Evaluation system, evaluation method, and program

Abstract

The purpose of the present disclosure is to more appropriately evaluate the degree of adaptation of a user to a group to which the user belongs.　To achieve this purpose, the present disclosure provides an evaluation system for evaluating the degree of adaptation of a user to a group to which the user belongs, the evaluation system comprising: an individual evaluation unit that evaluates the degree of adaptation of the user by using psychological metrics of the user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs; and a transmission unit that transmits, to a prescribed communication terminal, evaluation result information including the user evaluation result evaluated by the individual evaluation unit.

Description

Evaluation system, evaluation method, and program

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a technique for evaluating a user's suitability for a group to which the user belongs.

[0002] In large groups such as the workplace, it is difficult to determine whether mental health support is sufficient for each individual. This has become even more difficult in recent years due to remote work and other factors. As a result, managers and human resources departments often do not know what specific support they should provide to individuals.

[0003] Therefore, a system has been proposed that analyzes life logs related to the mental health of employees, such as their work status at work, and notifies relevant parties of abnormal situations if the mental health risk value is high (see Patent Document 1).

[0004] Patent No. 5656723

[0005] However, conventional systems do not evaluate the degree of compatibility of an individual with the group to which the individual belongs. Furthermore, the degree of compatibility of an individual with a group may differ depending on the size of the group. For example, if there are three types of groups: a specific section, a specific department, and a company, the goals of the specific section may be the same as the values ​​that the individual holds for the group, but the goals of the specific department or the company may differ from their values. Therefore, the degree of compatibility of an individual with a group may differ depending on the size of the group. In such cases, conventional systems have difficulty evaluating the compatibility of an individual with the group to which the individual belongs.

[0006] The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and has as its object to more appropriately evaluate the suitability of an individual user for a group to which the user belongs.

[0007] In order to solve the above problem, the invention of claim 1 is an evaluation system that evaluates a user's suitability for a group to which the user belongs, and includes a personal evaluation unit that evaluates the suitability of the user for each size of the group to which the user belongs using the user's psychological scale, and a transmission unit that transmits evaluation result information including the evaluation result of the user evaluated by the personal evaluation unit to a specified communication terminal.

[0008] As described above, the present invention provides an advantage in that it is possible to more appropriately evaluate the suitability of a user for a group to which the user belongs.

[0009] 1 is a schematic diagram of a communication system according to the present embodiment; FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a psychological scale according to the present embodiment; FIG. 3 is an electrical hardware configuration diagram of an evaluation system, etc.; FIG. 4 is a functional configuration diagram of an evaluation system according to the embodiment; FIG. 5 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in a psychological scale DB for each individual group size; FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating questionnaire content for each group size; FIG. 7 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in an individual activity history DB; FIG. 8 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in an individual skill DB; FIG. 9 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in a group goal DB; FIG. 10 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in a proposal content DB, where (a) shows a small group size, (b) shows a medium group size, and (c) shows a large group size. A conceptual diagram of a proposal content DB; A sequence diagram illustrating questionnaire processing; A sequence diagram illustrating processing for evaluating an individual user and a group to which this user belongs; A flowchart illustrating evaluation processing for a specified user and a group to which the specified user belongs; A flowchart illustrating evaluation processing for a specified user and a group to which the specified user belongs; A conceptual diagram illustrating proposal result information; A sequence diagram illustrating another example of questionnaire processing.

[0010] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

[0011] [Outline of System of Embodiment] First, an outline of the configuration of a communication system of this embodiment will be described with reference to Fig. 1. Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of a communication system according to this embodiment.

[0012] As shown in FIG. 1, a communication system 10 of this embodiment is constructed by an evaluation system 30, a user terminal 50, and an administrator terminal 70.

[0013] The user terminal 50 is a computer, a communication terminal of a user belonging to a predetermined group, such as a node PC, a tablet terminal, or a desktop PC.

[0014] The administrator terminal 70 is a computer, a communication terminal of an administrator who manages users within a predetermined group to which the users belong, and is a node PC, a tablet terminal, a desktop PC, etc. The administrator varies depending on the size of the group to which the users belong, and may be, for example, the user's section manager, department manager, or a human resources officer in the company's human resources department.

