JP7726490B2 - Program, method, and system - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a program, a method, and a system.

In recent years, companies have begun to adopt the idea that improving not only customer satisfaction but also the employee experience that employees gain through their work will contribute to the growth of the company and ultimately to improving its value.
In order to improve the employee experience, for example, a method is conceivable in which a questionnaire system as described in Patent Document 1 is adopted and measures are taken based on the responses from employees.

Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2008-197941

However, employees working for small companies such as start-ups may place more importance on whether their work is rewarding or whether their performance is evaluated fairly than on the office environment or the quality of employee benefits. For such employees, the quality of the office environment is not such an important issue.
In other words, the aspects of employee experience that employees value generally differ depending on their attributes, such as gender, age, and job type, as well as the size and industry of the company.

On the other hand, if the system described in Patent Document 1 is used to obtain, for example, a survey on each item in the employee experience, there is a possibility that it will only evaluate satisfaction with the evaluation items. In other words, if the analysis results ignore which items of the employee experience each employee values, there is a risk that measures considered based on these results will not meet employee expectations.

The present invention aims to provide a system that efficiently extracts areas of a company's employee experience that need improvement.

One aspect of the present invention is a program executed by a system including a processor and memory, which causes the processor to execute the following steps: conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual values for each item of the employee experience; and using the obtained expectations and actual values to extract items that should be improved from among the items of the employee experience.

1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of an information processing system according to an embodiment of the present invention; FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of an employee terminal according to the present embodiment. FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a management terminal according to the present embodiment. FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a server according to the present embodiment. FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an outline of the present embodiment. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of an employee database according to the present embodiment. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of a questionnaire database according to the present embodiment. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of an answer result database according to the present embodiment. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a data structure of an evaluation result database according to the present embodiment. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating the first half of the processing by the information processing system. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating the latter half of the processing by the information processing system. FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a screen in the information processing system.

One embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings. In the drawings used to explain the embodiment, identical components will generally be assigned the same reference numerals, and repeated explanations will be omitted.

(1) Configuration of Information Processing System 1 The following describes the configuration of the information processing system 1. Fig. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the information processing system 1 according to this embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 1, the information processing system 1 includes an employee terminal 10, a management terminal 20, a server 30, and a product DB 40.
The employee terminal 10 is connected to the management terminal 20, the server 30, and the product DB 40 via a network (for example, the Internet or an intranet) NW. A plurality of employee terminals 10 are set up according to the number of employees.

The employee terminal 10 and the management terminal 20 are, for example, smartphones, tablet terminals, or personal computers.

The server 30 executes calculations based on information acquired from the multiple employee terminals 10 and information input from the management terminal 20, and outputs various information described below. The server 30 may be configured by one or more physical computers.
The server 30 provides the management terminal 20 with a response in response to a request sent from the management terminal 20 .

(1-1) Configuration of Employee Terminal 10 The configuration of the employee terminal 10 will be described. FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the employee terminal 10 of this embodiment. The employee terminal 10 is a terminal used by an employee of a company. Note that the employee terminal 10 in this invention includes a terminal used by an executive who is the user.

As shown in FIG. 2, the employee terminal 10 includes a storage device 11, a processor 12, an input/output interface 13, and a communication interface 14.

The storage device 11 is configured to store programs and data. The storage device 11 is, for example, a combination of ROM (Read Only Memory), RAM (Random Access Memory), and storage (e.g., flash memory or a hard disk).

The programs include, for example, the following programs:
・OS (Operating System) programs ・Application programs that execute information processing

The data includes, for example, the following data:
- Databases referenced in information processing - Data obtained by executing information processing (i.e., the results of executing information processing)

The processor 12 is a computer that executes the programs stored in the storage device 11 to realize the functions of the employee terminal 10. The processor 12 is, for example, at least one of the following:
・CPU (Central Processing Unit)
・GPU (Graphic Processing Unit)
・ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit)
・FPGA (Field Programmable Array)

The input/output interface 13 is configured to acquire information (e.g., user instructions) from an input device connected to the employee terminal 10 and to output information to an output device connected to the employee terminal 10 .
The input device is, for example, a physical button, a keyboard, a pointing device, a touch panel, or a combination thereof.
The output device is, for example, a display 15, a speaker, a lamp, or a combination thereof.

The communication interface 14 is configured to control communication between the employee terminal 10 and an external device (for example, the management terminal 20, the server 30, the product DB 40, or a combination thereof).
The display 15 is configured to display an image (still image or moving image) and is, for example, a liquid crystal display or an organic EL display.

(1-2) Configuration of the Management Terminal 20 The configuration of the management terminal 20 will be described. FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the management terminal 20 of this embodiment. The management terminal 20 is a terminal used by an administrator. An administrator is an employee who is responsible for building and improving the employee experience at a company, and corresponds to, for example, a manager or person in charge in the human resources department. Note that an employee from another department may also be the administrator, as long as they are responsible for building and improving the employee experience.

As shown in FIG. 4, the management terminal 20 includes a storage device 21, a processor 22, an input/output interface 23, a communication interface 24, and a display 25.

The storage device 21 is configured to store programs and data. The storage device 21 is, for example, a combination of ROM, RAM, and storage.

The programs include, for example, the following programs:
・OS programs ・Application programs that execute information processing (e.g., web browsers)

The data includes, for example, the following data:
・Databases referenced in information processing ・Results of information processing

The processor 22 is a computer that implements the functions of the management terminal 20 by running a program stored in the storage device 21. The processor 22 is, for example, at least one of the following:
CPU
・GPU
・ASIC
・FPGA

The input/output interface 23 is configured to acquire information (for example, user instructions) from an input device connected to the management terminal 20 , and to output the information to an output device connected to the management terminal 20 .
The input device is, for example, a keyboard, a pointing device, a touch panel, or a combination thereof.
The output device is, for example, a display 25, a speaker, or a combination thereof.

The communication interface 24 is configured to control communication between the management terminal 20 and an external device (e.g., a server 30, a product DB 40, or a combination thereof).

The display 25 is configured to display images (still images or videos). The display 25 is, for example, a liquid crystal display or an organic EL display.

