JP7576271B2 - Information processing method, information processing device, and program - Google Patents

Description

Article 30, paragraph 2 of the Patent Act applies. Website (For the publication date, address, etc., please refer to the submission of the certificate of exception to lack of novelty.)

The present invention relates to an information processing method, an information processing device, and a program.

The results of aptitude tests are used to determine whether or not to hire personnel. For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a testing method that uses the results of aptitude tests previously taken by current employees of the company and the results of the employees' performance evaluations to determine whether a prospective employee is likely to become a good employee, based on the results of the aptitude tests of the prospective employee.

JP 2006-127387 A

However, personnel evaluation is largely dependent on the evaluator's subjectivity, and the invention in Patent Document 1 cannot necessarily be said to be an appropriate testing method.

In one aspect, the objective is to provide an information processing method etc. that can effectively support personnel recruitment.

In one aspect, an information processing method includes accepting a selection input to select an employee to be used as a criterion from among a plurality of employees employed by a company ; calculating a statistical index value representing the level of the test results of the company's employees for each of a plurality of test items tested in the aptitude test based on the test results of the aptitude test of a plurality of individuals and the test results of the aptitude test of each employee of the company; displaying on a display unit the plurality of test items that can serve as an evaluation scale of the criterion for judging the aptitude of a test taker taking the aptitude test and the statistical index value for each of the test items; accepting a selection input to select the test item to be used as a criterion from the plurality of test items displayed; setting the test result of the selected test item from the test results of the aptitude test of the selected employee as the criterion for judging the aptitude of the test taker taking the aptitude test; obtaining the test result of the aptitude test of the test taker; and executing a process in which a computer judges the aptitude of the test taker for the company based on the set criterion and the test result of the aptitude test of the test taker.

On one hand, it can provide effective support for recruiting personnel.

FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the configuration of a recruitment support system. FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a server. FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of a terminal. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the record layout of an employee DB, an examinee DB, and a reference table. FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a criteria list screen. FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a reference setting screen. FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an examinee analysis screen. FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a processing procedure executed by a server.

The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the drawings showing embodiments thereof.
(Embodiment)
1 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the configuration of a recruitment support system. In this embodiment, a recruitment support system is described that determines the aptitude of a test taker (employment candidate) who wishes to be employed by a target company based on the results of an aptitude test of the test taker. The recruitment support system includes an information processing device 1, and terminals 2, 2, 2, . . . Each device is communicatively connected via a network N such as the Internet.

The information processing device 1 is an information processing device capable of various information processing and information transmission and reception, such as a server computer, a personal computer, etc. In this embodiment, the information processing device 1 is a server computer, and will be referred to as server 1 below for simplicity. The server 1 judges the suitability of the test taker for the target company based on the test results of the test taker's aptitude test and the test results of the aptitude tests of each employee working at the target company. Specifically, as described below, the server 1 accepts from the user the selection of employees for whom the aptitude test results are to be used for each of a number of judgment criteria, and accepts input of selection of test items of the aptitude test to be used as the evaluation scale, and sets them as the judgment criteria. The server 1 calculates a score representing the suitability of the test taker based on the test results of the selected test items of the selected employee for each of a number of judgment criteria, and judges the suitability of the user.

The test results of the aptitude test refer to the examinee's answers to each of a number of questions for aptitude (personality) analysis. The structure of the aptitude test itself is no different from a general one, so an explanation of the aptitude test will be omitted in this embodiment.

Terminal 2 is a terminal device used by a user of the system, such as a personal computer, tablet terminal, or smartphone. The user may be, for example, a human resources officer at each company that uses the system, but is not limited to this. As will be described later, terminal 2 communicates with server 1 and displays a screen for setting evaluation criteria, a screen showing the evaluation results of the examinee's aptitude, and the like (see Figures 5 to 7).

In this embodiment, the server 1 on the cloud is described as calculating the score, but it goes without saying that the local terminal 2 may also calculate the score.