[0015] The evaluation system 30, the user terminal 50, and the administrator terminal 70 can communicate with each other via a communication network 100 such as the Internet or a LAN (Local Area Network). The communication network 100 may be connected wirelessly or by wire.

[0016] The evaluation system 30 is composed of one or more computers. The evaluation system 30 evaluates the suitability of a user for a group to which the user belongs, and transmits evaluation result information including the evaluation results to a predetermined communication terminal such as an administrator terminal 70. At this time, the evaluation system 30 evaluates the suitability of the user for each size of the group to which the user belongs using a psychological scale for the individual user. The evaluation system 30 transmits the evaluation result information including suggestions for the group based on the individual user's evaluation result. Note that the evaluation system 30 may transmit the evaluation result information to a user terminal 50, which serves as a predetermined communication terminal.

[0017] <Example of Psychological Scale> An example of the psychological scale in this embodiment will now be described with reference to Fig. 2. Fig. 2 shows the contents of seven items as an example of the psychological scale. These seven items are a "Self-as-We Scale" used to quantitatively evaluate "ourselves as ourselves."

[0018] "A sense of unity" means "When the group I belong to succeeds, I feel happy as if it were my own success."

[0019] "A sense of dual activity" means that "when I am involved in the activities of the group I belong to, I feel both the sense that I am taking action myself and the sense that I am being forced to do something by the organization."

[0020] "Openness" indicates that "the group I belong to is able to function thanks to the support of people outside the organization."

[0021] "Decentralization" means that "even if the group you belong to has no leader, the members can carry out their activities smoothly among themselves."

[0022] "Wholeness" means that failures that occur in the efforts of a group to which one belongs cannot be blamed on any particular member of the group.

[0023] "Collaboration" means that even if there is someone in the group you belong to that you don't like, you should accept that person as a member.

[0024] "Delegation" means that "all members of the group to which one belongs should be entrusted with a certain range of decision-making."

[0025] [Hardware Configuration] <Hardware Configuration of Evaluation System> Next, the electrical hardware configuration of the evaluation system 30 will be described with reference to Fig. 3. Fig. 3 is a diagram showing the electrical hardware configuration of the evaluation system and the like.

[0026] The computer serving as the evaluation system 30 in FIG. 3 includes a drive device 1000, an auxiliary storage device 1002, a memory device 1003, a CPU 1004, an interface device 1005, a display device 1006, an input device 1007, an output device 1008, and the like, all of which are interconnected by a bus BS.

[0027] The program that realizes the processing on the computer is provided by a recording medium 1001, such as a CD-ROM or a memory card. When the recording medium 1001 storing the program is set in the drive device 1000, the program is installed from the recording medium 1001 to the auxiliary storage device 1002 via the drive device 1000. However, the program does not necessarily have to be installed from the recording medium 1001, but may be downloaded from another computer via the communication network 100. The auxiliary storage device 1002 stores the installed program as well as necessary files, data, etc.

[0028] The memory device 1003 reads and stores the program from the auxiliary storage device 1002 when an instruction to start the program is received. The CPU 1004 realizes the functions related to the device in accordance with the program stored in the memory device 1003. The interface device 1005 is used as an interface for connecting to a communication network, etc. The display device 1006 displays a GUI (Graphical User Interface) or the like according to the program. The input device 1007 is composed of a keyboard, mouse, buttons, a touch panel, etc., and is used to input various operation instructions. The output device 1008 outputs the results of calculations.

[0029] The user terminal 50 and the administrator terminal 70 have the same hardware configuration as the evaluation system 30, and therefore a description thereof will be omitted.

[0030] [Functional Configuration of Evaluation System] Next, the functional configuration of the evaluation system will be described with reference to Fig. 4. Fig. 4 is a functional configuration diagram of the evaluation system in the embodiment.

[0031] 4, the evaluation system 30 includes a receiving unit 31, an individual evaluation unit 32, a proposal content extraction unit 33, a group evaluation unit 34, an evaluation result information creation unit 35, and a transmission unit 36. Each of these units is a function realized by an instruction from the CPU 1004 in FIG. 3 based on a program.

[0032] Furthermore, in the auxiliary storage device 1002 or memory device 1003 in FIG. 3, a psychological scale DB 41 for each group size, an individual activity history DB 42, an individual skill DB 43, a group goal DB 44, and a proposal content DB 45 are constructed.

