U.S. patent application number 11/137057 was filed with the patent office on 2005-09-22 for computerized employee evaluation processing apparatus and method.
Invention is credited to Bradshaw, William Brent.
Application Number | 20050209709 11/137057 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 31998054 |
Filed Date | 2005-09-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050209709 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Bradshaw, William Brent |
September 22, 2005 |
Computerized employee evaluation processing apparatus and
method
Abstract
A method for computerized industrial process control provides
computers networked to communicate with one another. Each computer
active in the system is responsbile for at least a portion of the
process and at least one decision for a process to be controlled
and having an output. All activities are characterized by type, the
types of activities forming a universal set including sensing
facts, linking facts into a meaningful context, and evaluating
meaning to formulate a decision. An entity responsible for an
assigned decision conducts a series of activities selected from the
three types, which may be applied recursively. Decisions are
communicated between computers through the system to control the
process. Producing output from the process follows according to a
combination of decisions reported from each computer corresponding
to a responsible person or other entity. In various embodiments,
the process control may be hardware product development,
manufacturing, chemical composition processing, or data collection
and processing such as from instruments and machines or
computerized information processes including employee
evaluation.
Inventors: |
Bradshaw, William Brent;
(Pleasant Grove, UT) |
Correspondence
Address: |
PATE PIERCE & BAIRD
215 SOUTH STATE STREET, SUITE 550
PARKSIDE TOWER
SALT LAKE CITY
UT
84111
US
|
Family ID: |
31998054 |
Appl. No.: |
11/137057 |
Filed: |
May 25, 2005 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11137057 |
May 25, 2005 |
|
|
|
10666106 |
Sep 18, 2003 |
|
|
|
6901301 |
|
|
|
|
60411704 |
Sep 19, 2002 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
700/2 ;
705/7.42 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 10/06398 20130101;
G06Q 10/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
700/002 ;
705/011 |
International
Class: |
G05B 019/18; G06F
017/60 |
Claims
What is claimed and desired to be secured by United States Letters
Patent is:
1. A method for computerized industrial process control, the method
comprising: providing a system comprising computers networked to
communicate with one another, each computer being selectively
activated to cooperatively operate and communicate with other
computers in the system and comprising a processor, a memory device
operably connected thereto, and a network connection for
communicating with the other computers in the system; selecting a
process to be controlled and having an output corresponding
thereto; selecting an entity corresponding to each computer active
in the system to be responsible for at least a portion of the
process and at least one decision; providing a set of types of
activities, the set being a universal set and consisting of sensing
facts, linking facts into a meaningful context, and evaluating
meaning to form a decision; assigning to each entity at least one
assigned decision; inputting facts to each entity; conducting by
each entity a series of activities selected from the three types,
applied recursively; executing and outputting by each entity the at
least one assigned decision through the computer to the system;
communicating the at least one assigned decision from each entity
through the system to control the process; and producing the output
from the process according to a combination of the at least one
decision from each entity.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein activities of each of the types
recurses within itself to contain activities of each of the three
types therein.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of types is part of a
recursion from a higher level of activity corresponding to one of
the types, and wherein the higher level activity exists in a
greater domain of activities encompassing the process.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the process controlled is a
manufacturing process and the output is a product.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the product is a mechanical
device.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the product is a chemical
composition.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the product is an object
previously created in a received condition, and the output is the
object delivered in a changed condition with respect to the
received condition.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the output is information.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the information is at least one
employee-evaluation score.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the process further comprises
providing an employee evaluation by: defining at least one group of
persons; including a first employee in the at least one group;
accessing the each computer by at least one second employee;
presenting questions directed to an ability of the first employee
to process and implement decisions in each of nine areas, the nine
areas constituting a universal, recursive, exclusive, and
exhaustive set of activities directed to a corresponding decision;
receiving and processing scores corresponding to the questions, in
which each score represents a numerical value scaled to compare the
first employee with a standard maximum score assigned by the second
employee to a member of the at least one group; and providing a
score comparing the first employee to a score corresponding to the
group.
11. A method for computerized industrial process control, the
method comprising: providing a system comprising computers
networked to communicate with one another, each computer being
selectively activated to cooperatively operate and communicate with
other computers in the system and comprising a processor, a memory
device operably connected thereto, and a network connection for
communicating with the other computers in the system; selecting a
manufacturing process to be controlled and having an output
corresponding thereto comprising a product; selecting for each
computer active in the system a designated person responsible for
at least a portion of the process and at least one decision;
providing a set of types of activities, the set comprising a
universal, recursive, exclusive, exhaustive set of types consisting
of sensing facts, linking facts into a meaningful context, and
evaluating meaning to form a decision; assigning to the each
computer at least one assigned decision corresponding to one of the
types of activities; providing inputs to the each computer;
conducting by the each computer in coordination with the designated
person a series of activities selected from the three types,
applied recursively; outputting to the system by the each computer
in coordination with the designated person the at least one
assigned decision; communicating the at least one assigned decision
to at least one second computer in the system identified to receive
outputs from the each computer; and producing the output from the
process according to a combination of the at least one decision
from each entity.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising reporting by the
each computer the assigned decision to at least one third computer
responsible to provide inputs to the each computer.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein the output is a product, the
method further comprising delivering custody of the product to a
third party, independent from the entity producing the output, for
inspection with respect to compliance with constraints.
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising delivering the
product to the third party in an exchange for compensation.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the product is selected from
the group consisting of a chemical composition, a manufactured
hardware device, information, a gathered resource, and a software
application.
16. The method of claim 15 wherein the output is information
comprising an evaluation of personnel based on nine factors
consisting of an ability to process and follow up on the nine
factors consisting of vision, connections, resources, issues,
objectives, ideas, constraints, projects, and results.
17. A method of automated, computerized collection and processing
of personnel evaluations, the method comprising: providing
computers networked to communicate with each other; programming the
computers with a software application to present questions, collect
answers, and process scores corresponding to the answers; defining
at least one group of persons; including a first employee in the at
least one group; accessing the at least one computer of the
computers by at least one second employee; presenting by the at
least one computer questions directed to an ability of the first
employee in each area of a set of areas, the areas constituting an
exhaustive set of activities to be measured and lying within the
scope of responsibility of the first employee; receiving and
processing scores corresponding to the questions, in which each
score represents a numerical value scaled to compare the first
employee with a standard maximum score assigned by the second
employee to a member of the at least one group; and providing a
score comparing the first employee to a standard corresponding to
the group.
18. The method of claim 17 wherein the questions comprise
requesting a score corresponding to an evaluation of the first
employee based on an ability to process and follow up on decisions
in each area of the set of areas.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the each decision corresponds
to one of a universal and closed set of activities for processing,
deciding, and following up on decisions.
20. The method of claim 20 wherein the closed set corresponds to
nine areas consisting of vision, connections, resources, issues,
objectives, ideas, constraints, projects, and results.
Description
RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional
Application Ser. No. 60/411,704, filed Sep. 19, 2002, and U.S.
application Ser. No. 10/666,106, filed Sep. 18, 2003, which will
issue as U.S. Pat. No. 6,901,301 on May 31, 2005.
BACKGROUND
[0002] 1. The Field of the Invention
[0003] This invention relates to computerized collection and
processing of data and, more particularly, to novel systems and
methods for industrial process control.
[0004] 2. The Background Art
[0005] People in the business of manufacturing products, companies
producing services, entities that harvest resources for sale, and
the like often believe that their business operates on actions.
People and organizations alike often mistake activity for the core
of their business. Doing physical activities that produce an
obvious and measurable output, product, or dollar value are often
credited with the success of a business. Nevertheless, behind every
business activity lie decisions made and implemented in order to
achieve each consequent result.
[0006] Companies are always interested in improving their
productivity, profitability, outputs, and other measures of
compensation. As a result, a major resource in the many business
entities and environments is the human resource. Human resources,
unlike machines, have opinions and feelings of their own. Human
beings have opinions with respect to one another on nearly any
subject held in common. That is, individuals have opinions as to
their own value in an organization, their own value in their roles,
their own values to the overall operation. Similarly, human beings
typically have opinions as to the relative values of others to an
organization, to a task, to any endeavor with which associated.
[0007] Human resources are often evaluated in subjective terms.
Subjectivity creates immediate conflict in many instances due to a
reviewer and a reviewed person making evaluations based on
differing criteria, differing events, and different views of facts.
Employee management, training, education, employment, evaluation,
and the like are often not reliable, repeatable, or objective,
despite claims to being all of the above and more in terms of
fairness. What is needed is a system and method for providing
reliable, repeatable, useful employee evaluations. Moreover,
employee evaluations often take excessive amounts of time,
attention, emotional cost, and the like. Evaluations are often
responsible for employees' frustration, employees' attitudes, and
so forth. Likewise, employee evaluations typically take excessive
amounts of time away from other administrative tasks. Nevertheless,
few can doubt the importance of human resources and the proper
evaluation and management thereof.
[0008] Therefore, it would be very helpful to obtain a system for
evaluating employees in which employees evaluations require a
minimal amount of time. Rather than days, weeks, and even months
for execution of employee evaluation processes, a simple straight
forward approach using computers, both to collect data and process
data, would be extremely useful. Moreover, if an employee
evaluation system were both reliable, repeatable, substantially
objective, normalized over a broad base of opinions, accurately and
quickly executed, and accurately and quickly processed to provide
meaningful outputs, such a system would be an extremely valuable
advance in the state of the art.
[0009] What is needed is a system that provides a system of
criteria that can cover many and varied situations, repeatably,
through multiple evaluations, provide meaningful results, that can
be implemented both by management, and in training or sustaining
individuals in a work force. Such a system implemented on computers
whereby employee investment in time and emotions is minimized, and
management investment in understanding, justifying, reporting,
negotiating, and discussing both inputs and results can be
minimized.
[0010] What is needed likewise is a set of criteria on the basis of
which an employee evaluation system may be founded. A set o
criteria that can cover all situations, at all levels of an
organization, over all levels of responsibility and over all
entities within a business, whether organizations,
suborganizations, individuals, or the like, such a system would be
universally valuable as it would be universally applicable.
[0011] Since businesses operate based on various operational
priorities with various organizational structures, capital
expenditures and distributions of overhead expenses (e.g.
machinery, real estate, other resources, etc.) a universal
management style seems impossible. Moreover, universal management
and leaderhip criteria seem impossible to define. Various
consultants have derived their own organizational theories, some
tried, some untried, to promote. Similarly, people who have been
successful or organizations that have been successful are often
consulted, venerated, or deified as experts on all aspects of
management or industrial success. Various consultants work on
detailed analysis of physical steps executed by workers in a
factory. Other consultants operate on the mental attitudes within
organizations and individuals. Yet other experts operate on
information flow. Other experts operate to improve capital
expenditures and the management thereof. Yet other experts operate
on improving communication processes. Thus, various areas of focus
each attempt to solve all of the problems of management.
[0012] Most management techniques reduce to simple money management
techniques. Many business schools are complained of in industry as
producing only people who understand principle and interest.
Allocation of capital assets is not the only factor, especially
when human resources, the variability of people, and the
variability of particular situations must be taken into account.
All the world is not a bank. Many businesses still must manage
people, products, markets, and customers.
[0013] Management consultants, managers, and other evangelists of
particular approaches to management often preach a style of
management or leadership that suited their particular organization,
time, product, market, industry, personnel, or the like. Styles of
management or leadership do not necessarily translate to other
situations, personnel, and the like. Many "principles" and
"secrets" of management, and success amount to little more than
stylistic preferences that suit personalities and organizations in
which they were successful before. Moreover, many other aspects of
success may have been ignored, while the full success attribution
was given to a particular portion or element implemented.
[0014] Many business realize the importance of their decision
processes. Therefore, many businesses seek help from management,
consultants, and the like to assist in improving decision
processes. Many decision methodologies are evangelized by
professors, consultants, university business departments, and the
like. Nevertheless, all decisions in an organization are not equal.
Moreover, all decisions cannot be handled in exactly the same way.
It has been found that each decision made by an organization or
individual depends on many decisions that were made previously.
Likewise, each decision made effects a host of downstream
decisions.
[0015] One approach that has gained recent popularity is the
concept of "decision frames." The process of using decision frames
in order to couch a decision in its proper environment or context
requires an identification and listing of contributions affecting a
decision. However, contributions to a decision are treated as an
infinite universe of facts, events, resources, personnel, issues,
and the like that may affect a decision.
