refers to information that represents the superficial state of participants, such as their gaze, facial expressions, and posture.

[0031] The conference reference material information refers to materials related to the conference, such as materials shared between participants via email or shared folders, or materials projected by any participant through the conference medium during the conference. Therefore, the conference information receiving unit 601 can refer to emails, shared folders, and projection information related to the conference.

[0032] The conference guide information is a conference guide sent by any participant to each member when the conference is held, and refers to information sent via an email function such as Outlook or a conference medium such as Zoom. Therefore, the conference information receiving unit 601 can refer to emails related to the conference, just like the conference reference material information.

[0033] The project material information is material related to the project to which the meeting body belongs, and refers to materials necessary for project management, such as process documents, pending issues, and task lists. These materials may be shared in emails related to the meeting or stored in shared folders, so the meeting information receiving unit 601 can refer to emails and shared folders related to the meeting. These materials are updated not only before the meeting but also after the meeting.

[0034] The material creator determination unit 602 is a module that checks the creator of the conference reference material information referenced during the conference from the conference information obtained by the conference information reception unit 601, and determines the creator of the material for the conference.

[0035] The conference information reference unit 603 is a module that references information required for determining the initiator and decision maker, which will be described later, from the conference information obtained by the conference information reception unit 601 .

[0036] The material determination unit 604 is a module that identifies materials created by a conference participant who has been determined to be the material creator of the conference.

[0037] The proposer determination unit 605 is a module that determines the proposer of each idea presented in a meeting based on the meeting information of the meeting referred to by the meeting information reference unit 603 .

[0038] The decision maker determining unit 606 is a module that determines the decision maker for each decision item in the meeting, based on the meeting information of the meeting referred to by the meeting information referring unit 603 .

[0039] The proposer's specialty area / process determination unit 607 is a module that determines the specialty area and specialty process of the proposer of the idea proposed in the meeting. The evaluation results determined here are reflected in the specialty area 302 and specialty process 303 of the evaluation perspectives in the proposer's individual skill map shown in Figure 3. The proposer's specialty area / process determination unit 607 can receive direct input from the user via the user input reception unit 609, in addition to the conference information referenced by the conference information reference unit 603 as the reference source of information necessary for the determination. Furthermore, when determining the specialty area, an external function such as a thesaurus can be referenced via the external function linkage unit 610. This function uses the thesaurus to refer to the superordinate concepts of technical terms and industry terms used in the meeting and extracts them as the specialty area.

[0040] The decision maker's specialty and process determination unit 608 is a module that determines the decision maker's specialty and process for the decision item in the meeting. The evaluation results determined here are reflected in the evaluation perspective specialty 402 and specialty process 403 in the decision maker's individual skill map shown in Figure 4. Like the proposer's specialty and process determination unit 607, the decision maker's specialty and process determination unit 608 can receive direct input from the user via the user input reception unit 609 in addition to the conference information referenced by the conference information reference unit 603 as a reference source for information necessary for determination. When determining the specialty, an external function such as a thesaurus can be referenced via the external function linkage unit 610. This function uses the thesaurus to refer to the superordinate concepts of technical terms and industry terms used in the meeting and extracts them as specialty areas.

[0041] The material creator evaluation unit 611 is a module that evaluates material creators based on the conference materials created by the material creators referenced by the material judgment unit 604. The evaluation results are reflected in the evaluation criteria of the material's understandability 202, the degree of justification for the written content 203, and the degree of opinion elicitation 204 in the material creator's individual skill map shown in Figure 2. During the evaluation, external functions such as a thesaurus can be referenced via the external function linkage unit 610. This function is used to refer to libraries such as thesauruses and determine whether ambiguous words are ambiguous when evaluating materials. Furthermore, direct input from the user can be accepted via the user input acceptance unit 609 to determine whether ambiguous words are ambiguous. This is to enable the evaluation of terms and phrases unique to the project to which the conference body belongs that are not included in libraries such as thesauruses.

[0042] The proposer evaluation unit 612 is a module that evaluates the proposer determined by the proposer determination unit 605 based on the meeting information referenced by the meeting information reference unit 603. The evaluation results determined here are reflected in the quantitative analysis 304 of evaluation perspectives and the project contribution level 305 in the individual skill map of the proposer shown in FIG.

[0043] The decision maker evaluation unit 613 is a module that evaluates the decision maker determined by the decision maker determination unit 606 based on the meeting information referenced by the meeting information reference unit 603. The evaluation result determined here is reflected in the project contribution level 404, which is an evaluation perspective in the individual skill map of the proposer shown in Figure 4.

[0044] The skill map generation unit 614 is a module that reflects the evaluation results of the aforementioned material creator evaluation unit 611, idea creator evaluation unit 612, and decision maker evaluation unit 613 in an individual skill map for each actor.

[0045] The skill map storage unit 615 is a module that stores the skill map generated by the skill map generation unit 614 in the evaluation result DB 505. It is also a module that refers to past skill maps from the evaluation result DB.

[0046] The past evaluation comparison unit 616 is a module that compares the skill map generated by the skill map generation unit 614 with a past skill map referenced from the skill map storage unit 615.

[0047] The evaluation result output unit 617 is a module that returns to each actor the evaluation of that person in the conference based on the generated skill map. Examples of the evaluation result screen for each actor will be described in Figures 11 to 13.

[0048] Next, a series of processing steps for automatic skill map generation according to this embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. 7 in association with the logical model diagram of FIG. Conference information reception 701 corresponds to the function of conference information reception unit 601 in Fig. 6. Here, the analysis server receives conference information. As described above, conference information includes participant conversation information, participant face information, conference reference material information, conference guide information, project material information, etc.