[0033] 4, the evaluation system 30 includes DBs 41 to 45, but may also include a server or the like storing at least one of DBs 41 to 45. The individual psychological scale DB 41 for each group size, the individual activity history DB 42, the individual skill DB 43, the group goal DB 44, and the proposal content DB 45 are examples of an individual psychological scale management unit for each group size, an individual activity history management unit, an individual skill management unit, a group goal management unit, and a proposal content management unit, respectively.

[0034] <DB Description> (Psychological scale DB for each individual group size) Figure 5 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in the psychological scale DB for each individual group size. As shown in Figure 5, the psychological scale DB 41 for each individual group size manages the group name, group size, and total score of the psychological scale of the group to which the user belongs, in association with each user ID of each user. Note that each item shown in Figure 5 is an example, and any of the items shown in Figure 5 may be omitted, or other items may be added.

[0035] Here, "group" refers to a group to which a user belongs, such as a section, department, or company.

[0036] 5, the "group size" is shown as three types: "small," "medium," and "large," but it may also be shown as a specific number of people. For example, a small group refers to a group with about 2 to 5 members, a medium group refers to a group with about 30 to 50 members, and a large group refers to a group with 100 or more members. The number of group sizes may also be two, four, or more.

[0037] The "total score of the psychological scale" indicates the sum of the user's responses on a five-point scale to the questionnaire regarding the seven items of the psychological scale shown in Fig. 2. Note that the score is not limited to the total score, and may be the average score, median, or the like.

[0038] Here, the contents of the questionnaire will be explained using FIG. 6. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing the contents of the questionnaire for each group size. As shown in FIG. 6, the questionnaire shows, for each group size, a questionnaire regarding the psychological scale items shown in FIG. 2 and five-point answer options for the questionnaire. As a result, the "total score of the psychological scale" shown in FIG. 5 indicates, for each group size, 7 items x 5 points, with a minimum of 7 points and a maximum of 35 points. Note that the contents of the questionnaire are not limited to those shown in FIG. 6, and other items can also be used. Furthermore, the number of questions may be increased or decreased depending on the group size.

[0039] (Individual Activity History DB) Fig. 7 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in the individual activity history DB. As shown in Fig. 7, the individual activity history DB 42 manages, for each user ID of each user, the group name of the group to which the user belongs, the group size, a history of chats within the group, and a history of web meetings within the group in association with each other. The history of chats within the group and the history of web meetings within the group are examples of a user's activity history.

[0040] Furthermore, the chat history within the group includes, as a history for a predetermined period (e.g., one month), the number of chats, the number of words in the chats, the number of positive words in the chats, and the number of negative words in the chats. Note that the items shown in Figure 7 are merely examples, and any of the items shown in Figure 7 may be omitted, or other items may be added.

[0041] The chat history within the group is used to quantify connections using a multidimensional Hawks process from the chat history, as disclosed in Reference 1. Note that although connections may be quantified, other methods may also be used.

[0042] <Reference 1> Nonaka Kenya, Yamashita Haruka, Hotta Hajime, Goto Masayuki, Network Construction Method Based on Communication Data on Business Chat Apps, Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 2022, Vol. 37, No. 2 (https: / / www.jstage.jst.go.jp / article / tjsai / 37 / 2 / 37_37-2_E-63 / _pdf) In this way, by managing chat history within a group, connections with members (constituents) within the group can be quantified from communication information between users in the group chat. This makes it possible to determine whether communication between members within the group is sufficient.

[0043] Furthermore, the history of web meetings within the group includes, as a history for a predetermined period (e.g., one month), the number of web meetings held, the average duration of the meetings, the number of comments made, the number of positive comments made, and the number of negative comments made. The history of web meetings within the group is quantified using a multidimensional Hawks process from the web meeting history using a function of a well-known video conferencing system. While the connections may be quantified, other methods may also be used.

[0044] In this way, by managing the history of Web meetings within a group, it becomes possible to determine whether communication is sufficient based on the status of Web meetings and the number of comments made.