[0016] As such, the contribution to a decision becomes an
infinitely large set of constraints, issues, or the like from which
one arbitrarily picks those deemed to be most significant.
Effectively, much of the structure the decision frames promise
actually is illusory. Moreover, decision frame theory does not
appear to distinguish one decision type from another, the
sequencing of decisions that relate to one another, or the fact
that different decisions have different import, require different
processes or are used in different ways that may affect the
decision.
[0017] What is needed, but deemed impossible by those in a position
to preach management theories, is an exclusive set of decision
types that fit every decision. Similarly, what is needed is an
exhaustive set such that every decision can be made, every decision
can be identified, and every decision can be covered by a set of
decision types.
[0018] An important element of military strategy is focus.
Similarly, in many businesses, focus becomes a success. One
philosophical observation is that people who are not so bright
actually succeed more often because they maintain their focus and
do not get distracted by other alternatives and opportunities. That
is, many businesses and people succeed due to a focus or harping on
a single point.
[0019] Much of management consulting amounts merely to motivation.
That is, many consultants identify a particular principle, often a
single principle, and then simply prompt motivation to focus on
that principle and not forget it. Accordingly, they leave to the
"student" the exercise of finding a way. Many businesses, with
either negative or positive motivations believe that providing
sufficient motivation will lead people to solve problems.
[0020] Many times people do solve problems. Nevertheless, problems
continue to crop up that should not return, because they should
have been handled properly in the first place. Thus, providing a
single principle, and much motivation, expecting the "student to
work out the details," is not necessarily good management practice,
does not extend overall personality types, and is difficult to
implement in an organization of any size.
[0021] What is needed is a system and method whereby a more
balanced view of all decisions and activities can be kept in focus
at once, so that a weak area is not allowed to hold its strong area
hostage. A very visible principle is not allowed to obscure a less
understood principle and a misunderstood principle is not allowed
to hold hostage great principles that are failing in
implementation.
[0022] Some industrial processes are defined to the extent that
they sequence certain events, activities, or decisions. For
example, modem software development acknowledges the need to
establish requirements for software, function and performance
before beginning coding. Similarly, testing logically follows
completion of coding, and is inappropriate before.
BRIEF SUMMARY AND OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION
[0023] Consistent with the foregoing objects, and in accordance
with the invention as embodied and broadly described herein, a
method and apparatus are disclosed in one embodiment of the present
invention as including a computerized process control for an
industrial process.
[0024] In one embodiment of an apparatus and method in accordance
with the invention, a computerized industrial process control may
provide a system of computers networked to communicate with one
another. Each computer may be selectively activated to
cooperatively operate and communicate with other computers in the
system. Each computer may include a processor, a memory device
operably connected thereto, and a network connection for
communicating with the other computers in the system.
[0025] In certain embodiments, a process may be selected to be
controlled. An output may include a product, a composition, a
condition, or the like in an industrial environment.
[0026] The process may select an entity corresponding to each
computer within the networked system of computers to be responsible
for a portion of the process responsible for producing output. Each
entity is responsible for at least one decision. Even a decision to
operate or not operate is a decision that may be made by an entity.
Typically, an entity may be a machine, an organization, a person,
or an object linked to the computer, and to the system.
[0027] In one embodiment, the system may provide a universal set of
types of activities. The types include sensing facts, linking
facts, and evaluating facts in preparation for a decision. Sensing,
linking, and evaluating correspond to seeing, thinking, and doing
as executed by human beings. Nevertheless, facts, links of facts
with each other into a meaningful context, and linking of various
contexts to provide a broader context result in meaning and
significance for facts.
[0028] In one contemplated embodiment, a system and method in
accordance with the invention input facts to each entity, after
which each entity executes a series of specific activities from the
palette of universal types (e.g. sensing, linking, evaluating).
Typically, the activity types may apply in pairs. That is, many
activities have responsibilities or components that belong to two
of the types of activities. In fact, a universal, general,
recursive set of types is sensing, linking, and evaluating,
operated in sequence. Such a system may be part of a recursion from
above in a broader context, and may recurse downward to more
detailed context.
[0029] Each entity eventually outputs at least one assigned
decision through the computer to the system. Accordingly, the
various decisions are all contributions to the overall functioning
of the controlled process. The controlled process may be the entire
process of an enterprise. In an alternative embodiment, the process
is a chemical manufacturing process. In other embodiments, the
process is a product development process. Likewise, a product
manufacturing process may be executed in accordance with the
invention.
[0030] Ultimately, the assigned decisions are communicated through
a computer system between entities. Decisions, the process of
making the decisions, and the output of decisions, along with
implementation plans are output from each entity responsible for a
decision to another entity responsible for using those inputs to
execute its own decisions and operations. Likewise, each entity
responsible for a decision communicates back to those from which a
task or decision was delegated in order to coordinate. Ultimately,
the system produces an output from the process according to a
combination of all of the decisions from the entities responsible,
agglomerated through a computer system communicating between the
entities.
[0031] In one embodiment, a business enterprise, whether it be
manufacturing chemical compositions, manufactured products, or
services, may be evaluated according to its adherence to the
universal set of recursively connected decisions and activities.
Likewise, individuals and organizations may be evaluated on their
adherence to the process, and their results obtained.
[0032] In one embodiment, a basic recursive element containing each
of three types of activities (e.g. sensing, linking, and
evaluating) recurses into a matrix of nine activities that may be
identified. Each activity includes an instantiation of sensing,
linking, and evaluating. Each instantiation includes at least one
decision. Each of the instantiations may recurse downward into more
detail, and may be part of a recursion upward into an agglomeration
by a larger organization, stewardship, or domain of interest.
[0033] Since an organization, process, product, development,
operation, or the like may operate according to a palate of nine
well defined decisions, with their methods of reaching decisions
and implementing those decisions, individuals, organizations, and
enterprises or other entities can be evaluated according to their
adherence and results obtained from executing the nine decisions,
their supporting activities in making them, and their subsequent
activities in implementing them.
[0034] The output of a process in accordance with the invention may
be a device, a computer program, a computer application,
information, a service, an action, a machine, a composition of
matter, energy, or the like. Likewise, an entity responsible for an
element of the matrix of decisions may be selected from a person or
thing. For example, an entity may be a person, an organization, a
company, a vendor, a milling machine, a lathe, a drill, a press, a
printer, a computer, a chemical reaction, a manufacturing
production line, or the like.
[0035] In an apparatus and method in accordance with the invention,
a limited universe or set of decisions is provided. That set of
decisions provides an exclusive and exhaustive set of decisions, an
exclusive and exhaustive set of relationships between decisions,
and a unique, reliable, consistent sequencing of decisions with
respect to one another. Moreover, the relationship between a set of
nine decisions is such that all eight decisions not in question at
a given time form the environment or define an environment for the
ninth decision of interest.
[0036] Thus, a system of nine decisions, each with its process for
accumulating information to make the decision, a process for making
the decision, and a process for implementing the decision are
included in the system. Moreover, the fundamental building block of
decisions may be represented as a single recursive unit that can be
repeated (e.g. nested) downward within a decision to further
dissect a decision into sub-elements or sub-decisions that will
lead to the decision in question. Moreover, the basic unit may be
recursed upward to a broader level or a broader stewardship scope
built up from smaller decisions. Thus, a universal, recursive,
generalized process for making decisions is presented in a closed
set of decisions and associated processes for reaching them and
implementing them.
[0037] The decision process in modern business may be executed by a
single person, by an entity, by an organization, or the like. In a
system and method in accordance with the invention, collaborative
development of products, processes, and the like may be done
collaboratively by individuals within an organization over a
computer network. That is, once a universal, recursive, closed set
of decisions and associated processes for reaching them and
implementing them has been created, with sufficiently clear
definitions of roles and relationships as well as activities,
collaborative efforts over a network by multiple entities may be a
reality and not a system's engineering nightmare.
[0038] Since a system for product control, product development
processes, software development processes, collaborative decision
making, collaborative manufacturing and design, and the like may be
embodied as an implementation of a system and method in accordance
with the invention, personnel evaluations become a greatly
simplified matter. That is, since all decisions can be identified,
entities associated with those decisions can be identified, and the
processes for making decisions and implementing them can be
identified, then individuals and organizations can be held
accountable for their decisions and implementation therefor. A
personnel evaluation system in accordance with the invention
assesses the ability and the actual execution of each person and
organization in preparing for, executing, and implementing the
decisions within the purview of the scope of their job.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0039] The foregoing and other objects and features of the present
invention will become more fully apparent from the following
description and appended claims, taken in conjunction with the
accompanying drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict
only typical embodiments of the invention and are, therefore, not
to be considered limiting of its scope, the invention will be
described with additional specificity and detail through use of the
accompanying drawings in which:
[0040] FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a computer system in
network in accordance with the invention;
[0041] FIG. 2 is a schematic block diagram of a computer readable
memory device loaded with executables and data implementing a
system in accordance with the invention;
[0042] FIG. 3 is a schematic block diagram showing the interactions
of the various logical portions of one embodiment of a system in
accordance with the invention;
[0043] FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram of one embodiment of a
process implementing the invention as an employee evaluation
program;
[0044] FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram of details of the
computer application for receiving and processing user inputs in
one embodiment of a system in accordance with the invention;
[0045] FIG. 6 is a screen shot of one embodiment of the system of
FIG. 5;
[0046] FIG. 7 is a screen shot from the embodiment of FIG. 5;
[0047] FIG. 8 is a table illuminating the content of one embodiment
of the system of FIG. 5;
[0048] FIG. 9 is a screen shot of a summary work screen associated
with the embodiment of FIG. 5;
[0049] FIG. 10 is a tabular matrix of elements constituting inputs,
outputs, processes, and results from a processing in accordance
with the invention;
[0050] FIG. 11 is a chart illustrating a correspondence between
selected activities, tasks, roles, and objects in accordance with
FIG. 10;
[0051] FIG. 12 is a chart illustrating the proximity of
relationships between processes and information, as well as
activities, in the chart of FIG. 10;
[0052] FIG. 13 is a schematic block diagram of one embodiment of a
linearization of the process of FIG. 10.
[0053] FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram illustrating the interactions
and the recursive nature of processes, decisions, communications,
and relationships for a process in accordance with FIG. 10;
[0054] FIG. 15 is a schematic block diagram of a basic, recursive
element for the processes of FIGS. 10-14;
[0055] FIG. 16 is a schematic block diagram illustrating the
relationships between various recursions of the elements of FIG. 15
and the processes of FIGS. 10-14; and
[0056] FIG. 17 is a schematic block diagram illustrating a
collaborative product development process.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0057] It will be readily understood that the components of the
present invention, as generally described and illustrated in the
Figures herein, could be arranged and designed in a wide variety of
different configurations. Thus, the following more detailed
description of the embodiments of systems and methods in accordance
with the present invention, as represented in FIGS. 1 through 17,
is not intended to limit the scope of the invention, as claimed,
but is merely representative of certain examples of presently
contemplated embodiments in accordance with the invention. The
presently described embodiments will be best understood by
reference to the drawings, wherein like parts are designated by
like numerals throughout.
[0058] Language is useful but inherently limiting. Words have
multiple meanings, yet those meanings are often imprecise or
inadequate. Nevertheless, as to terms used in the matrix of
elements herein, the following definitions will apply.
[0059] Vision is an active mental "image" of a thing believed to
have attainable value--real vision initiates and sustains action
but does not, of itself, define what to do or how to do it, leaving
those details for later definition. Vision is the result of
discovering things tangible or abstract, assigning them negative or
positive values, and then believing and illuminating them for all
involved to avoid, ignore, or pursue.
[0060] Connections are committed relationships between two or more
entities typically aligned in an organized framework to achieve a
common vision. Communication, transportation, cooperation,
coordination and so on are examples of connections. Connections are
the result of establishing and cultivating the right interactions
between every factor necessary to effectively and efficiently
achieve a vision.
[0061] Resources are building blocks necessary to support all steps
of a process. Knowledge, information, personnel, skills, abilities,
tools, time, space, money, energy, materials, machinery, buildings
and so on are all examples of resources. Resources are the result
of developing everything building block needed to achieve the
vision and of allocating them appropriately.
[0062] Issues are criteria believed to define desired outcomes
(benefits) relating to separately identifiable problems or
opportunities. Issues support a vision but do not necessarily
suggest how that outcome is to be achieved. Issues are the result
of exploring problems and opportunities and refining them into
believable benefits and criteria to clarify a focus for achieving a
vision.