[0049] 6, the functions of the document creator determination unit 602, the conference information reference unit 603, the document determination unit 604, the initiator determination unit 605, and the decision maker determination unit 606. Here, each actor is determined based on the conference information obtained by the conference information reception unit 701. As will be described in detail later, the actor determination unit 702 may use conventionally known techniques, such as analyzing the voices included in the participant conversation information to identify the individual actors included in the participant surface information, or reading the names of the actors included in the conference guide information, the project materials, etc.

[0050] Actor-specific specialty / process determination 703 corresponds to the functions of proposer specialty / process determination unit 607 and decision maker specialty / process determination unit 608 in Fig. 6. Here, the specialty and process of the proposer and decision maker determined in actor determination 702 are determined. As will be described in detail later, actor-specific specialty / process determination 703 may use a conventionally known technique, for example, to analyze the specialty of the actor who made the statement by reading the actor's remarks contained in the meeting information, the meeting guide information, the project materials, etc., and performing a concept search using a thesaurus.

[0051] Actor-specific evaluation 704 corresponds to the functions of the material creator evaluation unit 611, the proposer evaluation unit 612, and the decision maker evaluation unit 613 in Fig. 6. Here, evaluations are made of the material creator, proposer, and decision maker determined in actor determination 702. Specific evaluation methods will be described later with reference to Figs. 8 to 10.

[0052] Skill map generation 705 corresponds to the function of skill map generation unit 614 in Fig. 6. Here, a skill map is generated for each actor based on the evaluation results of actor-specific evaluation 704. Specific evaluation methods will be described later with reference to Figs. 8 to 10.

[0053] Storing in skill map DB 706 corresponds to the function of skill map storage unit 615 in Fig. 6. Here, the skill map of each actor generated in skill map generation 705 is stored in evaluation result DB 506.

[0054] Comparison with past evaluations 707 corresponds to the function of past evaluation comparison unit 616 in Fig. 6. Here, the skill map of each actor generated in skill map generation 705 is compared with past skill maps existing in the evaluation result DB.

[0055] Evaluation result output 708 corresponds to the function of evaluation result output unit 617 in Fig. 6. Here, the evaluation results of skill map generation unit 614 and past evaluation comparison unit 616 are output to each actor. Specific examples of evaluation results will be described later with reference to Figs. 11 to 13.

[0056] Next, the flow and details of the series of processes for automatically generating a skill map for each actor will be explained using Figures 8, 9, and 10. These explain in detail the processes from actor determination 702 to skill map generation 705 in Figure 7 for each actor.

[0057] Figure 8 shows the process flow for automatically generating a skill map for document creators. The conference information reference 801 is a function for referencing conference information received by the analysis server in the conference information reception 701 in FIG.

[0058] The document creator determination function 802 determines the document creator for a particular conference based on the conference information referenced in the conference information reference function 801. The conference information primarily referenced here includes participant conversation information and conference reference material information. When referencing participant conversation information, for example, the participant reading the contents of the conference material being projected becomes a candidate for the document creator. In general, in a conference, the person explaining the material is often the creator of the material, or the creator's superior or reviewer. In the latter case, even if they did not directly create the material, they are considered to have indirectly contributed to the material's creation by determining the document creation policy or suggesting corrections, and are treated as a candidate for the document creator. However, this is not necessarily the case. When referencing conference reference material information, for example, the last person to update the material, obtained from the creator information or timestamp, becomes a candidate for the document creator. If the candidate for the document creator obtained from the participant conversation information differs from the candidate for the document creator obtained from the conference reference material information, or if there are multiple candidates, the implementer can freely set the narrowing down criteria. For convenience, in this embodiment, the document creator is defined as one person.

[0059] From this point on, the process branches for each evaluation viewpoint 201 in the individual skill map of the document creator shown in FIG.

[0060] The function of determining the understandability of materials 803 is to output an evaluation corresponding to the understandability of materials 202 among the evaluation criteria in Figure 2 for a participant who has been determined to be a material creator in the determination of material creator 802, based on the conference information referenced in the reference of conference information 801.

[0061] Ambiguous word determination 804 is a function that determines whether a document contains ambiguous words such as "very," "very," or "a little." To determine these ambiguous words, an ambiguous word library such as a thesaurus can be referenced. Direct input from the user can also be accepted and reflected, making it possible to determine terms and phrases unique to the project to which the meeting body belongs that are not included in external libraries. The total number of extracted ambiguous words is reflected in the skill map of the document creator. In Figure 2, as an example, there are zero ambiguous words in this meeting, and two in the previous meeting.

[0062] The text and image balance determination 805 is a function that determines the balance between text in a document and objects such as images and graphs. Generally, text-only documents are difficult to read, and documents with only objects do not convey the content of the explanation. This balance can be freely defined by the implementer. As an example, in Figure 2, in the current meeting, the ratio of text to objects in the document is maintained at a certain standard, resulting in a good balance, while in the previous meeting there was too much text.

[0063] Color Judgment 806 is a function that judges the colors of text, figures, graphs, text highlighting, and other effects in documents. For example, if the text highlighting effect uses a variety of primary colors other than just red, it can be difficult to tell which text is important. Furthermore, if figures and graphs are composed of colors that are similar in hue, it can be difficult to distinguish their boundaries. This balance can be freely defined by the implementer. Figure 2 shows an example in which the ratio of the colors of the above effects in the document to the ratio of colors other than the above effects in the document is maintained at a certain standard, resulting in good color quality, while the primary colors in the previous meeting were stronger.

[0064] The function of determining the degree of grounds for the written content (807) is to output an evaluation corresponding to the degree of grounds for the written content (203) among the evaluation criteria in Figure 2 for the participant who was determined to be the document creator in the document creation perspective determination (802) based on the conference information referenced in the conference information reference (801).

[0065] Numerical Data / Graph Judgment 808 is a function to judge the numerical data and graphs in a document. For example, if there is no numerical data or graph in a document, it can be said that it lacks quantitation. Also, if the document only contains numerical data and graphs, the explanation will not be conveyed. This balance can be freely defined by the implementer. As an example, in Figure 2, in this meeting, the ratio of the above numerical data and graphs in the document to the ratio of data other than the above numerical data and graphs in the document is maintained at a certain standard and is good, while in the previous meeting it is low.

