Evaluation device and program

Abstract

To provide an evaluation device and program capable of appropriately evaluating a current situation of an organization and / or employees.SOLUTION: A question database of an evaluation device for performing evaluation on the basis of answers to questions includes a plurality of first question categories, second question categories belonging to any of the first question categories, third question categories associated with one, two or more of the second question categories, a first question group composed of two or more of the questions associated with the second question categories, and a second question group composed of two or more of the questions associated with the third question categories. A state evaluation value showing a prescribed state of an organization and / or employees is calculated on the basis of answers to questions extracted from the first question group, and a relative evaluation value showing relative evaluation of the organization and / or the employees is calculated on the basis of answers to questions extracted from the second question group.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to an evaluation apparatus and a program, and more particularly to an evaluation apparatus and a program capable of appropriately evaluating the current state of an organization and / or employees.

Background Art

[0002] As an information processing system for supporting the implementation of questionnaires in companies and other organizations, for example, a questionnaire support apparatus disclosed in Patent Document 1 is known.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] In recent years, in companies and other organizations, it is required to maintain high levels of employee health and motivation for work in order to improve the productivity of employees and the company as a whole. In response, companies and other organizations regularly conduct questionnaires for employees to grasp the productivity and other conditions of the organization and / or employees. Patent Document 1 and other conventional information processing systems are highly effective in promoting the above corporate activities efficiently.

[0005] On the other hand, in the above corporate activities, for example, simply aggregating and scoring questionnaire results may not be sufficient to fully achieve issues such as productivity improvement. For example, in order to identify one's own strengths and areas for improvement, it is necessary to analyze not only the evaluation results such as simple scoring but also the factors that led to the evaluation results. Conventional information processing systems have had the problem of not being able to provide sufficient information for performing such analysis.

[0006] In view of the above-mentioned problems, the present invention aims to provide an evaluation device and program that can appropriately evaluate the current state of an organization and / or its employees. [Means for solving the problem]

[0007] An evaluation device according to the present invention, made to solve the aforementioned problems, is an evaluation device that presents questions to an employee of an organization and performs an evaluation of the organization and / or the employee based on the answers to the presented questions, comprising: a question presentation unit that extracts a plurality of the questions from a question database provided by the evaluation device and presents them to the employee; an evaluation unit that calculates an evaluation value indicating the evaluation based on the employee's answers to the questions presented by the question presentation unit; and an evaluation presentation unit that presents the evaluation value calculated by the evaluation unit to the organization and / or the employee as an evaluation presentation screen displayed on a predetermined display unit, wherein the evaluation presentation unit includes a state display area that displays a state evaluation value which is the evaluation value indicating a good state for a predetermined category of the organization and / or the employee; and a total display area that displays a total evaluation value which is the evaluation value indicating the overall productivity of the organization and / or the employee. ,set The system is characterized by presenting the evaluation value as an evaluation presentation screen, which includes a relative evaluation area for displaying the relative evaluation value, which is the evaluation value indicating the relative evaluation of the weaver and / or employee.

[0008] The evaluation device according to the present invention has the relative evaluation area as described above Relative evaluation The system may also include a high-evaluation region that presents the aforementioned high relative evaluation value as a strong point.

[0009] The evaluation device according to the present invention has the relative evaluation area as described above Relative evaluation The system may include low-evaluation areas that present the aforementioned low relative evaluation values ​​as weak points.

[0010] The evaluation apparatus according to the present invention is The status evaluation values ​​presented in the status display area include, at a minimum, evaluation values ​​indicating a good status in the social category, which represents the employee's relationship with the organization and / or other employees within the organization. You may do so.

[0011] The evaluation apparatus according to the present invention is The status evaluation values ​​presented in the status display area include, at a minimum, evaluation values ​​indicating a good state in the mental category, which represents a perspective on the employee's psychological state. You may do so.

[0012] The evaluation apparatus according to the present invention is The status evaluation values ​​presented in the status display area include, at a minimum, evaluation values ​​indicating a good state in the physical category, which represents aspects of the employee's physical condition. You may do so.