[0045] (Individual Skills DB) FIG. 8 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in the individual skills DB. As shown in FIG. 8, the individual skills DB 43 manages, for each user ID, the user name, the group name to which the user belongs, the English (TOEIC, etc.) score, and the communication ability value in association with each other. The communication ability is rated on a five-point scale, with the higher the number, the higher the ability. The items shown in FIG. 8 are merely examples, and any of the items shown in FIG. 8 may be omitted, or other items may be added. The communication ability is evaluated by a superior or the like. The English score and communication ability value are examples of the user's skills. The user's skills may also include information processing-related skills, etc.

[0046] (Group Goal DB) Figure 9 is a conceptual diagram of data managed in the group goal DB. As shown in Figure 9, the group goal DB 44 manages, for each group size, the following as group goal values: chat within the group, web meetings within the group, average English score, and average communication ability score, in association with each other. Note that each item shown in Figure 9 is an example, and any of the items shown in Figure 9 may be omitted, or other items may be added.

[0047] Each item of the group chat and group web meeting corresponds to the individual activity history DB in FIG. 7. The average English score and the average communication ability score correspond to the individual skill DB in FIG. 8. The average score is an example of a statistical value. The statistical value may include, for each item, a total value (points), a median value (points), an average value (points) excluding outliers, etc. Furthermore, the statistical value can be calculated using various methods, such as a method using machine learning.

[0048] Furthermore, each goal may be set manually by the company's human resources department, or it may be set automatically using predictions that are based on machine learning that has previously learned the appropriate ideal state.

[0049] (Proposal Content DB) Figures 10 and 11 are conceptual diagrams of data managed in the proposal content DB. In Figure 10, (a) indicates a small group size, (b) indicates a medium group size, and (c) indicates a large group size.

[0050] The proposal content DB 45 manages, for each group size, proposal content for making support proposals to the manager or the like of the manager terminal 70 in accordance with the evaluation results by the individual evaluation unit 32. The proposal content DB 45 also manages, for each group size, proposal content for making support proposals to the manager or the like of the manager terminal 70 in accordance with the evaluation results by the group evaluation unit 34.

[0051] As shown in Fig. 10, the proposal content DB 45 associates and manages, for each group size, the total scores of the psychological scales for individuals and groups, the degree of achievement of the group's activity goal, and the proposal content to be proposed to the manager of the manager terminal 70. Note that Fig. 10 shows the total score (total score of each item) or average score for the individual psychological scale and the average score for the group psychological scale, but this is not limited to this. Also, the items shown in Fig. 10 are merely examples, and any of the items shown in Fig. 10 may be omitted, or other items may be added.

[0052] As shown in Figure 10, the content of the proposal varies depending on the total score of the individual's psychological scale or the degree of achievement of the group's activity goal. For example, if all seven items of the psychological scale score a 3, the total score is 21. If the score falls below 21, a support proposal will be made to the manager, etc. If the score falls further below 11, a different support proposal will be made to the manager, etc. Similarly, if the achievement degree of the group's activity goal is below 100% of the target value in Figure 9, a support proposal will be made to the manager, etc. If the achievement degree falls further below 50%, a different support proposal will be made to the manager, etc.

[0053] 11, the proposal content DB 45 manages, in association with each item of unachieved goals of the group, proposal content for making support proposals to the manager of the manager terminal 70. Note that each item shown in FIG. 11 is an example, and any of the items shown in FIG. 11 may be omitted or other items may be added.

[0054] For example, if the variance value of the group's English scores exceeds the target value in Fig. 9, it is considered that communication within the group is not going well due to variations in English ability, and a support proposal will be made to the manager, etc. Similarly, if the variance value of communication ability exceeds the target value in Fig. 9, a support proposal will be made to the manager, etc.

[0055] It should be noted that the evaluation system 30 does not necessarily have to have the proposal content DB 45. For example, the evaluation system 30 can input the evaluation results of the group state evaluated in the group evaluation portion and dynamically generate the content of the support proposal using a technology such as artificial intelligence (AI).

[0056] <Functional Configuration> Next, each functional configuration of the evaluation system 30 will be described with reference to Fig. 4. Fig. 4 is a functional configuration diagram of the evaluation system.

[0057] The receiving unit 31 receives data (information) from the user terminal 50 and the administrator terminal 70 via the communication network 100 .