[0066] The citation source description determination 809 is a function that determines the citation source information and link destination information in the document. Here, it checks whether citation source information and link destination information are included for objects such as figures and graphs used in the document, and measures the balance of how much is included in relation to the number of figures and graphs. This balance can be freely defined by the implementer. As an example, in Figure 2, the ratio of the materials in which the above citation source information and link destination information are included and the ratio of the materials in which the above citation source information and link destination information are not included are maintained at a certain standard and are good, while the ratio for the previous meeting is low.

[0067] The function of determining the degree of opinion elicitation 810 is to determine, based on the conference information referenced in the conference information reference 801, how much the participant who was determined to be a material creator in the document creation perspective determination 802 was able to contribute to eliciting opinions in the conference as a reaction from the participants.

[0068] Extraction of frequently occurring words in documents 811 is a function that extracts and temporarily stores words that appear more than a certain number of times in the document. The words extracted here serve as keywords for linking in subsequent modules. Therefore, it does not matter if they are terms or phrases unique to the project to which the meeting belongs. In other words, there is no need to refer to an external library such as a thesaurus here.

[0069] Extraction of utterances containing frequently occurring words 812 is a function that refers to participant conversation information based on the frequently occurring words extracted in Extraction of frequently occurring words in document 811, and extracts utterances containing the words. This makes it possible to determine utterances related to the content of the document. In this embodiment, these utterances are considered to have been elicited by the existence of the document.

[0070] Calculating the number of statements 813 is a function for calculating the number of statements extracted in Extracting statements containing frequently occurring words 812. In the example of Fig. 2, there are eight statements in the current meeting and five in the previous meeting.

[0071] The utterance trend analysis 814 is a function that analyzes the tendency of each utterance extracted in the utterance extraction 812 containing frequently occurring words, i.e., the reactions of the participants who made the utterance, and classifies the utterances into positive and negative ones. In this embodiment, a positive tendency is defined as a utterance that agrees with the utterance, a utterance that supplements the utterance, or a utterance that quotes the utterance. A negative tendency is defined as a utterance that opposes the utterance, a utterance that criticizes the utterance, or a utterance that criticizes the utterance. In FIG. 2, as an example, there were seven positive utterances and one negative utterance in the current meeting, and four positive utterances and one negative utterance in the previous meeting. Note that the sum of these positive and negative utterances does not necessarily match the number of utterances calculated in the utterance count calculation 813. This is because there are also neutral utterances that are not perceived as either positive or negative. Reflection to skill map 815 is a function that reflects the results of each judgment made up to that point in the skill map.

[0072] Figure 9 shows the flow of the process for automatically generating a skill map for the originator of a proposal.

[0073] The conference information reference 901 is a function for referencing conference information received by the analysis server in the conference information reception 701 in FIG.

[0074] Confirmation of Meeting Decisions 902 is a function that determines decisions to be made in the meeting based on the meeting information referenced in Reference of Meeting Information 901. The main meeting information referenced here includes participant conversation information and participant surface information. When referring to participant conversation information, for example, an evaluation of an arbitrary statement made during the meeting is determined from the participant conversation information of participants other than the speaker. If it can be determined from the participant conversation information of participants other than the speaker that the statement has been positively evaluated, such as by agreement, affirmation, or supplement, the statement becomes a candidate for a decision to be made in the meeting. When referring to participant surface information, for example, an evaluation of an arbitrary statement made during the meeting is determined from the participant surface information of participants other than the speaker. If it can be determined from the participant surface information of participants other than the speaker that the statement has been positively evaluated, such as by nodding, leaning forward, or smiling, the statement becomes a candidate for a decision to be made in the meeting. If the candidate meeting decision items obtained from the participant conversation information differ from the candidate meeting decision items obtained from the participant surface information, or if there are multiple candidates, the implementer can freely set the narrowing down criteria. For convenience, in this embodiment, it is defined that there are multiple meeting decision items, and each decision item has its own initiator.

[0075] The function of determining the originator of a decision 903 is to determine the originator of the decision made at the meeting determined in the function of confirming the decision made at the meeting 902 .

[0076] From this point on, the process branches for each evaluation viewpoint 301 in the individual skill map of the proposer shown in FIG.

[0077] The process from extraction of frequently occurring words in the proposal originator's statements 904 to determination of speciality 907 is a flow for outputting an evaluation corresponding to speciality 302 among the evaluation viewpoints in FIG.

[0078] Extraction of frequently occurring words in the speech of the proposer 904 is a function that extracts frequently occurring keywords from the participant conversation information of the proposer for the participant determined to be the proposer in the proposer determination 903. To extract keywords, a common technique such as word decomposition is used, and nouns from the decomposed words are temporarily stored in a library or the like, the number of times they appear in the meeting is counted, the frequency is calculated, and the nouns with the highest frequency are set as frequent words. The reason why only nouns are used as candidates here is that non-noun words such as verbs and conjunctions are likely to appear frequently in general conversations.

[0079] Analysis of other participants' reactions to frequently used word-containing statements 905 is a function that analyzes the reactions of participants other than the speaker to statements containing frequently used words determined in Extraction of frequently used words in statements by the originator 904 based on the conference information referenced in Reference of conference information 901. The conference information that is mainly referenced here includes participant conversation information and participant surface information. When participant conversation information is referenced, for example, for a statement containing the frequently used word, the evaluation of the statement is determined from the participant conversation information of participants other than the speaker. When participant surface information is referenced, for example, for a statement containing the frequently used word, the evaluation of the statement containing the frequently used word is determined from the participant surface information of participants other than the speaker.

