WO2002093293A2

WO2002093293A2 - Method for evaluating personnel

Info

Publication number: WO2002093293A2
Application number: PCT/US2002/012989
Authority: WO
Inventors: Hans Sogell
Original assignee: Manniskokraft Inc.
Priority date: 2001-05-14
Filing date: 2002-04-23
Publication date: 2002-11-21
Also published as: AU2002307540A1; WO2002093293A3

Abstract

The method for evaluating an individual, such as an employee, in an organization. The method has a financial result module (12), a business management module (14), a cooperation module (16) and a knowledge module (18). The modules are associated with a first project summary module (20), a second project summary module 822) and a third project summary module (24), etc., that in turn are associated with an overall score module (26). The competence level of the individual as measured by the modules (12, 14, 16, 18) is determined as scores (48, 72, 100, 108), respectively. The scores are used to calculate a first overall project score (110) for the first project summary module (20). The method also provides a second and third over project score (122, 124) for the modules (22, 24) that together with the score (110) are used to calculate an overall score (32). The score (32) is used to determine the future of the individual in the organization.

Description

METHOD FOR EVALUATING PERSONNEL

Technical Field

The present invention relates to a method for evaluating and maintaining competence records of employees and managemen .

Background and Summary of the Invention

A consistent and effective way of evaluating the performance of employees and management in a company is a difficult problem. Some of the performance evaluations are somewhat arbitrary and often infrequent. This may lead to the promotion of the incompetent or unsuitable employees and firing of very competent and valuable employees . Any mistake in the handling of the employees is likely to greatly affect the profitability of the company. Although many attempts have been made in the past, there is still not method or system available for effectively evaluate and to quantify the performance of employees and managers in a company.

The method of the present invention provides a solution to the above-outlined problems. More particularly, the method is for evaluating an individual, such as an employee, in an organization. The method has a financial result module, a business management module, a cooperation module and a knowledge module. The modules are associated with a first project average summary module, a second project average summary module and a third project average summary module and so on measured regularly, for instance every 3 months, and/or after completed projects that in turn are associated with an overall average score module. An employment of an employee may be considered a project. The competence level of the individual as measured by the modules is determined as scores in each respective module. The scores are used to calculate a first overall project score for the first project summary module. The method also provides a second and third over project score for the second and third project modules that together with the score for the first project module are used to calculate an overall score, etc. The overall score is used to determine the future of the individual in the organization.

Brief Description of the Drawings

Fig. 1 is a schematic flow diagram of the evaluation method of the present invention.

Detailed Description

With reference to Fig. 1, the system 10 of the present invention is an effective method for internally and continually evaluating and scoring personnel and others in a company or organization such as employees and management. One important goal of using the system 10 is to provide an improved environment for the employees and the company as a whole. Although the description is focused on evaluating employees, the system 10 could be used for any type of personnel inside and outside a company including, but not limited to, lower, middle and top management. One important feature of the system 10 is that the method is carried out to attract, develop and keep active workers with the correct competence for each position and/or project. The competence may be measured as the ability to practically carry out tasks and to achieve desirable results.

More particularly, the system 10 may include a financial result module 12, a business management module

14, a cooperation module 16 and a knowledge module 18. The modules 12, 14, 16 and 18 are connected to project summary modules 20, 22 and 24 that provide an overall score, such as project score 110, 122, 124, respectively, for each evaluated project the employee has completed. The project summary modules 20, 22 and 24 may be connected to an overall score module 26. The module 26 may include the name 28 of the employee who has been evaluated, an identification number 30 such as a social security number and the overall average score 32. It should be understood that the above three projects are only used as an illustrative example and the method of the present invention may be used for more or fewer projects than three projects.

