Re: Group Consultation
thanks for the hints to business uses of Goalscape in that preceeding post!
It would be great to find the article you refer to in the file Goalscape_for_Business.pdf: "Role requirements analysis, ‘smart’ job specifications and stress-free performance reviews (see Richard Parslow’s article ‘Using Goalscape for HR’: visualmapper.blogspot.com/2011/11/goalscape-for-hr-by-richard-parslow-of.html)"
As I am very interested in that article: Neither seems the visualmapper archive alive, nor does Google find the text "Using Goalscape for HR". -- Is there any chance to get access to it? Maybe you re-post it on Goalscape's homepage, or on the blog?
Thanks and best regards
Discussions are closed to public comments.
If you need help with Goalscape please start a new discussion.
|?||Show this help|
|ESC||Blurs the current field|
|r||Focus the comment reply box|
|^ + ↩||Submit the comment|
You can use
Command ⌘ instead of
Control ^ on Mac
Support Staff 1 Posted by Richard Parslow on 07 Jan, 2021 05:50 PM
Yes! I found a copy using archive.is – here it is: http://web.archive.org/web/20120315184808/http://visualmapper.blogs.... We will also transfer it to our blog (using new screenshots!).
Thanks very much for letting us know that the link in our Goalscape for Business pdf is broken; we have updated that link – and made some changes to the 'Goalscape for Meetings' section (based on our experience using Goalscape Online for our webmeetings). I have attached a copy of the new version.
Stay safe – and keep achieving great goals in '21!
2 Posted by Thomas Seidl on 07 Jan, 2021 09:03 PM
great, thanks for the article; I gladly acknowledge and appreciate I received it.
In case of interviewing several candidates for an available single position, I assume you'd copy the evaluation schema as neigboring subgoals in a round of interviews, and the highest rated candidate visually stands out by their progress value. Or is there a reason (maybe privacy of any kind) to handle a set of candidates by a main goal of their own?
Support Staff 3 Posted by Richard Parslow on 07 Jan, 2021 10:02 PM
Yes: the article uses a separate project for each candidate, with the Progress in the Main Goal representing the candidate's overall score (according to your criteria and metrics).
I really like your idea of going one step further and creating a 'master project' (called 'All Candidates for XXX Role', say), with each candidate's project as a Level 1 subgoal! And you could easily do that by Pasting the (blank) 'XXX Role Definition' project into the master project and changing the name of the 'sub-project' each time to show the Candidate's name.
Then once you have interviewed/tested each candidate and entered their scores in the bottom-level goals in their 'sub-project', you would indeed be able to compare their overall scores easily, just by selecting the subgoal with their name in it. Brilliant!
You could also add a tag 'Name' to the subgoals with the candidates' names (ie the top-level goal in each candidate's 'sub-project'), then use the Highlight Sidebar to filter by that tag, generate a Goal List and select Table View: that would give you a list of the candidates' names and their overall score (Progress), which you could then re-order by Progress to display it as a 'leaderboard'.
Interestingly, in the overall 'All Candidates for XXX Role' project (with all the candidates' individual 'sub-projects' as its Level 1 goals), the Progress in the Main Goal would be the average score of all the candidates you interviewed. So that is effectively the 'score' of the person (or agency) who found all those candidates and selected/proposed them for interview! :)
Thanks again for your valuable feedback – we are always interested in discussing new ways to use Goalscape in all sorts of different areas. And we'll definitely transfer that article to our blog.
4 Posted by Seidl, Thomas on 16 Jan, 2021 12:29 PM
Let me briefly follow up: I am impressed about these possibilities. Of course, on top of HR selection processes, the same schema can be applied to Utility Value Analyses of any kind. I clearly see the principle: In UVA you have weighted criteria as well as alternatives you score per criterion. The overall weighte sum of scores gives the decision values.
The straigtforward way to implement UVA in Goalscape follows your description, just a little generalized:
* represent criteria as subgoals with respective importance, as a template for the alternatives
* replicate the subgoal schema once per alternative as neighboring goal around the entire UVA
* for each alternative, score the criteria as the respective progress value
* the overall weighted utility values of each alternative is easily seen by its (overall) progress
As UVA is not just a personal decision schema but an important communication and discussion tool, Goalscape is clearly beneficial for it.
The only slight shortcoming is if you want to reweight the importances of individual criteria during discussions, the new weights have to be adjusted manually in the subgoals of the alternatives.
All in all, really a great tool!
Von: Richard Parslow <[email blocked]>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021 23:02
An: Seidl, Thomas <[email blocked]>
Betreff: Re: Group Consultation [Questions]
Support Staff 5 Posted by Richard Parslow on 16 Jan, 2021 02:22 PM
Thanks for sharing your ideas here!
Yes: after defining a schema as Goalscape template, you can copy it and paste it several times (once for each alternative under consideration) – as you say, this is exactly how we were discussing comparing candidate scores for recruitment.
As I understand it, after completing the details (and scores) for each alternative, you might want retrospectively to 'reweight the importances of individual criteria'. Currently you would indeed need to change the Importance of that subgoal in each instance.
I'm interested though in why you would want to make a post hoc change to the criteria, having seen the results? The relative importances of the criteria should be your objective assessment of their relative value (or contribution to success). Be careful that by doing so you are not introducing your own (possibly unconscious) biases, changing the criteria so your favourite option wins.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking chat.
6 Posted by Seidl, Thomas on 16 Jan, 2021 08:11 PM
Thanks for your confirmation of the UVA scenario.
You are completely right, it does not follow the textbook to reweight criteria at a later stage, it is completely un-orthodox, and I'd not advocate for it.
On the other side, even if we think we had determined and agreed on *objective* criteria, there sometimes occurs a gut feeling that you prefer a different outcome. In such a case, another strength of UVA (the inverse one to the "proper" use) is that you can dig in and understand by playing with the system what your real, hitherto hidden preferences are. This way you may better understand which aspects actually drive your inner decisions, and the factors of your unconscious bias get a chance to be revealed explicitly.
Let me again admit that, though I like this consideration, it is actually not conform with the classic way to apply UVA; that classic one is impressively well supported by Goalscape.
Thanks for your open-mindedness to discuss these aspects, I really enjoy the conversation as well.
All the best,
Support Staff 7 Posted by Marcus Baur on 28 Aug, 2021 07:57 AM
I revisited this discussion just now and I am wondering if this and other use cases could be explored through study/student projects with the LMU. We just published our new beta client that is built with Angular and Apollo GraphQL which could be the basis for those studies.
I am working together with Dr. Kai Wehkamp from the University in Kiel, and we aim to partner more with academic institutions, also to explore pressing questions around workplace motivation and how goal setting can help to improve motivation levels. Maybe the attached article is of interest.
Let me know if you see any possibilities in that direction.
All the best,
8 Posted by Seidl, Thomas on 28 Aug, 2021 08:42 AM
I will return on Aug 30th, 2021, and in the meantime I have very limited access to my email.
Richard Parslow closed this discussion on 15 Jan, 2022 09:24 PM.