NETWORKED EVALUATION SYSTEM

• US 20100161277A1
• Filed: 12/24/2008
• Published: 06/24/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 12/24/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Elkiem Centre Pty Limited
• Original Assignee: Elkiem Centre Pty Limited
• Inventors: MEIKLE, Andrew
• Application Number:
  US12/343,870
• Publication Number:
  US 20100161277A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 702/182
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management

Abstract

A networked organization performance evaluation system based on an integrated number of Performance Components quantified by a computerized statistical analysis of data collected from within the organization. The data is collected by a network accessible interface generated by software resident on computers and databases maintained by the system. The Performance Components include: (a) an Achievement Component and a Failure Component representing end points of a Performance Range, (b) an Exposure Component of an identified population of said organization, (c) an Individual Exposure component of an individual within the population, (d) a Significant Personal Pleasure Component associated with the Achievement Component, (e) a Significant Personal Discomfort Component associated with the Failure Component, (f) a Meaning Component, (g) a Strategy and Plan Component. Each of the Performance Components is assigned a ranked value derived through the statistical analysis.

Claims

1. A networked organization performance evaluation system;

said system based on an integrated number of Performance Components;

said Performance Components quantified by means of a computerized statistical analysis of data collected from within said organization;

said data collected by means of a network accessible interface generated by software resident on computers and databases maintained by said system;

said Performance Components including;

(h) an Achievement Component and a Failure Component;

said Achievement Component and said Failure Component representing end points of a Performance Range,

(i) an Exposure Component of an identified population of said organization,

(j) an Individual Exposure component of an individual within said population,

(k) a Significant Personal Pleasure Component associated with said Achievement Component,

(l) a Significant Personal Discomfort Component associated with said Failure Component,

(m) a Meaning Component,

(n) a Strategy and Plan Component,

said components integrated within an Approach Component associated with said Organization, and wherein each of said Performance Components is assigned a ranked value derived through said statistical analysis.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein said statistical analysis of said data collected from within said organization is based on ranking responses to groupings of questions presented to participating individuals within said organization.

3. A networked evaluation system;

said system including collected data from within an organisation;

said collected data input through a network accessible interface;

software resident on servers and databases maintained by said system providing a statistical analysis of said collected data;

said analysis identifying at least one weakest performance indicating component of a plurality of performance indicating components characterising said organisation.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein said collected data is obtained through a structured pool of statements provided in formatted web pages over said network to participating respondents within said organization.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein said statements are provided in groups of statements in each of said formatted web pages;

available values for assignment by said respondents represented by a series of radio buttons.

6. The system of claim 4, wherein values accorded said statements by said respondents within said organization are analysed within a number of said performance indicating components.

7. The system of claim 3, wherein each of said components includes a selection of statements from said pool of statements.

8. The system of claim 4, wherein each said statement of said selection of statements within a components is assigned a relative weight.

9. The system of claim 8, wherein each said weight is a proportion of 100% within each of said components;

said weights assigned by a system designer.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein an assigned said weight is applied to an average of all values accorded by respondents to each statement within a said component to derive a weighted value for said statement;

a summation of said weighted values determining a diagnostic indicator value for said component.

11. The system of claim 3, wherein said performance indicating components characterising a said organisation include an individual respondent'"'"'s perception within said organization of;

(j) approach,

(k) achievement,

(l) exposure,

(m) individual exposure,

(n) failure,

(o) significant emotional pleasure

(p) significant emotional discomfort

(q) meaning

(r) strategy and plan

12. The system of claim 3, wherein said system generates a selection of graphical output displays.

13. The system of claim 10, wherein said displays include a graphical representation of average values and range of values accorded by respondents to said statements.

14. The system of claim 12, wherein said displays include a graphical representation of each of said performance indicating components ranked according to respective diagnostic indicator values of said components.

15. The system of claim 12, wherein said displays include representations of selected said diagnostic indicator values for comparison with a critical diagnostic indicator value;

said representation accompanied by explanatory text.

16. The system of claim 12, wherein said displays include an overview of interacting performance indicating components accompanied by respective rankings of said components;

said display facilitating identification of said at least one weakest performance indicating component.

17. The system of claim 3, wherein said system is applied iteratively;

a first iteration of said system providing a performance benchmark of said organization;

improvements in said at least one weakest performance indicating component identified in said first iteration determined by a succeeding iteration.

18. A method of determining at least one weakest performance indicating component of an organization;

said method including the steps of;

(f) maintaining software of a networked evaluation system on servers and databases of an evaluation agency,

(g) generating displays for gathering values assigned by respondents within a said organization to a pool of statements,

(h) analysing said values assigned to said statements;

said statements grouped within performance indicating components,

(i) deriving performance indicating values from said gathered values by means of relative weightings applied to said gathered values within each of said performance indicating components,

(j) displaying selected graphical output displays of analysed said gathered values and of said performance indicating components,

wherein a ranking of said performance indicating values determines said at least one weakest performance indicating components.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein each of said performance indicating components includes a set of statements selected from said pool of statements.

20. The method of claim 18, wherein said performance indicating values comprise a bench mark of said organization'"'"'s performance;

iterative applications of said method allowing evaluation of improvement in said at least one weakest performance indicting component and identification of a new at least one weakest performance indicating component.