[0080] The specialty key setting 906 is a function for setting a key for determining the specialty of the proposer for frequently occurring words analyzed in the reaction analysis of other participants 905 for frequently occurring word-containing statements. When the participant conversation information is referenced in the reaction analysis of other participants 905 for frequently occurring word-containing statements, if it is determined from the participant conversation information of participants other than the speaker that they have given a positive evaluation of the statement containing the frequently occurring word, such as agreement, affirmation, or supplement, the frequently occurring word is set as the specialty key for determining the proposer's specialty. Furthermore, when the participant surface information is referenced, if it is determined from the participant surface information of participants other than the speaker that they have given a positive evaluation of the statement, such as nodding, a forward-leaning posture, or a smiling face, the frequently occurring word is set as the specialty key for determining the proposer's specialty. Here, only words that have received positive evaluations are set as specialty keys because negative evaluations are likely to indicate that the proposer is off-topic, making it difficult to determine their specialty. If a negative evaluation has been received, the frequently occurring word cannot be a specialty key, so the process returns to extracting frequently occurring words in the proposer's comments (904) and starts again by extracting frequently occurring words. Note that if the candidate specialty key obtained from the participant conversation information differs from the candidate specialty key obtained from the participant surface information, or if there are multiple candidates, the implementer can freely set the narrowing down criteria. For convenience, in this embodiment, it is defined that there are multiple specialty key keys.

[0081] The expertise determination function 907 determines the expertise of the proposer based on the expertise key set in the expertise key setting function 906. To determine the expertise, an external function such as a thesaurus can be referenced via the external function linkage unit 610. This function uses a thesaurus to reference the superordinate concepts of technical terms and industry terms used in the meeting and extracts them as the expertise. Direct input from the user can also be accepted via the user input acceptance unit 609. This allows for the identification of terms and phrases unique to the project to which the meeting body belongs that are not included in a thesaurus or other library. Figure 3 shows the examples of "system infrastructure" and "storage." For example, the words extracted as the expertise key are the names of storage products manufactured by a certain vendor, and the superordinate concepts determined based on the expertise key are "system infrastructure" and "storage."

[0082] The process from referring to conference guide information 908 to determining the favorite process 910 is a flow for outputting an evaluation corresponding to the favorite process 303 among the evaluation viewpoints in FIG. The function of referring to conference guide information 908 is to refer to conference guide information among the conference information referred to in the function of referring to conference information 901 .

[0083] Extracting process-identifying words 909 is a function that extracts process-identifying words to identify which process in the project the meeting is located in, based on the meeting guide information referenced in Reference Meeting Guide Information 908. Generally, projects consist of several processes or phases, regardless of the business type or industry. For convenience, this example uses the common waterfall model for system development as an example. However, this is not necessarily the case, as these processes vary widely depending on the business type and corporate culture. Waterfall-based system development begins with a pre-sales process for project acceptance, followed by a requirements definition process, basic design process, detailed design process, development process, unit testing process, integration testing process, comprehensive testing process, operational testing process, system release process, and operation and maintenance process. Meetings within each process often include process-identifying words in the subject line of meeting invitation emails, etc., to easily distinguish them from other processes or projects. For example, meetings during the pre-sales process include process-identifying words such as "pre-regular meeting" or "pre-WG." Here, "regular" refers to a regular meeting, and "WG" refers to a working group. Furthermore, for example, meetings during the development process include process-determining words such as "regular development meeting" and "development WG." In extraction of process-determining words 909, such process-determining words are extracted from the meeting guide information.

[0084] The function of determining a preferred process 910 is to determine the preferred process of the proposer based on the process discrimination word extracted in the process discrimination word extraction 909. For example, if the process discrimination word extracted in the process discrimination word extraction 909 is "pre-regular", the preferred process of the proposer is determined to be the "pre-sales process". In Figure 2, the requirements definition process is determined as an example.

[0085] The process from referring to the proposal originator's speech status 911 to analyzing the adoption rate 913 is a flow for outputting an evaluation corresponding to the quantitative analysis 304 among the evaluation viewpoints in FIG. The function of referring to the speech status of the proposer 911 is to refer to the speech of the proposer in the conference based on the conference information referred to in the conference information reference 901 .

[0086] Analysis of total number and number of adopted ideas 912 is a function of analyzing the evaluation corresponding to the total number of ideas and the number of adopted ideas in the quantitative analysis 304 among the evaluation viewpoints in FIG. 3, based on the participant conversation information referred to in the reference 911 of the speech status of the originator of the idea.

[0087] In quantitative analysis 304, the total number of ideas is the total number of ideas proposed by the proposer in the meeting. This determination is made using participant conversation information. First, the statements made by the proposer in the participant conversation information are referenced. Next, the contextual connection between the statement made before the statement is analyzed using a general context analysis AI. For example, if the statement made before the statement and the previous statement refer to the same topic contextually, the statement made by the proposer can be determined not to be a proposal, but rather a supplement to or piggybacking on the previous statement. Conversely, if the statement made before the statement encourages others to speak, such as "Do you have any opinions?", the statement made by the proposer can be determined to be a proposal. The total number of statements determined to be proposals in this way is the total number of ideas made by the proposer. In Figure 3, as an example, the total number of ideas in this meeting is 5.

[0088] In the quantitative analysis 304, the number of adopted ideas indicates the number of ideas proposed by the proposer in question that were adopted in the meeting. This is the same value as the number of ideas that were spoken by the proposer in question among the decisions made in the meeting as determined in the confirmation of decisions made in the meeting 902. In the example shown in Figure 3, the number of adopted ideas is 2.

[0089] The adoption rate analysis 913 is a function for analyzing the evaluation corresponding to the adoption rate in the quantitative analysis 304 among the evaluation perspectives in Fig. 3, based on the total number of ideas and the number of adopted ideas calculated in the analysis of total number and number of adopted ideas 912. The adoption rate is the value obtained by dividing the number of adopted ideas by the total number of ideas. In Fig. 3, for example, the total number of ideas is 5, but the number of adopted ideas is 2, so the adoption rate is 40%.