2 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the server 1. The server 1 includes a control unit 11, a main memory unit 12, a communication unit 13, and an auxiliary memory unit .
The control unit 11 has one or more processors such as a central processing unit (CPU), a micro-processing unit (MPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), etc., and performs various information processing, control processing, etc. by reading and executing a program P1 stored in the auxiliary storage unit 14. The main storage unit 12 is a temporary storage area such as a static random access memory (SRAM), a dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a flash memory, etc., and temporarily stores data necessary for the control unit 11 to execute arithmetic processing. The communication unit 13 is a communication module for performing processing related to communication, and transmits and receives information to and from the outside.

The auxiliary memory unit 14 is a non-volatile storage area such as a large-capacity memory or a hard disk, and stores the program P1 and other data necessary for the control unit 11 to execute processing. The auxiliary memory unit 14 also stores an employee DB 141, an examinee DB 142, and a criteria table 143. The employee DB 141 is a database that stores the results of aptitude tests for company employees. The examinee DB 142 is a database that stores the results of aptitude tests for examinees. The criteria table 143 is a table that specifies the criteria for judging the aptitude of examinees.

The auxiliary storage unit 14 may be an external storage device connected to the server 1. The server 1 may be a multi-computer consisting of multiple computers, or may be a virtual machine virtually constructed by software.

In the present embodiment, the server 1 is not limited to the above configuration, and may include, for example, an input unit that accepts operational input, a display unit that displays images, etc. The server 1 may also include a reading unit that reads a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium 1a, and may read the program P1 from the recording medium 1a. The program P1 may be executed on a single computer, or on multiple computers interconnected via a network N.

3 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the terminal 2. The terminal 2 includes a control unit 21, a main memory unit 22, a communication unit 23, a display unit 24, an input unit 25, and an auxiliary memory unit 26.
The control unit 21 has one or more processors such as a CPU, and performs various information processing by reading and executing the program P2 stored in the auxiliary memory unit 26. The main memory unit 22 is a temporary storage area such as a RAM, and temporarily stores data necessary for the control unit 21 to execute arithmetic processing. The communication unit 23 is a communication module for performing processing related to communication, and transmits and receives information to and from the outside. The display unit 24 is a display screen such as a liquid crystal display, and displays images. The input unit 25 is an operation interface such as a keyboard or mouse, and accepts operation input from the user. The auxiliary memory unit 26 is a non-volatile storage area such as a hard disk or large-capacity memory, and stores the program P2 and other data necessary for the control unit 21 to execute processing.

The terminal 2 may include a reading unit that reads the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium 2a and reads the program P2 from the recording medium 2a. The program P2 may be executed on a single computer, or on multiple computers interconnected via a network N.

FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the record layout of the employee DB 141, the examinee DB 142, and the reference table 143.
The employee DB 141 includes an employee ID column, a name column, a company column, a department column, and a test column. The employee ID column stores an employee ID for identifying each employee. The name column, the company column, the department column, and the test column store the employee's name, the company to which they belong, the department to which they belong, and the test results of the aptitude test in association with the employee ID.

Examinee DB142 includes an examinee ID column, a name column, and a test column. The examinee ID column stores an examinee ID for identifying each examinee. The name column and the test column store the examinee's name and the test results of the aptitude test.

The criteria table 143 includes a criteria column and a candidate scale column. The criteria column stores multiple aptitude level judgment criteria. The candidate scale column stores multiple test items of aptitude tests that can serve as evaluation scales for each criterion, in association with the judgment criteria. The "judgment criteria" and "scales" will be described in more detail below.

Figure 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a criteria list screen. Figure 5 shows a display screen (user interface) of this system displayed on terminal 2, which shows a screen listing the criteria for assessing the aptitude of a test taker. The following is an overview of this embodiment.

When the terminal 2 accesses (logs in to) the server 1, it displays a specified home screen (not shown). On the home screen, similar to the screen shown in FIG. 5, various menus such as "Examinee List" and "Aptitude Score Criteria Settings" are displayed on the left side of the screen. When an operation input for "Aptitude Score Criteria Settings" is received, the terminal 2 transitions to the screen shown in FIG. 5.