[0013] The evaluation device according to the present invention is in the state display The region may include a state radar chart region that displays the state evaluation values ​​using a radar chart, and a state evaluation table region that displays the state evaluation values ​​in a table format.

[0014] The evaluation apparatus according to the present invention is The aforementioned overall display area includes an overall evaluation value area that displays the overall evaluation value of an organization or employee, and an overall evaluation distribution area that shows the distribution of overall evaluation values ​​in one or more organizations. You may do so. [Effects of the Invention]

[0015] According to the configuration of the present invention, a state evaluation value indicating a predetermined state of the organization and / or employees is calculated based on the answers to questions associated with the second question category, and a relative evaluation value indicating the relative evaluation of the organization and / or employees is calculated based on the answers to questions associated with the third question category, which is associated with one or more of the second question categories. By performing a relative evaluation using the questions used to evaluate the state and other related questions, it is possible to grasp the high or low state, as well as the factors contributing to the high or low state, from the relative evaluation value, and to appropriately evaluate the current state of the organization and / or employees. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0016] [Figure 1] This figure shows the configuration of the evaluation device in one example of this embodiment. [Figure 2] This figure shows the configuration of the question in the same embodiment. [Figure 3] This figure shows examples of questions belonging to the first group of questions in the same embodiment. [Figure 4] This figure shows examples of questions belonging to the second group of questions in the same embodiment. [Figure 5] This is a flowchart showing the processing flow in the same embodiment. [Figure 6]It is a diagram showing the configuration of an evaluation presentation screen in the same embodiment.

Embodiment for Carrying out the Invention

[0017] Hereinafter, an example of an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 is a diagram showing the configuration of an evaluation device 100 in an example of this embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the evaluation device 100 in an example of this embodiment includes a question database 101, a question presentation unit 102, an evaluation presentation unit 103, and an evaluation unit 104.

[0018] The evaluation device 100 in an example of this embodiment is a device that presents questions to employees of an organization and performs evaluations on the organization and / or employees based on the answers to the presented questions. Note that the number of organizations for which the evaluation device 100 performs evaluations can be arbitrarily selected. For example, evaluations can be performed on a single organization, or evaluations can be performed on each of a plurality of organizations. In an example of this embodiment, it is configured to perform evaluations on each of a plurality of organizations regarding the organization and its employees.

[0019] In an example of this embodiment, the evaluation device 100 is configured using a server - type computer. A program that causes the computer to function as the evaluation device 100 is stored in a storage device such as the computer's HDD (Hard Disk Drive). By loading the program into the computer's memory and executing it with the CPU (Central Processing Unit), the computer is made to function as the evaluation device 100. Note that the hardware configuration of the evaluation device 100 can be arbitrarily changed. For example, the evaluation device 100 can be configured by two or more computers.

[0020] The question database 101 is a database that stores questions presented to employees of an organization when the evaluation device 100 performs an evaluation of the organization and / or its employees. In one example of this embodiment, an RDBMS (Relational Database Management System) is built into the evaluation device 100, and a portion of the area of ​​the RDBMS is used as the question database 101.

[0021] In one example of this embodiment, the question database 101 includes a first to third question category that classifies questions from the perspective of the question, a first group of questions associated with the second question category, and a second group of questions associated with the third question category (not shown in Figure 1). The structure of the questions will be described later.

[0022] The question presentation unit 102 extracts multiple questions from the aforementioned question database 101 and presents them to the employee by displaying them on the display device of the user terminal 200. In one example of this embodiment, multiple questions are extracted from the first question group and the second question group, respectively, and presented to the employee. The number of questions to be extracted and the extraction method can be arbitrarily selected. When an employee answers a displayed question by operating the user terminal 200, information indicating the answer is transmitted to the evaluation device 100 and used by the evaluation unit 104, which will be described later, to calculate an evaluation value.