(1-3) Configuration of Server 30 The following describes the configuration of the server 30. Fig. 3 is a block diagram showing the configuration of the server 30 of this embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 3, the server 30 includes a storage device 31, a processor 32, an input/output interface 33, and a communication interface 34.

The storage device 31 is configured to store programs and data. The storage device 31 is, for example, a combination of ROM, RAM, and storage.

The programs include, for example, the following programs:
・OS programs ・Application programs that execute information processing

The data includes, for example, the following data:
・Databases referenced in information processing ・Results of information processing

The processor 32 is a computer that executes the programs stored in the storage device 31 to realize the functions of the server 30. The processor 32 is, for example, at least one of the following:
CPU
・GPU
・ASIC
・FPGA

The input/output interface 33 is configured to obtain information (for example, user instructions) from an input device connected to the server 30 and to output information to an output device connected to the server 30 .
The input device is, for example, a keyboard, a pointing device, a touch panel, or a combination thereof.
The output device is, for example, a display.

The communication interface 34 is configured to control communication between the server 30 and an external device (e.g., an employee terminal 10, a management terminal 20, a product DB, or a combination thereof).

(1-4) Configuration of the Product DB 40 The product DB 40 shown in Fig. 1 is a database that stores information about systems (products) that contribute to improving the employee experience. Examples of information about products that contribute to improving the employee experience include the following:
・Systems that support corporate recruitment activities ・Systems that support corporate personnel evaluation ・Systems that support the development of corporate employee benefits ・Systems that manage corporate employee information ・Systems that support optimal personnel placement based on organizational analysis within a company ・Systems that support human resource development within a company ・Systems that support the management of work progress for each employee ・Systems that support employee joining and retention (onboarding) ・Systems that collect employee opinions and status (survey systems)
・A system that visualizes a company's human resources (a system that displays the number of employees, gender ratio, etc., in graphs)
- A system that detects employee turnover trends and issues alerts - A system that supports communication between employees in a company Note that the products stored in the product database may be systems other than these, as long as they contribute to improving the employee experience.

The product-related information stored in product DB 40 may be data about the product itself, or it may be product introductory information that explains the product's functions and operation methods, and indicates costs and installation methods. By accessing product DB 40, the stored product-related information can be obtained.

(2) Overview of the Embodiment An overview of the present embodiment will be described below. Fig. 5 is an explanatory diagram of the overview of the present embodiment.
Fig. 5A is a diagram illustrating a questionnaire format, Fig. 5B is a diagram illustrating another questionnaire format, and Fig. 5C is a diagram illustrating a method for analyzing the questionnaire results.

The information processing system 1 of this embodiment is a system that conducts a survey regarding expectations and actual values for each item of employee experience and extracts items for improvement from the results. Here, employee experience refers to all experiences that employees gain through their involvement with the organization.

Examples of employee experience categories include the following: For each of the following categories, two sub-categories are shown in parentheses, each of which is a subdivision of the main category.
・Recruitment (selection period, regular internal recruitment)
・Onboarding (understanding the business, building relationships)
・Business execution (business content, collaborative relationships)
・Personnel evaluation (goal setting, evaluation and compensation)
・Human resource development (career planning, ability development)
・Personnel placement (suitability for work, suitability for the workplace)
・Work environment (working conditions, systems)
・Corporate culture (corporate philosophy, organizational culture)
In the following explanation, each item related to employee experience (including cases where it is simply referred to as each item) refers to the 16 sub-items mentioned above. Note that the classification of each item can be changed as desired as long as it is related to employee experience.

In the information processing system 1, employees are asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding each item of employee experience shown in Fig. 5A. The questions in the questionnaire are broadly divided into questions asking about expectations for each item and questions asking about actual feelings for each item.
Specifically, the questionnaire contains multiple questions (evaluation items) related to the medium-level items, and employees are asked to respond to the questions with their expectations or actual values. Responses are made on a five-point scale from 1 to 5. The evaluation scale can be changed as desired.

In the illustrated example, the following questions are included as part of a questionnaire about the medium-item "selection period" related to the large item "recruitment."
・Q1: To what extent do you want to be satisfied with the outcome of your job search?
・Q2: To what extent do you feel satisfied with your job search at our company?
・Q3: I was able to obtain all the information I wanted through the selection process.
・Q4: Throughout the selection process, I was asked about my own values and career with interest.

Of these questions, Q1 asks about expectations, and Q2 to Q4 ask about perceived values. More specifically, Q2 asks about perceived values (satisfaction) in relation to Q1.
For Q1, employees respond on a 5-point scale about the expectations they had before the experience (before undergoing the selection process), while for Q2 to Q4, employees respond on a 5-point scale about their actual feelings after the experience (after undergoing the selection process).

Specifically, employees answer Q1 with a "5" if they had particular expectations, a "1" if they had no particular expectations, and a "3" if they were somewhere in between.
In addition, employees answer questions 2 to 4 with a "5" if they agree with the question, a "1" if they do not agree with the question, and a "3" if they agree with the question.

It should be noted that respondents do not necessarily need to input numbers, and may select from a list of prepared values. Furthermore, a response format that allows employees to intuitively quantify their subjective opinions may be adopted, for example, using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
5B, some questions may be provided with a text input answer. A text input answer may be provided for each sub-item, for example.

In a survey, expected values and actual values may be obtained at the same time, or, depending on the question, expected values may be obtained in advance and actual values may be obtained after a specified period of time has passed, allowing for chronological aggregation.

The information processing system 1 calculates the difference based on the expected and actual values of the acquired questions. By calculating the difference, items that need improvement are extracted from the evaluated employee experience items. The information processing system 1 calculates an evaluation index that quantitatively indicates the fulfillment of the employee experience for each employee experience item. The evaluation index is a value that comprehensively evaluates the expected and actual values and indicates whether an employee's employee experience is in an ideal state, with a higher value being considered closer to the ideal state. In order to improve the employee experience and create an environment where employees can work in a fulfilling state, companies can verify the appropriateness of measures to improve the employee experience by checking the calculated difference and evaluation index to see how the employee experience is progressing.