The criteria list screen is a display screen that shows a list of multiple judgment criteria for judging the suitability of the test-taker. In this embodiment, the server 1 uses three types of criteria: "corporate culture," "performance stability" (hereinafter referred to as "stability"), and "department/team" (hereinafter referred to as "department"). In other words, the server 1 judges whether the test-taker will fit into the corporate culture of the target company (its own company), the stability of the test-taker if he or she is hired, and the extent to which the test-taker will fit into each department within the company. The terminal 2 displays a list of the corporate culture, stability, and each department within the company as judgment criteria.

The above criteria are merely examples, and the examinee's aptitude may be determined based on other criteria. The number of criteria may be two or less, or four or more.

As shown in FIG. 5, terminal 2 displays the evaluation scale currently set for each judgment criterion. The evaluation scale is the scale on which the score for each judgment criterion is calculated, and is the test item of the examinee's aptitude (personality) that is tested in the aptitude test. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 5, the evaluation scales include "proactiveness," "assertiveness," and "ambition." Note that the test items can be changed as appropriate depending on the content of the questions in the aptitude test, etc.

Terminal 2 displays the evaluation scales (test items) set by the user for each of the corporate culture, stability, and departments within the company, as described below. Furthermore, terminal 2 displays the text "Edit" corresponding to each judgment criterion. When an operation input to the text is received, terminal 2 transitions to the screen shown in FIG. 6.

Figure 6 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a criteria setting screen. The criteria setting screen is a screen for setting (editing) the contents of the judgment criteria. Figure 6 illustrates the corporate culture setting screen, out of the corporate culture, stability, and department displayed on the criteria list screen of Figure 5. Note that although the display contents of the stability and department setting screens are slightly different from the corporate culture setting screen, they are almost the same as Figure 5 and therefore are not illustrated.

The criteria setting screen includes an employee selection field 61 (first display field), a selected scale field 62 (second display field), and a candidate scale field 63 (third display field). The employee selection field 61 is a display field for selecting an employee whose aptitude test results will be used. The selected scale field 62 is a display field that displays the test items of the aptitude test that have been selected as the evaluation scale of the judgment criteria. The candidate scale field 63 is a display field that displays other test items that can become evaluation scales.

Terminal 2 accepts the selection input of an employee via the employee selection field 61. Specifically, in response to an operation input to the "Add employee" button, terminal 2 adds (selects) an employee. Although it is acceptable to use the results of the aptitude test for only one employee, it is preferable to select multiple employees.

In addition, when the test result of an aptitude test of one of the multiple employees selected in the employee selection field 61 deviates from the test results of other employees (selected employees other than the one employee), the terminal 2 displays an alert to the effect that the test result of the one employee deviates. Specifically, the terminal 2 displays a predetermined icon ("!" in FIG. 6) in association with the employee name. For example, the server 1 calculates the average value of the test results (e.g., standard deviation) of each of the multiple test items selected in the selection scale field 62 for each employee selected in the employee selection field 61 as described below, and determines whether the difference between the average value of the one employee and the average value of the other employees is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold. If the server 1 determines that the difference is equal to or greater than the threshold, it displays an alert in association with the target employee. This makes it possible to prevent a situation in which an employee with a different tendency in the test results of the aptitude test is selected.

In addition, the terminal 2 accepts the selection input of test items via the selected scale column 62 and the candidate scale column 63. Specifically, the terminal 2 displays a plurality of test items that can be evaluation scales for the judgment criteria in the candidate scale column 63, and accepts a drag-and-drop operation to move the test items displayed in the candidate scale column 63 to the selected scale column 62. The test items moved to the selected scale column 62 are selected as the evaluation scales.

The terminal 2 displays the average deviation value for each test item of the employees of the target company (the company) in association with each test item displayed in the selected scale column 62 and the candidate scale column 63. The average deviation value is a deviation value calculated from the test results (scores) of each test item of all employees belonging to the target company and a predetermined population data (test results of aptitude tests of multiple people). In other words, the average deviation value indicates how high the test results of the employees of the target company are in the distribution of the entire population. For example, the server 1 calculates the average deviation value of each test item for the employees of the target company from the test results of the employees of the target company and the test results of employees of all companies stored in the employee DB 141. The server 1 displays the average deviation value on the terminal 2 in association with each test item. By presenting the average deviation value of each test item, the user can select an appropriate test item as an indicator of the tendency of the employees of the company.