[0023] The evaluation presentation unit 103 presents the evaluation values ​​calculated by the evaluation unit 104 (described later) to the organization and / or employees. In one example of this embodiment, as described above, the evaluation device 100 and the user terminal 200 are connected to each other via the network 300, and the evaluation presentation unit 103 displays the evaluation values ​​on the display device of the user terminal 200.

[0024] The evaluation unit 104 calculates evaluation values ​​that indicate an evaluation of the organization and / or employees based on the employees' answers to the questions presented by the question presentation unit 102. In one example of this embodiment, the aforementioned evaluation values ​​include a status evaluation value, an overall evaluation value, and a relative evaluation value, which are calculated by the status evaluation unit 104a, the overall evaluation unit 104b, and the relative evaluation unit 104c, respectively, which are provided by the evaluation unit 104.

[0025] The status evaluation unit 104a calculates the aforementioned status evaluation value. The status evaluation value is a value that indicates the status of the organization and / or employees in each of the second question categories provided by the question database 101, and is calculated based on the answers to questions extracted from the first group of questions provided by the question database 101, as will be described later. In one example of this embodiment, the first to third question categories are provided as question categories that classify the questions presented to employees by perspective, and the status evaluation value is a value that indicates the status of the organization and / or employees in terms of the perspective of the second question category to which the question used to calculate the status evaluation value belongs. Any perspective can be arbitrarily selected as the second question category. For example, if a second question category with health as the perspective is provided, the status evaluation value in that second question category will be a value that indicates the health of the organization and / or employees, or if a second question category with productivity as the perspective is provided, the status evaluation value in that second question category will be a value that indicates the productivity of the organization and / or employees.

[0026] The overall evaluation unit 104b calculates the overall evaluation value mentioned above. The overall evaluation value is a value that indicates the overall productivity of the organization and / or employees, and is calculated based on the status evaluation value mentioned above, as will be described later.

[0027] The relative evaluation unit 104c calculates the aforementioned relative evaluation values. The relative evaluation values ​​are values ​​that indicate the relative evaluation of the organization and / or employees in each of the third question categories provided in the question database 101, and are calculated based on the answers to the questions extracted from the second questions provided in the question database 101, as will be described later.

[0028] The user terminal 200 is a terminal used by employees who answer questions. In one example of this embodiment, the user terminal 200 is configured using a well-known computer. The computer used as the user terminal 200 may be, for example, a stationary personal computer, a portable smartphone or tablet PC, or a dedicated terminal that communicates with the evaluation device 100 using a dedicated communication protocol. However, it must be equipped with a display or other display device 201 that displays questions and evaluations, and a keyboard, touch panel, or other input device 202 for entering answers. In another example of this embodiment, the user terminal 200 is used as the terminal used by employees, and the system is built as a server-client model information processing system with the evaluation device 100 as the server and the user terminal 200 as the client. However, for example, the evaluation device 100 may be configured in a standalone configuration, allowing employees to directly operate the evaluation device 100 to answer questions and perform other actions.

[0029] In one example of this embodiment, as described above, the network 300 to which the evaluation device 100 and the user terminal 200 are connected for communication may be a wide-area computer network such as the so-called Internet, or a LAN (Local Area Network). Alternatively, a VPN (Virtual Private Network) built on a wide-area network may be used. Furthermore, the communication protocol and other methods between the evaluation device 100 and the user terminal 200 may be any well-known method. For example, the evaluation device 100 may function as a web application server and the user terminal 200 as a web client, and the web application may be configured to communicate using HTTP as the communication protocol, or the evaluation device 100 and the user terminal 200 may communicate using a dedicated communication protocol.

[0030] The above describes the configuration of the evaluation device 100 in one example of this embodiment. Next, the configuration of the question in one example of this embodiment will be explained.

[0031] Figure 2 is a schematic diagram showing the structure of questions in one example of this embodiment. As shown in Figure 2, the question database 101 in one example of this embodiment is configured to include a first question category C100, a second question category C200, and a third question category C300 as question categories that classify questions from the perspective of the question, and to include a first question group G100 and a second question group G200 as question groups consisting of two or more questions associated with any of the question categories.