The evaluation indexes indicating the employee experience described in this embodiment include the following:
・Evaluation score ・Deviation value of evaluation score

The evaluation score is calculated based on the difference between expected and actual values. Figure 5C is a diagram in which the responses to the questions are plotted for each subcategory of employee experience, with expected values on the Y axis and actual values on the X axis. In this diagram, the 16 plots correspond to the subcategories of employee experience shown on the right. Note that, with the exception of the characteristic values described below, explanation of which subcategory each plot corresponds to will be omitted.

In Figure 5C, if the response to a certain sub-item falls to the left of the Y = X line (hereafter referred to as the reference line) shown in Figure 5C, it means that the employee who responded was not as satisfied with that sub-item as they had hoped. If this situation continues, it could lead to a decline in employee motivation and ultimately employee turnover, so it suggests that the item being evaluated should be improved. For example, plot M6 (collaborative relationships) deviates significantly from the reference curve and the actual value (satisfaction) is low, confirming that there is plenty of room for improvement.

On the other hand, in Figure 5C, if the answer to a certain medium item is located to the right of the reference line, it means that the employee who answered was more satisfied with that medium item than they expected. Therefore, it can be determined that there is no problem with that medium item.
However, if the line deviates significantly to the right of the reference line, it suggests that the evaluation item in question is overdeveloped in terms of personnel, systems, or equipment, and there is room for cost reduction. For example, plot M10 (skills development) is such an example. In other words, it is assumed that the company has excessively developed tools and measures for skills development, but these are not that important to employees, resulting in waste.

In contrast, if the answer to a certain question falls on the reference line shown in Figure 5C, it can be determined that the employee who answered is moderately satisfied compared to their expectations, suggesting that they are in an optimal state. For this reason, it is desirable to plot the expected values and actual values close to the reference line. For example, plot M13 (working conditions) has a small difference, a high actual value, and is close to the reference line, so it can be determined that they are in an appropriate state.

The evaluation score is calculated based on the actual value and the number of items in the employee experience that have a small difference between the expected value and the actual value. A specific method for calculating the evaluation score will be described later.
The deviation value of the evaluation score is a value obtained by normalizing the distribution of the evaluation scores in the set to be evaluated. The method for calculating the deviation value will be described later.

The information processing system 1 extracts items that should be improved within the organization based on the survey responses. Managers review the extracted items and consider measures to improve the employee experience. Specific methods for doing this will be described later.

(3) Database The database of this embodiment will be described. The following database is stored in the storage device 31.

(3-1) Employee Database The employee database of this embodiment will be described below. Fig. 6 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the employee database of this embodiment.

The employee database stores employee information. Employee information is information about employees belonging to a company. The employee database may also include information about executives who are the employer, and may contain information about all users who respond to questionnaires submitted by the information processing system 1.

As shown in Figure 6, the employee database includes an "Employee ID" field, a "Name" field, a "Personal Information" field, a "Department" field, a "Position" field, a "Years of Service" field, a "Personal Evaluation" field, and an "eNPS Value" field. Each field is associated with another.

The "Employee ID" field stores the employee's ID. The employee ID is a code used to identify the employee and is assigned to each employee.

The "Name" field stores the name of the employee corresponding to the employee ID.

The "personal information" field stores personal information of the employee corresponding to the employee ID. The personal information of the employee includes, for example, the following information:
・Information about the employee's place of work, such as work location (including working hours, overtime hours, and late-night overtime hours)

The "Department" field stores information about the current department of the employee corresponding to the employee ID. For example, the "Department" field stores department names such as Sales Department, Development Department, Legal Department, General Affairs Department, and Manufacturing Department.

The "Position" field stores information about the current position of the employee corresponding to the employee ID. The "Position" field is not limited to departmental positions such as team leader, section manager, or department head, but may also store information about the role in a business project, such as project manager. Furthermore, information about the employee's position may be stored instead of or separately from the position.

The "Years of Service" field stores information about the years of service of the employee corresponding to the employee ID.

The "Performance Evaluation" field stores information related to the performance evaluation of the employee corresponding to the employee ID. Specifically, the performance evaluation field stores a class set based on the employee's current or past performance evaluation. In other words, performance evaluations are set on a five-level scale, from highest to lowest, such as S, A, B, C, and D, and the corresponding class information is stored.

The "eNPS value" field stores the eNPS value of the employee corresponding to the employee ID. The eNPS value (Employee Net Promoter Score) is a value that indicates an employee's engagement and is a numerical value that indicates the employee's loyalty to the company they work for, i.e., the degree of attachment or trust they have toward the company. The eNPS value is obtained through periodic employee surveys. The "eNPS value" field may also store classes set according to the numerical range of the eNPS value.

The employee database is not limited to these attributes and can store any information related to employee attributes.
In addition, the employee database may be configured to compile various types of information based on information about employees held by the company, as exemplified below, and store the compilation results as attribute information.
・ Length of employment in the current department, cumulative number of transfers, average length of employment in the same department (= transfer span)
・Whether or not you have attended in-house training ・Award data ・Qualifications ・Date of joining ・Years of employment ・Salary ・Remuneration ・Bonus ・Recruitment route ・Social style

(3-2) Questionnaire Database The questionnaire database of this embodiment will be described below. Fig. 7 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the questionnaire database of this embodiment.
The questionnaire database includes a score calculation questionnaire table and a measure questionnaire table.

The score calculation questionnaire table stores information about the questionnaire used to calculate the evaluation score.
7A, the score calculation questionnaire table includes a “major item” field, a “sub-item” field, an “answer type” field, and a “question” field. Each field is associated with another field.

The "major item" field includes an "ID" subfield and an "item name" subfield.
The "ID" subfield stores the ID of the major item.
The "item name" subfield stores the name of the major item corresponding to the major item ID.

The "medium item" field includes an "ID" subfield and an "item name" subfield.
The "ID" subfield stores intermediate item IDs that are further subdivided from the major item IDs.
The "item name" subfield stores the classification of the medium item corresponding to the medium item ID.

The "Answer Type" field stores information that identifies whether the question asks about expected values or perceived values.

The "Question" field includes a "Question No." subfield, a "Question ID" subfield, and a "Question Content" subfield.
The "Question No." subfield stores the question number.
The "Question ID" subfield stores the question ID corresponding to the question number. The question ID is composed of a sub-item ID and a type symbol indicating the answer type (e: expectation, r: actual feeling). For example, the question ID "M1-e" can be identified from the question ID as a question asking about the expected value for the sub-item M1. Also, the question ID "M1-r" can be identified from the question ID as a question asking about the actual value for the sub-item M1.
The "question" subfield stores text data indicating the question.

