Criterion

Criterion

noun, m., use comp. often

Morphology: (no) what? criteria, what? criterion, (see) what? criterion, how? criterion, about what? about the criterion; pl. What? criteria, (no) what? criteria, what? criteria, (see) what? criteria, how? criteria, about what? about the criteria

Criterion is the factor on the basis of which you judge something or make a decision.

Truth criterion. Criteria for selection of winners. Meet the criteria. | This product meets all quality criteria. | The coefficient of intelligence includes several criteria: the definition of numerical, logical, spatial intelligence.

Dictionary Russian language Dmitrieva. D.V. Dmitriev. 2003 .

See what "criterion" is in other dictionaries:

Criterion- a sign on the basis of which the assessment of the state of nuclear and radiation safety of nuclear installations of ships and other watercraft is carried out. Source … Dictionary-reference book of terms of normative and technical documentation

- [gr. kriterion] essential, hallmark on the basis of which an assessment, definition or classification of what l. Dictionary of foreign words. Komlev N.G., 2006. CRITERION or criterion, lat. criterium, from Greek. kriterion, from ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Cm … Synonym dictionary

CRITERIA, criteria, husband. (Greek kriterion means for solving) (book). A sign on the basis of which an assessment, definition, classification of something is made, a measure. true criterion. criterion of truth. This sign serves as a criterion (what ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

- (Greek criterion) an indicator, a sign, on the basis of which an assessment of the quality of an economic object, process, a measure of such an assessment is formed. For example, the efficiency criterion characterizes the level of system efficiency, and the optimality criterion ... Economic dictionary

criterion- A rule or condition that allows you to divide a set of objects into subsets of interest to the researcher. [Collection of recommended terms. Issue 107. Control Theory. USSR Academy of Sciences. Committee of Scientific and Technical Terminology. 1984]… … Technical Translator's Handbook

F test of significance for testing the hypothesis of equality standard deviationsσ1 = σ2 of two independent samples from a normal population of size n1 and n2, respectively. If s21 and s22 are sample estimates σ21, σ22,… … Geological Encyclopedia

- χ2 is a test of significance for testing hypotheses about probabilities based on observed frequencies. For example: 1. To test the hypothesis that the probabilities of some m events are equal, respectively given numbersр1, p2,..., рm , a measure is introduced … Geological Encyclopedia

Criterion- a sign on the basis of which an assessment is made (for example, an assessment of the quality of the system, its functioning), a comparison of alternatives (i.e. the effectiveness of various decisions, for example, investment projects), classification of objects and ... ... Economic and Mathematical Dictionary

criterion- criterion. Pronounced [criteria] and [criteria] ... Dictionary of pronunciation and stress difficulties in modern Russian

criterion- What is important to you in a particular context. Brief explanatory psychological and psychiatric dictionary. Ed. igisheva. 2008. criterion ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

Books

• Criteria for the effectiveness of socialist reproduction, P. A. Malyshev, I. G. Shilin. The work is devoted to one of the fundamental and urgent problems of socialist management. The authors reveal in a new way the content of the criterion of the effectiveness of socialist reproduction. IN…

Pluto and other trans-Neptunian objects in the Kuiper belt

Since the late 1980s, astronomers have discovered over 5,000 planetary bodies orbiting stars other than our Sun. But it is still unknown how to officially call such bodies.

On November 10, 2015, Professor of Planetary Astronomy Jean-Luc Margot from the University of California at Los Angeles spoke at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. He proposed a simple computational test to clearly distinguish planets from other bodies such as dwarf planets or minor planets.

To solve the problem with Pluto, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union formulated the definition of a planet: it is a body orbiting the Sun, massive enough to be spherical under the influence of its own gravity, having "a space free from other bodies" near its orbit.

The definition of the International Astronomical Union has a clear drawback: it is only suitable for bodies in solar system. Even if we replace the word "Sun" in it with the word "star", there are still problems with determining the spherical shape of a potential planet.

Professor Margot proposes to extend the definition to all planetary systems, that is, to exoplanets, and to abandon the planetary body shape parameter.

The new test for compliance with the definition of the planet takes into account the ratio of three parameters: the mass of the star, the mass of the planet and the period of revolution. Three parameters are easy to obtain using terrestrial or orbiting telescopes.

It is proposed to reformulate the definition of the planet as follows.