[0090] Reflection to Skill Map 914 is a function that reflects the results of each assessment made up to this point in the skill map. Here, the evaluation corresponding to Project Contribution 305 among the evaluation criteria in Figure 3 has not been made at this stage. This is because Project Contribution is an evaluation criteria that can only be evaluated after the meeting. In other words, Reflection to Skill Map 914 is a function that reflects the evaluation criteria in Figure 3 other than Project Contribution 305 in the skill map.

[0091] The process from Referencing Project Materials 915 to Analyzing Contribution to Problem Solving 916 is a flow that outputs an evaluation corresponding to Project Contribution 305, one of the evaluation criteria in Fig. 3. This Project Contribution is an evaluation criteria that cannot be evaluated during the meeting. Therefore, after the evaluation at the meeting is reflected in the skill map in the aforementioned Reflect Skill Map 914, the Project Contribution is evaluated as described below and reflected again in the skill map.

[0092] The function of referring to project materials 915 is to refer to materials (project materials) relating to the project to which the conference body belongs, among the conference information referred to in the conference information reference 901 .

[0093] The analysis of contribution to problem solving 916 is a function that evaluates the proposer in accordance with the project contribution 305 among the evaluation criteria in Figure 3, based on the project documents referenced in the reference to project documents 915. Here, it should be reiterated that project documents refer to documents necessary for project management, such as process documents, issue lists, and task lists. These documents are generally updated after the meeting, for example, via an external project evaluation system, based on decisions made in meetings, etc.

[0094] Of the project contributions 305, the number of issues resolved refers to the number of items updated in the project documents mentioned above. For example, if a task in a task list transitions to a completed state after the meeting, it can be determined that the task transitioned to a completed state based on the decisions made at the meeting. The total number of tasks and pending items in the project documents that are counted in this way and transitioned to a completed state after the meeting is defined as the number of issues resolved. In Figure 3, for example, the number of issues resolved in the project contributions 305 at the previous meeting is 3. This means that there were three pending items or task items that transitioned to a completed state after the previous meeting.

[0095] The number of delayed issues in the Project Contribution 305, like the number of resolved issues mentioned above, is the total number of pending or task items in the referenced project documents that transitioned to a delayed state after the meeting, or that were delayed before the meeting and did not transition to completion by the meeting. It's important to note that items that are currently in progress or under consideration and have a future deadline are not included in the calculation. These items are items that cannot be completed at the meeting, regardless of the amount of work completed at the meeting. In Figure 3, for example, the number of delayed issues in the Project Contribution 305 for the previous meeting is 1. This means that there was one pending or task item that transitioned to a delayed state after the previous meeting, or that was delayed before the previous meeting and did not transition to completion by the previous meeting.

[0096] Reflection of skill map (later) 917 is a function that reflects the results of each judgment made in the process from referring to project materials 915 to analyzing the degree of contribution to problem solving 916 on the skill map.

[0097] Figure 10 shows the process flow for automatically generating a skill map for decision makers.

[0098] The conference information reference 1001 is a function for referencing conference information received by the analysis server in the conference information reception 701 in FIG.

[0099] Confirmation of Meeting Decisions 1002 is a function that determines the decisions made in the meeting based on the meeting information referenced in Reference of Meeting Information 1001, and is the same function as Confirmation of Meeting Decisions 902 in Fig. 9, and the decisions made in Fig. 9 are consistent with those in Fig. 10. As in Fig. 9, the conference information that is mainly referenced in Confirmation of Meeting Decisions 1002 includes participant conversation information and participant surface information. The specific processing has already been explained in Fig. 9, so an explanation of these will be omitted here, but as in Fig. 9, it is defined that there are multiple decisions made in the meeting, and each decision has its own initiator and decision maker.

[0100] The decision maker determination 1003 is a function that determines the decision maker of the meeting decisions determined in the confirmation of meeting decisions 1002 based on the meeting information referenced in the reference of meeting information 1001. As with the confirmation of meeting decisions 1002, the meeting information referenced here includes participant conversation information and participant surface information. When referencing participant conversation information, for example, a subsequent statement after a statement containing a meeting decision is analyzed using a general context analysis AI. If the statement contains words encouraging approval or promotion, the statement can be determined to represent a decision, and the speaker can be determined to be the decision maker. Examples of words encouraging approval or promotion include "OK," "I approve," "It's decided," and "Let's go with that." Direct input from the user can also be accepted via the user input acceptance unit 609. This is to accommodate, for example, cases where the decision maker is determined by implicit recognition in the meeting.

[0101] From this point on, the process branches for each evaluation viewpoint 401 in the individual skill map of the decision maker shown in FIG.

[0102] The process from extracting frequently occurring words in the statements of the decision maker (1004) to determining the area of ​​expertise (1007) is a flow that outputs an evaluation corresponding to the area of ​​expertise 402 among the evaluation criteria in FIG. 4, and is the same flow as the process from extracting frequently occurring words in the statements of the proposer (904) to determining the area of ​​expertise (907) in FIG. 9.

[0103] Extraction of frequently occurring words in the statements of decision makers 1004 is a function that extracts frequently occurring keywords from the participant conversation information of the decision maker for the participant determined to be a decision maker in the determination of decision maker 1003. To extract keywords, a common technique such as word decomposition is used, and nouns from the decomposed words are temporarily stored in a library or the like, the number of times they appear in the meeting is counted, the frequency is calculated, and the noun with the highest frequency is set as a frequent word. The reason why only nouns are used as candidates here is that non-noun words such as verbs and conjunctions are likely to appear frequently in general conversations.

[0104] Analysis of other participants' reactions to statements containing frequently occurring words 1005 is a function that analyzes the reactions of participants other than the decision maker to statements containing frequently occurring words determined in Extraction of frequently occurring words in statements by the decision maker 1004, based on the conference information referenced in Reference of conference information 1001. The specific process is similar to process 905 shown in Fig. 9, so a description thereof will be omitted, but the originator in this process can be read as the decision maker.

