Visual rating system and method

• US 5,926,794 A
• Filed: 03/06/1996
• Issued: 07/20/1999
• Est. Priority Date: 03/06/1996
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: Sumtotal Systems LLC (Cornerstone Ondemand Incorporated)
• Original Assignee: ALZA Corporation (Johnson & Johnson)
• Inventors: Fethe, Harold E.
• Primary Examiner(s): Teska, Kevin J.
• Assistant Examiner(s): FREJD, RUSSELL WARREN
• Application Number:
  US08/611,736
• Time in Patent Office: 1,231 Days
• Field of Search: 705/11, 395/211, 395/209, 434/107, 434/219, 434/236, 434/307 R, 434/322, 434/350, 434/218, 434/362, 364/551.01, 364/552, 364/401, 128/920, 128/922, 128/923, 128/924, 128/782, 358/93
• US Class Current: 705/7.39
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06393 Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06398 Performance of employee with respect to a job function
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management

Abstract

An improved performance appraisal system is disclosed which utilizes a visual scoring model which, utilizing visual simplicity, enables raters to capture complex, comparative, hierarchial performance information which is difficult to communicate in numbers or words.

Claims

1. A visual rater system, comprising:

at least one rating criterion;

a vertical scoring bar having non-numeric scoring criterion representative of said at least one rating criterion along its length; and

at least two objects which may be movably placed along the length of said vertical scoring bar so as to indicate a relationship between said at least two objects relative to said at least one rating criterion.

2. The visual rater system of claim 1, wherein said system is displayed on a computer screen.

18. The method of claim 1, wherein said screen image comprises a vertical scoring bar for each rater the vertical scoring bar having a length along which said visual symbols may be placed, and further including the step of determining a numerical score for each visual symbol for each rater for each criterion based upon placement of each visual symbol on each rater'"'"'s vertical scoring bar.

3. A method for a visual rater system, comprising the steps of:

displaying for a rater an image having a vertical scoring bar for at least one rating criterion, said vertical scoring bar having non-numeric scoring criterion representative of said at least one rating criterion along its length;

providing at least two objects which may be moved and placed along the length of said vertical scoring bar so as to indicate a relationship between said at least two objects relative to said at least one rating criterion; and

generating reports displaying the relationship between said at least two objects for said at least one rating criterion using information obtained during said displaying and providing steps.

4. The method of claim 3, further including the step of determining a numerical score for each object for each rater for each criteria based upon placement of each object on each rater'"'"'s vertical scoring bar.

5. The method of claim 3, wherein said step of generating reports includes the step of producing a visual report which presents the results of a completed rating process by presenting an image analogous to said image displayed for a rater.

6. The method of claim 4, further including the step of determining a rank of each score given to an object by a rater for all of that rater'"'"'s scores.

7. The method of claim 3, further including the step of characterizing ratings of objects as likely harsh or likely lenient.

8. The method of claim 4, further including the steps of measuring and reporting a statistical accuracy of information displayed in the reports.

9. A visual rater interface system for display on a computer screen, comprising:

a plurality of benchmark criteria shown on said computer screen one at a time;

a screen image for enabling raters to compare a set of alternatives to each other and to one of said plurality of benchmark criteria in turn, said screen image also providing for simultaneous reporting of rank and scale for each of said set of alternatives; and

a plurality of visual symbols which may be electronically positionable adjacent to said screen image in order to input a rating for each alternative in each of said sets of alternatives.

10. The system of claim 9, further including determining a numerical score for each alternative for each rater for each criterion based on each alternative'"'"'s visual symbol'"'"'s position on each rater'"'"'s visual rater interface.

11. The system of claim 9, further including a visual report which presents the results of a completed rating process by presenting an image analogous to said screen image originally used to compare said alternatives using said visual rater interface.

12. A method for presenting and using a visual rater interface system for display on a computer screen, comprising the steps of:

displaying a plurality of benchmark criteria on said computer screen;

providing a screen image for enabling raters to compare a set of alternatives to each other and to one of said plurality of benchmark criteria in turn, said screen image also providing for simultaneous reporting of rank and scale for each of said set of alternatives; and

displaying a plurality of movable visual symbols on said computer screen for use in inputting a rating for each alternative in each of said sets of alternatives.

13. The method of claim 12, further including the step of determining a numerical score for each alternative for each rater for each benchmark criterion based upon a position of each alternative'"'"'s visual symbol on each rater'"'"'s visual rater interface.

14. The method of claim 12, wherein said screen image comprises a vertical scale bar having a length along which said visual symbols may be placed.

15. The method of claim 12, further including the step of producing a visual report which presents the results of a completed rating process by presenting an image analogous to said screen image originally used to compare said alternatives using said visual rater interface.

16. The method of claim 13, further including the step of determining a rank of each score given to an alternative by a rater for all of that rater'"'"'s scores.

17. The method of claim 12, further including the step of characterizing ratings of alternatives as likely harsh or likely lenient.

19. A visual rating system for allowing each of a plurality of raters to evaluate a plurality of ratees on a plurality of criteria, the system comprising:

a display;

means for displaying a plurality of movable objects on the display;

means for receiving an input from each of the plurality of raters to allow each of the plurality of raters to move at least two of the objects to relative positions that represent the rater'"'"'s evaluation of the ratees on the plurality of criteria such that the rater does not need to report the evaluation in words or numbers;

means for generating both ranked and scaled evaluations of the ratees on the plurality of criteria in accordance with movements of the objects by the raters; and

means for reporting the ranked and scaled evaluations.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein the means for generating generates (i) the ranked evaluations in accordance with a rank order of the relative positions to which the objects are moved and (ii) the scaled evaluations in accordance with at least one distance separating the relative positions to which the objects are moved.

21. A visual rating method for allowing each of a plurality of raters to evaluate a plurality of ratees on a plurality of criteria, the method comprising:

providing a display;

displaying a plurality of movable objects on the display;

receiving an input from each of the raters to allow each of the raters to move at least two of the objects to relative positions that represent the rater'"'"'s evaluation of the ratees on the plurality of criteria such that the rater does not need to report the evaluation in words or numbers;

generating both ranked and scaled evaluations of the ratees on the plurality of criteria in accordance with movements of the objects by the raters; and

reporting the ranked and scaled evaluations.

22. The method of claim 21, wherein the step of generating comprises generating (i) the ranked evaluations in accordance with a rank order of the relative positions to which the objects are moved and (ii) the scaled evaluations in accordance with at least one distance separating the relative positions to which the objects are moved.