[0063] Objectives are committed outcomes that are balanced and
organized within an overall strategy, which may or may not address
all considered issues. Objectives are the result of organizing a
cohesive strategy to align all relevant issues and then of
committing to pursue and achieve the outcomes therein.
[0064] Ideas are potential "bridges" to connect objectives with
specific activities or designs so as to achieve a desired
result--ideas may be either original or borrowed. Ideas are the
result of stimulating the intellect, searching other sources for
solutions to the objectives and then exploiting those ideas to
their full advantage for achieving the vision.
[0065] Constraints are substantiated costs, hurdles and other
limitations that define what is required to implement specific
ideas for related objectives. Constraints are the result of
studying costs and obstacles for all feasible options an then
selecting the best ideas, justifying them in light of their
benefits and vision.
[0066] Projects are committed, correlated actions that use
resources to follow a unified plan to produce products or services
consistent with the preceding decisions and specifications, which
may exclude some ideas and constraints previously considered.
Projects are the result of designing specific, profitable plans and
then summarizing all costs, procedures and details necessary to
direct efforts to achieve the vision.
[0067] Compensation is anything exchanged for products and services
that are produced according to plans consistent with the preceding
steps. Compensation is the result of executing a plan so that it
satisfies vision, issues, constraints, and all other decisions
leading up to that point.
[0068] Referring to FIG. 1, an apparatus 10 may implement the
invention on one or more nodes 11, (client 11, computer 11)
containing a processor 12 (CPU 12). All components may exist in a
single node 11 or may exist in multiple nodes 11, 52 remote from
one another. The CPU 12 may be operably connected to a memory
device 14. A memory device 14 may include one or more devices such
as a hard drive or other non-volatile storage device 16, a
read-only memory 18 (ROM 18) and a random access (and usually
volatile) memory 20 (RAM 20 or operational memory 20).
[0069] The apparatus 10 may include an input device 22 for
receiving inputs from a user or from another device. Similarly, an
output device 24 may be provided within the node 11, or accessible
within the apparatus 10. A network card 26 (interface card) or port
28 may be provided for connecting to outside devices, such as the
network 30.
[0070] Internally, a bus 32, or plurality of buses 32, may operably
interconnect the processor 12, memory devices 14, input devices 22,
output devices 24, network card 26 and port 28. The bus 32 may be
thought of as a data carrier. As such, the bus 32 may be embodied
in numerous configurations. Wire, fiber optic line, wireless
electromagnetic communications by visible light, infrared, and
radio frequencies may likewise be implemented as appropriate for
the bus 32 and the network 30.
[0071] Input devices 22 may include one or more physical
embodiments. For example, a keyboard 34 may be used for interaction
with the user, as may a mouse 36 or stylus pad 37. A touch screen
38, a telephone 39, or simply a telecommunications line 39, may be
used for communication with other devices, with a user, or the
like. Similarly, a scanner 40 may be used to receive graphical
inputs, which may or may not be translated to other formats. The
hard drive 41 or other memory device 41 may be used as an input
device whether resident within the node 11 or some other node 52
(e.g. 52, 54, etc.) on the network 30, or from another network
50.
[0072] Output devices 24 may likewise include one or more physical
hardware units. For example, in general, the port 28 may be used to
accept inputs into and send outputs from the node 11. Nevertheless,
a monitor 42 may provide outputs to a user for feedback during a
process, or for assisting two-way communication between the
processor 12 and a user. A printer 44, a hard drive 46, or other
device may be used for outputting information as output devices
24.
[0073] In general, a network 30 to which a node 11 connects may, in
turn, be connected through a router 48 to another network 50. In
general, two nodes 11, 52 may be on a network 30, adjoining
networks 30, 50, or may be separated by multiple routers 48 and
multiple networks 50 as individual nodes 11, 52 on an internetwork.
The individual nodes 52 (e.g. 11, 48, 52, 54) may have various
communication capabilities.
[0074] In certain embodiments, a minimum of logical capability may
be available in any node 52. Note that any of the individual nodes
11, 48, 52, 54 may be referred to, as may all together, as a node
11 or a node 52. Each may contain a processor 12 with more or less
of the other components 14-46.
[0075] A network 30 may include one or more servers 54. Servers may
be used to manage, store, communicate, transfer, access, update,
and the like, any practical number of files, databases, or the like
for other nodes 52 on a network 30. Typically, a server 54 may be
accessed by all nodes 11, 52 on a network 30. Nevertheless, other
special functions, including communications, applications,
directory services, and the like, may be implemented by an
individual server 54 or multiple servers 54.
[0076] In general, a node 11 may need to communicate over a network
30 with a server 54, a router 48, or nodes 52. Similarly, a node 11
may need to communicate over another network (50) in an
internetwork connection with some remote node 52. Likewise,
individual components 12-46 may need to communicate data with one
another. A communication link may exist, in general, between any
pair of devices.
[0077] Referring to FIG. 2, a memory device 14 or a computer
readable medium 14 may store various logical elements for operating
in the system 10. For example, an evaluation system 60 may
represent one embodiment of an apparatus and method in accordance
with the present invention. The evaluation system 60 may be an
application or system of applications 60 operating on an operating
system 62 in a computer 11 within a system 10. Typically, other
software 64 may operate on the same operating system 62. The
evaluation system 60 may benefit from the use of an existing
database engine 66. The data base engine 66 may be an independent
system operated for other functions as well as support of
evaluation system 60. In an alternative embodiment, the evaluation
60 may include a database engine 66 dedicated thereto.
[0078] In typical embodiments, a database engine 66 may operate to
create, modify, and otherwise manage a set of records 68. In some
embodiments, the records may include employee records 69a
maintained for reasons other than those served by the evaluation
system 60. In some embodiments, records 69b may be generated for
and by the evaluation system 60. In other embodiments, the records
69b may simply be consolidated with employee records 69a maintained
for other purposes. Nevertheless, in certain presently contemplated
embodiments, the evaluation system 60 will engage a database 66 to
create records 69b providing inputs and outputs supporting the
evaluation system 60.
[0079] In one presently contemplated embodiment, a user interface
70 provided in the evaluation system 60 may interface with
individual employees inputting into the system, supervisors
inputting into the system and operating on data within the system,
and administrators responsible for operation of the evaluation
system 60. The user interface 70 may rely upon certain content
files 72 or content 72. The content 72 may include operational data
used by the user interface 70. That is, the user interface 70 may
be thought of as the collection of executables responsible for
operating the evaluation system 60. By contrast, the content 72 is
information relied upon routinely by the user interface 70.
[0080] Additional executables may exist in a processing module 74.
The processing module may be responsible for the operations of
accepting inputs, producing outputs, and performing any
calculations and manipulations of data in order to meet the
objectives of the evaluation system 60. Typically, a reporting
module 76 may produce reports to be transmitted electronically,
printed, or otherwise distributed to participants and to those
responsible for operating the evaluation system 60.
[0081] In one embodiment, the content 72 may include question
content 78. Question content 78 includes, for example, text and
data necessary to construct questions to be provided to a user.
Similarly, graphic content 80 may be included to provide symbols,
screens, images, and the like, as well as formatting and so forth.
Templates 82 may include content 78 that does not change
frequently, or graphics 80. However, typically, templates 82 may
predominantly contain formatting information for agglomerating and
using any of the content 72 may be used for the user interface
70.
[0082] The processing module 74 may include executables such as an
input module 84 to handle the processing and management of inputs.
Likewise, an output module 86 may handle the processing and
direction of outputs. A calculation module 88 may include the
routines for performing mathematical manipulations, statistical
analyses, and the like as required in order to convert inputs to
outputs.
[0083] Referring to FIG. 3, one embodiment of a process 90 for
implementing an evaluation system 60 on a computer 11 or system 10
may operate with an existing database 92, such as, for example, a
personnel records database 92. As a practical matter, the process
90 or the evaluation system 60 may be used in a number of
environments, including commercial product evaluations, university
teaching situations, and the like. However, in one presently
contemplated embodiment, the process 90 and the evaluation system
60 may be used for personnel evaluations within an organization,
such as a company.
[0084] An existing database 92 may be augmented, or may be added to
with a survey database 94. The survey database 94 may simply
constitute certain fields within records in the existing database
92. In an alternative embodiment, the survey database 94 may be
additional records in the database 92.
[0085] In yet another alternative embodiment, the survey database
94 may be constituted as a separate database operated by the same
or another database engine with respect to the existing database
92. However, in certain contemplated embodiments, an advantage
exists to working with records and a database 92 that already
includes other employee information.
[0086] Accordingly, an interface 96 for cooperating between the
existing database 92 and the survey database 94 may be implemented
in a single engine, multiple engines, formatting and exchange
protocols, or the like.
[0087] Employee evaluations are conducted in numerous ways. Current
systems often rely only on highly confidential written documents,
such as hardcopies of forms and reports. To the extent that an
existing database 92 does not include records supporting the
evaluation system 60, or to the extent that the existing database
92 does have records that can be used, or whose information can be
used by the evaluation system 60, an input module 98 may support
the input and editing of data corresponding to individuals, e.g.
employees. Inputs are directed in accordance with the question
content 78 of the system 60. Additional details of the questions,
answers, and the processing thereof will be discussed herein
below.
[0088] Management schemes vary substantially between organizations.
Some operations rely on a strict combination of personnel and
functions mapped almost one-to-one in an organization. That is,
employees and their roles are virtually inseparable. In other
management embodiments, a matrix format is used.
[0089] For example, a program manager may be responsible for
financial controls and functional accomplishments of a program,
while other managers are responsible for personnel. In another
example, an engineering manager may be regarded as a manager of
certain engineering resources, constituting some amount of
equipment and personnel providing certain services, skills, and so
forth. A program manager may then contact an engineering manager
and negotiate for the resources to accomplish a program's
objectives.
[0090] In other management structures, ad hoc groups are
constituted as task forces, product development groups, or the
like. Individuals may work full time or part time within an
organization. People may work for multiple organizations.
Accordingly, a group module 100 provides for the input and editing
of information defining groups. In certain contemplated
embodiments, an individual employee may be evaluated within and by
every group which that individual has a relationship. By the same
token, an individual employee, supervisor, or the like may be
requested to evaluate every person within every group in which that
evaluator operates. Accordingly, the group module 100 provides for
creation of groups and their constituent members.
[0091] Continuity is an important part of any ongoing relationship.
Few relationships in life are as fraught with emotional investment
as the employee-employer relationship. Continuity of the evaluation
process 90 may therefore be important to an employer and an
employee. Accordingly, a history module 102 may provide for the
input and editing of a history of surveys or employee evaluations.
For example, an employer may determine to conduct surveys or
employee reviews monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually, or the
like. Accordingly, it is advisable to create records for receiving
new data in a new instance of a review cycle, without destroying
previous data. Moreover, it may be important to set up the history
of surveys in such a way that old data may be used for comparisons
in order to determine trends, progress, and the like.
[0092] A collection module 104 may be responsible to collect
answers from each individual in each group. The collection module
104 may implement many of the details of the user interface 70 in
order to present to each individual employee a series of
appropriate questions, opportunities to edit, opportunities to make
comments, and the like. Similarly, the collection module 104 may be
implemented in certain embodiments to involve only management.
[0093] For example, in certain embodiments, managers may simply
evaluate employees, rather than having every employee evaluate
every other employee. Nevertheless, it has been found productive
and tractable to have every member of a group evaluate every member
of that group, in a 360 degree scope. That is, all members of a
group may evaluate every other member of the group with whom they
interact, whether that person is administratively above in a
reporting chain, or below.
[0094] A calculation module 106 may provide for both the functions
of the processing module 74, as well as a certain degree of user
interaction. That is, the user interface 70 may be employed to
support a calculation module 106 in order to present intermediate
results or final results, and summaries of results, in order to
allow preview or checking by an appropriate entity. That is, for
example, a manager may desire to review inputs that he or she has
provided, to make sure that no errors were made, that no clear
outliers exist in the data.
[0095] Similarly, a manager may determine that based on the
calculated outputs provided by the calculation and display module
106, that certain data appears to be inconsistent. Accordingly, a
manager may choose to speak with employees who have input data that
appears inconsistent with the inputs of others. Thus, an employee
may be given the opportunity to correct erroneous inputs, or to
justify the extreme variance of inputs from those of another
employee or from those of the majority of employees.