[0105] Setting a field of expertise key 1006 is a function for setting a key to determine the field of expertise of the decision maker for the frequently occurring words analyzed in the analysis of other participants' reactions to frequently occurring word-containing comments 1005. The specific process is the same as process 906 shown in Fig. 9, so a detailed explanation will be omitted, but the originator in this process can be read as the decision maker.

[0106] The function of determining an area of ​​expertise 1007 is to determine the area of ​​expertise of the decision maker based on the area of ​​expertise key set in the area of ​​expertise key setting 1006. The specific process is the same as the process 907 shown in Fig. 9, so a detailed explanation will be omitted, but the originator of the proposal in this process can be read as the decision maker.

[0107] The process from 1008 referring to conference guide information to 1010 determining the specialty process is a flow for outputting an evaluation corresponding to the specialty process 403 among the evaluation viewpoints in FIG. 4, and is the same flow as the process from 908 referring to conference guide information to 910 determining the specialty area in FIG. 9. The function of referring to conference guide information 1008 is to refer to conference guide information among the conference information referred to in the function of referring to conference information 1001 .

[0108] Extraction of process discrimination words 1009 is a function of extracting process discrimination words for determining which process in the project the conference is located in, based on the conference guide information referenced in Reference of conference guide information 1008. The specific processing is similar to process 909 shown in Fig. 9, so a description thereof will be omitted, but the originator in this processing can be read as the decision maker.

[0109] The process of determining a preferred process 1010 is a function for determining the process of the proposer based on the process discrimination word extracted in the process discrimination word extraction 1009. For example, if the process discrimination word extracted in the process discrimination word extraction 1009 is "pre-regular", the process of the proposer is determined to be "pre-sales process". In Fig. 4, the requirements definition process is determined as an example.

[0110] Reflection to Skill Map 1011 is a function that reflects the results of each assessment made up to this point in the skill map. Here, the evaluation corresponding to Project Contribution 404 among the evaluation criteria in FIG. 4 has not been made at this stage. This is because Project Contribution is an evaluation criteria that can only be evaluated after the meeting. In other words, Reflection to Skill Map 1011 is a function that reflects the evaluation criteria in FIG. 4 other than Project Contribution 404 in the skill map.

[0111] The process from Referencing project materials 1012 to Analyzing contribution to problem solving 1013 is a flow to output an evaluation corresponding to the project contribution 404 among the evaluation criteria in Fig. 4. This project contribution is an evaluation criteria that cannot be evaluated during the meeting. Therefore, after the evaluation at the meeting is reflected in the skill map in the above-mentioned Reflecting skill map 1011, the project contribution is evaluated as described below and reflected again in the skill map. The function of referring to project materials 1012 is to refer to materials (project materials) relating to the project to which the conference body belongs, among the conference information referred to in the conference information reference 1001 .

[0112] The analysis of contribution to problem solving 1013 is a function that evaluates the proposer in accordance with the project contribution 404 among the evaluation criteria in Figure 4, based on the project documents referenced in the reference to project documents 1013. Here, it should be reiterated that project documents refer to documents necessary for project management, such as process documents, pending issues lists, and task lists. These documents are generally updated after the meeting, for example, via an external project evaluation system, based on decisions made in the meeting, etc.

[0113] Of the project contributions 404, the number of issues resolved refers to the number of items updated in the project documents as described above. For example, if a task in a task list transitions to a completed state after the meeting, it can be determined that the task transitioned to a completed state due to the decisions made at the meeting. The total number of tasks and pending items in the project documents that are counted in this way and transitioned to a completed state after the meeting is defined as the number of issues resolved. In Figure 4, for example, the number of issues resolved in the project contributions 404 at the previous meeting is 3. This means that there were three pending items or task items that transitioned to a completed state after the previous meeting.

[0114] The number of delayed issues in the project contribution 404, like the number of resolved issues mentioned above, is the total number of pending or task items in the referenced project documents that transitioned to a delayed state after the meeting, or that were delayed before the meeting and did not transition to completion by the meeting. Note that items that are currently in progress or under consideration and have a future deadline are not included in the calculation. These items are items that cannot be completed at the meeting, regardless of the amount of work completed at the meeting. In Figure 4, for example, the number of delayed issues in the project contribution 404 for the previous meeting is set to 1. This means that there was one pending or task item that transitioned to a delayed state after the previous meeting, or that was delayed before the previous meeting and did not transition to completion by the previous meeting.

[0115] Reflection of skill map (later) 1014 is a function for reflecting the results of the judgments made in the steps from referring to project materials 1012 to analyzing contribution to problem solving 1013 on the skill map.

[0116] Next, examples of screens on which the evaluation results of the meeting are output to each actor will be explained using Figures 11 to 13. These are the individual skill maps for each actor explained in Figures 2 to 4 projected onto the terminal screens of each actor.

[0117] Figure 11 shows an example of a meeting evaluation result screen related to the document creator.

[0118] Material creator 1101 indicates the role of the person in the conference, and indicates that this is an evaluation result screen for the material creator.

[0119] The ease of understanding of the material 1102 corresponds to the content of the ease of understanding of the material 202 in Fig. 2. In Fig. 11, the evaluation results are divided into two columns, the current result and the average of the past results, and the values ​​in the same columns in Fig. 2 are quoted.

[0120] Similarly, the basis level 1103 of the description content corresponds to the basis level 203 of the description content in FIG.

[0121] Similarly, the opinion elicitation degree 1104 corresponds to the content of the opinion elicitation degree 204 in FIG.

[0122] Figure 12 shows an example of the evaluation results screen for the meeting regarding the proposer.

[0123] The proposer 1201 indicates the role of the person in the meeting, and indicates that this is an evaluation result screen for the proposer.