In this way, the score calculation questionnaire table stores one question each about expectations and actual experiences for each sub-category. All questions have defined sub-categories and major categories to which they belong.

The measure questionnaire table stores information about the questionnaire used to consider measures to improve each item of employee experience.
7B, the policy questionnaire table includes a "medium item" field, a "minor item" field, and a "question" field. Each field is associated with the other fields.

The "medium item" field includes an "ID" subfield and an "item name" subfield.
The "ID" subfield stores intermediate item IDs that are further subdivided from the major item IDs.
The "item name" subfield stores the classification of the medium item corresponding to the medium item ID.

The "minor item" field includes a "minor item ID" subfield and an "item name" subfield.
The "minor item ID" subfield stores the ID of a minor item that is a further subdivision of a medium item.
The "item name" subfield stores the classification of the minor item corresponding to the minor item ID. The item name of the minor item is set to indicate the viewpoint to be focused on as a measure to improve the medium item to which the minor item belongs. In other words, in order to improve the employee experience of the medium item, items that are highly relevant to the medium item and for which the employee's actual perception should be confirmed are set as minor items.
For example, the sub-items of the medium-item "selection period" include "information provision" and "self-understanding."

The administrator can change the names of the minor items at will by operating the management terminal 20. In other words, the administrator can decide at their discretion what perspectives to focus on in order to improve the medium items. When the minor items are changed, the content of the questions can also be changed at will. The number of minor items can also be changed at will.

The "Question" field includes a "Question No." subfield and a "Question Content" subfield.
The "Question No." subfield stores the question number.
The "question" subfield stores text data indicating the question.

In this way, the score calculation questionnaire table stores two questions for each sub-item, asking employees about their actual perceptions of the important aspects for improving that sub-item. All questions have a defined sub-item to which they belong.

As shown in Figure 5A, the questionnaire contains, for each medium-level item, a question (Q1) asking about the expected value of the medium-level item, a question (Q2) asking about the actual value of the medium-level item, and questions (Q3, Q4) asking about the sub-items that subdivide the medium-level item. That is, the questionnaire extracts questions for each medium-level item from both the score calculation questionnaire table and the policy questionnaire table, and arranges the questions by medium-level item. Therefore, the questionnaire contains question Q1 asking about the expected value, followed by questions (Q2-Q4) asking about the actual value. This combination is created for all 16 medium-level items. The number of questions per item is not limited to four and can be changed as desired. The score calculation questionnaire and the policy questionnaire are not limited to the configuration shown in Figure 5A and may be configured as separate questionnaires.

In this way, the questions in the survey are divided into hierarchical categories, either large and medium, or large and small. Therefore, when a question ID is identified, all of the corresponding small, medium, and large categories are identified.

The policy questionnaire table may also include a table for questions that require responses via text input, as shown in Figure 5B. In this case, questions regarding the reasons for the perceived value for each sub-item are stored in association with the sub-item ID.

(3-3) Answer Result Database The answer result database of this embodiment will be described below. Fig. 8 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the answer result database of this embodiment.

The answer result database stores information about the answer results to the questionnaire.
As shown in Fig. 8, the answer result database includes an "employee ID" field, a "Q1 expected value" field, a "Q1 actual value" field, a "Q2-Q1 difference" field, a "Q3 actual value" field, a "Q4 actual value" field, and so on. Although not shown and not described, the answer results for each question are provided as columns corresponding to the number of questions. Each field is associated with another.
In addition, for each intermediate item, the difference between the expected value and the actual value for the question stored in the score calculation questionnaire table is calculated and stored. For the question stored in the policy consideration questionnaire table, the actual value of the answer is stored.
If the answer is received by text input, the text data of the answer is stored.
That is, the response result database stores the response results to all questions for each employee who responded to the questionnaire.

(3-4) Evaluation Result Database The evaluation result database of this embodiment will be described below. Fig. 9 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the evaluation result database of this embodiment.

The evaluation results database stores the results of analyzing the responses to the questionnaire and evaluating each item of the employee experience.
9, the answer result database includes an "evaluation target" field, an "intermediate item ID" field, an "average expected value (Yi)" field, an "average actual value (Xi)" field, an "average difference (Xi-Yi)" field, an "evaluation score" field, and a "deviation value" field. Each field is associated with another field.

The "Evaluation Target" field stores the category used to define the set to be evaluated when evaluating each item in the employee experience. Employee attributes as a category are set based on the employee attribute information specified in the evaluation set definition, which is described below. For example, the evaluation set could be the entire company. This data is set when calculating the evaluation score for the entire company.

Furthermore, when evaluating each item of employee experience by department, the multiple department names stored in the "Department" field in the employee database shown in Figure 6 are referenced. As a result, the "Evaluation Target" field stores the names of the departments set as the employee's departments, such as Sales Department, Development Department, etc., as shown in Figure 9.

On the other hand, when evaluating each item of employee experience for each job title, multiple job titles stored in the "job title" field in the employee database are referenced, and each job title set as an employee's job title is stored in the "attribute" field.
That is, the "evaluation target" field stores one of the attributes of employees stored in the employee database that is specified to define the set of evaluation targets. The process of defining the set of evaluation targets will be described later.

The "Sub-item ID" field stores the ID for each item in the employee experience. Specifically, it is the sub-item ID stored in the survey database shown in Figure 7.

The "Average Expected Value (Yi)" field stores the average expected value of the response results from employees who correspond to the "Evaluation Target" field and to questions belonging to the corresponding sub-item ID. The value of the "Average Expected Value (Yi)" field is calculated by referencing the response result database shown in Figure 8 and the employee database shown in Figure 6.

The "Average Perceived Value (Xi)" field stores the average perceived value of the responses from employees who correspond to the "Evaluation Target" field to questions belonging to the corresponding sub-item ID. The value of the "Average Perceived Value (Xi)" field is calculated by referencing the response result database shown in Figure 8 and the employee database shown in Figure 6.