[0096] A reporting module 108 may provide for the printing or
display of individual results. Likewise, the reporting module 108
may also provide for group results. The reports 110 produced by the
reporting module 108 may be adapted to feed back into both the
history module 102 as well as the survey database 94, as well as
the existing database 92, depending on the desired
configuration.
[0097] Nevertheless, the reports 110 are typically the output upon
which decisions are made. In some embodiments, the reporting module
108 may actually provide additional information that embodies the
effects of evaluations. For example, in one embodiment, economic
bonuses, promotion evaluations, points, or the like to be used in
management decisions or employee interviews may be embodied in the
reports 110.
[0098] In one presently contemplated embodiment, a report 110 may
be an unsatisfactory ending point. It has been found that employees
have a strong desire to correct errors, outlying evaluations, and
other anomalies in data. Similarly, sometimes supervisors determine
that it is required for good management or for compliance with
legal concepts of fairness to assure that each employee
acknowledges that he or she has reviewed the information in a
report 110. Similarly, employers and employees may have a
legitimate interest in assuring that the record reflects either an
agreement or disagreement with the content of the report 110.
[0099] Accordingly, the calculation and display module 106 may
provide for additional inputs by employees, employers, supervisors,
or the like to augment the reports 110. One advantage to providing
a calculation and display module 106 implementing aspects of the
user interface 70 and the processing module 74 is to provide
current updates from the databases 92, 94 at each time that a user,
supervisor, employer, or the like accesses information. Records 68
and reports 110 may be updated with the latest data available in
the databases 92, 94 before presentation and display by the module
106.
[0100] Referring to FIG. 4, a process 90 for employee evaluation
may be viewed as a series of substantially sequential operations.
For example, in one embodiment, a loading module 112 may be
responsible to load a survey database 94 with employee data.
Employee data may already include a universal identifier that is
company-wide for each individual. Similarly, other identifiers that
show links between individuals and organizations and between
individuals and one another may also be included.
[0101] An identification module 114 may provide the identification
of groups such as organizations, and populate each of the groups
with entities. In some embodiments, groups may correspond to
operational organizations. In other embodiments, groups may be
embodied as lists of employees in certain locations. Again, the
identification module 114 may depend upon the particular structure
of an organization and the meaningful relationships that exist
between people and an organization.
[0102] In one embodiment, the identification module 114 may treat
all entities as entities. In general, human relations are an
important part of any business. Nevertheless, relationships between
machines, real estate, buildings, and other resources may also be
significant. Accordingly, evaluation of resources in general may
accommodate any entity that is organic to (associated with) a
particular organization, structure, location, or the like.
Accordingly, the identification module 114 may be tasked with the
responsibility for identifying entities with groups. Typically,
each employee is in at least one group. Nevertheless, the process
90 need not limit the number of groups into which a person may be
included.
[0103] A listing module 116 may execute on a processor 12 to
generate lists of citizens or members in each group identified by
the identification module 114. Each individual in a group will need
a list of the other entities (e.g. persons) in each group to be
evaluated. Accordingly, an individual may receive a list from the
listing module 116 for each group to which that individual
pertains. In one presently contemplated embodiment, the listing
module 116 may actually provide an electronic list to a user
interface 70 to be presented to a user for evaluation. Accordingly,
each group would have a list presented by the user interface 70 for
evaluation of each of the persons therein in the context of the
particular group being evaluated.
[0104] In certain embodiments, the steps embodied in the group 118
may typically be accomplished by systems and personnel from a human
resources operation or an administrative function. Accordingly, the
series 118 of steps may be executed by a person operating in an
administrative function, in order to prepare for the employees
execution of the run 120 or the execution 120 of the system 90. The
execution 120 is explained in additional detail hereinbelow.
Nevertheless, each employee or individual responsible for
evaluating other entities will launch a software application to
input evaluation data for each member of each list for which that
individual is responsible to conduct an evaluation. The individual
responsible for the execution 120 on his or her own behalf will
typically be provided space to make comments that may be linked to
data for individual members of the group by name.
[0105] In certain embodiments, an employee may be requested to
conduct a self-evaluation. Some organizations seek complete
independence of evaluations by not permitting an interested party
to make an evaluation of self. Nevertheless, in certain embodiments
of an apparatus and method in accordance with the invention, a
self-evaluation can be used to great advantage to provide a
benchmark or the like for normalization of data. Moreover, in view
of the evaluations by others, a self-evaluation may also be very
telling, providing much information to a supervisor and to an
individual.
[0106] A store process 122 may save out to a hard drive or to a
database 92, 94 the information collected during the execution 120.
Typically, processing 124 may include intervention by an
administrator or supervisor authorized to engage the program in
order to process all records accumulated for each person.
Similarly, the processing module 124 may include evaluation of
averages, the evaluation of averages on each question, averaging
over employees, and the like. The processing step 124 may include
calculation of any deviation from a norm by an individual's
self-evaluation.
[0107] In one embodiment, an average deviation of an individual's
self-evaluation from the universal evaluation result received from
others may be used to identify a degree of delusion or a delusion
factor. One will note here that the scores correspond to different
questions. Thus, despite using the same scale, the questions
represent heterogeneous information. Therefore, the term deviation
here is not necessarily rigorous in a statistical sense. Similarly,
differences may be calculated between a self-rating in each of the
nine categories available, and an absolute value of the deviation
between the average of all evaluations, and the value of the
individual evaluation may be calculated. Similarly, all of the
absolute values may be averaged to determine a delusion factor. As
a practical matter, an employer may determine to meet with an
employee to discuss the actual values associated with a delusion
factor. That is, for example, an employee may be consistently low
in evaluating himself or herself.
[0108] Alternatively, an employee may be consistently high in
evaluating himself. In yet another situation, an employee may be
very high compared to the ratings of others in certain areas, and
very low in evaluating himself or herself in other areas with
respect to the average evaluations. Accordingly, a delusion factor
simply provides a measure of consistency between one's evaluation
of oneself, and the evaluation by others. However, individual
degrees of delusion on any particular topic may provide impetus and
information for correction of perceptions, actions, or the like by
employees.
[0109] A balance index may be calculated as an overall difference
between the average self-evaluation, and the average evaluation by
others. That is, whereas a delusion factor is an average, absolute
value of the difference in each category between an individual's
evaluation of self and the evaluation by others, balance is a more
gross term. The balance index is simply the average between
self-evaluation compared with the average of group evaluation of
self.
[0110] Delusion factors are always positive, having been derived
from absolute values. By contrast, a balance index may be positive
or negative. A negative balance index may indicate difficulties
with self-esteem. A positive balance index may indicate
difficulties with misperception and inflated ego. Accordingly, a
desirable balance index has a value at or near zero. Likewise, a
delusion factor is most desirable at a value of zero. Since the
balance index is an average over all nine categories, a balance
index value of zero can coexist with a high positive value of
delusion factor. In some respects, one may think of a balance index
as providing some give and take for accuracies and inaccuracies of
evaluations. However, the delusion factor emphasizes the degree to
which one's self-evaluation is simply different from those of
others.
[0111] The processing step 124 may include any other statistically
recognized evaluations desired. That is, given a set of data,
various versions of averaging, taking variances, finding trends,
and the like may result from conventional statistical analysis.
Some presently contemplated analyses having particular utility
include a ranking by number, a ranking by percentile, ranking
within each category of questions, ranking over all questions, a
comparison of one's score with the average score may conducted with
respect to any individual question area or across all questions.
Also, a point system or economic incentive system may be tied to a
ranking. For example, a calculation for division of a bonus pool or
a discretionary fund among several employees may be tied to the
output of the ranking system.
[0112] In one presently contemplated embodiment, the processing
step 124 includes a normalization of rating value normalized by
salary value. That is, since the questions are related to a
person's role and responsibilities and contributions to an
organization, they may be tied directly to salaries. If points are
normalized by salaries, then a benefit per dollar of salary may be
output. Discrepancies in the relative contributions when compared
with the relative salaries may be readily evident from the
processing 124.
[0113] The sorting step 126 or sorting module 126 may engage the
processor 12 to sort the list of employees with their scores,
rankings, or both. For example, the human mind has a great capacity
to see inconsistencies. Although one may not have the hand
coordination to sand and paint a surface smoothly, the eye and
brain can quickly determine whether any anomalies exist on the
surface, and with a fine degree of accuracy. Similarly, the sorting
module 126 or the sorting step 126 may order a series of evaluation
scores in order that a supervisor, administrator, employer, or the
like may determine whether any of the resulting output appears to
be inconsistent with reality, or with other outputs.
[0114] A review step 128 is typically a responsibility of a
supervisory or administrative person. That is, a review of data,
reports, scores, and comments may be conducted together. Comments
are difficult for a computer to process. Some would argue that a
computer cannot process comments. Nevertheless, a comment may
offer, for example, a mitigating explanation or context for a bear
number existing in an individual rating or score. Accordingly, a
review step 128 may be important to imperative for a supervisor or
administrator prior to discussing a report rating with an
individual.
[0115] Good employment practices emphasize positive development as
opposed to negative judgment. In the system 60 in accordance with
the invention, and the process 90, employees who report or evaluate
are encouraged to provide specific and positive inputs by way of
comments. Even though an individual may receive a low score in a
particular area from a particular evaluator, a suggestion that may
be implemented to improve that score and its underlying performance
may be included in a comment. Accordingly, the review process 128
or review step 128 provides an opportunity to link scores and
comments in order to provide useful feedback.
[0116] The correction step 130 is optional. That is, in the
correction step 130 a supervisor or administrator may go back to a
respondent (evaluator, employer) to discuss any data that appears
to represent an outlier with respect to the mainstream data.
Similarly, a supervisor or a respondent may be permitted to edit
data if errors exist, or if attitudes are changed to be more
objective. For example, an individual may express emotion in
numbers, thus distorting the values thereof. Upon reflection, an
individual may determine that a score was not reflective of long
term observations of reality. In certain embodiments, the
correction module 130 or correction step 130 may provide for spot
checking of individual records to determine whether any particular
data point is consistent with comparative data.
[0117] A group 132 of steps in the process 90 are executed
primarily by the processor, but may provide for intervention by
supervisors, managers, administrators, and the like. In certain
embodiments, every individual rates every individual in the same
group. In yet another embodiment, only supervisors rate
individuals. It has been found effective in experimental
embodiments of an apparatus and method in accordance with the
invention to allow modification of a record only by a person who
created the record. Thus, this approach may provide a certain
filter limiting the ability of any individual to distort any
records.
[0118] Ultimately, a reporting step 134 provides an output that
becomes part of a permanent record. For example, a report for each
individual providing an overall average of performance, an average
of each of the nine areas of questioning, a value of a delusion
factor, a value of a balance index, a percentile ranking, and the
like may be provided in a report step 134. Information from
personnel evaluations tends to be highly sensitive information.
Accordingly, the reporting step 134 may require a password,
protection, written outputs, manager approvals, and the like.
Similarly, a report 134 may require an acknowledgment by an
individual that that individual has seen the report.
[0119] Referring to FIG. 5, a process 120 or the execution process
120 of an overall evaluation process 90 may begin with an access
step 136. That is, the illustration of FIG. 5 may be viewed as an
architecture for specific implementations in software, but also
represents an image of a process. Accordingly, an access module 136
may executed to provide an access step 136. Similarly, a user input
presentation module 138 may execute a user input presentation 138
in order to present information, instructions, menus, and the like.
Thus, the user input presentation module 138 may collect data from
individuals.
[0120] Ultimately, a supervisor presentation module 140 may present
a supervisor presentation 140 in which a supervisor or
administrative individual may view, edit, oversee, check, etc. the
results of the process 90. In certain embodiments, a verification
142 is required in order to obtain success access to an evaluation
process 90.
[0121] Similarly, an individual may access 144 an application such
as the process 120 through a user interface 70 in order to complete
the execution 120. Data being highly valued may require a step to
access 146 either a database 92, a database 94, or both. Typically,
a user interface 70 may provide to an individual user access to the
database 94 relative to an individual survey. Typically, an
individual user will not need access to any preexisting master
database 92 holding other employee records.
[0122] The user input presentation 138 may include presentation 148
of a matrix. That is, the matrix of all individuals against all
questions would provide question headings 154 with corresponding
identification of entities 156. In general, entities 156 may be
people, things, events, projects, organizations, or the like.
However, in a personnel evaluation, entities 156 are simply the
individual people. Similarly, the presentation matrix 148 or the
presenting 148 of the matrix may provide for scoring 158 and other
information 160.