[0124] Specialty area 1202 corresponds to the content of specialty area 302 in Fig. 3. As in Fig. 11, Fig. 12 shows evaluation results in two columns, the current result and the past average, and the values ​​in the same columns in Fig. 3 are quoted.

[0125] Similarly, the specialty process 1203 corresponds to the content of the specialty process 303 in FIG.

[0126] Similarly, the quantitative analysis 1204 corresponds to the content of the quantitative analysis 304 in FIG.

[0127] Similarly, PJ Contribution 1205 corresponds to the content of PJ Contribution 305 in Figure 3. However, as explained in the process flow for the proposer in Figure 9, PJ Contribution is an item that is only evaluated once the relevant PJ materials have been updated after the meeting. Therefore, on the evaluation results screen output to each actor immediately after the meeting, the current column is hidden by diagonal lines.

[0128] Figure 13 shows an example of a meeting evaluation result screen for decision makers.

[0129] The decision maker 1301 indicates the role of the person in question in the conference, and indicates that this is an evaluation result screen for the decision maker.

[0130] Specialty area 1302 corresponds to the content of specialty area 402 in Fig. 4. As in Figs. 11 and 12, Fig. 13 shows the evaluation results in two columns: the current evaluation and the average evaluation over the past years, and the values ​​in the same columns in Fig. 4 are quoted.

[0131] Similarly, the specialty process 1303 corresponds to the content of the specialty process 403 in FIG.

[0132] Similarly, the PJ contribution 1304 corresponds to the content of the PJ contribution 404 in Figure 4. However, as explained in the process flow for the decision maker in Figure 10, the PJ contribution is an item that is evaluated only after the relevant PJ materials have been updated after the meeting. Therefore, on the evaluation result screen output to each actor immediately after the meeting, the current column is hidden by diagonal lines.

[0133] As described above, in this system, a computer having a processor and a memory evaluates participants in a conference and generates a skill map of the participants. As described with reference to FIG. 7 and other figures, the processor identifies the roles of the participants based on conference information (various information related to the conference, such as the participant conversation information, participant surface information, conference reference material information, conference guide information, and project materials), and for each participant whose role has been identified, generates evaluation information (e.g., The above conference information is used to analyze (e.g., execute determination 810 of opinion elicitation degree, analysis 905 of other participants' reactions, and analysis 1005 of other participants' reactions) the evaluation information (e.g., evaluation of whether the comment contributed to the elicitation of opinions as a result of the participants' reactions to the document creator, or evaluation of the comment obtained from participant conversation information of participants other than the speaker regarding the originator or decision maker), and a skill map is generated for the participants whose roles are identified based on the analyzed evaluation information and the predetermined evaluation criteria (e.g., each item in the evaluation viewpoint columns 201 to 401) set for each participant whose role is identified. This makes it possible to generate a skill map according to the role of the participant, and to evaluate the speaker in the conference according to their role.

[0134] Furthermore, as explained using Figure 8 etc., if the role identified based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, the processor analyzes the evaluation information regarding the understandability of the materials as determined as the predetermined evaluation criteria, at least for terms determined to be ambiguous, the balance between text and figures in the materials, and the degree of color in the text and / or figures in the materials (e.g., understandability of materials 202), as in processes 803-806, and generates a skill map for the creator of the materials (e.g., the individual skill map for the creator of the materials shown in Figure 2) including the results of the analysis. This makes it possible to generate a skill map according to the role of the material creator from the perspective of the understandability of the materials.

[0135] Furthermore, as explained using Figure 8 etc., if the role identified based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, the processor analyzes the evaluation information regarding the degree of justification of the written content of the materials in steps 807-809, at least with respect to the percentage of numerical data and / or graphs in the materials, and the percentage of cited source information and / or linked information in the materials (for example, the degree of justification of the written content 203), which are set as the predetermined evaluation criteria, and generates a skill map for the creator of the materials (for example, the individual skill map for the creator of the materials shown in Figure 2) including the results of the analysis. This makes it possible to generate a skill map according to the role of the material creator from the perspective of the degree of justification of the written content.

[0136] 8 and other figures, if the role identified based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, the processor analyzes the evaluation information regarding the degree of opinion elicitation in the conference, as defined as the predetermined evaluation criteria, at least the number of remarks made in the conference and / or the tendency of the remarks (e.g., opinion elicitation degree 204), as in steps 810-814, and generates a skill map for the creator of the materials (e.g., the individual skill map for the creator of the materials shown in FIG. 2) including the results of the analysis. This makes it possible to generate a skill map according to the role of the material creator from the perspective of opinion elicitation degree.

[0137] 9 and the like, if the role identified based on the conference information is the originator of an idea spoken in the conference, the processor determines the area of ​​expertise of the originator (e.g., area of ​​expertise 302) based on the reactions of other participants to the originator's comments, as in processes 904-907 and 911-913, performs quantitative analysis (e.g., quantitative analysis 304) of the originator's comments in the determined area of ​​expertise based on the total number of ideas of the originator and the number of adopted ideas, and generates a skill map for the originator of the idea (e.g., individual skill map for the originator of the idea shown in FIG. 3) including the results of the quantitative analysis for the area of ​​expertise. This makes it possible to generate a skill map according to the role of the originator of the idea from the perspective of area of ​​expertise and quantitative analysis.

[0138] Furthermore, the processor generates a skill map for the idea originator (for example, an individual skill map for the idea originator shown in FIG. 3) including the contribution of the idea originator to the project (for example, PJ contribution 305) input to the conference participant skill map generation system after the conference, as described in processes 915 to 917 of FIG. 9. This allows for the generation of a skill map for the idea originator that takes into account the PJ contribution.