[0032] The first question category C100, the second question category C200, and the third question category C300 are question categories that classify questions hierarchically in three levels.

[0033] The first question category C100 is the first layer, or the highest layer, of the hierarchical question categories. In this example, the first question category C100 is specifically configured to include a social category C101 that shows perspectives on the employee's relationship with the organization and / or other employees, a mental category C102 that shows perspectives on the employee's psychological state, and a physical category C103 that shows perspectives on the employee's physical state.

[0034] The second question category C200 is the second-tier question category in the hierarchical question categories. The second question category C200 is a question category belonging to any of the first question categories C100 described above. In one example of this embodiment, the second question category C200 belonging to the social category C101 includes the social capital category C201, which shows the perspective on employees' social capital within the organization; the second question category C200 belonging to the mental category C102 includes the work engagement category C202, which shows the perspective on employees' motivation for work, and the psychological stress category C203, which shows the perspective on employees' psychological stress; and the second question category C200 belonging to the physical category C103 includes the musculoskeletal complaint category C204, which shows the perspective on employees' subjective symptoms in the musculoskeletal system, the lifestyle-related disease category C205, which shows the perspective on employees' lifestyle-related diseases, and the infectious disease category C206, which shows the perspective on employees' infectious diseases.

[0035] The third question category C300 is the third layer, or the lowest layer, of the hierarchical question categories. In this example, the third question category C300 is a question category belonging to one or more of the second question categories C200, and includes the reward category C301, which indicates a perspective on compensation; the discretion category C302, which indicates a perspective on discretion; the suitability of work category C303, which indicates a perspective on suitability of work; the workload category C304, which indicates a perspective on workload in work; the psychological safety category C305, which indicates a perspective on psychological safety; the autonomy of work category C306, which indicates a perspective on autonomy in work; and the communication category C305, which indicates a perspective on communication. The categories are structured to include Category C307, the Rest / Relaxation Category C308 which indicates perspectives on rest and relaxation, the Physical Activity Category C309 which indicates perspectives on physical activity, the Food Category C310 which indicates perspectives on meals, the Comfort Category C311 which indicates perspectives on comfort, the Cleanliness Category C312 which indicates perspectives on cleanliness, the Health Awareness Category C313 which indicates perspectives on health awareness, the Exercise Category C314 which indicates perspectives on exercise, the Nutrition Category C315 which indicates perspectives on nutrition, and the Rest Category C316 which indicates perspectives on rest and sleep.

[0036] The first question group G100 is a group of questions consisting of two or more questions linked to the second question category C200. In one example of this embodiment, the questions are configured to be linked to any of the second question category C200, that is, any of the social capital category C201 to infectious disease category C206. As described above, the employee's answers to the questions belonging to the first question group G100 are used by the state evaluation unit 104a of the evaluation unit 104 of the evaluation device 100 to calculate the state evaluation value.

[0037] The second question group G200 is a group of questions consisting of two or more questions linked to the third question category C300. In one example of this embodiment, the questions are configured to be linked to any of the third question category C300, that is, any of the reward category C301 to the rest category C316. As described above, the employee's answers to the questions belonging to the second question group G200 are used by the relative evaluation unit 104c of the evaluation unit 104 of the evaluation device 100 to calculate relative evaluation values.

[0038] Figures 3 and 4 show examples of questions in an example of this embodiment. Figure 3 shows an example of a question belonging to the first question group G100, and Figure 4 shows an example of a question belonging to the second question group G200. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the questions in this example of this embodiment are questions that require employees to select one from a predetermined number of options. The question text Q101 corresponds to the option Q102 and the question category Q103 to which the question is associated. In addition, in the question belonging to the first question group G100 shown in Figure 3, the question category Q103 is configured to be associated with one of the second question categories C200, and in the question belonging to the second question group G200 shown in Figure 4, the question category Q103 is configured to be associated with one of the third question categories C300. In this example of this embodiment, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, each question has four options Q102, but the format of the answer to the question and the number of options can be changed arbitrarily. For example, questions that allow employees to freely write their answers may be provided.