The planet is considered heavenly body, which:

1) revolves around one or more stars or stellar remnants;

2) has sufficient mass to clear (or dynamically influence) the space around the orbit, while the following relationship is observed:

Where M- weight, a- semi-major axis, and the signatures p, ★, ⊕, ☉ correspond to the planet, star, Earth and Sun, respectively (formula for a planetary system with one star);

3) has a mass less than 13 Jupiter masses, that is, the nominal value is less than the mass required to start the thermonuclear fusion of deuterium.

All eight planets of the solar system meet the proposed criteria ...

… and all known exoplanets.

Specialists from the International Astronomical Union believe that the issue with the classification of exoplanets can be postponed for the future, but recently astronomers have found hundreds of new exoplanets, so the solution to the problem cannot be delayed. Perhaps it should be looked into earlier.

The requirement to have “space free from other bodies” near its orbit, from the official definition, means that the planet must be able to clear its path along the orbit, attracting or discarding small space objects in the orbital vicinity. The new test allows you to calculate whether a potential planet is able to clear the area around its orbit in a certain period of time, such as the lifetime of a star. The test is quite simple and allows you to quickly classify 99% of all known exoplanets, for the rest there is not yet all the necessary data.

In the solar system, the test clearly places all eight planets in one category, and the dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, and Ceres in another category. It is curious that if the Earth did not exist, and only one Moon rotated in our orbit, it would be considered a full-fledged planet, according to these criteria.

“The discrepancy between planets and non-planets is simply striking,” says Professor Jean-Luc Margot. “The sharp difference between them suggests that there is a fundamental difference in how these bodies formed, and the very act of classifying them opens up the possibility of understanding something fundamental in nature.”

A professor of planetary astronomy points out that planetary bodies that can clear their way in orbit and are therefore considered planets are predominantly spherical. If the body has enough mass to clear the orbital environment, then that mass is also enough to overcome the drag of matter and form a nearly perfect ball, says Margot. This is an important nuance because astronomers cannot determine the shape of an exoplanet to meet the International Astronomical Union's criteria. Now new exoplanets are found by changing the brightness of a star when a planetary body passes in front of it. The power of telescopes is not nearly enough to directly observe the planets, and even more so to observe their shape.

At the same time, astronomers can always determine three parameters for Margot's formula, so this test seems to be quite suitable for practical use.

The next general assembly of the International Astronomical Union is scheduled for 2018.

Let's ask ourselves honestly: does our company pay attention to the interaction of departments, to the coherence of the work of the team, to the level of employee satisfaction? According to my observations, few organizations in our country are currently engaged in assessing the quality of service for internal customers. But this will soon become common practice as more and more executives understand the clear relationship between teamwork and company bottom line.

Toward the implementation of a performance management system (Performance Management) we started at the end of 2010, approved a year ago KPI's(key performance indicators) for directors of independent divisions of the central office of the bank, and for the first time they began to evaluate the level of quality of service for internal clients in the Ukrainian office of Erste Bank only last year.

Today we have already entered the second evaluation cycle, so we can rightfully say that the system for assessing the quality of service for internal customers has been successfully implemented. I will tell you about how we prepared and implemented this project.

The leaders of Erste Bank set task for the HR service: “Develop for directors of supporting functions KPI's related to the quality of service for internal customers. The idea was to include KPI's of these directors is an indicator of the satisfaction of internal clients with the work of their departments.

Thus, part of the manager's annual bonus directly depends on this indicator. The only caveat is the weight of this indicator in the overall structure KPI's head: for directors of supporting departments (accounting, finance, personnel management, IT, etc.) it is significant - it is 20-25%, and for directors of business departments - 10-15% (but it is also in KPI's!).

Problems

What difficulties did we face in preparatory stage?

Firstly, the complexity of the problem. The fact is that the system for assessing the quality of service for internal customers could not be developed as an isolated - "hanging in the air" - project. Evaluation should have been linked 1) to performance management (which required specific KPI's) and 2) with the “Personnel Incentive Program”.

Secondly, difficulty in defining key performance indicators for supporting units.

Third, the very "intangibility" of services, natural subjectivity in the perception of the quality of service. These circumstances made it difficult to "digitize" this indicator. We understood that in order for the results of the assessment to really affect the level of remuneration, the assessment tool must be effective (that is, provide valid, objective information for making management decisions), and at the same time - simple and understandable for employees.