The statistical index value displayed in association with each test item is not limited to the standard deviation value, but may be, for example, a ranking on the population data. In other words, the server 1 only needs to be able to calculate a statistical index value representing the level of test results of employees of the target company from population data (test results of multiple individuals) including employees of the target company, and present it to the user. Furthermore, the population data is not limited to the test results of employees of the company using this system (data stored in employee DB 141), but may be the test results of individuals other than employees of the company using this system.

Although a single test item may be selected in the selection scale column 62, preferably multiple test items (e.g., three) are selected. Note that it is not essential to select the specified number (three) of test items in the selection scale column 62, and it may be less than the specified number. When an operation input to the "Save" button at the bottom of the screen is accepted, the server 1 saves a series of settings. As a result, the server 1 sets the test results of the test items selected in the selection scale column 62, among the test results of the multiple employees selected in the employee selection column 61, as the judgment criteria for judging the suitability of the test taker. The user sets other judgment criteria (stability and department) in a similar manner.

For corporate culture and department, terminal 2 allows the user to select an employee who best embodies the corporate culture and an employee with the personality that the user would like to employ in the relevant department. On the other hand, for stability, the user is prompted to select an employee whose performance is unstable (an employee with low stability). As described below, server 1 highly rates examinees whose test results are similar to those of the selected employee for corporate culture and department, while highly rates examinees whose test results show an opposite tendency to that of the selected employee for stability.

Server 1 obtains the results of the aptitude test of the test-taker who is a candidate for employment at the target company, and judges the suitability of the test-taker for the target company in accordance with each of the judgment criteria set above. There is no particular limit to the method of obtaining the test results of the test-taker, but for example, when terminal 2 receives a selection input of "Create test request" from the menu on the left side of the screen in Figure 5, for example, it creates an e-mail with an attached URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of a web page for taking the aptitude test, and sends it to the test-taker. Alternatively, terminal 2 accepts the upload of an electronic file (CSV, etc.) that stores the test results of the test-taker.

Figure 7 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an examinee analysis screen. For example, when terminal 2 receives a selection input for "Examinee request" on the left side of the screen, it displays a list of examinees who have already taken the aptitude test. When terminal 2 receives a selection input for an examinee to be analyzed from the list, it transitions to the screen in Figure 7.

The examinee analysis screen is a screen that displays the analysis (judgment) results of the examinee's aptitude. The examinee analysis screen includes a department selection field 71, an overall evaluation field 72, a score graph 73, a distribution graph 74, a similar employee display field 75, a details by criteria field 76, and an aptitude field for other departments 77.

The department selection field 71 is an input field for selecting a department that will judge the compatibility (suitability) with the examinee. For example, the user selects the department to which the examinee is scheduled to be assigned.

The overall evaluation field 72 is a display field that displays an overall evaluation of the examinee's aptitude based on multiple evaluation criteria. The overall evaluation field 72 displays a rank that represents the examinee's overall evaluation on a multi-level scale ("B+" in FIG. 7), the average score for each of the multiple evaluation criteria, and a comment according to the rank.

The score graph 73 is a display field that displays the scores for each of a number of evaluation criteria. As the score graph 73, the terminal 2 displays a radar chart showing the scores calculated out of 10 for the corporate culture, stability, and each of the departments selected in the department selection field 71.

The distribution graph 74 is a graph showing the distribution of the aptitude assessment results of all examinees who took the aptitude test for the target company (your own company). Terminal 2 displays the number of all examinees who have taken the aptitude test for the target company in the distribution graph 74 by rank. Terminal 2 also highlights (e.g., color-codes) the rank to which the examinee being analyzed belongs on the examinee analysis screen being displayed.

The similar employee display field 75 is a display field that displays one or more employees who are presumed to be similar to the test-taker. Terminal 2 displays the name of the employee who is presumed to be similar to the test-taker, the degree of similarity between the employee and the test-taker (in FIG. 7, "match degree"), and the difference in personality between the employee and the test-taker.

The criteria-specific details field 76 is a display field that displays the details of the analysis results for each of the multiple judgment criteria. The terminal 2 displays the scores for each of the corporate culture, stability, and selected department, as well as the details of the analysis results for each test item that is the evaluation scale.