The result module 12 focuses on the employee's competence regarding measurable economic factors such as accomplished financial results. The evaluator evaluates the employees based on a result factor module 34 that include questions related to the employee's ability to satisfy budget requirements 36, achieve sales results 38 and the ability to generate/produce sufficient profits 40. Other factors such as cost reduction cost relative to sales and/or profit may also be considered and included in the evaluation. The evaluator provides scores 42, 44, 46 for every item 36, 38, 40, respectively, and then calculates an average scoring of all the items to generate an overall score 48 for the result module 12. The scores 42, 44, 46 and all other scores of the system 10 could be selected from a scale of 1-10 or any other suitable scale.

The business management module 14 is, preferably, focused on evaluating the business management skills of the employee relative to the customers of the company or organization. The module 14 is connected to a business management factor module 50 that includes evaluation factors such as understanding that both the customer and the company have to make money to exist so that it is important to evaluate the employee's ability to be profitable and to generate and handle money 52, the ability to respect other's opinion 54, the ability to communicate with clarity 56 to customers and others, the ability to work 58 towards common goals and to find common solutions and the ability to negotiate or establish long term 60 relationships. The evaluator provides scores 62, 64, 66, 68 and 70 for every item 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, respectively, and then calculates an average scoring of all the items to generate an overall score 72 for the business management module 14. The cooperation module 16 may be used to evaluate the cooperation skills of the employee. The module 16 is connected to a cooperation factor module 74 that comprises evaluation factors such as how others are treated 76 by the employee, employee's willingness to give 78 to others and to cooperate with others and customers, employee's ability to ask questions and listen 80 to others, employee's ability to have a not me 82 attitude and the ability to focus the attention on others and the company, the humbleness 84 of the employee and level of positive 86 attitude of the employee to determine the ability of the employee to see opportunities instead of just problems. The evaluator provides scores 88, 90, 92, 94, 96 and 98 for every item 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, respectively, and then calculates an average scoring of all the items to generate an overall score 100 for the cooperation module 16.

The knowledge module 18 is preferably used to evaluate the knowledge and familiarity of the skills required to satisfactorily perform and complete the particular project. The module 18 is connected to a knowledge factor module 102 that comprises an evaluation factor related to how much knowledge and familiarity 104 the employee has in the particular subject matter of the project being evaluated. The knowledge 104 may also be related to education and knowledge of specific subject matter. The evaluator provides a score 106 to generate an overall score 108 for the knowledge module 18.

Once the scores 48, 72, 100, 108 have been generated, the evaluator calculates an average score 110 that is transferred to the project summary module 20. Similarly, average scores may be transferred to the modules 22, 24 for other projects that have been completed by the employee who is being evaluated. Preferably, the projects should have a length of at least three months to qualify for the modules 20, 22 and 24. Of course, the projects to be evaluated may also be shorter, if so desired. Preferably, the evaluation is conducted by the evaluator shortly, such as within 10 days, after the completion of a project by the employee. The system 10 ensures, in this way, that the evaluator, such as the supervisor, actually conducts the evaluation and that the evaluation is performed while the evaluator still remembers the performance of the employee. The module 20 may also include the name 112 of the employee, code number 114 of the employee and a project name 116 that identifies the particular project that is being evaluated. The code number 114 is preferably identical to the code 30. The module 20 may also include the name of the supervisor 118 of the project, the time period 120 being evaluated and the name of the evaluator 121.

If the overall score 32 of the employee is based on a 1-10 scale and the employee obtains a score between 1- 4, the employee is deemed unsuitable for the position and should be out-placed or transferred elsewhere within or outside the company. The personnel department of the company will get in contact with the employee and/or the employee will be asked to consult the personnel department of the company. Employees in this category do not often get along with the supervisor and the situation may be better handled by a neutral or detached personnel department. The employee may also be asked to take a personality or suitability test to identify a more suitable position for the employee and to find out what the interests are of the employee. Both the employer and the employee gain from a transfer of the employee because the employee is probably not happy with providing an unacceptably low performance and the employee is not profitable for the company. If the overall score 32 is between 5-7, the employee could still improve and the employee may be asked to meet with the person who is responsible for the employee's position or projects. The employee may also be asked to take a personality or suitability test to better identify the areas that need improvement to bring up the score to 8-10.