The "Average Difference (Xi - Yi)" field stores the difference between the average perceived value and the average expected value in the responses to questions belonging to the corresponding medium-level item ID, which are responses from employees corresponding to the "Evaluation Target" field. Specifically, the value stored is the average perceived value (Xi) minus the average expected value (Yi).

The "Evaluation Score" field stores the evaluation score from the evaluation index. The evaluation score is calculated based on the average expected value, average actual value, and average difference for each item of employee experience, and is calculated using a formula that takes into account the following criteria:
The closer the distance to the reference curve shown in FIG. 5C, the better.
・The higher the perceived value and the expected value, the better (especially the perceived value).
・If the difference is 0, it is better to have a higher perceived value.
- It's not good if the actual value is too high compared to the expected value.

For example, the evaluation score is calculated using the following formula:
Evaluation score = sum of (Xi/normalized value of distance from standard curve) x (number of items where Xi - Yi > 0) x (number of items where Xi > intermediate value) x (number of items where Yi > intermediate value)
The number of items refers to the number of categories of medium items for which expected values and actual values are evaluated.
The median value is the middle value of the response values, for example, "3" in a 5-point scale.

The "Deviation" field stores the deviation value of the evaluation score. The deviation value of the evaluation score is calculated based on the average value and standard deviation set based on the statistical distribution of past answer results. Specifically, it is calculated using the following formula:
Deviation score = ((evaluation score - average value)/standard deviation) + 50
The mean value and standard deviation for calculating the deviation value can be appropriately corrected depending on the accumulated results of responses to the questionnaire.

(4) Information Processing Information processing in this embodiment will be described.
FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating the overall processing performed by the information processing system 1 of this embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 10, the server 30 conducts a survey (step S130).
Specifically, the server 30 creates a questionnaire requesting responses to expected values and actual values for the questionnaire questions stored in the questionnaire database shown in FIG. 7, and transmits the created questionnaire to the employee terminal 10.

When creating a survey, the administrator first sets the respondents, the survey's implementation time, and the deadline for responding to the survey. The survey is then distributed according to the settings. The administrator then selects the survey questions. For survey questions for evaluation scores, for example, by selecting a medium-sized item, questions belonging to the corresponding medium-sized item will be selected. For survey questions for measures, by selecting a small item, questions belonging to the corresponding small item will be selected. The number of small items selected can be changed as desired.

After step S120, the employee responds to the questionnaire (step S110). Specifically, the employee operates the employee terminal 10 to respond to the questionnaire received from the server 30. The employee's responses are sent to the server 30. The server 30 records the response results received from the employee as new records in the response result database shown in FIG. 8. The questionnaire response information includes the respondent's employee ID, but when displaying the evaluation results described below, the administrator can choose whether to display the response results for each respondent in a manner that makes them identifiable, or in a manner that makes them indistinguishable. Note that it is desirable to display the evaluation results in a manner that makes it identifiable. This is because identifying employees with a discrepancy between expected and actual performance makes it possible to grasp the risk of future turnover on an employee-by-employee basis.

After step S110, server 30 calculates evaluation indices for the entire company (step S131). Specifically, server 30 calculates evaluation indices for the responses from all employees. Specifically, it calculates the average expected value, average actual value, and average difference for each medium-level item, and then calculates the evaluation score and its deviation value based on the calculated results. When calculating the deviation value, a preset standard deviation and average value are used. Server 30 records the calculated result as a new record in the evaluation result database shown in FIG. 9.

After step S131, the administrator specifies the evaluation set (step S120). Specifically, the administrator operates the management terminal 20 to specify the evaluation set. By selecting an evaluation set from a specified input form, the administrator specifies the classification of employee attributes to form the evaluation set. For example, if an evaluation is to be performed by employee department, the administrator specifies the department; if an evaluation is to be performed by employee position, the administrator specifies the position. The classification of the evaluation set specified by the administrator is sent to the server 30. The classification to be specified can be selected from all attributes contained in the employee database.

After step S120, the server 30 defines the evaluation set (step S132). Specifically, the evaluation set is defined by referencing the classification of the evaluation set sent from the management terminal 20. For example, if the administrator specifies the department as the classification of the evaluation set, the server 30 defines the department as the classification of the evaluation set.

After step S132, the server 30 calculates an evaluation index for the evaluation set (step S133). Specifically, the server 30 references the defined evaluation set classification and the information in the response result database to tally the average expected value, average actual value, and average difference for each evaluation set, and calculates an evaluation index from the results. That is, the server 30 calculates an evaluation score in the evaluation index for each attribute that classifies the defined evaluation set. For example, if the evaluation set classification is department, the server 30 calculates an evaluation score for each department. After calculating the evaluation scores, the server 30 calculates a standard deviation for each department based on the evaluation scores. The server 30 records the calculated results as a new record in the evaluation result database shown in FIG. 9. This completes the server 30's extraction of items to be improved.

After step S133, the server 30 presents the evaluation results (step S134). Specifically, the server 30 presents the evaluation results to the administrator by transmitting them to the management terminal 20.

After step S134, the management terminal 20 displays the evaluation results (step S121). Specifically, the management terminal 20 displays the evaluation results on the display 25. Screen example P10 at this time will be described later. The manager refers to the evaluation results displayed on the display 25 to check the evaluation scores and standard deviations for the employee experience across the entire company, as well as the evaluation scores and standard deviations for each department. The manager then checks each employee experience item that needs improvement. In this way, by checking the evaluation scores and standard deviations for each evaluation set, the manager can confirm the trends in the evaluation results for each evaluation set.

As shown in FIG. 11, after step S121, the server 30 proposes a product (step S135). Specifically, the server 30 provides the management terminal 20 with products or product introduction information that are associated with the employee experience items that need the most improvement or that have an evaluation score lower than a predetermined threshold and that are stored in the product DB 40. For example, if a hiring-related item is determined to be an item that needs improvement, the server 30 proposes to the management terminal 20 a product that provides hiring support.

After step S135, the management terminal 20 displays the product (step S122). Specifically, the management terminal 20 displays the product proposed by the server 30 or information about the product on the display 25. The administrator checks the product or information about the product displayed on the display 25 and considers adopting the product.

After step S122, server 30 manages tasks related to measures implemented by the manager to improve the employee experience. The task management function sets the tasks to be performed along with their schedules based on the priority of the improvement items that have been set.