[0139] 10 and other figures, if the role identified based on the conference information is a decision maker for the matters to be decided in the conference, the processor determines the decision maker's specialty (e.g., specialty 402) based on the reactions of other participants to the decision maker's statements, as in steps 1004-1007 and 1012-1014, and generates a skill map for the decision maker (e.g., the individual skill map for the decision maker shown in FIG. 4) for the specialty, including the decision maker's contribution to the project (e.g., project contribution 404) input to the conference participant skill map generation system after the conference. This allows a skill map to be generated according to the decision maker's role in terms of specialty and project contribution. [Explanation of symbols]

[0140] 501: PC, 502: Smartphone, 503: Analytics Edge Server, 504: Analysis server, 505: Evaluation result DB

Claims

1. A conference participant skill map generation system for evaluating conference participants and generating a skill map of the participants by a computer having a processor and a memory, The processor: Based on participant conversation information of the participants obtained from an audio device during the conference, participant surface information obtained from a camera device indicating at least one of the participants' line of sight, facial expression, and posture, conference reference material information which is material referred to during the conference, conference guide information which is information regarding the conference issued when the conference is held, and conference information including materials related to the project to which the conference belongs, the voice of the participant conversation information is analyzed, and by determining the actor included in the participant surface information or by reading the name of the actor included in the conference guide information or the materials related to the project, the actor among the participants indicating either the creator of the materials used in the conference, the originator of the ideas spoken in the conference, or the decision maker regarding the matters decided in the conference is determined; In the determination, the creator of the material is determined by determining whether the participant is reading the material included in the participant conversation information or the person who updated the material; the originator of the idea is determined by determining whether the participant has given a positive evaluation to the statement included in the participant conversation information; and the decision maker is determined by determining whether the participant conversation information contains words that encourage approval or promotion of subsequent statements made after the statement made. Among the identified actors, evaluation information indicating whether the participants' reactions to the creator of the material contributed to the elicitation of opinions, or an evaluation of the comments made to the originator of the idea or the decision maker is analyzed using the participant conversation information and the conference reference material information included in the conference information for the evaluation of whether the actors contributed, and the participant conversation information and the participant surface information for the evaluation of the comments. generating a skill map for the identified actors based on the analyzed evaluation information and predetermined evaluation criteria defined for each of the identified actors; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

2. 2. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 1, The processor: If the actor determined based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, The evaluation information regarding the understandability of the material is analyzed with respect to at least terms determined to be ambiguous, the balance between the text and figures in the material, and the degree of color of the text and / or figures in the material, which are defined as the predetermined evaluation criteria; generating a skills map for the creator of the material that includes the results of the analysis; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

3. 2. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 1, The processor: If the actor determined based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, The evaluation information regarding the degree of preparation of the evidence for the content of the document is analyzed with respect to at least the proportion of numerical data and / or graphs in the document, and the proportion of citation source information and / or link destination information in the document, which are set as the predetermined evaluation criteria; generating a skills map for the creator of the material that includes the results of the analysis; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

4. 2. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 1, The processor: If the actor determined based on the conference information is the creator of the materials used in the conference, analyzing the evaluation information regarding the degree of opinion elicitation in the meeting with respect to at least the number of comments made in the meeting and / or the tendency of the comments, which are defined as the predetermined evaluation criteria; generating a skills map for the creator of the material that includes the results of the analysis; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

5. 2. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 1, The processor: If the actor determined based on the meeting information is the originator of the idea spoken in the meeting, determining the area of ​​expertise of the proposer based on the reactions of other participants to the statements of the proposer, and performing a quantitative analysis of the statements of the proposer in the determined area of ​​expertise based on the total number of ideas of the proposer and the number of adopted ideas of the proposer; Regarding the area of ​​expertise, a summary of the originator of the idea, including the results of the quantitative analysis Generate a kill map, A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

6. 6. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 5, The processor: generating a skill map for the idea originator, including the contribution of the idea originator to the project, input into the conference participant skill map generation system after the conference, for the area of ​​expertise; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

7. 2. The conference participant skill map generation system according to claim 1, The processor: If the actor determined based on the meeting information is a decision maker regarding decisions made in the meeting, determining whether the other participants' reactions to the statement of the decision maker, obtained from the participant conversation information or the participant surface information included in the conference information, indicate a positive evaluation of the statement, thereby determining the specialty of the decision maker; generating a skill map for the decision maker, including the decision maker's contribution to the project, which is input into the conference participant skill map generation system after the conference, for the area of ​​expertise; A conference participant skill map generation system characterized by:

8. A conference participant skill map generation method carried out by a conference participant skill map generation system that evaluates conference participants and generates skill maps of the participants using a computer having a processor and a memory, comprising: Based on participant conversation information of the participants obtained from an audio device during the conference, participant surface information obtained from a camera device indicating at least one of the participants' line of sight, facial expression, and posture, conference reference material information which is material referred to during the conference, conference guide information which is information regarding the conference issued when the conference is held, and conference information including materials related to the project to which the conference belongs, the voice of the participant conversation information is analyzed, and by determining the actor included in the participant surface information or by reading the name of the actor included in the conference guide information or the materials related to the project, the actor among the participants indicating either the creator of the materials used in the conference, the originator of the ideas spoken in the conference, or the decision maker regarding the matters decided in the conference is determined; In the determination, the creator of the material is determined by determining whether the participant is reading the material included in the participant conversation information or the person who updated the material; the originator of the idea is determined by determining whether the participant has given a positive evaluation to the statement included in the participant conversation information; and the decision maker is determined by determining whether the participant's subsequent statement included in the participant conversation information contains words encouraging approval or promotion of the statement; among the determined actors, evaluation is made as to whether the participants' reactions to the creator of the material contributed to eliciting opinions, and evaluation information indicating an evaluation of the statement to the originator of the idea or the decision maker is analyzed using the participant conversation information and the conference reference material information included in the conference information to evaluate whether the actors contributed; and analysis is made using the participant conversation information and the participant surface information to evaluate the statement. generating a skill map for the identified actors based on the analyzed evaluation information and predetermined evaluation criteria defined for each of the identified actors; A method for generating a conference participant skill map.

Images