[0058] The individual evaluation unit 32 evaluates the suitability of the user for each size of group to which the user belongs using the psychological scale of the individual user. Specifically, the individual evaluation unit 32 evaluates the suitability of the user for each size of group to which the user belongs using the results of a questionnaire regarding the psychological scale. For example, the individual evaluation unit 32 gives a good evaluation if the total score of the answers to the seven psychological scale items on a five-point scale is 21 points or more, and gives a bad evaluation if the total score is less than 21 points.

[0059] The proposal content extraction unit 33 extracts information on proposal content from the proposal content DB according to the evaluation results of the individual evaluation unit 32 and the group evaluation unit 34.

[0060] The group evaluation unit 34 evaluates the activity history of each group, based on the size of the group to which the users belong, using statistical values ​​of the activity history of each user belonging to the group or statistical values ​​of the skills of each user. In this case, the statistical values ​​include, for each item, the average value (points), total value (points), median value (points), average value (points) excluding outliers, etc. Furthermore, the statistical values ​​can be calculated using various methods, such as a method using machine learning.

[0061] For example, the group evaluation unit 34 gives a good evaluation when the statistical value for each group size of the individual's activity history extracted from the individual activity history DB 42 is equal to or greater than (or less than) a predetermined value relative to the target value in the group goal DB 44, and gives a bad evaluation when it is less than (or equal to or greater than) the predetermined value. Similarly, the group evaluation unit 34 gives a good evaluation when the statistical value for each group size of the individual's skill score extracted from the individual skill DB 43 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value relative to the target value in the group goal DB 44, and gives a bad evaluation when it is less than the predetermined value. Note that the group evaluation unit 34 may weight the statistical value for each item in the individual activity history DB 42 before comparing it with the corresponding target value.

[0062] In this case, the group is the group to which the individual user evaluated by the individual evaluation unit 32 belongs, and in principle, evaluation is not performed for groups to which this user does not belong.

[0063] The evaluation result information creation unit 35 creates evaluation result information (see FIG. 16 ) based on the evaluation results by the individual evaluation unit 32, the evaluation results by the group evaluation unit 34, and the proposal contents extracted by the proposal content extraction unit 33. Note that if the evaluation result is equal to or greater than the target value, the proposal contents are not included.

[0064] The transmitting unit 36 ​​transmits data (information) to the user terminal 50 and the administrator terminal 70 via the communication network 100 .

[0065] [Processing or Operation of the Embodiment] Next, the processing or operation of the embodiment will be described in detail with reference to FIGS.

[0066] <Survey Processing> FIG. 12 is a sequence diagram showing the questionnaire processing.

[0067] S11: The manager terminal 70 sends a survey execution request to the evaluation system 30, so that the manager requests users, such as subordinates, whom the manager wants to have answer the survey to complete the survey. This execution request includes the user ID of the user whom the manager wants to have answer the survey. As a result, the receiving unit 31 of the evaluation system 30 receives the survey execution request. Note that if the manager wants each user belonging to a specific group to answer the survey, the manager may request each user belonging to the specific group to complete the survey.

[0068] S12: The sending unit 36 ​​of the evaluation system 30 sends a survey request to the user terminal 50 of the user identified by the user ID received in step S11. This request includes the survey content as shown in Fig. 6. As a result, the user terminal 50 receives the survey request.

[0069] S13: The user of the user terminal 50 answers the questionnaire, and the user terminal 50 transmits the questionnaire responses to the evaluation system 30. As a result, the receiving unit 31 of the evaluation system receives the questionnaire responses and stores the questionnaire responses (such as the total score of the psychological scale for the individual user) for each group size in the psychological scale DB 41 for each individual group size.

[0070] <Evaluation of Individual Users and Groups to Which the User Belongs> FIG. 13 is a sequence diagram showing the process of evaluating individual users and groups to which the user belongs.