Tasks related to measures may be performed by the administrator based on the items set as sub-items and the magnitude of the perceived values, which are the answers to the questions corresponding to the sub-items. For example, in the questionnaire shown in Figure 7B, if there is room for improvement in the medium-item "selection period," the answers to Q3 and Q4 set as sub-items are checked. If the perceived value of the answer to Q3 is low, it can be determined that there is room for improvement in the provision of information during the selection period, and the administrator considers measures for the hiring manager to improve the perspective of "information provision," which is the sub-item corresponding to Q3. Multiple tasks are set for the measure, and the administrator inputs their contents, the department or person in charge, and the schedule for their implementation from the management terminal 20.

Furthermore, measures-related tasks may be set based on the answers to questions that require text input, as shown in Figure 5B. In this case, text mining is performed on the answers entered through text input, dividing the text data that constitutes the answers into words and phrases, and analyzing their frequency of appearance, co-appearance correlation, appearance trends, time series, and so on. This makes it possible to extract useful information for improving the relevant intermediate items. At this time, sentiment analysis may be performed on the text information to classify answers into negative and positive.

The management terminal 20 checks the progress of the task (step S123). Specifically, the administrator checks the progress with the department or person in charge of executing the task and inputs this information into the management terminal 20. The input progress status is notified to the server 30. In task management by the server 30, the server 30 refers to the set schedule and continuously checks whether the set task has been completed by the deadline.

If the task has not been completed by the deadline, or if it is confirmed that the task has not been completed even just before the deadline, the server 30 will issue an alert to the management terminal 20 urging the task to be completed. This ensures that the manager is able to complete tasks aimed at improving the employee experience.

The task management function may include a dashboard that displays the specific progress of tasks related to improvement measures being implemented in each department across departments. The dashboard displays a list of the progress of tasks to be performed in each department on the management terminal 20. This allows the manager to manage the specific progress rather than leaving it up to each department, thereby effectively promoting improvements to the employee experience.
This completes the processing by the information processing system 1.

(5) Usage Examples Usage examples of this embodiment will be described.
First, the manager specifies the department as the category of the evaluation set. For example, if the departments are set as the sales department, development department, legal department, general affairs department, and manufacturing department, the average expected value, average actual value, and average difference for the employee experience sub-items M1 to M16 are calculated for the group of employees belonging to each department. Next, based on these values, the evaluation score and deviation value are calculated for each department and displayed on the management terminal 20. The display screen P10 at this time is shown in FIG. 12.
Of these, FIG. 12A is a diagram showing the overall evaluation results, and FIG. 12B is a diagram showing the evaluation results for each department (each evaluation set).

FIG. 12A shows the overall evaluation results. In this figure, the evaluation results for the entire company and for each evaluation set are displayed, including the deviation value for each medium item, and the average difference, average expected value, and average actual value used to calculate the deviation value. Note that the display of the evaluation score is omitted in this figure, but the evaluation score may also be displayed at the same time. Also, the change in deviation value from the past may be displayed separately to indicate the degree of progress of improvement activities. Furthermore, the server 30 can compare the deviation value for the entire company with other companies in the same industry or other companies of the same size. The information that the server 30 uses to compare with other companies includes the following:
・Survey results (response values for each medium item (expected value, actual value) and response values for each sub-item ・Evaluation results based on the survey results (calculated difference, evaluation score, deviation value of evaluation score)
In this figure, the evaluation results are displayed for each medium-level item, and the items that need to be improved are suggested based on the average difference, average expected value, and average actual value.

The upper part of Figure 12B displays the evaluation scores and standard deviations for each department. The bar graph is created based on the evaluation score values. By checking these evaluation scores and standard deviations, managers can determine which departments have high and low employee experience. Note that this figure may also display only standard deviations. In this case, the bar graph will be a graph showing standard deviations.

The lower part of Figure 12B shows an evaluation of each item in the employee experience for each category (in this example, department) set based on the employee's attributes. In other words, the evaluation results for each item for each evaluation set are displayed. In this figure, the average perceived value, difference, and priority calculated based on these are displayed for each medium-sized item of employee experience (M1 to M16). The server 30 sets the priority of items to be improved based on the calculated difference and expected value. Specifically, the server 30 sets the priority from the average difference and average expected value based on the results of the questionnaire responses.

Specifically, the higher the average difference, the higher the priority; if the average differences are the same, the item with the larger average expected value will have the higher priority. Furthermore, when setting priorities, each item may be weighted. That is, a weighting correction coefficient may be set for each item, and the priority may be evaluated based on the value obtained by multiplying the average difference by the correction coefficient. In this case, the correction coefficient may be set based on each item and its relevance to employee engagement.

In other words, each item in the employee experience can be divided into items that have a high impact on employee engagement and items that have a low impact. For example, medium-sized items such as M8 "evaluation and compensation," M13 "working conditions," and M6 "collaborative relationships" are known to have a relatively high correlation with engagement.
On the other hand, it is known that the correlation between engagement and medium-sized items such as M15 "corporate philosophy" and M3 "business understanding" is low. By setting a correction coefficient based on the empirically confirmed correlation between each item and engagement, it is possible to appropriately identify items that need improvement in order to efficiently increase employee engagement.

After checking screen example P10, the manager confirms that the employee experience in the sales department is low. The manager then checks which of the employee experience items M1 to M16 in the sales department have the highest priority. In the example shown, the priority of the "collaborative relationship" item, which corresponds to the item ID "M6," is "1." This means that the actual value of the "collaborative relationship" item is low and the average difference is large, suggesting a deviation from employees' expectations and a high level of dissatisfaction. Therefore, the manager recognizes that measures to improve the employee experience related to "collaborative relationship" are necessary.

Next, in this example, server 30 proposes a system to support collaboration within a company as a product. The manager reviews the content of the proposed product and determines whether the product is effective in improving the work flow related to the "collaborative relationship" aspect of the employee experience. If the manager determines that the product is effective, the proposed product is adopted and used to improve the employee experience in the "collaborative relationship." This allows appropriate improvement measures to be taken for the areas of the employee experience that need improvement.