[0039] The above describes the structure of the questions in one example of this embodiment. In this example, the first group of questions G100 and the second question Q200 are classified by question categories consisting of three levels: the first question category C100 to the third question category C300. However, it is also possible to add different question categories, question groups, or questions. For example, a fourth question category may be provided, which includes a personality category that shows perspectives on an employee's personality, and a third group of questions linked to the fourth question category. The question presentation unit 102 may then extract multiple questions from each of the first to third question groups. In this case, the evaluation unit 104 may further change the calculation method or increase or decrease the coefficients used in the calculation based on the answers to the personality-related questions when calculating the evaluation value.

[0040] Next, the processing flow of the evaluation device 100 in an example of this embodiment will be described. Figure 5 is a flowchart showing the processing flow by the evaluation device 100 in an example of this embodiment.

[0041] In one example of this embodiment, first, the question presentation unit 102 of the evaluation device 100 extracts questions from the question database 101 (step S101). The extraction of questions is performed from the first question group G100 and the second question group G200 of the question database 101 according to a predetermined method. The predetermined method can be arbitrarily selected; for example, the number of questions to be extracted and the respective ratios of the second question category C200 and the third question category may be set in advance, and the above number of questions may be extracted in proportion to the second question category C200 and the third question category C300.

[0042] The extracted questions are then presented to the employee by the question presentation unit 102, which displays them on the display device 201 of the user terminal 200 (step S102).

[0043] When an employee answers a question, a message containing that answer is sent from the user terminal 200 to the evaluation device 100, and the evaluation device 100 receives the message (step S103). Upon receiving the message, the evaluation device 100 extracts the employee's answer from the message and performs the evaluation process by the evaluation unit 104 (step S104).

[0044] The evaluation process in step S104 calculates an evaluation value for the organization and / or employees based on the employee's response as described above. In step S104 of this embodiment, the state evaluation unit 104a calculates a state evaluation value (step S104a), the overall evaluation unit 104b calculates an overall evaluation value (step S104b), and the relative evaluation unit 104c calculates a relative evaluation value (step S104c).

[0045] Step S104a calculates a status evaluation value indicating a predetermined state of the organization and / or employees in each of the second question categories C200, based on the employees' answers to the questions extracted from the first question group G100 described above. As described above, each question in this example of the embodiment is linked to one of the second question categories C200, i.e., social capital category C201 to infectious disease category C206. Step S104a calculates the status evaluation values ​​of employees and organizations for each of the second question categories based on the employees' answers to the questions linked to that second question category C200. Any well-known calculation method may be arbitrarily selected, but in this example of the embodiment, each of the aforementioned options Q102 is assigned a score, and for each of the second question categories C200, the scores of the options selected by the employees are added together and converted so that a perfect score equals 100 points to calculate the employee's status evaluation value. The organization's status evaluation value is calculated by finding the average of the status evaluation values ​​of the employees belonging to that organization. Furthermore, it is optional whether to calculate the status evaluation value for the organization as a whole, for each employee, or for both. It is also optional whether to calculate the organizational status evaluation value each time a response is received from an employee, or when a predetermined number or percentage of responses have been received.

[0046] Step S104b calculates an overall evaluation value that indicates the overall productivity of the organization and / or employees based on the state evaluation values ​​calculated in step S104a described above. Similar to step S104a, any well-known method may be arbitrarily selected for the calculation method, but in one example of this embodiment, state evaluation values ​​are calculated for each of the second question categories in step S104a described above, and the overall evaluation value is calculated by weighting and summing the state evaluation values ​​of one employee for each of the second question categories to calculate the overall evaluation value of that employee, and then calculating the overall evaluation value of the organization by finding the average of the overall evaluation values ​​of the employees belonging to the organization.