If the overall score 32 is between 8-10, the employee is suitable for the position and should be kept by the company. The employee may even be rewarded and be asked to discuss with the supervisor ways to improve the employee's position on an annual basis or twice a year. An important feature of the present invention is that the score 32 of the database is continually accumulated and updated after each project the employee completes. If thousands of employees are handled with the system 10, the color of the module 26 may be different based on the score 32. For example, if the score, as indicated by a first threshold value 126, is between 1-4, a red color could be used, if the score, as indicated by a second threshold value 128, is between 5-7, an orange/yellow color could be used and if the score, as indicated by a third threshold value 130, is between 8- 10, a green color on the monitor or green printed paper could be used. In this way, it is very easy to distinguish employees in the various categories from one another. It also makes it easier for a new supervisor to quickly learn about the abilities of the employees who are subordinate to the supervisor so that the supervisor can take advantage of the previous supervisor's evaluation.

The system 10 may come in at least three different versions . The most comprehensive version may include all the components of Fig. 1. A less comprehensive version may include the modules 12-26 and the least comprehensive version may only include the modules 20-26. The least comprehensive version is less time consuming to fill out for the evaluator but may not be as accurate .

It may be possible to evaluate the evaluator by searching the records to find out, for example, if an evaluator gives consistently very low or high scores . It may also be possible to determine if an evaluator is inconsistent with the evaluation of an employee provided by other evaluators .

While the present invention has been described in accordance with preferred compositions and embodiments, it is to be understood that certain substitutions and alterations may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the following claims .

Claims

I claim:

1. A method for evaluating an individual in an organization, comprising: providing a financial result module (12) , a business management module (14) , a cooperation module (16) and a knowledge module (18) ; associating the modules (12, 14, 16, 18) to a first project summary module (20) , a second project summary module (22) and a third project summary module (24) ; associating the modules (20, 22, 24) with an overall score module (26) ; evaluating a competence level of the individual regarding measurable economic factors contained in the module (12) and calculating a first score (48) based on the economic factor evaluation; evaluating a competence level of business management skill factors of the individual contained in the module (14) and calculating a second score (72) based on the business management evaluation; evaluating a competence level of cooperation skill factor of the individual contained in the module (16) and calculating a third score (100) based on the cooperation evaluation; evaluating a competence level of knowledge and familiarity in a certain field and calculating a fourth score (108) based on the knowledge evaluation; calculating a first overall project score (110) based on the first score (48) , the second score (72) , the third score (100) and the fourth score (108) ; transferring the score (110) to the first project summary module (20) ; providing a second overall project score (122) for the second project summary module (22) ; providing a third overall project score (124) for the third project summary module (24) ; calculating an overall score (32) based on the first project score (110) , the second project score (122) and the third project score (124) ; transferring the score (32) to an overall score module (26) ; keeping the individual within the organization when the score (32) is above a first threshold value (126) ; and providing training to the individual when the score (32) is below the first threshold value but above a second threshold value (128) .

2. The method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises terminating the organization's use of services of the individual when the score (32) is below a third threshold value (130) .

3. The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of calculating the score (48) comprises evaluating the individual's ability to satisfy budget requirements (36), achieve sales results (38) and to generate profits (40) .

4. The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of calculating the score (72) comprises evaluating the individual's ability to generate and handle money (52), respect other's opinion (54), communicate with clarity (56) and work towards a common goal (58) .

5. The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of calculating the score (100) comprises evaluating the individual's ability to treat (76) others well in the organization, give (78) to others in the organization, listen (80) to others in the organization, focus (82) on others than the individual, show humbleness (84) and positive attitude (86) .

6. The method according to claim 1 wherein the step of calculating the score (108) comprises evaluating the individual's knowledge of and ability to carry out the project (20) .

7. The method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises marking the module (26) with a first color when the score is above the value (126) .

8. The method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises marking the module (26) with a second color when the score is below the value (126) but above the value (128) .

9. The method according to claim 1 wherein the method further comprises marking the module (26) with a third color when the score is below the value (128) .