The suitability for other departments column 77 is a display column that displays suitability for departments other than the department selected in the department selection column 71. The terminal 2 displays the average score for each judgment criterion and a rank according to the average score for each of the multiple departments other than the selected department.

The server 1 judges the aptitude of the test taker based on the settings of each judgment criterion set on the criteria setting screen. Specifically, the server 1 calculates a score representing the degree of aptitude of the test taker for each of the multiple judgment criteria. More specifically, the server 1 calculates the score for each judgment criterion based on the test taker's test results (deviation value for each test item) for each test item selected as the evaluation scale on the criteria setting screen and the test results for each test item of each employee selected on the criteria setting screen. The server 1 then calculates the average score for each judgment criterion and determines a rank that represents the test taker's overall evaluation on a multiple-level scale based on the average score.

Explaining based on the example of FIG. 6, when calculating the corporate culture score, the server 1 uses the test results of the aptitude test of the three employees selected in the employee selection field 61 to determine the aptitude of the test taker. The server 1 compares the test results of the three employees' "proactiveness," "assertiveness," and "ambition" with the test results of the test taker's "proactiveness," "assertiveness," and "ambition," and calculates the corporate culture score out of 10 points. In this embodiment, the standard deviation value in the aptitude test is used as the "test result." For example, the server 1 assigns 10/3 points (≒3.33 points) to each of the three test items, and calculates a higher score for each test item the closer the test result (deviation value) of the employee and the test taker are to each other, and calculates the total score of the three test items as the corporate culture score.

In this embodiment, the standard deviation is used as the "test result" on which the score is calculated, but the ranking of each test item may be used, similar to the index value (average standard deviation) displayed on the criteria setting screen in FIG. 6.

Returning to Figure 7 for further explanation, the server 1 similarly calculates the test-taker's score for each department so that the closer the test results are to those of the employees selected in the evaluation criteria, the higher the score. On the other hand, for stability, the server 1 calculates a higher score for the test-taker the more opposite the trend of the test results is to those of the employees selected in the evaluation criteria. As described above, the stability criteria setting screen allows the user to select employees with unstable performance. Therefore, the server 1 evaluates test-taker whose test results show the opposite trend to that of employees with unstable performance as people with high stability. Stability can be appropriately evaluated by measuring the degree to which the trend is opposite to that of employees with unstable performance.

Specifically, when calculating scores for each test item related to stability, server 1 first determines whether the average value of the test results (standard deviation) of the selected employee is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference value (e.g., 50). If it is equal to or greater than the reference value, server 1 calculates a lower score the more the test taker's test results exceed the reference value, and a higher score the more the test results fall below the reference value. On the other hand, if the average value of the selected employee's test results is less than the reference value, server 1 calculates a higher score the more the test taker's test results exceed the reference value, and a lower score the more the test results fall below the reference value. In this way, server 1 determines the correspondence between high and low test results and high and low scores so that the scores of test takers with opposite tendencies to the selected employee are calculated higher depending on whether the average value of the selected employee's test results is equal to or greater than the reference value.

Note that the server 1 is not limited to the above calculation method as long as it can calculate a higher score for the test taker the more opposite the trend of the test results to that of the selected employee. For example, the server 1 may calculate a higher score the more the test results (deviation value) of the selected employee and the test results of the test taker diverge.

The server 1 calculates the average score of the three types of evaluation criteria ("7.5" in FIG. 7). The server 1 then determines the rank of the test taker based on this average score, and sets this as the overall evaluation of the test taker. The server 1 displays the rank and the average score in the overall evaluation column 72. The server 1 also displays the scores of each evaluation criterion in the score graph 73 and the criterion-specific details column 76.

Furthermore, the server 1 counts the number of all test-takers by rank and displays the number of people in each rank in the distribution graph 74. The server 1 then highlights the rank to which the test-taker currently being analyzed belongs. This shows the user how high the aptitude level of the target test-taker is among all test-takers.