Fourth, the complexity of taking into account the "human factor" - the degree of "friendliness" of the relationship that has developed between colleagues (divisions).

Fifth, lack of funding. A separate budget was not allocated for this project at all, so we could not attract external consultants, we had to rely only on internal resources.

Solutions

As it turned out in the end, the lack of a budget did not stop us: the entire project - from the idea to the interpretation of the results - was done by the employees of the HR department on their own. The HR specialist who oversees the direction became responsible for the implementation of the assessment performance management.

HR has developed all components of the project:

• concept and relationship with other HR processes;
• tools (electronic questionnaire), teaching materials and methods for analyzing evaluation results;
• communication support;
• criteria for evaluation;
• evaluation procedures and necessary documentary support (orders, Regulations on evaluation, etc.);
• administration of the evaluation process (graphics, data collection and processing);
• analysis of the obtained results and preparation of reports.

Goals and objectives of the project we defined as follows:

• evaluate the level of cooperation between different departments;
• evaluate the level of satisfaction of internal customers;
• identify problem areas, as well as positive aspects in communication processes;
• prepare recommendations for the heads of the bank and departments;
• develop activities to motivate employees.

At first, the idea was to evaluate only the provision of support services to specific units. For example, if the operations department serves the departments, which means that the employees of the departments should evaluate the work of the “operators”. But then we came to the conclusion that we actually do not have isolated "service providers" and "consumers" - inside the bank, each department / department / department is both a consumer and a producer of services. For example, employees of the retail department were sure that since they bring income to the bank, then all other departments should serve them - in fact, without receiving anything in return. In fact, of course, this is not the case: many departments receive information from them, communicate, etc.

Interaction and cooperation is a two-way process, not a one-way one. All departments of the bank work for a common result - accordingly, the quality of communications and interaction between departments should be mutually evaluated. So we made a decision:

1) all regional divisions evaluate the work of all divisions of the central office in providing services to them;

2) all divisions of the central office evaluate each other's work, as they constantly interact and are both providers and consumers of services.

The simplicity of Erste Bank's organizational structure has greatly facilitated our work. We have:

• central office in Kyiv, where all support services are concentrated;
• a network of regional divisions (departments and corporate centers).

During the assessment, we also considered identifying the best employees in the field of internal customer service, which are role models. Each of the evaluation participants can vote for colleagues (maximum - for five people).

Based on the results of the internal customer service evaluation, the following are selected:

• employees with the most votes (three people);
• the central office unit that received the highest score.

At the end of the year, all "excellent students" are encouraged financially and receive public recognition of their merits. The most important thing is that now we can talk about the recognition and awarding of the best objectively - on the basis of specific figures.

Tools

Talented employees of the HR department have developed all the tools necessary for the assessment based on the familiar program excel:

1) assessment questionnaire;
2) instructions for filling out the questionnaire;
3) presentation of the work of the program.

In order to develop criteria for assessing the success of cooperation between departments in the bank, we have collected working group, which included the most active specialists from different departments. After much discussion, ten criteria were chosen and grouped into three groups ( table).

Tab. Criteria for evaluation

For evaluation according to the criteria, a scale of 1–10 points was adopted:

• 10 points - significantly exceeds expectations;
• 9 - exceeds expectations;
• 7–8 - meets expectations;
• 5–6 - partially meets expectations;
• 1–4 - does not meet expectations.

The same scale is used in Erste Bank in the employee performance management system and in the evaluation of managers using the 360° method, so our people know it well.

All prepared materials were submitted for discussion by the board of the bank and directors of departments. After agreeing on the issues with management, we launched an assessment.

Conducting an assessment

How is the assessment process organized? Each employee (voluntarily and anonymously - this is important) fills out a questionnaire posted on the corporate training portal, to which everyone has access.

The questionnaire was developed in the program excel, to complete it, you need to follow four steps:

1. Identification (indicate in which department the person works).
2. Assessment of your unit according to the proposed criteria ( rice. 1 )
3. Evaluation of all departments with which the employee often interacts.
4. Voting (optional) for employees who the best way work with their internal clients ( rice. 2 ).

Rice. 1. Evaluate your unit

To facilitate the work with the questionnaire, hints appear when opening the file and in the process of filling in the fields.