[0123] Typically, the presentation 138 will include presentation
150 of control buttons. For example, file control 162 in order to
manipulate access to information may be hidden or may be evident to
a user. In one embodiment, buttons provided to a user provide for
access to selected files important to the evaluation process.
Similarly, navigation information 164 or navigation buttons 164 may
be provided in order to scroll up, down, to previous records, the
next records, and the like.
[0124] Typically, as part of navigation 164 or separate therefrom,
may be a need to organize. Accordingly, a sorting step 166 or a
sorting button 166 may be provided in order to allow a user to sort
by rank, name, or other easily viewed format. Similarly, a user may
have a particular organization that is meaningful. Alphabetical
organizations may be useful in certain contexts, but a sorting in a
ranked order may actually have more value toward the end of the
valuation process. In this way, an individual user may be able to
determine whether the sum of the individual evaluations is reaching
a result acceptable by the individual responsible for the
evaluations. Other buttons 168 may be provided as necessary,
convenient, or useful.
[0125] Presenting 152 questions to a user may be done in a variety
of formats. Nevertheless, in certain experimental embodiments of an
apparatus and method in accordance with the invention it has been
found that presentation of a stem 170 that does not change allows a
person or evaluator to focus on the unique content 172 pertinent to
each question. Accordingly, presenting 152 may include presenting a
generic stem 170 that can referred to on each question, but may not
be, since it is repetitive. On the other hand, the unique content
172 may actually be highlighted, bolded, placed in bright colors,
or otherwise highlighted in order to draw attention to it.
[0126] Finally, a presentation 140 to a supervisor may include
presentation of matrix results 174 including the rankings of all
the individuals, and the data in a process, semi-process, or raw
configuration. That is, for example, the matrix results 174 may be
presented as raw data in which a supervisor may see any individual
evaluation sheet of any individual person conducting an evaluation
of any other individual or group. By the same token, a supervisor
may prefer to see trends, averages, rankings, and the like.
Accordingly, the matrix of results 174 may be provided in any
suitable fashion.
[0127] In one embodiment, a worksheet 176 may be provided to a
supervisor. Typically, the matrix 174 constitutes all scores for
all individuals. Certain embodiments thereof may show the net score
for all individuals. In yet another screen or presentation of the
matrix 174, the scores by an individual for each person in an
organization may be displayed in a matrix, wherein the scores are
displayed approximate the names. In a worksheet or work screen 176,
a supervisor may operate to show scores for an individual as ranked
by all individuals. Rather than seeing the overall picture of how
each person faired with respect to another person, a supervisor may
see how all individuals scored a single person, and thus be able to
more easily detect outlying data that does not represent accurate
information. For example, an individual may have an opinion
inconsistent with other opinions. Similarly, a supervisor may find
that an individual ranks everyone consistently lower than another
person. Some people believe that everyone in the world deserves a
maximum rating unless evidence exists to the contrary. Other people
believe that all people are basically average in the absence of
outside evidence. Yet others have such a negative opinion of human
beings that all persons are low in their esteem unless hard
evidence exists to raise them out of those depths.
[0128] Normally, such variations between attitudes of people will
wash when agglomerated. Every person may receive an appropriately
low score by the same individual, whereas everybody will receive
the same proportionally higher score by another individual. Thus,
when all scores are added and averaged, these scores may all
reflect an effective normalization of personal prejudices as to
scaling. By the same token, other effects may not be so easily
normalized. However, one desirable ability of a manager is the
ability to determine whether data is invalid by virtue of
incorporating emotional or prejudicial effects in assigning
numbers. Thus, a work screen 176 or worksheet 176 provided to a
supervisor permits side-by-side visual comparisons of data as
sliding, ranked points by scale, rather than as numbers that must
be interpreted and visualized otherwise.
[0129] Referring to FIG. 6, a screen 180 may be presented to an
evaluator (user, employee, etc.). In general, in addition to the
typical standard navigational aids on a computer screen, the screen
180 may provide text providing motivation 182. That is, thoughtful,
meaningful, sincere inputs are most desirable. Accordingly, a
certain degree of motivation is deemed appropriate in order to
encourage thoughtful and careful consideration by one individual
when scoring or ranking or evaluating other individuals. Thus, the
motivation 182 contains information selected to motivate dutiful
attention to the process 90.
[0130] Similarly, background 184 provides information that helps a
user understand how the process will operate. For example,
understanding what is going to occur, when it will occur, and that
an individual can modify responses after they are initially made,
as desired, may all be useful information to provide the background
184 necessary to understand the process and have confidence in
it.
[0131] Ultimately, an individual must receive instructions 186 in
order to know what to do specifically. For example, how many points
are available, how to award points, what the meaning of points is,
how to normalize the scores by selecting an individual as the
rating of 10.0 in value due to that person's position as the very
best at a particular trait. Likewise, the scoring system for the
process 90 has purposely been selected to provide at least 100
increments of gradation. Accordingly, a 10.0 score represents one
hundred percent of the available points. By the same token, 0.1
represents the minimum increment. A score of zero meaning that this
individual made no positive contribution. In certain embodiments,
scoring also provides for an entry of "not applicable" meaning that
an individual is without legitimate information necessary to
provide any rating. Thus, an individual may recuse himself or
herself from providing a ranking that might be uninformed, and thus
distort the correct results.
[0132] Confidentiality being what it is and anonymity being
necessary for candor in certain situations, assurances 188 may be
necessary. In certain situations, assurances 188 provide additional
motivation 182. For example, understanding who will see the data,
how it will be viewed, and the like may be included in assurances
188.
[0133] Typically, an employee identification 190 identifies the
evaluator. Most employers have some type of universal
identification. In a computer system, a number is often assigned.
In order to preserve anonymity, a coded number may be provided. By
whatever means, some universal and unique identifier 190 is
required for access.
[0134] A password 192 may be required, and is typically appropriate
in handling sensitive information. Similarly, buttons 194, 196 may
provide additional keys to access. That is, for example, as an
evaluator, an individual may use the evaluator button 194 to
indicate this status. Therefore, the password 192, in addition to
the evaluator identification will provide access to certain records
available to the persons so identified 190 in their capacity. By
the same token, as an evaluatee, an individual will be permitted by
virtue of the password 192 to see a different set of records.
[0135] Referring to FIG. 7, a screen 200 is a work screen worksheet
for inputs by a respondent (reviewer). In the illustrated
embodiment, the screen 200 provides a list 202 of names. The list
202 or the names 202 identify everybody in a particular
organization that is to be evaluated by the respondent viewing the
screen 200. Keywords 204 that may be thought of as headings 204
correspond to each question. Each heading 204 corresponds to a
question. Accordingly, a button 205 is provided to correspond to
each heading. Each of the buttons 205a-205i (the trailing letter
indicates a particular instance of the item identified by the
leading identification number) allows a user to select that
particular question. When the question is selected corresponding to
a heading 204, then the stem 206 is augmented by an appropriate
content 208.
[0136] Typically, the series of presumptions or the context in
which a question is to be asked may be identified in a single stem
206. In the illustrated embodiment, a user is asked to assume the
perspective of an astute business owner. Moreover, the observations
must be first-hand with the reporter (reviewer, user, etc.).
Typically, a major source of distortion in employee evaluations is
the tendency of individual reviewers to carry forward prejudices
from the past. Moreover, second-hand stories tend to be placed into
the bin for equal billing with actual personal observations.
Moreover, people tend to look globally, rather than at a specific
period of time.
[0137] Accordingly, in the illustrated embodiment, the time period
is selected to cover only a particular range. This range may
correspond to a quarter, month, year, or other evaluation period.
Likewise, an integration clause requests a reviewer to identify a
readiness, willingness, and ability to perform the designated
content corresponding to a question. Moreover, the stem 206
circumscribes the scope of the evaluation to lie within the job
responsibilities of the person being evaluated. Thus, the custodian
and the president will each be given the benefit of the scope of
their employment rather than the universe of all employment within
a company or within the universe of all persons or within the
universe of all time.
[0138] The content 208 may be explained further. However, the
terminology has been selected such that its meaning, although very
precisely defined, is adequately expressed in the generic
expression of the terms therein. Accordingly, two verbs, indicating
the ability to collect and gather and the ability to transmit to
others a particular aspect of work are included in the question
content 208.
[0139] A prompt 209 identifies exactly who is evaluating and what
is being evaluated. That is, for example, a supervisor's prompt 208
may state that the scores are those for a particular question and a
particular person, as rated by a series of persons. By contrast,
the screen 200 of an individual reviewer may be identified in the
prompt 209 otherwise. For example, in the illustrated embodiment of
FIG. 7, the question is identified, and the scores are clearly
those for a list of persons being evaluated, as done by the
identified employee reviewer. One may note that the screen 200 may
be presented to supervisor for evaluating employees in the list
202. Alternatively, the screen 200 may be used by an individual
employee for evaluating every other employee in a particular group
with which both are associated.
[0140] A scale 210 appears for each person and each question. The
scale provides a visual ability by a user to select any ranking
between a minimum value 212 and a maximum value 214 intuitively.
That is, numbers tend to be the artifact of analysis and recording.
People live, see, and think in pictures. That is, people experience
the real world and relate to concepts of more and less. People
relate to concepts of greater and lessor, better and worse, etc.
Accordingly, the scale 210 provides an ability to place markers 226
corresponding to each of the names 202. The user may see on the
screen 200 a numerical ranking 228 or a numerical score 228
corresponding to the position of a marker 226. Nevertheless, a user
may rely on a intuitive feel for scoring.
[0141] Users may select an abstention 216 indicating that not
enough information is available to support an evaluation.
Accordingly, rather than giving a distorting score, an individual
user may simply indicate that the question is not applicable. In
one currently implemented embodiment of an apparatus and method in
accordance with the invention, drawing the marker 226 all the way
to the left extreme 212, will pass zero, and provide one last
element or position that provides the abstention marker 216 or
abstention indicator 216 indicating that no evaluation is made.
[0142] For the sake of navigation, question buttons 218 may allow a
user to navigate to a previous question, a next question, or to
move to another question. A user may pick a topic, or simply go to
the previous or next topic in sequence. Similarly, sorting buttons
220 may provide sorting by score, first name, last name, a file
order, or some other criterion available. Accordingly, a user may
provide for himself or herself a more intuitive feel for the scale
210. For example, if a series of names 202 is arranged in an order
according to score 228, then the markers 226 will display in a
monotonic cascade going from right to left or from left to right
across the scale 210. Thus, an individual may perform a check as to
whether or not the rankings exhibited by the ordering of the list
202 of names 202 is correct.
[0143] Similarly, seeing two items side-by-side, the names 202 of
individuals, with their scores 228 may cause or provide motivation
to adjust scores 228 accordingly. That is, many tasks in this world
are too complex for an individual to grasp or execute. However, a
comparison between two items based on any criterion is typically
considerably easier. Accordingly, any two names 202 may be
compared, and any two scores 228 may be visually compared quite
simply on the scale 210 without difficulty.
[0144] Additional file management buttons may be provided, such as
the file buttons 222 and the conventional tool bar available with
various operating systems and applications. Accordingly, a user may
indicate when the evaluation is completed, and may determine to
save the data as the final results of an evaluation process.
[0145] Similarly, a supervisor may be presented the screen 200 with
somewhat different prompts 209, in order to determine the scores
228 for an individual, based on a list 202 of names of evaluators.
Thus, checking for prejudice, errors, and other outliers is visual,
instant, and reliable.
[0146] Referring to FIG. 8, a chart 230 or matrix 230 shows the
recursive nature of the process underlying the evaluation system
90. In fact, the matrix 230 indicates how a process may be
developed for a generic task. Various individuals promote various
approaches to human relations, engineering, manufacturing,
marketing, selling, communication, programming, and the like.
Almost every process known to mankind has proponents of various
approaches to that process.
[0147] However, in an embodiment of a method and apparatus in
accordance with the invention, nine questions may be converted into
nine areas of attention or activity. These nine areas are found to
be simply a recursion of a basic unit having three concepts. Thus,
this unit of three concepts recurses three times to form a column,
which recurses to form a matrix 230 of nine elements 240.
[0148] In the system 60 and the process 90 for implementing that
system 60, the question stem 206 was a leader or lead-in to a
series of questions 208 that can each be represented here in a
matrix 230 of rows 232, 234, 236 and columns 242, 244, 246. Each of
these rows may be characterized by a characterization 237 and each
column 242, 244, 246 may be characterized by a particular
characterization 238. Alternative characterizations 239 are shown
in parentheses.