The server 1 also calculates the similarity between each employee of the target company and the test taker, and displays employees with a high calculated similarity in the similar employee display area 75. There is no particular limit to the method of calculating the similarity, but for example, the server 1 uses the test results (standard deviation) of each of a number of test items as variables and calculates the Euclidean distance between the employee and the test taker as the similarity. The server 1 calculates the similarity between each employee and the test taker, extracts employees whose calculated similarity is below a certain level, and displays the employees together with a match level according to the level of similarity.

Note that the employees to be extracted are not limited to those selected as the criteria, but may include other employees.

The server 1 also analyzes the test results of the test taker for each test item selected as the evaluation scale for each judgment criterion, and displays the analysis results in the criterion-specific details field 76. The criterion-specific details field 76 displays, for each test item, the name of each test item, analysis comments regarding the target test taker, as well as a distribution bar 761 and an evaluation icon 762.

The distribution bar 761 is a display bar that shows the standard deviation (shown by dark hatching) of the target test-taker among all test-takers, and the appropriate or inappropriate numerical range (shown by light hatching) for a job candidate. The server 1 calculates the standard deviation of the target test-taker from the test results of all test-takers for the relevant test item, and displays the test-taker's standard deviation in the corresponding position on the distribution bar 761. In the example of Figure 7, the standard deviation for "Assertive Tendency" is displayed as "64".

Furthermore, the server 1 calculates the standard deviation of each employee selected as the evaluation criterion from the test results of all test takers for the relevant test item. The server 1 then sets appropriate or inappropriate numerical ranges for employment candidates according to the standard deviation of each employee, and displays them in the distribution bar 761. The numerical range is set, for example, between the minimum and maximum standard deviations of each employee. In the example of FIG. 7, the appropriate numerical range of standard deviations for "assertiveness" is displayed in the distribution bar 761.

The server 1 evaluates the examinee's suitability for the corresponding test item according to the numerical range and the examinee's deviation score, and displays it as an evaluation icon 762. The evaluation icon 762 is an icon that indicates the level of suitability, and in this embodiment, three types of icons are prepared: "suitable", "somewhat suitable", and "unsuitable". As described above, the server 1 calculates the score for each test item out of a maximum of 10/3 points (≒3.33 points). The server 1 selects the evaluation icon 762 of "suitable", "unsuitable", or "somewhat suitable" depending on whether the score for each test item is equal to or higher than a predetermined high score (e.g., 2.5 points), lower than a predetermined low score (e.g., 1.5 points), or somewhere in between.

For corporate culture and department, the distribution bar 761 displays the appropriate numerical range, but for stability, the distribution bar 761 displays the inappropriate numerical range (see FIG. 7). Specifically, depending on whether the average of the deviation scores of each employee (employee whose performance is unstable) selected as the stability standard is equal to or greater than the standard value (50), the server 1 sets the inappropriate numerical range to a predetermined low numerical range (e.g., 30 or less) if the average is less than the standard value, and sets the inappropriate numerical range to a predetermined high numerical range (e.g., 65 or more) if the average is equal to or greater than the standard value. Similarly to corporate culture and department, the server 1 selects the evaluation icon 762 of "suitable", "unsuitable", or "slightly suitable" depending on the score of each test item.

The server 1 calculates scores for departments other than the department selected in the department selection column 71 from the test results of employees set as the evaluation criteria and the test results of the test taker, and displays them in the other department suitability column 77. Specifically, the server 1 calculates the score for each department based on the test results of each test item selected as the evaluation scale for each employee selected as the evaluation criteria in each department and the test results of each test item for the test taker. The server 1 then displays the score and a rank corresponding to the score in the other department suitability column 77 in association with the department name of each department. The other department suitability column 77 displays the score for "department", the average score for "company culture" and "stability", and a rank corresponding to the average score. This makes it possible to present to the user how well the user would be suited if assigned to a department other than the department to which the user is scheduled to be assigned.

As described above, the server 1 allows the user to select an employee to be used as a benchmark and the test items of the aptitude test to be used as the evaluation scale, and judges the aptitude of the test taker (hiring candidate) based on the test results of each test item of the selected employee. This makes it possible to support personnel recruitment by using the results of the aptitude test appropriately.