In the above explanation, an example was given in which department was used as a classification for the evaluation set, but this is not limited to this example. For example, if job position is selected as a classification for the evaluation set, employee experience for each item of employee experience can be evaluated for each job position. Evaluation sets can also be set by years of service, classes based on personnel evaluation, classes based on eNPS values, etc. Information on various attributes recorded as personal information in the employee database can also be set as a classification for forming the evaluation set.

Moreover, multiple attributes may be selected to divide the evaluation set. For example, if department and job title are selected, a more detailed evaluation set will be formed that divides both department and job title. In this way, employee experience related to employee experience may be evaluated using a subdivided set using multiple attributes.

(6) Summary As described above, the information processing system 1 according to this embodiment uses the expected values and actual values obtained through employee surveys to extract items to be improved from among the items of the employee experience. This makes it possible to understand which items of the employee experience employees were expecting. It is then possible to evaluate whether the items expected by employees have been sufficiently implemented. This makes it possible to efficiently extract items to be improved from the company's employee experience.

In addition, the information processing system 1 calculates the difference between the obtained expected values and actual values and suggests which items in the employee experience should be improved. This makes it possible to quantitatively identify areas for improvement in the employee experience based on the survey results.

In addition, the information processing system 1 sets priorities for items to be improved based on the calculated differences. This makes it easier for managers to organize the measures they need to consider.

In addition, the information processing system 1 displays the set priorities for each employee experience item, allowing managers to easily understand the evaluation results.

In addition, since the evaluation index includes evaluation scores and standard deviations of the evaluation scores, it is possible to grasp the distribution of employee experiences for each evaluation set.

In addition, the information processing system 1 evaluates the evaluation index for each category set based on employee attributes. This makes it possible to confirm differences in employee experience due to differences in employee attributes, such as by department or position, and evaluate employee experience from various perspectives.

In addition, the information processing system 1 can calculate evaluation indices for groups of employees belonging to personnel evaluation classes, making it possible to understand, for example, which items a group of high-performing employees are dissatisfied with. This makes it possible to prevent talented personnel from leaving the company.

In addition, the information processing system 1 can calculate an evaluation index for a group of employees who belong to a specified engagement range, making it possible to understand, for example, which items employees who are highly attached to the company are dissatisfied with. This allows companies to treat employees who are highly attached to the company with care and further increase employee engagement.

In addition, the information processing system 1 can compare the survey results and the evaluation results based on the survey results with those of other companies in the same industry, and analyze the trends in the experience scores of the company's employees compared to other companies in the same industry. This makes it possible to evaluate the status of the company's employee experience in light of objective indicators.

In addition, the information processing system 1 proposes products to encourage improvement for the extracted items that need improvement. Therefore, even if a manager has identified the items that need to be improved as a top priority but is unsure how to improve or operate them, they can use the product to efficiently and effectively improve the employee experience.

In addition, the information processing system 1 manages tasks to improve each item, ensuring an improved employee experience.

In addition, the employee experience items evaluated by the information processing system 1 include recruitment, onboarding, job execution, personnel evaluation, human resource development, personnel placement, work environment, and corporate culture. This makes it possible to extract issues regarding a wide range of aspects of an employee's employee experience.

(7) Modification The storage device 31 may be located outside the server 30 and connected to the server 30 via the network NW.
The information about the products stored in the product DB 40 may be stored in the storage device 31 of the server 30 .

Each step of the above information processing can be executed by any of the employee terminal 10, the server 30, and the management terminal 20.
In the above explanation, an example was given in which each step in each process was executed in a specific order, but the execution order of each step is not limited to the example explained above as long as there is no dependency between the steps. In other words, the order can be changed as desired as long as no contradictions occur in the process.

Each of the employee experience items described above can be changed as desired. In other words, administrators can set major, medium, and minor items as desired.

The screen example shown in FIG. 12 is merely an example, and the display format of the evaluation results can be changed as desired. For example, the differences for the entire company and for each evaluation category may be visualized and arranged for each item. Also, the transition from past evaluation results may be displayed in chronological order.
Also, for example, processing may be performed in which only the answer results regarding the minor items are displayed for at least one of the medium items and the minor items.

The information processing system 1 may also have other functions. For example, if any of the expected value, actual value, or difference in the employee experience of an employee obtained through a questionnaire is lower than a predetermined threshold, the management terminal 20 may be notified that the employee is an employee at risk of leaving. The information processing system 1 may also check changes over time, and consider employees whose expected value, actual value, or difference has decreased by more than a certain amount over time to be employees at risk of leaving.

Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, the scope of the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. Furthermore, the above embodiments can be improved or modified in various ways without departing from the spirit of the present invention. Furthermore, the above embodiments and modifications can be combined.

(7) Supplementary Notes The contents of the present invention are as follows.

(Appendix 1)
A program to be executed by a system having a processor and a memory,
The program instructs the processor to:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A program that executes a step of extracting items that need improvement from each item of employee experience using the obtained expected values and actual values.

(Appendix 2)
In the step of extracting items to be improved,
A step of calculating a difference between the acquired expected value and the actual value;
The program described in Appendix 1 executes a step of suggesting items that should be improved among each item of employee experience based on the calculated difference.

(Appendix 3)
In the step that suggests areas for improvement,
3. The program according to claim 2, which sets priorities of items to be improved based on the calculated difference and expected value.

(Appendix 4)
The processor
The program described in Appendix 3 executes a step of displaying the set priority for each item of employee experience.

(Appendix 5)
The processor
Execute a step of calculating an evaluation index that quantitatively indicates employees' evaluation of their employee experience;
The evaluation index is
An evaluation score calculated based on the actual value and the number of items with small differences in each item of employee experience;
and a standard deviation value of the evaluation score.

(Appendix 6)
In the step of calculating the evaluation index,
A program described in Appendix 5, which calculates an evaluation index for each category set based on employee attributes.

(Appendix 7)
The employee attributes include classes established based on current or past personnel evaluations of employees,
In the step of calculating the evaluation index,
7. The program according to claim 5 or 6, which calculates an evaluation index for a group of employees belonging to a personnel evaluation class.

(Appendix 8)
Employee attributes include classes established based on the level of employee engagement with the company.
In the step of calculating the evaluation index,
A step of calculating an evaluation index for a group of employees belonging to an engagement class, a program described in any of Appendices 5 to 7.