[0149] In general, each element 240 represents a step 240 in a
process. In the evaluation process, nine basic questions 208 are
posed on the basis of which to evaluate any individual. However,
those questions are related directly to a universal, recursive,
generalized system for accomplishing any task. Thus, in an
apparatus and method in accordance with the invention, a process
for directing, communicating, evaluating, and advancing a process,
product, or any other result is provided.
[0150] Accordingly, it makes sense to evaluate individuals based
upon their contribution to the nine elements 240 or steps 240 that
contribute to the ongoing enterprise. Each of the elements 240 is
unique, and yet each of the elements 240 recurses. Similarly, the
scope of stewardship of any individual may include the entire
matrix 230. However, individual organizations may each be assigned
a predominant role principally related to any one of the elements
240. Thus, the concepts of vision, connections, resources, issues,
objectives, ideas, constraints, projects, and results may be viewed
as the underlying elements 240 of an enterprise providing some type
of output to its customers.
[0151] By the same token, any organization, person, or other entity
within the enterprise may also have the same matrix 230 of
endeavors within its own stewardship or scope of responsibility.
Similarly, any organizational element may find that itself has a
role as the major actor in an element 240 as viewed from the
enterprise level of stewardship.
[0152] Likewise, any individual human being may find that recursing
into a matrix 230 of elements 240, including all nine elements 240,
may provide an ability to handle degrees of complexity, reduce
blind siding, fill in blind spots, and provide for a complete view
of one's individual responsibilities. Thus, each of the elements
240 contains the main activities that constitute each row 232, 234,
236 and each column 242, 244, 246, of the matrix 230.
[0153] Thus, the tasks of an individual recurse in the embodiment
of the system of FIGS. 2-7, each of the elements 240 provides the
content 208 for a question 208. The stem 206 provides the
boundaries in which the active element 240 is to be evaluated.
Nevertheless, each of the elements 240 represents a function, task,
responsibility, or the like that must be accomplished by an
enterprise in meeting is objectives, by an organization in meeting
its responsibilities, individual, and so forth.
[0154] Referring to FIG. 9, a screen 250 or work screen 250
presented to a supervisor or administrator, displays an array 252
of scores 228. The scores 228 are aligned with individual names 202
as individual records 253. Each record 253 provides a score 228 or
a particular name 202 under each of the headings 204 corresponding
to the questions 205.
[0155] Each question 205 is comprised of a stem 206 and a content
208. The content 208 is further abbreviated to form a heading 204
indicating the core content of the question 205. Likewise, a list
of the rating 254 aggregated from all individual scores 228
displays in the record 253 for each name 202. A percentile ranking
256 provides a different breakdown of evaluation. The balance index
258 and the delusion factor 259 discussed hereinabove also display
for each name 202.
[0156] Accordingly, based on the screen 250, a supervisor may
detect anomalies within individual records in order to identify
outliers in the data and outliers in the actual performance of
individuals. In reviewing, for example, the percentile rankings
256, one notes that most values lie within a broad central region
between 31.3 percent and 77.1 percent.
[0157] On the other hand, two outliers are particularly low, having
values of 4.3 and 8.7 percent. Accordingly, in one embodiment of an
apparatus and method in accordance with the invention, these
outliers are highlighted for particular attention. These outliers
indicate a very low percentile ranking, approaching zero
percentile, and certainly under the tenth percentile. People
associated with these outliers, if the data are accurate, may need
particular attention, may be mismatched to theirjob
responsibilities, or may have other reasons that put them out of
the general performance of others in the organization.
[0158] Likewise, the entry of 96.7 percent indicates an outlier
performing far above the rest of the organization. Almost nineteen
percentage points separate the highest percentile ranking from the
next closest ranking 256. Highlighting these outliers provides an
incentive to management to notice and reward or assist the persons
who fall outside a broad central region of performance or
expectation.
[0159] In the illustrated embodiment, the records 253 are ordered
(sorted) by a file number or some identification number associated
with each of the names 202. However, in one presently implemented
embodiment, selection of any heading 255 provides sorting based on
that particular heading, and the values associated therewith for
all records 253. In certain embodiments, a single click ranks in
descending order according to the values corresponding to a
particular heading 255.
[0160] In other alternative embodiments, a second click (that is
two clicks in rapid succession) may change the order. In one
presently implemented embodiment, every click or selection of a
heading 255 directs the system 60 (e.g. process 90) to order
according to the selected heading 255, in the opposite of the last
order selected. That is, a selection toggles between ascending and
descending order, and selection selects a particular heading 255 by
which to order. In this way, a supervisor or other administrator
may selectively order records 253 to show the greatest and the
least delusion factors, balance indices, percentile rankings,
ratings, or other individual scores 228.
[0161] The scores 228 may be normalized in a number of different
ways. In fact, many different normalization techniques may be used
simultaneously in order to provide more robust results. For
example, for every question, every respondent (evaluator) selects
the person in a group who is most competent in that area as the
baseline value of 10.0. Accordingly, each person has effectively
been forced to normalize the scale to a scale of ten, and to
individuals only within the organization.
[0162] When groups are compared, the highest ranking individual in
a particular category may be designated to have a value of ten, or
may simply be left at the value that has been averaged over all
evaluations. When a supervisor who has stewardship over multiple
groups reviews data, the highest rated person, in each particular
category, may be normalized between the groups. That is, someone in
a position of authority and knowledge to know and to decide may
determine a relative ranking between two highest ranking
individuals into disparate groups.
[0163] The scores may actually be altered in recognition of the
fact that the highest score in one group corresponds to an
individual who is functioning better than the highest scorer in
another group, who may have a higher absolute score. Accordingly,
the scores may be normalized.
[0164] In the same manner, minimum scores may also be normalized.
One in the position of authority and knowledge with the right and
ability to decide, may compare lowest performers and normalize them
with respect to one another. In one embodiment of an apparatus and
system in accordance with the invention, the process 90 and system
60 automatically adjust all scores to scale them between extrema so
normalized.
[0165] In certain embodiments, the same process may be undertaken
for averages. In such an event, the averages may be normalized
between individuals. Similarly, averages may be normalized between
simple average values, with persons representative either below or
above the average value. In such an instance, a better
normalization is provided in normalizing the lower half of a group,
against the lower half of another group, and the upper half of the
first group against the upper half of the second group. That is,
the scale from the average to the maximum is mapped and the scale
from the lowest to the average is mapped, each independently from
the other.
[0166] Effectively, normalization alters the scale 210. However, in
one presently contemplated embodiment of an apparatus and method in
accordance with the invention, only the person creating a score is
allowed to directly edit that score. For example, if an employee
has given a score, and a manager believes that the score is
motivated by spite, complicity, or some other motivation, then an
employee may be encouraged to rethink their evaluation.
[0167] Similarly, if managers conduct evaluations of their
employees, then only the manager responsible for a score of an
individual within the purview of that manager is allowed to change
the score for that individual. However, in making such a change,
either upward or downward, that manager or supervisor is
necessarily visible to both his or her supervisor, as well as the
other peer's supervisors. Thus, justification of scoring against
the normalized scale is encouraged.
[0168] Referring to FIG. 10, the matrix 230 of elements 240 or
steps 240 may be represented by certain characterizations 238.
Specifically, characterizations 237 may be applied to individual
rows 232, 234, 236. Other characterizations 239, which may include
the same factors as the characterizations 237, may be used to
represent the tasks, or dealings of any particular activities
associated with a column 242, 244, 246.
[0169] It is important to remember that within any individual step
240 or element 240, the entire process 260 is included. Moreover,
within any process 260, recursion may occur. Thus, the activities
of an individual element 240 may recurse to expand to single
element 240, creating a column 242. The columns 242 may recurse to
form other columns 244,246. Thus, a single element 240 contains all
of the characteristic activities associated with an entire column
242. An element 240 contains within itselfthe components 260
corresponding to the characterizations 237 of the individual rows
of 232, 234, 236, of a column 242, 244, 246.
[0170] Referring to FIGS. 10-11, within any given element 240, one
responsible for the output of that element 240 must sense facts,
link facts, and evaluate those facts. One may regard these
processes of sensing, linking, and evaluating in order to come to a
decision, as the equivalence, in human terms, of seeing, thinking,
and doing.
[0171] In the abstract, "seeing" is characterized by the process of
observing visually or otherwise, even perhaps collecting
observations over time. Similarly, "thinking" may be characterized
as the process of mulling over the content that has been seen,
observed, collected, and so forth in order to begin formulating
structures. Typically, structures seem to present themselves when
not otherwise explicitly given. The human mind is extremely capable
of ordering and structuring information that it receives.
Accordingly, thinking may be considered the human equivalent of
linking facts together in order to give them a reliable or
repeatable or useful structural relationship with one another.
[0172] "Doing" is best characterized by the physical activity or
process of taking some affirmative action based on what one has
seen and thought. Accordingly, doing includes within it the process
of evaluating information or the summation of thinking and seeing
and processing that information into a course of action, deciding
on that course of action, and affirmatively advancing that course
of action.
[0173] Thus, the generalized processes or activities for any
entity, whether it be an abstract organization, a machine, or a
human being is sensing facts, linking facts, and evaluating facts.
The equivalent for human beings is seeing, thinking, and doing.
[0174] Many times people discuss the concept of a computer
thinking, or seeing, but this is merely an anthropomorphism into
human terms of the generic tasks or processes of sensing, linking,
and evaluating. Thus, the human term "do" in the immediate context
or in the immediate implications may be thought of as the act of
processing information, evaluating, and so forth, typically for the
purpose of executing a decision and moving forward.
[0175] Thus, doing constitutes processing so that a decision may be
made whether or not to progress to the next step. To the extent
that information and thinking are more abstract, then doing may be
more abstract. To the extent that processes move forward toward
actual realization in physical embodiments, then doing becomes more
concrete and physical, while seeing and thinking corresponding to
those "doings" likewise become more oriented toward the
physical.
[0176] In FIG. 11, one may see the first row as representing
activities of seeing, thinking, and doing. The second row may be
thought of as the objects to which such activities are directed.
For example, content 267a is raw information. Content 267a may be
seen. Data may represent content 267a. However, since seeing 238a
and sensing 269a are effective equivalents, then the content 267a
may be data or any other information that can be sensed, detected,
perceived, or the like.
[0177] Likewise, just as linking 269b and thinking 238b are
similar, context 267b is the object of such thinking 238b and
linking 269b. Thus context 267b provides meaning to raw data such
as content 267a. Context 267b may be thought of as the domain in
which data exists and by which it becomes information rather than
raw data.
[0178] For example, "1040," if spoken, may have several meanings.
In the context of a clock, it represents a time of day. In the
context of taxes, it represents a standard IRS form. In the context
of a calendar, it represents a year during the dark ages. In the
context of an address, it typically will represent a street
location. Thus, the digits "1040" represent data, but the context
gives meaning.
[0179] Many times during communications between human beings,
context is implied. Oftentimes, context is very well defined by the
environment, the individuals, the time of day, the location, or
some other characteristics. Accordingly, people often presume
context. However, in a computer world, context must typically be
provided or numbers are meaningless. A computer may process numbers
without context. However, the context must be restored in order to
provide meaning to a human being making a decision.
[0180] Accordingly, a process 267c is analogous to doing 238c or
evaluating 269c. Processing 267c is conducting an evaluation of
content 267a in the proper context 267b, in anticipation of making
a decision.
[0181] Carrying the analogy forward, or the mapping forward, the
prospect of seeing 238a or sensing 269a is largely focused on
elemental factors 239a. For example, the universe of facts that can
be sensed by a person or a device may represent all of the
elemental occurrences and evidences that surround one in an
environment, and are capable of being detected. To the extent that
an article can be detected, it might possibly be considered for
further observation, evaluation, use, and so forth.
[0182] Thus, upon detection of an elemental factor 239a or an
elemental structure 239a, mental activities 239b may be
appropriately exercised. As with context 267b, mental processes
239b or mental activities 239b begin to structure, organize, and
otherwise provide interpretation and context for observed elemental
factors 239a. Interpretation, perspective, experience, and the like
may all result from mental processes or mental activities 239b
operating on elemental factors or observations 239a. Likewise, the
actual doing 238c with the elemental factors 239a observed in one's
environment may typically result in physical activities 239c in
anticipation of producing a result.