Figure 8 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a processing procedure executed by server 1. The processing executed by server 1 will be explained based on Figure 8. Note that the explanation will be given assuming that server 1 has already acquired the test results of the aptitude tests of employees and test takers, and stored them in employee DB 141 and test taker DB 142. Also, server 1 ends the series of processes when the user logs out.

In response to access from the terminal 2, the control unit 11 of the server 1 causes the terminal 2 to display a predetermined home screen (step S11). In response to operational input from the user, the control unit 11 determines whether or not to set a judgment criterion (step S12). If it is determined that a judgment criterion is to be set (S12: YES), the control unit 11 causes the terminal 2 to display a criteria list screen showing a list of multiple judgment criteria (step S13). Specifically, the control unit 11 causes the terminal 2 to display multiple judgment criteria and the test items of the aptitude test that have already been set in the evaluation scale for each judgment criterion.

The control unit 11 accepts the selection input of the judgment criteria to be set (edited) (step S14). The control unit 11 causes the terminal 2 to display a criteria setting screen for setting the selected judgment criteria (step S15). Specifically, the control unit 11 causes an employee selection field 61 (first display field) for selecting an employee, a selection scale field 62 (second display field) displaying search items to be used as evaluation scales, and a candidate scale field 63 (third display field) displaying other search items that can be used as evaluation scales.

The control unit 11 accepts a selection input to select one or more employees from among the multiple employees working for the target company (step S16). The control unit 11 also accepts a selection input to select one or more test items from among the multiple test items displayed in the candidate scale column 63 (step S17). The control unit 11 sets the test results of the test items selected in step S17 from the test results of the aptitude test of the employee selected in step S16 as the judgment criteria (step S18).

After executing the process of step S18, or if step S12 is NO, the control unit 11 determines whether or not to analyze (judge) the aptitude of the test taker in response to the operation input from the user (step S19). If it is determined that the test results are to be analyzed (S19: YES), the control unit 11 judges the aptitude of the test taker for the target company based on the judgment criteria already set in step S18 and the test results of the aptitude test of the test taker (step S20). Specifically, the control unit 11 calculates a score representing the degree of aptitude of the test taker for each of the multiple judgment criteria. The control unit 11 calculates a score for each judgment criterion from the test results of the test taker related to one or more test items set in the evaluation scale for each judgment criterion and the test results of the employee. Furthermore, the control unit 11 calculates the average score for each judgment order, and judges a rank that represents the overall evaluation of the test taker on a multiple-level scale according to the average score.

The control unit 11 causes the terminal 2 to display an examinee analysis screen showing the results of the examinee's aptitude assessment (step S21). Specifically, the control unit 11 causes the terminal 2 to display the overall aptitude assessment results (rank), scores for each assessment criterion, scores for each evaluation item, the degree of aptitude (score) for departments other than the department to which the examinee is to be assigned, etc. After executing the process of step S21, or if the answer is NO at step S19, the control unit 11 returns the process to step S12.

As described above, this embodiment can provide optimal support for recruiting personnel.

The embodiments disclosed herein are illustrative in all respects and should not be considered limiting. The scope of the present invention is indicated by the claims, not by the meaning described above, and is intended to include all modifications within the scope and meaning equivalent to the claims.

1 Server (information processing device)
11 Control unit 12 Main memory unit 13 Communication unit 14 Auxiliary memory unit P1 Program 141 Employee DB
142 Examinee DB
143 Reference table 2 Terminal 21 Control unit 22 Main memory unit 23 Communication unit 24 Display unit 25 Input unit 26 Auxiliary memory unit P2 Program

Claims (9)