[0071] S31: The administrator terminal 70 transmits an evaluation request for a specific user to the evaluation system 30, requesting that the administrator evaluate the suitability of the specific user for a group to which the specific user, such as a subordinate, belongs. This evaluation request includes the user ID of the specific user to be evaluated and information on the group size of the group to be evaluated. For example, if the administrator is the section chief or assistant manager of the specific user, the administrator terminal 70 transmits "small" as the group size. If the administrator is the department manager of the specific user, the administrator terminal 70 transmits "small" and "medium" as the group sizes. Furthermore, if the administrator is the head of the human resources department, the administrator terminal 70 transmits "small," "medium," and "large" as the group sizes. As a result, the receiving unit 31 of the evaluation system 30 receives the evaluation request for the specific user. Note that the administrator may also request that the suitability of the specific group be evaluated. In this case, the evaluation request includes the user ID of each user in the specific group to be evaluated and information on the group size of the group to be evaluated.

[0072] S32: The evaluation system 30 performs an evaluation process for the predetermined user and the group to which the predetermined user belongs, based on the user ID of the predetermined user and the group size information received in process S31. The evaluation process will now be described in detail with reference to FIGS. 14 and 15. FIGS. 14 and 15 are flowcharts showing the evaluation process for the predetermined user and the group to which the predetermined user belongs. The evaluation process includes two steps: an evaluation of the user's individual suitability (S51 to S53) and an evaluation of the group to which the user belongs (S54 to S57).

[0073] (Evaluation of Individual Users) As shown in FIG. 14, the evaluation of the suitability of individual users is performed for each group size to which the user belongs using a psychological scale.

[0074] S51: The individual evaluation unit 32 searches the psychological scale DB 41 (see Figure 5) for each individual group size based on the user ID and group size information received in process S31, and reads out the total score of the corresponding psychological scale.

[0075] S52: The individual evaluation unit 32 determines whether the total score is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (for example, 21 points) for each group size. If the total score is equal to or greater than the predetermined value (S52; YES), processing S53 is skipped.

[0076] S53: On the other hand, if the total score is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value (S52; NO), the proposal content extraction unit 33 extracts proposal content information from the proposal content DB 45 according to the total score for each group size. For example, if the group size is "small" and the total score is 7 to 10, the proposal content extraction unit 33 extracts proposal content information indicated as "Please hold a meeting where the target person can introduce themselves while discussing their current work." as shown in FIG. 10(a). Note that even if the total score is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value (S52; NO), the evaluation system 30 may omit processing S53.

[0077] (Evaluation of Groups to Which Users Belong) As shown in FIG. 15, evaluation of groups to which users belong is performed based on the degree of achievement of target values ​​for each size of group to which the users belong.

[0078] S54: The group evaluation unit 34 searches the individual activity history DB 42 based on the user ID and group size information received in process S31, and retrieves the group name of the corresponding group to which the user belongs and the values ​​of each item in the chat and web meeting within the corresponding group. Furthermore, the group evaluation unit 34 retrieves group size information and the values ​​of each item in the chat and web meeting within the group for all users who belong to a group with the same group name as the retrieved group name. Similarly, the group evaluation unit 34 searches the individual skill DB 43 based on the user ID received in process S31, and retrieves the corresponding skill values ​​(English score, communication ability value). Furthermore, the group evaluation unit 34 searches the individual skill DB 43 based on the user IDs of all users who belong to a group with the same group name as the group name retrieved from the individual activity history DB 42, and retrieves the corresponding skill values ​​(English score, communication ability value) of other users who are members of the group.

[0079] At this time, the group evaluation unit 34 also reads out the user name of the user ID received in step S31 from the individual skill DB 43. When evaluating the suitability of not only the individual user but also the group to which the user belongs using the psychological scale, the group evaluation unit 34 acquires the suitability of each user from the individual evaluation unit 37.

[0080] S55: The group evaluation unit 34 calculates, for each group size received in step S31, statistical values ​​for each item of the individual activity history of all users in the group (within chats within the group, within web meetings within the group), as well as statistical values ​​for the skills of all users in the group. Furthermore, when evaluating the suitability of a group using a psychological scale, the group evaluation unit 34 calculates the average value of the suitability of each user obtained from the individual evaluation unit 37. The group evaluation unit 34 may store the calculated statistical values ​​for each item in a database dedicated to managing statistical values.

