Productivity Thinking Code Evaluation System
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current assessments of organizational members focus on personality, styles, and preferences but fail to link these to objectively measurable performance, lacking a well-correlated measure of productivity and being subjective in nature.
Innovation Solution
A system and method for identifying key productivity thinking areas such as self-motivation, stress or fear-based motivation, and thinking speed, using a questionnaire to generate scores that are normalized against a database of objectively measurable performance, creating a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of individual productivity.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Loss of information
If qualitative methods such as Critical Incident Technique are used to assess organizational members, then subjective insights and emotional content can be captured, but reliability and validity of the data are compromised due to researcher bias and subjectivity
Solution Approach 1:
The assessment is divided into separate modules: quantitative scoring of thinking areas (self-motivation, stress-based motivation, thinking speed) and qualitative characterization. This segmentation allows objective scoring while preserving subjective insights, resolving the contradiction between reliability and information completeness.
Solution Approach 2:
A computer-based system acts as an intermediary between the assessment tool and the evaluator. The system automatically scores thinking areas and generates composite performance ratings, eliminating researcher bias while maintaining the ability to capture subjective insights through structured questioning.
2Reliability
If quantitative assessments are used to measure productivity, then objectivity and reliability are improved, but the range and frequency of similar incidents cannot be captured and subtle emotional content is lost
Solution Approach 1:
The assessment tool serves multiple functions simultaneously: it quantifies thinking areas for objective scoring, captures qualitative insights through open-ended questions, and identifies patterns across multiple incidents. This multi-functionality allows the system to maintain objectivity while preserving rich qualitative data.
Solution Approach 2:
The assessment adds a new dimension by scoring thinking areas (self-motivation, stress-based motivation, thinking speed) as separate quantitative metrics while still allowing qualitative responses. This dimensional expansion enables both objective measurement and capture of subtle emotional content.
3Adaptability or versatility
If current personality and style assessments are used, then organizational member characteristics can be evaluated, but these assessments fail to link to objectively measurable performance and lack correlation with productivity
Solution Approach 1:
The assessment incorporates feedback loops where individuals reflect on their own performance and thinking patterns. The system compares self-reported thinking area scores with actual performance data, allowing continuous refinement of the measurement model to improve precision in linking characteristics to productivity.
Solution Approach 2:
The assessment changes the measurement parameters from traditional personality traits to thinking area scores (self-motivation, stress-based motivation, thinking speed) that are directly correlated with productivity. This parameter transformation enables precise measurement of performance-linked characteristics.
Data Source
AI summary
A system and method are provided for identifying ranges of scores in thinking areas that are indicative of individuals that perform at top levels. A position within an organization is identified. One or more individuals are identified as people that perform at a top level in that position. Each of the identified individuals is evaluated against a full time equivalent at the position. Each of the identified individuals is also scored in particular thinking areas. In some embodiments, the scores are based on the answers given by the identified individuals to a questionnaire. Characteristics of various workers are prioritized as to their desirability in a person performing the functions of the identified position. Based on the scores in particular thinking areas for the identified individuals, the full time equivalent evaluations for the identified individuals, and the prioritization of worker characteristics, a determination is made of ranges of scores in at least one of the thinking areas that are characteristic of persons who perform at top levels in the identified position.