Upon opening the questionnaire, employees saw a special message that once again clarified the purpose of the assessment.

When evaluating departments, employees are given the opportunity to write comments on the assessments.

Upon completion of the questionnaire, all data is automatically collected into a single database. Data processing is carried out in the program excel, which allows you to summarize the results both for individual departments and for the company as a whole, as well as build visual graphs and charts.

We understood that in such a sensitive area as evaluation, communication is of the utmost importance - at the preparatory stage, throughout the evaluation process and after the debriefing. That is why we previously coordinated the criteria and evaluation scale with all directors of the areas, held special meetings with employees, where we explained in detail the meaning of each criterion, so that everyone understood what was at stake. Why was it important? The fact is that even such seemingly simple concepts as “respect”, “desire to help”, “fulfillment of obligations” are perceived by people differently. Therefore, it was necessary to first agree on definitions and how to ensure the objectivity of assessments.

In addition, to inform employees about the assessment of satisfaction of internal customers, corporate communication resources were actively used - an internal Internet portal and a corporate publication.

As a result, by the beginning of the assessment, people were well informed: they knew about the launch and testing of the tool, about the timing and progress of the assessment. Managers received information about how involved employees were and how actively they filled out questionnaires. After the completion of the project, we, of course, thanked everyone who filled out the questionnaires, because thanks to their participation, the HR department received the most important material for analysis.

results

In order to get the assessment results that really reflect the situation, it was necessary to involve as many employees as possible in the process (preferably all 100%). We managed to cover 64% of the target audience, which is a very good result for the first time.

I should note that almost simultaneously (within three months) we carried out many HR projects in our bank (for example, assessing the involvement of employees at the level Erste Group, 360-degree assessment and others), so people were very busy - literally inundated with surveys. Nevertheless, the project to assess the satisfaction of internal customers was very important for us (besides, it was carried out for the first time), we "PR" it in every possible way. For a period when people had such a load, activity over 50% is a very good indicator.

We chose the time for the assessment so as to have time to collect all the data by the end of the year, since we wanted to prepare the work plan for the HR service for the next year, taking into account the analysis of the results obtained. In addition, at the beginning of 2012, we have already begun to evaluate the implementation KPI's department heads , and data on satisfaction with the work of their departments from internal customers were needed.

By December last year, we prepared all the reports:

1. Full report on the entire bank for the board.
2. Reports for directors of departments (general results for the bank as a whole and detailed analysis by division; comments of employees; list of the best employees).
3. Reports on individual departments / departments (at the request of managers).

In addition, HR specialists prepared recommendations for managers (on further actions within the bank as a whole and for individual divisions), as well as assisted them in interpreting the data received and communicating with the teams of individual divisions.

As a result average level quality of service for internal customers was 7.09 points, which is in line with our expectations.

The detailed reports for managers included graphs showing the place of their departments in the overall ranking ( rice. 3).

Having studied detailed information about the distribution of assessments between departments according to various criteria, we were able to clearly highlight the strengths and weaknesses in relationships with colleagues both at the level of each department and in the whole bank.

Summary matrix of average ratings for all departments - evaluating and assessed ( rice. 4) helped us identify problem areas in communications between departments, as well as identify current or potential conflicts.

Rice. 4. Summary matrix of average grades

This data was available only to members of the board. After analyzing the situation, top managers held individual conversations with their subordinates (heads of departments) and thought out actions to improve the situation.

The employees' comments helped a lot to understand the essence of the conflicts: thanks to them, we saw something that is usually not revealed to the eyes of an “outsider”. In addition, the comments pointed out to us the problems in the processes and forced us to look at many things differently.

Although most of the ratings fall within the acceptable "corridor" of six to eight points, people used the entire scale (there were also minimal ones - one or two points). The survey participants had the opportunity to put both the lowest and the highest marks - without comment. By the way, this year we decided to make a change - if an employee gives extremely low or high marks, he will be obliged to comment on why he evaluates the unit in this way.

The discussion of analytical materials based on the results of the assessment took place at all levels of management ( rice. 5).

Rice. 5. Action by leaders

After reviewing the results at the meeting of the Board, the heads (heads of departments) held meetings with their subordinates - heads of departments and departments, and they, in turn, with specialists at all levels.