(Appendix 9)
The processor
A program described in any of Appendices 5 to 8, which executes a step of comparing the survey results and evaluation results with those of other companies in the same industry and analyzing the trends in the experience values of the company's employees compared to those of other companies in the same industry.

(Appendix 10)
The processor
10. The program according to any one of appendices 1 to 9, which executes a step of proposing a product to encourage improvement for the extracted items to be improved.

(Appendix 11)
The processor
11. The program according to any one of appendices 1 to 10, which executes a step of managing the progress of tasks to encourage improvement for the extracted items to be improved.

(Appendix 12)
Each item in the employee experience is:
A program described in any of Appendixes 1 to 11, including recruitment, onboarding, job performance, performance evaluation, talent development, staffing, work environment, and corporate culture.

(Appendix 13)
1. A method executed by a system having a processor and a memory, comprising:
The method includes:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A method for performing the steps of: extracting items to be improved from among the items of employee experience using the obtained expected values and actual values.

(Appendix 13)
A system comprising a processor and a memory,
The system includes a processor
A means for conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A system that includes a means for extracting items that need improvement from each item of employee experience using the acquired expected values and actual values.

1: Information processing system 10: Terminal 11: Storage device 12: Processor 13: Input/output interface 14: Communication interface 20: Management terminal 21: Storage device 22: Processor 23: Input/output interface 24: Communication interface 30: Server 31: Storage device 32: Processor 33: Input/output interface 34: Communication interface

Claims (16)

A program to be executed by a system having a processor and a memory,
The program causes the processor to:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and (b) suggesting items to be improved among the employee experience items based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the employee experience items ;
In the step of suggesting an item to be improved,
A program that determines the correction coefficient based on the level of correlation between each item of the employee experience and the employee's engagement with the company . A program to be executed by a system having a processor and a memory,
The program causes the processor to:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and (b) suggesting items to be improved among the employee experience items based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the employee experience items;
In the step of suggesting an item to be improved,
The program suggests the items to be improved based on an average difference obtained by subtracting the average value of the expected values from the average value of the actual values. the processor,
Calculating an evaluation result for each item of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value and the acquired actual value;
and displaying the calculated evaluation result.
In the step of displaying the evaluation result,
3. The program according to claim 1, further comprising displaying an index suggesting the items to be improved as the evaluation result. the processor,
Calculating an evaluation result for each item of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value and the acquired actual value;
and displaying the calculated evaluation result.
In the step of displaying the evaluation result,
A program according to any one of claims 1 to 3, which allows the user to select either a display mode in which the response results of each respondent to the questionnaire can be identified, or a display mode in which the response results cannot be identified. the processor,
Calculating an evaluation index that statistically indicates the employee's evaluation of their employee experience;
Calculating an evaluation result for each item of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value and the acquired actual value;
and displaying the calculated evaluation result.
The evaluation index is
An evaluation score calculated based on the actual feeling value;
a deviation value of the evaluation score,
In the step of displaying the evaluation result,
The program according to claim 1 , wherein statistical values based on at least one of the actual values and the expected values for each item of the employee experience are displayed as the evaluation results for the entire company and for each evaluation set other than the entire company. In the step of conducting the questionnaire,
The program according to claim 1 , wherein the actual value is acquired after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the expected value was acquired. the processor,
Calculating an evaluation result for each item of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value and the acquired actual value;
and displaying the calculated evaluation result.
In the step of displaying the evaluation result,
7. The program according to claim 1, further comprising displaying a time series of the transition from the past evaluation results. In the step of displaying the evaluation result,
The program according to claim 7 , wherein the program displays a transition from the past evaluation results for each evaluation set other than the entire company. the processor,
setting a task related to measures for improving the items to be improved based on the suggestions of the items to be improved;
and a step of managing the progress of the set task.
In the step of managing the progress of the task,
The program according to claim 2 , further comprising displaying the progress of the task on a dashboard. A program to be executed by a system having a processor and a memory,
The program causes the processor to:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A step of suggesting items to be improved among the items of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the items of the employee experience;
A step of obtaining introduction information about products that contribute to improving the items to be improved by referring to a database that stores information about products that contribute to improving the employee experience;
and a step of displaying the acquired introduction information. 1. A method executed by a system having a processor and a memory, comprising:
The method further comprises the processor:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and (b) suggesting items to be improved among the employee experience items based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the employee experience items ;
In the step of suggesting an item to be improved,
A method for determining the correction coefficient based on the level of correlation between each item of the employee experience and the employee's engagement with the company . 1. A method executed by a system having a processor and a memory, comprising:
The method further comprises the processor:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and (b) suggesting items to be improved among the employee experience items based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the employee experience items;
In the step of suggesting an item to be improved,
A method for suggesting the items to be improved based on an average difference obtained by subtracting the average value of the expected values obtained from the average value of the actual values obtained. 1. A method executed by a system having a processor and a memory, comprising:
The method further comprises the processor:
A step of conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A step of suggesting items to be improved among the items of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the items of the employee experience;
A step of obtaining introduction information about products that contribute to improving the items to be improved by referring to a database that stores information about products that contribute to improving the employee experience;
and displaying the acquired referral information. A system comprising a processor and a memory,
The system further comprises:
A means for conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and means for suggesting items to be improved among the items of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the items of the employee experience ,
The means for suggesting an item to be improved includes:
A system that determines the correction coefficient based on the level of correlation between each item of the employee experience and the employee's engagement with the company . A system comprising a processor and a memory,
The system further comprises:
A means for conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
and means for suggesting items to be improved among the items of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the items of the employee experience,
The means for suggesting an item to be improved includes:
The system suggests the items to be improved based on an average difference obtained by subtracting the average value of the acquired expected values from the average value of the acquired actual values. A system comprising a processor and a memory,
The system further comprises:
A means for conducting a survey of employees regarding their expectations and actual experiences for each item of employee experience;
A means for suggesting items to be improved among the items of the employee experience based on the acquired expected value, the acquired actual value, and a correction coefficient set for at least one of the items of the employee experience;
a means for acquiring information about products that contribute to improving the items to be improved by referring to a database that stores information about products that contribute to improving the employee experience;
and means for displaying the acquired introduction information.