[0047] Step S104c calculates relative evaluation values ​​for each of the third question categories, indicating the relative evaluation of the organization and / or employees, based on the employees' answers to the questions extracted from the second question group G200 described above. Similar to steps S104a and S104b described above, any well-known method may be arbitrarily selected for calculation, but in one example of this embodiment, for each of the third question categories, the scores of the options selected by the employee are added up and converted so that the maximum score is 100 points to calculate the relative evaluation value of the employee. In addition, the relative evaluation value of the organization is calculated by finding the average of the relative evaluation values ​​of the employees belonging to the organization. The relative evaluation value may be the value obtained by the above summation and conversion, or it may be converted into a standard score or other dimensionless number to make it easier to perform relative evaluation.

[0048] Once the calculation of the evaluation value in step S104 is complete, the evaluation presentation unit 103 of the evaluation device 100 then presents the calculated evaluation value to the organization and / or employees (step S105).

[0049] Figure 6 shows the configuration of the evaluation presentation screen in an example of this embodiment. In this example, the evaluation presentation unit 103 displays the evaluation presentation screen on the display device 201 of the user terminal 200. As shown in Figure 6, the evaluation presentation screen W100 in this example consists of a comprehensive evaluation area W110, a state evaluation area W120, and a relative evaluation area W130.

[0050] As mentioned above, the evaluation device 100 in this embodiment is a device that performs evaluations of an organization and its employees, and the evaluation display screen W100 is a screen that displays either the evaluation value for the organization or the evaluation value for the employees. If an employee using the user terminal 200 has the authority to view the evaluation value for the organization, they can choose to view the evaluation value for the organization or for themselves. On the other hand, if an employee who does not have the above authority views the evaluation display screen W100, they can only view the evaluation value for themselves.

[0051] The overall evaluation area W110 is an area that displays an overall evaluation value indicating the overall productivity of the organization and / or its employees. In one example of this embodiment, the overall evaluation area W110 consists of an overall evaluation value area W111 that displays the overall evaluation value of the organization or its employees, and an overall evaluation distribution area W112 that shows the distribution of overall evaluation values ​​in one or more organizations.

[0052] The status evaluation area W120 is an area that displays status evaluation values ​​indicating the predetermined status of an organization and / or employee in each of the second question categories C200. In one example of this embodiment, the status evaluation area W120 consists of a status radar chart area W121 that displays the status evaluation values ​​using a radar chart, and a status evaluation table area W122 that displays the status evaluation values ​​in tabular format.

[0053] The relative evaluation area W130 is an area that displays relative evaluation values ​​indicating the relative evaluation of an organization and / or an employee in each of the third question categories C300. In one example of this embodiment, the relative evaluation area W130 consists of a high evaluation area W131 that displays relative evaluation values ​​with high relative evaluations, i.e., relative evaluation values ​​that receive high scores when compared with a predetermined comparison target, and a low evaluation area W132 that displays relative evaluation values ​​with low relative evaluations, i.e., relative evaluation values ​​that receive low scores when compared with the above predetermined comparison target. The comparison target for relative evaluation can be arbitrarily selected, but in one example of this embodiment, when displaying an employee's evaluation value, other employees in the organization to which the employee belongs are used as the comparison target, and when displaying an organization's evaluation value, other organizations are used as the comparison target.

[0054] As mentioned above, the relative evaluation values ​​in this embodiment are calculated for each of the third question categories C300 in step S104c based on the employee's answers to the questions extracted from the second question group G200. Since each of the third question categories C300 is linked to one or more second question categories C200, each of the relative evaluation values ​​calculated in step S104c is an evaluation value linked to one or more second question categories C200.

[0055] In one example of this embodiment, the status evaluation area W120 displays the status evaluation values ​​for each of the second question categories C200. If an employee selects one of the displayed status evaluation values ​​by operating the user terminal 200, relative evaluation values ​​associated with the second question category of the selected status evaluation value will be displayed in the high-evaluation area W131 for relative evaluation values ​​with a higher relative evaluation, and in the low-evaluation area W132 for relative evaluation values ​​with a lower relative evaluation.