[0183] Interestingly, elemental factors 239a seem to exist like
axiomatic facts, materials, and other realities. Likewise
interestingly, benefits are almost always of a mental nature 239b.
That is, peace of mind, comfort, and the like are often merely
mental abstractions or a mental condition. Many benefits are only
such because of a perceived mental value. The fashion world is
famous for creating a need for a particular benefit, then selling
millions of dollars worth of that perceived benefit. Few argue that
the entire benefit is often only a mental interpretation by a buyer
of the value or beauty of a particular fashion statement.
[0184] Also interestingly, costs are typically physical parameters
239c. That is, in order to provide a perceived mental benefit 239b,
one must expend physical resources 239c. For example, one must
spend time, of which everyone has the same limited amount. One must
devote other physical resources, whether gathered, discovered, or
created in order to apply to achieving the mental benefit 239b.
Energy, a major factor in many industrial decisions over the past
three decades is a physical quantity that can be captured,
harvested, generated, and the like in order to produce some output.
That output is typically directed toward providing some benefit
that is effectively a mental benefit 239b.
[0185] In organizations, roles are often defined for individuals
and organizations. Typically, leading 237a corresponds to seeing. A
captain on the conning tower of ship or submarine is seeing ahead.
Similarly, leaders are typically considered to be the visionaries
responsible for seeing the direction that one is going and that one
should go.
[0186] Similarly, and analogously, directing 237b may be thought
of, and is used herein to identify, that effort that gives meaning.
Context 267b, the mental exercise 239b, and the like are required
to advance observations of fact (leading 237a) forward into the
process of doing 238c, processing 267c, the physical realm 239c,
and the like. Accordingly, managing 237c corresponds to doing 238c
or otherwise operating in the physical parameters 239c responsible
for evaluating 269c and the like.
[0187] Within an individual element 240, seeing 238a, thinking
238b, and doing 238c are often characterized best by the prospect
or the activity of surveying 268a, organizing 268b, and proposing
268c, respectively. That is, surveying 268a may be thought of
seeing 238a or of sensing facts 269a. Similarly, organizing 268b is
the process of linking facts 269b, or exercising the mental
parameters 239b in order to advance beyond that which is seen 238a
or sensed 269a.
[0188] Carrying the analogy or synonyms further, creating proposals
268c amounts to presenting something for a decision that once
decided, can be input into the next stage of any process or
processing. Thus, the characterizations 238 are generic and
analogous in nature if not to equivalents. That is, the first
column of FIG. 11 corresponds to the sensing analogs. The middle
column corresponds to the mental and meaning analogs, and the third
column corresponds to the doing, processing, or evaluating that
corresponds to the physical parameters 239c that must be
accommodated.
[0189] The principles involved herein are necessarily limited in
their exposition by the limitations of language. Seeing 238a,
content 267a, surveying 268a, leading 237a, and sensing 269a, and
elemental factors 239a are related and analogous. They correspond
roughly, and respectively, to activities, objects of the
activities, tasks, roles, generic acts, and the domain, in which
they pertain. By the same token, the same correspondence exists for
thinking 238b, context 267b, organizing 268b, directing 237b,
linking 269b, and mental factors or activities 239b.
[0190] Analogous, related, but not actually synonymous, are doing
238c, processing 267c, proposing 268c, managing 237c, evaluating
269c, and the physical parameters or physical factors 239c. These
correspond likewise and respectively to human activities, objects
of activities, tasks, roles, generic entities, and the domain of
operation. Thus, these various terms may be used in place of one
another in various environments or situations. Nevertheless, the
limitations of language do not necessarily make such substitutions
automatic, complete, or accurate in every instance.
[0191] Language was more-or-less rigidly defined long before the
processes, apparatus, systems, and methods of the present
invention. It is nevertheless required in order to express and
describe the apparatus and methods of the invention. A certain
amount of mismatching or limitation may be introduced by the
language. However, herein are used multiple words that relate to
various and analogous aspects of ideas and things that are
themselves related to one another. This use can help one to
understand the commonalities between various elements 240 of an
apparatus and method in accordance with the invention.
[0192] Each element 240 embodies a series of components 260. Those
components involve an input 261, process 262, output 263, decision
264, and followup 265. In the context of the system 60 and process
90 of an evaluation system, a full question 266 is stated. However,
each of the components 260 and the full question 266 apply to all
processes or steps in controlling product development, software
development, chemical processes, organizational management,
manufacturing processes, and the like.
[0193] In step one, or the element 240 of step one, an input 261a
constituted by the universe of things is processed 262a in order to
discover an output 263a constituted by values. A value is a
positive or negative worth assigned to a thing, event, or the like.
Once values have been discovered, then one must decide 264a whether
or not to believe in those values. Accordingly, once one has
decided 264a to believe in values, then those values are embodied
in the details of a vision, passions, or both representative
thereof.
[0194] What is decided 264a (e.g. vision, passions, etc.) often
constitutes the details of the output 263a (e.g. values). Thus, the
full or expanded question 266a may be thought of as the charge to
"discover values and illuminate beliefs about vision and passion to
others."
[0195] One may note that discovery results in, and thus the
processing 262a operates on, its input 261a in order to output 263a
the values. Meanwhile, a decision is made to adopt the values, and
the details thereof constitute the vision, passions, etc. Later, an
individual, as a consequence of the decision 264a follows up 265a
by illuminating to others the vision and passions that embody the
values.
[0196] In step two, vision and passions as an input 261b are
operated on 262b to establish for those inputs a framework,
organization, or the like as an output 263b. A decision 264b is a
commitment 264b to the connections, and unity that will embody the
framework, or organization output 263b. Accordingly, to follow up
265b, one must cultivate the connections and unity that will bring
about and constitute the output 263b proposed as a framework,
organization, or the like for the vision.
[0197] In step three, the input 261c, is constituted by
connections, unity, and the like from step two. Input 261, in
general, is meaningful information and everything received from a
previous step 240. Accordingly, each input 261 includes both
content and context. Thus, inputs 261 are meaningful information
and materials. The process 262c develops an output 263c constituted
by proposals.
[0198] A decision 264c in the instance of step three, step six, and
step nine, is not unilateral. That is, an individual may make the
decisions 264 of steps one, two, four, five, seven, and eight
unilaterally in the situation where one has a stewardship over the
entire matrix 230. However, steps three, six, and nine typically
require a negotiation with a receiver who will receive the benefit
of the step 240.
[0199] One typically must negotiate or exchange in the decision
264c, since that decision 264c is a bi-lateral decision. One
effectively negotiates or exchanges for resources, ideas and
options, and results and rewards, for the steps three, six, and
nine, respectively. The follow up 265c for step three involves the
allocation of resources that have been negotiated. One approaches a
negotiation with certain resources in hand, and negotiates for the
resources required to move forward.
[0200] Similar to the column 242, the column 244 is constituted by
several elements 240 or steps 240. Step four inputs resources,
including all previous inputs and information. Some of the
information included may include facts that have been interpreted
with an attitude and are thus defined as problems and
opportunities. However, problems and opportunities are simply facts
viewed with an attitude. Thus, one can explore in the process 262a,
to output 263a the benefits and criteria. A decision 264
constitutes a decision to believe in the issues as constituted, and
a commitment to follow up 265a by clarifying to those who need know
exactly what those issues are.
[0201] Step five includes inputting 261b the issues from step four,
organizing in the process 262b, the strategies 263b in preparation
for a decision 264b to commit to the objectives and goals
constituting the strategy. Once a decision 264b has been made, one
may follow up 265b by pursuing the objectives and goals decided
264b. No issue can be committed to without placing it in a larger
context and giving it a priority therein.
[0202] Step six takes an input 261c of objectives and goals to
process 262c by generating an output 263c constituting stimuli. The
stimuli output 263c will result in ideas and options, if the
decision 264c to exchange is made. That is, one must negotiate with
one's own intellect, and with others in order to obtain their
ideas, their intellectual property, their inventions, and their
solutions. Thus, with the proper stimuli 263c, one may obtain and
exchange 264c or decision 264c to exchange ideas and options in
order that one may follow up 265c by exploiting those ideas and
options.
[0203] In step seven, the ideas and options are input 261a in order
to study in the process 262a the costs that will be output 263a as
the specifics to be dealt with. Thus, a decision 264a to adopt and
believe in the constraints constituting the costs is made. One may
then follow up 265a to justify those constraints and costs to those
who must implement the results of step seven.
[0204] Step eight receives constraints as an input 261b and then
proceeds to process 262b by designing a series of plans as the
output 263b. The plans constitute a series of details implemented
or embodied in projects and tasks that will be decided 264b
(committed to). Upon a decision 264b, the projects and tasks may be
followed up 265b by direction of a team to implement the projects
and tasks.
[0205] Step nine receives projects and tasks as inputs 261c used to
produce in a process 262c an output 263c that yields products.
Products must however be exchanged 264c, requiring a bilateral
decision 264c in order to obtain the results and compensation
thereof. After the decision 264c, one can follow up 265c by
delivering, as negotiated, the products.
[0206] In certain embodiments, the steps one through nine may be
operating simultaneously. However, the steps 240 one through nine
should begin in sequence, and complete in sequence. Communication
up and down through the steps typically does not wait for
completion of any step. Good communication provides for rapid
dissemination of information upward and downward in the ordering
scheme of the steps 240.
[0207] Within any given element 240, or any step 240 one through
nine, an individual, an entity, or an organization may recurse down
through multiple layers of seeing, thinking, doing (sensing,
linking, evaluating).
[0208] An entity may recurse through the three activities, or
through the full matrix of nine elements 240. That is, each column
is an extension of the three activities. Likewise, each element 240
may be expanded to an additional column. Thus, the entire matrix
230 may recurse through multiple layers of stewardship, up and
down. Meanwhile, the matrix 230 itself represents a recursion of
the three basic elements (sensing, linking, evaluating) within each
element 240, replicated or recursed to create a column, and
recursed to create three columns, each column, corresponding to one
of the rows in the initial column. Thus, the matrix 230 constitutes
three recursions of the components 260.
[0209] Inputting 261a includes both content and context, and
therefore constitutes sensing 269a and linking 269b, or seeing 238a
and thinking 238b. The process 262a constitutes evaluating 269c or
doing 238c. One may think of the boundaries between elements 240 as
constituting decisions to move forward. That is, one does not pass
over a boundary between elements 240 without having made a decision
264. Having made a decision 264, one has exercised then the belief,
commitment, or exchange required to follow up 265 and advance the
overall process.
[0210] Referring to FIG. 12, the chart 270 represents the matrix
230 with certain notations to provide additional insights. The
characterizations 237, 239 applied to rows 232, 234, 236 and
columns 242, 244, 246, respectively, may all be considered as
characterizations 238 corresponding to various elements 240. This
illustration exemplifies relationships that can explain a certain
amount the classical dynamics of organizations, relationships, and
functions.
[0211] For example, the steps one through nine as embodiments of
various elements 240, correspond respectively to the vision,
connections, resources, issues, objectives, ideas, constraints,
projects, and results of the matrix 230. Accordingly, step one
corresponds to vision, step five corresponds to objectives and
strategy, and step nine corresponds to results, often characterized
as "mission." An organization, individual, or other entity
responsible for step one has a double interest in the seeing
activity or element.
[0212] Likewise, the person, individual, entity, or organization
responsible for step five has a double interest in the thinking
activity or processes. The individual, entity, or organization
responsible for step nine has a double interest in the doing
element or activity.
[0213] By contrast, the entities responsible for steps four and
seven have an interest in the seeing activities and responsibility,
but also in thinking and doing, respectively. By the same token,
the entities responsible for steps two and eight have an interest
in thinking, but also an interest in seeing and doing,
respectively. Analogously, the entities responsible for steps three
and six have interest in doing, but also an interest in seeing and
thinking, respectively.
[0214] One may see that in moving in the direction 272, steps one,
two, and three move through seeing, thinking, and doing, while
having an overriding responsibility for seeing. Similarly, the
elements 240 in the column constituted by steps four, five, and six
have an overriding responsibility in the thinking area, while
distributing themselves through seeing, thinking, and doing. The
column constituted by steps seven, eight, and nine have an
overriding responsibility in the doing category, while distributing
themselves among seeing, thinking, and doing, respectively.