[0081] S56: The group evaluation unit 34 determines the group's compatibility by determining whether the calculated statistical value for each item is better than the target value for each item in the group goal DB 44. Note that the compatibility for a group refers to the compatibility for the group as a whole, not for individual users. For example, it determines whether the average value of the "Number of Positive Words" item in group chats between user ID "y001" and all other users in the group (group size "small") to which the user identified by this user ID belongs is equal to or greater than the target value "8" for the corresponding item for the group size "small" in the group goal DB. It also determines whether the average value of the "Number of Negative Words" item in group chats between user ID "y001" and all other users in the group (group size "small") to which the user identified by this user ID belongs is less than the target value "8" for the corresponding item for the group size "small" in the group goal DB. Note that when using a psychological scale to evaluate compatibility for groups, the group evaluation unit 34 determines whether the average score is equal to or greater than a predetermined value (e.g., 21 points) for each group size. If all the statistical values ​​of each item are better than the target values ​​of each item in the group target DB 44 (S56; YES), the process S57 is omitted.

[0082] S57: On the other hand, if at least one of the statistical values ​​for each item is lower than the target value for that item in the group goal DB 44 (S56; NO), the proposal extraction unit 33 extracts proposal information from the proposal DB 45 according to the degree of achievement of the target value for each group size. Note that, for example, in the case of group skills, if the statistical value is lower than the target value, the proposal shown in FIG. 11 is extracted. Similarly, when evaluating the suitability of a group using a psychological scale, if the average score is lower than a predetermined value (e.g., 21 points) that is the target value, the proposal shown in FIG. 10 is extracted.

[0083] (Creating evaluation result information) S58: The evaluation result information creation unit 35 creates proposal result information as shown in FIG. 16 as a result of processes S51 to S57. The proposal result information indicates the user ID, user name, and group size. The proposal result information also indicates, for each group size, the group name, the evaluation of the individual user indicated by the user ID, and the activity evaluation and skill evaluation of the group to which this user belongs. Furthermore, the proposal result information also indicates, for each group size, the content of proposals made to managers such as the user's superiors. Note that the content of proposals for items for which the statistical value is worse than the target value is basically all indicated in the proposal result information.

[0084] S33: Returning to FIG. 13, the transmission unit 36 ​​of the evaluation system 30 transmits the evaluation result information created in step S58 to the requesting administrator terminal 70. This evaluation result information includes the evaluation result and the proposal content shown in FIG. 16. Note that if the evaluation result is good, the proposal content is not included. In this way, the administrator terminal 70 receives the evaluation result information.

[0085] S34: The transmission unit 36 ​​of the evaluation system 30 may also transmit the evaluation result information to the user terminal 50 of the user to be evaluated.

[0086] This completes the series of processes in the communication system 10.

[0087] <Another Example of Survey Processing> The survey processing shown in Fig. 12 may be processing as shown in Fig. 17. Fig. 17 is a sequence diagram showing another example of survey processing. In this case, a dedicated web browser is installed on the user terminal 50, and processing is performed in cooperation with a web server. Note that instead of a web browser, a chat application or the like may also be used.

[0088] S111: The user terminal 50 accepts an operation from the user.

[0089] S112: The user terminal 50 transmits a request regarding the operation to the Web server 90.

[0090] S113: The Web server 90 transmits a response corresponding to the request to the user terminal 50. Note that the processes S111 to S113 are repeated.

[0091] S114: The user terminal 50 transmits to the evaluation system 30 situation information indicating the situation caused by the operation.

[0092] S115: If the evaluation system 30 determines that, for example, the user has not performed any operation within a specified time, it sends a survey request to the user terminal 50, similar to process S12 in Figure 12.

[0093] S116: In response to this, the user terminal 50 transmits the results of the questionnaire to the evaluation system 30, similar to process 13 in FIG.

[0094] In this case, as shown in process S31 of Figure 13, the administrator terminal 70 does not need to send an evaluation request from a specified user to the evaluation system 30, but the evaluation system 30 may send evaluation result information as shown in processes S33 and S34.

[0095] [Major Effects of the Embodiment] As described above, according to the present embodiment, the evaluation system 30 evaluates the suitability of a user for each size of group to which the user belongs using the psychological scale of the individual user, and transmits the evaluation result information to the administrator terminal 70, etc., thereby achieving the effect of more appropriately evaluating the suitability of the user for the group to which the user belongs. Furthermore, the evaluation system 30 transmits the evaluation result information including proposals for the group based on the evaluation result of the individual user to the administrator terminal 70, etc., thereby achieving the effect of being able to propose specific support methods for the group to which the user belongs to the administrator, etc.