Several issues were discussed during the meetings:

1. Providing feedback.
2. Discussion of strengths/weaknesses and problem areas.
3. Development of an action plan to improve the quality of service for internal customers.
4. Appointment of persons responsible for the implementation of activities and approval of deadlines.

conclusions

We wanted the tool to not only measure the performance of departments, but also analyze the pros/cons of internal communications. Our expectations regarding the rating system were justified.

Benefits for managers:

• the obtained data became the basis for making managerial decisions;
• leaders began to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their units. At the same time, each manager saw how his unit was evaluated by his own subordinates, as well as employees of other units;

Features of the sociometric survey.

Sociometric research, like others, begins with a program, the development of sociometric criteria.

When conducting a sociometric survey, the following concepts are used. Choice is an expression by an individual of a desire to cooperate with another individual. In the survey, it is marked with a + sign. deviation - a negative choice, a desire to deviate from cooperation with someone. The poll is marked with - . lowering - leaving one individual without attention to another, a manifestation of indifference to him. Marked with 0.

Conducting a sociometric survey involves the choice of survey criteria. A sociometric criterion is a specific situation, characterized by contacts, and providing an opportunity for choice or rejection for the respondent. Criteria are usually formed in the form of questions. For example, "Which team member would you like to work with?"

Criteria are production and non-production. Production criteria clarify the relationship in the performance of job duties. Non-productive criteria reveal interpersonal relationships outside of production, for example, about spending free time.

The criteria can be predictive. In this case, the structure of the expected relationships is revealed.

Requirements for sociometric criteria:

2. Criteria should reproduce the situation of choice for the respondent.

3. The choice situation should not be limited.

4. The criteria used should be of interest to the employee.

5. Criteria should describe a specific situation.

6. Criteria should be formalized into questions.

When conducting a sociometric survey, the following should be taken into account. The survey can be conducted in groups with work experience of at least six months. The size of the team where the sociometry method works is from 3 to 25 people. Lately it is believed that it can work with up to 40 people.

It is important that the survey be conducted by a person who is not related to this team, especially not its leader. Otherwise, the survey results will not be reliable.

A feature of the sociometric survey is that it cannot be anonymous. Otherwise, it will be impossible to establish the relationship between workers, which is what sociometry studies.

For the survey, special cards are being developed. They are of several types. A card can contain one criterion - a question, or several questions at once.

Processing the results of a sociometric survey.

The purpose of the sociometric procedure can be represented as follows.

1. measurement of the degree of cohesion, disunity of a group of workers.

These states are determined based on the calculation of individual and group indices. The indexes are calculated on the basis of data obtained in the course of a sociometric survey.

The first step in the processing of sociometric survey data is the compilation of a sociomatrix. After the preparation of the sociomatrix, all its indicators are calculated, and on their basis, the calculation of individual and group indices is carried out.

The results obtained are brought to the head of the team, group. If necessary, they are introduced to individual individuals in order to correct their behavior in the group. Based on these calculations and other types of analysis, a decision is made to change the composition of the group, its leader, to transfer individual members of the group to other teams.

Poll procedure.

a) Preparatory stage:

definition of the problem, selection of the object;

formulation of sociometric criteria;

development of a sociometric survey form;

b) Main stage:

establishing psychological contact and instructing the respondents about the work procedure;

conducting a sociometric survey;

construction of a sociomatrix, sociograms, calculation of indices;

c) The final stage:

analysis of survey results;

formulation of conclusions;

development of measures for psychological and pedagogical correction of relationships in the team.

sociometric matrix. Based on the results of the survey, a sociometric matrix is ​​built. In the horizontal rows, according to the number of team members, the subjects of choice (who chooses) are indicated, and in the vertical columns - the objects of choice (who is chosen). Elections are indicated in the cells of the matrix: positive "+", negative "-".

Sociogram- scheme interpersonal relationships a team. It is built according to the information of the sociomatrix and represents unilateral or mutual elections in the form of corresponding arrows.

The sociogram allows you to identify the structural elements of interpersonal relations within the team - leaders, isolated elements, "outcasts", subgroups, of which there may be several, and the types of their communication links. The leader is the most authoritative member of the group, receiving the maximum number of positive choices. An isolated component is a member of a group that is not chosen by its mates. "Rejected" - the member of the group who received the maximum number of negative choices in the absence of more than one positive one.

Sociometric indices(SI) allow you to present the results of the survey in a quantitative form.