[0215] In moving in the direction of 274, one may also see a
distribution of steps one, four, and seven among seeing, thinking,
and doing, with an overriding responsibility for seeing. Likewise,
steps two, five, and eight have an overriding responsibility to
thinking processes or responsibilities, while distributing
themselves among seeing, thinking and doing. Steps three, six, and
nine, distribute under an overriding responsibility for doing.
[0216] Remembering the analogies, synonyms, and relationships of
FIG. 11, one sees that whether moving away from step one in the
direction 272 or direction 274, or moving away from step nine in
the direction of 276, or direction 278, one moves from a
concentration of responsibility in a single area (e.g. see and see,
or do and do) into an area of mixed responsibility.
[0217] Ultimately, in step three and step seven, two somewhat
disparate responsibilities exist in the element 240, of each, and
no single concentration. Interestingly, in most organizations, turf
battles center around allocation of resources (corresponding to
step three), and in agreeing on constraints or the systems
engineering disputes (corresponding to step seven). In each of
these areas, there is not consolidation within a single area of
responsibility. A dual responsibility exists, and is attenuated by
being removed multiple steps from the entity that has the double
and focused responsibility in each of those areas.
[0218] Each of the elements 280 represents a boundary. Across each
boundary 280 passes an input from a previous step, into a
subsequent step. One may think of a decision occurring within an
individual step one-nine (an element 240) as being represented by
each of the corresponding boundaries 280.
[0219] Referring to FIG. 13, the matrix 230 may be linearized into
a sequence of steps 240. The steps 240 or elements 240 are numbered
as in the matrix 230. One may note that at the boundary between
element 240c and 240d, between 240f and 240g, and between 240i and
either the outside world or the next element in a recursed system,
an entity change is typical. Accordingly, the boundaries 280c,
280f, 280i represent negotiated exchanges.
[0220] Thus, although the matrix 230 may be linearized, it is
important to remember that across boundaries, wherein one
individual, entity, or organization has responsibility or
stewardship over the entire execution of the steps 240 within the
matrix 230, one may typically make internal decisions in passing
from one step 240 to another 240. Nevertheless, an entity change
typically occurs at the boundaries 280c, 280f, 280i, and the
decision is a negotiated bilateral decision constituted and
exchanged following negotiation.
[0221] Due to a conflict of interest between the parties on either
side of the boundaries 280, in those instances, seeking to make a
unilateral decision often results in an immoral or illegal attempt
to usurp the decisions of a party on the opposite side. This occurs
on both sides of the boundary 280c, 280f, 280i. That is, a party on
neither side of the boundary 280 is typically at liberty to make
the decision unilaterally.
[0222] Referring to FIG. 14, yet another alternative embodiment to
the matrix 230 provides additional understanding and an explanation
of the relationships between the elements 240. In the illustrated
embodiment, each of the elements 240a-240i includes a respective
element 262 constituting content, context, and process. That is, a
low-level recursion of see 238a, think 238b, and do 238c, or of
sense 269a, link 269b, and evaluate 269c is executed in each of the
elements 262a. Thereafter, a decision 264 is executed. A decision
264 to go forward results in follow up 265.
[0223] As a result of the follow up 265, the entity responsible for
the element 240 crosses a boundary 280 corresponding thereto,
passing inputs into the next element 240. Thus, one may see that
each of the processes 240a-240i or elements 240, must successfully
execute and pass its contribution on the overall project and
process. Accordingly, it is nearly imperative that each element 240
of the matrix 230 communicate forward 282 all three existing and
previously committed decisions and processes with their inputs.
This must be done at least in summary form in order that the
handoff be done with belief, commitment, exchange, and so forth.
Likewise, one must report backward to previous entities responsible
for previous elements 240, in order that those entities responsible
may redo the decisions and buy off on the idea that the system is
on track.
[0224] In general, each of the communications 282 communicating
forward may be thought of as delegating or explaining, to one
receiving, outputs to be used as inputs in processing. Likewise,
each communication 284 reporting back is responsible for reporting
and coordinating with entities from whom inputs were received or
instructions were obtained.
[0225] Typically, in the hierarchical nature of business
organizations, communications 284 backward pass through an
organization from a direct report to a superior. Likewise,
communications 282 forward pass from a supervisory entity down to a
direct report. Nevertheless, design reviews, product reviews, and
various other business meetings are held with the specific intent
to facilitate communication deeply forward 282, and to retrieve
information and bring it forward to entities from far backward 284
in the organization and process to determine whether the vision
announced and communicated has been clearly heard, and relied upon.
Actually, each step 240 has a responsibility to communicate back
284 and forward 282 as a means of effective coordination,
mid-course correction, reporting, follow up, and the like.
[0226] One benefit of the system 60, 90 is that the universe of
decisions is not infinite, unknown, or unassigned. Likewise,
understanding all of the nine elements 240 one may hypothesize,
try, or otherwise consider decisions that will be made in the
future by other entities responsible for other elements 240 in the
matrix 230. That is, understanding these roles and relations of
elements 240, and having facts related thereto, one may construct
hypotheticals to guide in discharging one's own
responsibilities.
[0227] Referring to FIG. 15, a basic unit 290 of the recursion of
the system 60 and process 90, as well as the generic process 230 of
the matrix 230 is illustrated in its basic structure. The unit 290,
in some embodiments, may actually constitute the content 290 of an
element 240. On the other hand, given the nature of recursion, and
the ongoing need to flesh out details in any operation, plan, or
the like, an individual element 240 may actually include recursions
multiplying the number of units 290 actually contained in any
element 240.
[0228] For example, at any level of stewardship or responsibility,
an element 240 may include a single unit 290, a triplicate
recursion of the element 290, or a triple triplicate for a full
nine-element matrix 230 inside a unit 240 of a matrix 230. Thus,
the unit 290 is the basic, recursive, unit of making a decision,
executing the associated processes for reaching those decisions,
and implementing them. Thus, the unit 290 is a universal,
recursive, unique unit 290 from which a closed set may be
constructed for reaching and implementing all decisions.
[0229] The unit 290 may receive inputs 292. Inputs 292 may include
content in context. That is, numbers have no meaning without some
measurable units and other context to provide meaning. Accordingly,
the inputs 292 are input 261 into the unit 290. Accordingly, the
entity responsible will accumulate 294 or collect 294 the content
292.
[0230] Thereafter, the process 262 includes linking 296 or
connecting 296 the content 292 with context 298. In some
embodiments, one may think of facts 298 as embodying both a content
292 and an associated context 298. After accumulating 294 content
292, linking or connecting 296 that content 292 into a context 298,
and linking various contexts together to form a broader context
298, an entity responsible for the unit 290 has meaningful
information on which to move forward and act.
[0231] A process 300 results in a proposal 302. The process 300 may
include numerical calculations, mental evaluations, comparisons,
sorting, filtering, statistical analysis, or other evaluation
processes of any or all types in order to decide direction based
upon the available information. The decision as to that direction
is action or decision as to a proposal 302.
[0232] In a broad context or a broad interpretation, a process 300
is processing information in order to develop proposed directions
302 submitted in a proposal 302. Ultimately, the proposal 302 may
also be thought of as a proposed decision. That is, the process 300
has resulted in a proposed thing to be done 302, which proposal 302
may be accepted or rejected in a decision 264.
[0233] In certain interpretations, one may actually think of the
proposal 302 the decision 264 and the decision 204 as all being
part of an output 263. That is, the proposal 302 has not been
decided on, but is simply a proposed course 302. The decision 264
decides but typically decides to accept, or reject (believe,
commit, negotiate, etc.) for the results promised by the proposal
302. Meanwhile, a decision to move forward results in follow up 265
in order to implement the decision 204. As a practical matter, the
decision 204 is the proposal 302 having been decided 264 or adopted
by the entity responsible.
[0234] In order to follow up 265, the content or course outlined by
the proposal 302 is advanced as a decision 204 by outputting 282
forward and by reporting 284 backward to the subsequent and
previous elements 240, respectively. As a practical matter,
decisions 264 occur repeatedly.
[0235] The decision 264, including negotiations 264 where the
decision 264 is bilateral, may be decided negatively. Accordingly,
a decision 264 may result in a return 306 to the process 262, or a
abandonment of the proposal 302 entirely. Thus, the path 306 or
return 306 may result in quashing the proposal 302 and ceasing
activities directed thereto, in further refinements through
continuation of the process 262, or in passing back whatever
proposal 302 existed to another entity in another unit 290 or
element 240 of the matrix 230 for further resources, decisions 264
or the like.
[0236] Reviewing FIG. 15 in view of FIG. 11, the process 262
includes content, context, and process. Accordingly, the process
262 is the basic unit of recursion bounded by inputs 292 incoming
261, and a decision 264 resulting in handoff and follow up 265.
Thus, the unit 290 is the basic element of see, think, and do or
sense, link, and evaluate.
[0237] Referring to FIG. 16, the basic concept of recursion
provides a unit 290. A unit 290 may exist alone within an element
240 of the matrix 230. Nevertheless, the unit 290 may be used
recursively for tasks that are oriented toward seeing, thinking,
and doing. Accordingly, the unit 290 may recurse to form three
units 290a, 290b, 290c filling an element 240. By the same token,
the unit 290a of the element 240 may be expanded, or the element
240 may be expanded to devote a full recursive column 242, 244, 246
to each of the individual units 290a, 290b, 290c, respectively of
the element 240. Each of the columns 242 may include elements 240a,
240b, 240c, and so forth to create a full matrix 230.
[0238] Meanwhile, within each of the units 240a-240i, exists a
subsequent element 240p or internal recursed element 240p that may
be constituted by one or more units 290b. The matrix 230 may
similarly recurse upward into a more global scheme in which
multiple matrices 230a-230i exist within a larger matrix 230z.
Thus, the unit 290 becomes a universal, recursive unit 290 that may
recurse to form a closed set of decisions and associated processes
for reaching those decisions and implementing them.
[0239] Typically, an individual entity may have responsibility for
a domain or stewardship of interest. Accordingly, that entity may
execute the basic unit 290. To the extent that the facts,
decisions, or processes become overburdening, too complicated, lack
information, exceed authority, or cannot be fully executed for any
reason, the entity responsible for the unit 290 may recurse down
within the scope of authority and stewardship. That is, the
recursive unit 290 may be recursed to form a column 242, or a
series of columns 242, 244, 246. Thus, until the problems,
decisions, facts, and so forth can be dissected to a point that
they can be adequately handled, questions can be answered, and
decisions executed, a responsible entity acting within its
stewardship simply recurse and subdivide the decisions until
information and decisions are adequate to come to closure.
[0240] Keeping in mind that the units 240 for step three, step six,
and step nine require bilateral decisions, one entity may only
recurse to the extent of controlled resources, ideas, and ability
to produce results. Once resources, ideas, or results require
negotiation outside the scope of authority, then negotiations must
occur with peers or upward. To the extent that an entity (person,
organization, machine, etc.) has the capacity to sufficiently
process a matrix 230, and column 242, a unit 240, or a unit 290,
then the entity may act.
[0241] In the instance where a entity determines that insufficient
information or other resources have not been provided as inputs,
then that entity may cause the process 290, 240, 230 to pop up to
the domain in which the problems may resolved. That is, outside the
domain of responsibility or stewardship of the entity in question.
Thus, an individual or manager may apply to a boss or higher
management for additional resources or authorization to continue
recursion or for additional inputs of information material, people,
and so forth to proceed. For example, decisions that have not been
made, and now need to be made, or were improperly made may have to
be reconsidered by those responsible. By the same token, success
may be reported back at the end of a unit 290, a step 240, or
execution of the matrix 230, depending upon the scope of the
problem, the domain of stewardship, and the like.
[0242] Referring to FIG. 17, an organization 300 or system 300 may
include multiple entities 302a-302i responsible for accomplishing
any function, purpose, product development, or the like. The
responsibilities for individual elements 240a-240i of the
enterprise at hand may be assigned to the corresponding entities
302a-302i, respectively. The entities 302 may exist at a same
location, different locations, or anywhere else so long as they can
communicate through connections 304a-304i, respectively through an
internetwork 306. Thus, each of the entities 302a-302i can belong
to an organization executing their assigned responsibilities from
the matrix 230. Other entities 310 not part o the organization may
be customers, sources, vendors, or other contacts related or
unrelated to the work of the decision and processing matrix
230.
[0243] The present invention may be embodied in other specific
forms without departing from its spirit or essential
characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in
all respects only as illustrative, and not restrictive. The scope
of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims,
rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come
within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be
embraced within their scope.
* * * * *