[0096] Furthermore, the evaluation system 30 has the effect of being able to more appropriately evaluate each member of the group by evaluating the group to which the user belongs and transmitting the evaluation result information to the administrator terminal 70, etc. Also, the evaluation system 30 has the effect of being able to propose specific support methods for the group to the administrator, etc. by transmitting the evaluation result information including proposals for the group based on the evaluation result of the group to the administrator terminal 70, etc.

[0097] [Supplementary Information] The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiment and may have the following configurations or processes (operations). (1) The evaluation system 30 can be realized using a computer and a program. This program can be recorded on a (non-transitory) recording medium or provided via the communication network 100. (2) In communication between the evaluation system 30 and the user terminal 50 or the administrator terminal 70, another device (such as a server or router) may relay data. For example, this specification describes, for simplicity's sake, that the receiving unit 31 of the evaluation system 30 receives data (information) from the user terminal 50 or the administrator terminal 70. However, this reception process also includes cases where another device relays data. Also, for example, it describes that the transmitting unit 36 ​​of the evaluation system 30 transmits data (information) to the user terminal 50 or the administrator terminal 70. However, this transmission process also includes cases where another device relays data. (3) The CPU 1004 as the processor in FIG. 3 may be a single processor or multiple processors.

[0098] REFERENCE SIGNS LIST 10 Communication system 30 Evaluation system 31 Receiving unit 32 Individual evaluation unit 33 Proposal content extraction unit 34 Group evaluation unit 35 Evaluation result information creation unit 36 ​​Transmitting unit 41 Individual psychological scale DB for each group size 42 Individual activity history DB 43 Individual skill DB 44 Group goal DB 45 Proposal content DB 50 User terminal (an example of a predetermined communication terminal) 70 Administrator terminal (an example of a predetermined communication terminal) 90 Web server 100 Communication network

Claims

1. An evaluation system for evaluating the fitness of a user with respect to a group to which the user belongs, comprising: a personal evaluation unit that evaluates the fitness of the user using the psychological scale of the user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs; and a transmission unit that transmits evaluation result information including the evaluation result of the user evaluated by the personal evaluation unit to a predetermined communication terminal.

2. The evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising: a proposed content management unit that manages proposed content for transmission to the predetermined communication terminal according to the evaluation result by the personal evaluation unit for each scale of the group; wherein the transmission unit transmits the evaluation result information including the proposed content for the group according to the evaluation result of the user.

3. The evaluation system according to claim 2, further comprising: a group evaluation unit that evaluates the fitness of each group based on a statistical value of the activity history of each user belonging to each group, a statistical value of the skills of each user, or a statistical value related to the psychological scale of each user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs; wherein the transmission unit transmits the evaluation result information including the evaluation result of each group evaluated by the group evaluation unit to a predetermined communication terminal.

4. The evaluation system according to claim 3, wherein the proposed content management unit manages the proposed content for transmission to the predetermined communication terminal according to the evaluation result by the group evaluation unit; and the transmission unit transmits the evaluation result information including the proposed content for the group according to the evaluation result of the group.

5. The evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined communication terminal is an administrator terminal for an administrator who manages the user or a user terminal of the user.

6. The evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising: a receiving unit that receives situation information indicating a situation with respect to an operation of the user terminal by the user from the user terminal of the user; wherein the transmission unit transmits, according to the situation, a questionnaire request regarding the psychological scale of the user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs to the user terminal; the receiving unit receives an answer to the questionnaire from the user terminal; and the personal evaluation unit evaluates the fitness of the user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs using the result of the questionnaire.

7. An evaluation method executed by an evaluation system that evaluates the fitness of a user with respect to a group to which the user belongs, the evaluation system comprising: an individual evaluation process that evaluates the fitness of the user using a psychological scale of the user for each scale of the group to which the user belongs; and a transmission process that transmits evaluation result information including the evaluation result of the user evaluated by the individual evaluation process to a predetermined communication terminal.

8. A program for causing a computer to function as the evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

Images