A selection input is received for selecting an employee to be used as a criterion from among a plurality of employees working for the company;
Calculating a statistical index value representing the level of test results of the employees of the company for each of a plurality of test items tested in the aptitude test based on the test results of the aptitude test of the plurality of persons and the test results of the aptitude test of each employee of the company;
Displaying on a display unit a plurality of test items that can be used as evaluation scales for determining the aptitude of a testee taking the aptitude test and the statistical index values of each of the test items;
Accepting a selection input for selecting the test item to be used as a judgment criterion from the displayed plurality of test items ;
setting the test results of the selected test items among the test results of the selected employee's aptitude test as a criterion for determining the aptitude of the examinee taking the aptitude test;
Obtaining the test results of the aptitude test of the test-taker;
An information processing method in which a computer executes a process of determining the aptitude of the examinee for the company based on the set judgment criteria and the test results of the aptitude test of the examinee. Accepting a selection input of the employee and the test item for each of the plurality of judgment criteria;
The information processing method according to claim 1 , further comprising calculating a score representing a degree of aptitude of the test taker for each of the plurality of judgment criteria. The information processing method according to claim 2 , further comprising the step of calculating a higher score for a test result of the aptitude test that is closer to the opposite tendency between the selected employee and the test taker. the criteria include a plurality of departments within the company;
Accepting a selection input of the employees and the test items for each department;
Calculating the scores for the department to which the test taker is to be assigned and for other departments other than the department to which the test taker is to be assigned;
The information processing method according to claim 2 or 3, further comprising displaying the scores of the department to which the employee is to be assigned and the scores of other departments on a display unit. determining whether or not the test result of the aptitude test of one of the selected employees deviates from the test results of the aptitude tests of the other employees;
The information processing method according to claim 1 , further comprising the step of: outputting an alert indicating that the test result of the one employee deviates when it is determined that there is a deviation. Calculating a similarity between each employee of the company and the test-taker based on the test result of the aptitude test of the test-taker,
The information processing method according to claim 1 , further comprising displaying, on a display unit, the employees whose calculated similarity is equal to or greater than a certain level. a first reception unit that receives a selection input for selecting an employee to be used as a criterion from among a plurality of employees working for the company;
a calculation unit that calculates a statistical index value representing the level of test results of the employees of the company for each of a plurality of test items tested in the aptitude test based on the test results of the aptitude test of a plurality of persons and the test results of the aptitude test of each employee of the company;
a display unit that displays a plurality of test items that can be used as evaluation scales for determining the aptitude of a testee who takes the aptitude test, and the statistical index values of each of the test items;
a second reception unit that receives a selection input for selecting the test item to be used as a judgment criterion from the displayed plurality of test items ;
a setting unit that sets the test results of the selected test items among the test results of the selected aptitude test of the employee as a judgment criterion for judging the aptitude of the examinee who takes the aptitude test;
An acquisition unit that acquires a test result of an aptitude test of the test taker;
and a judgment unit that judges the aptitude of the examinee for the company based on the set judgment criteria and the test results of the aptitude test of the examinee. Calculating a statistical index value representing the level of test results of the company's employees for each of a plurality of test items tested in the aptitude test based on the test results of the aptitude test of the plurality of individuals and the test results of the aptitude test of each employee of the company;
a first display field for selecting an employee for whom the test result of the aptitude test is to be used, a second display field for displaying test items of the aptitude test that are to be used as an evaluation scale for judging the aptitude of the examinee, and a third display field for displaying a plurality of test items that can be used as the evaluation scale and the statistical index value of each of the test items ;
receiving, via the first display field, a selection input for selecting an employee to be used as a criterion from among the plurality of employees working for the company;
accepting an operation input for moving the test item to be used as a judgment criterion from among the plurality of test items displayed in the third display field to the second display field, thereby accepting a selection input of the test item;
A program that causes a computer to execute a process of setting the test results of the selected test items from the test results of the aptitude test of the selected employee as the judgment criteria for judging the aptitude of the examinee taking the aptitude test. A selection input is received for selecting an employee to be used as a criterion from among a plurality of employees working for the company;
determining whether or not the test result of the aptitude test of one of the selected employees deviates from the test results of the aptitude tests of the other employees;
If it is determined that there is a discrepancy, an alert is output to the effect that the test result of the one employee is discrepant;
Accepting a selection input for selecting a test item to be used as a judgment criterion from among a plurality of test items to be tested in the aptitude test;
setting the test results of the selected test items among the test results of the selected employee's aptitude test as a judgment criterion for judging the aptitude of the examinee taking the aptitude test;
Obtaining the test results of the aptitude test of the test-taker;
The suitability of the examinee for the company is judged based on the set judgment criteria and the test results of the aptitude test of the examinee.
An information processing method in which processing is performed by a computer.

Images