[0056] This concludes the description of one example of this embodiment, but the configuration of the present invention is not limited to the above. For example, in this example of the embodiment, the extraction of questions by step S101 and the evaluation of answers by step S104 are performed in order, but the steps S101 to S103 may be repeatedly executed to present questions to employees in multiple installments. In this case, in the second and subsequent repetitions of steps S101 to S103, questions may be extracted in step S101 based on the answers obtained in the previous step S103, for example, questions may be extracted from the second group of questions based on the employee's answers to the questions extracted from the first group of questions.

[0057] Furthermore, in this example, the question categories are a hierarchical structure consisting of the first question category C100 to the second question category C300. However, in addition to this, question categories that do not belong to the hierarchical structure may be provided, or questions that do not belong to any question category may be provided. For example, the question database 101 may include questions concerning employees' subjective productivity as questions that do not belong to any question category. In this case, in steps S101 and S102, in addition to the questions extracted from the first question group G100 and the second question group G200, the employee is presented with the above-mentioned questions concerning employees' subjective productivity. In step S104b, when calculating the overall evaluation value, the overall evaluation value may be calculated based on the employee's answers to the above-mentioned questions concerning employees' subjective productivity in addition to the status evaluation value.

[0058] Other specific configurations are not limited to this embodiment, and various modifications are possible without departing from the spirit of the present invention. [Explanation of symbols]

[0059] 100 Evaluation device 101 Question Database 102 Question presentation part 103 Evaluation Presentation Section 104a Condition evaluation unit 104b General Evaluation Department 104c Relative Evaluation Section 104 Evaluation Department 200 user terminals 201 Display device 202 Input device 301 Network

Claims

1. An evaluation device that presents questions to the employees of an organization and evaluates the organization and / or its employees based on their answers to those questions, A question presentation unit that extracts multiple questions from a question database provided by the evaluation device and presents them to the employee, An evaluation unit calculates an evaluation value indicating the evaluation based on the employee's answers to the questions presented by the question presentation unit, An evaluation presentation unit presents the evaluation values ​​calculated by the evaluation unit to the organization and / or the employee as an evaluation presentation screen displayed on a predetermined display unit, Equipped with, The evaluation presentation unit is, A status display area that displays a status evaluation value, which is an evaluation value indicating a good state for a predetermined category of an organization and / or employee, A comprehensive display area for displaying the overall evaluation value, which is the evaluation value indicating the overall productivity of the organization and / or its employees, A relative evaluation area for displaying the relative evaluation value, which is the evaluation value that indicates the relative evaluation of the organization and / or employees, The evaluation value is presented as the evaluation display screen, which includes the evaluation, Evaluation device.

2. The aforementioned relative evaluation region includes a high evaluation region in which the relative evaluation value with a high relative evaluation is presented as a strong point. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

3. The relative evaluation region includes a low evaluation region in which the relative evaluation value with a low relative evaluation is presented as a weak point. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

4. The state evaluation value presented in the state display area includes at least: The evaluation value includes an evaluation value indicating a favorable state in the social category, which represents the employee's relationship with the organization and / or other employees within the organization. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

5. The state evaluation value presented in the state display area includes at least: The evaluation value indicates a good state in the mental category, which represents a perspective on the psychological state of the employee. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

6. The state evaluation value presented in the state display area includes at least: The evaluation value indicates a good state in relation to the physical category, which represents a perspective on the physical condition of the employee. The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

7. The status display area is, A state radar chart area that displays the aforementioned state evaluation value using a radar chart, A state evaluation table area for displaying the aforementioned state evaluation values ​​in tabular format, including, The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

8. The aforementioned integrated display area is A comprehensive evaluation value area that displays the overall evaluation value of the organization or employees, A comprehensive evaluation distribution area showing the distribution of comprehensive evaluation values ​​in one or more organizations, including, The evaluation apparatus according to claim 1.

9. The computer is made to function as an evaluation device according to any one of claims 1 to 8. program.

Images