Patent Publication Number: US-2013238402-A1

Title: Personnel management systems and related methods

Description:
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION 
     This is a continuation-in-part patent application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/413,107, filed on Mar. 6, 2012. The contents of the application listed above are incorporated herein by reference. 
    
    
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
     The present disclosure relates generally to computerized information systems, and relates, more particularly, to personnel management systems and related methods. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Personnel evaluations have become an integral part of the efforts of companies or entities trying to manage their human resources and measure the contributions of their personnel for efficiency, compensation, and promotion purposes. Too often, however, such personnel evaluations focus on pure performance numbers with respect to performance-driven criteria for its personnel, without considering the contributions or effects of its personnel with respect to desired business culture criteria or goals. Current personnel evaluation tools also fail to consider the interaction between such performance criteria and business culture criteria for the personnel being evaluated, and fail to provide a metric and/or a graphical representation of such interaction. 
     Considering the above, further developments can be made to positively impact personnel management systems and related methods. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The present disclosure will be better understood from a reading of the following detailed description of examples of embodiments, taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures in the drawings. 
         FIG. 1  illustrates a block diagram of a personnel evaluation system according to one embodiment of the current disclosure. 
         FIG. 2  illustrates a flow chart of method  2000  for implementing evaluation system  1000  of  FIG. 1 . 
         FIG. 3  illustrates an evaluation interface of the personnel evaluation system. 
         FIG. 4  illustrates an evaluee evaluation report of the personnel evaluation system. 
         FIG. 5  illustrates a team evaluation report of the personnel evaluation system. 
         FIG. 6  illustrates a team relative scoring report of the personnel evaluation system for a team of personnel. 
         FIG. 7  illustrates a team average criteria scoring report of the personnel evaluation system for the team of personnel. 
         FIG. 8  illustrates a recompense report of the personnel evaluation system for the team of personnel. 
         FIG. 9  illustrates a computer that is suitable for implementing an embodiment of at least a portion of the personnel evaluation system. 
         FIG. 10  illustrates a representative block diagram of elements forming part of the computer of  FIG. 9 . 
     
    
    
     For simplicity and clarity of illustration, the drawing figures illustrate the general manner of construction, and descriptions and details of well-known features and techniques may be omitted to avoid unnecessarily obscuring the present disclosure. Additionally, elements in the drawing figures are not necessarily drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggerated relative to other elements to help improve understanding of embodiments of the present disclosure. The same reference numerals in different figures denote the same elements. 
     The terms “first,” “second,” “third,” “fourth,” and the like in the description and in the claims, if any, are used for distinguishing between similar elements and not necessarily for describing a particular sequential or chronological order. It is to be understood that the terms so used are interchangeable under appropriate circumstances such that the embodiments described herein are, for example, capable of operation in sequences other than those illustrated or otherwise described herein. Furthermore, the terms “include,” and “have,” and any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, system, article, device, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements is not necessarily limited to those elements, but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, system, article, device, or apparatus. 
     The terms “left,” “right,” “front,” “back,” “top,” “bottom,” “over,” “under,” and the like in the description and in the claims, if any, are used for descriptive purposes and not necessarily for describing permanent relative positions. It is to be understood that the terms so used are interchangeable under appropriate circumstances such that the embodiments described herein are, for example, capable of operation in other orientations than those illustrated or otherwise described herein. 
     The terms “couple,” “coupled,” “couples,” “coupling,” and the like should be broadly understood and refer to connecting two or more elements or signals, electrically, mechanically or otherwise. Two or more electrical elements may be electrically coupled, but not mechanically or otherwise coupled; two or more mechanical elements may be mechanically coupled, but not electrically or otherwise coupled; two or more electrical elements may be mechanically coupled, but not electrically or otherwise coupled. Coupling (whether mechanical, electrical, or otherwise) may be for any length of time, e.g., permanent or semi-permanent or only for an instant. 
     “Electrical coupling” and the like should be broadly understood and include coupling involving any electrical signal, whether a power signal, a data signal, and/or other types or combinations of electrical signals. “Mechanical coupling” and the like should be broadly understood and include mechanical coupling of all types. The absence of the word “removably,” “removable,” and the like near the word “coupled,” and the like does not mean that the coupling, etc. in question is or is not removable. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     In one embodiment, a personnel management system for evaluating one or more evaluees can comprise an evaluation analyzer module and a display module. The evaluation analyzer module can be executable by one or more data processor devices and configured to (a) receive personnel culture alignment data comprising one or more first evaluee culture scores of a first evaluee, correlated to one or more business culture criteria for the first evaluee, and (b) receive personnel performance data comprising one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee, correlated to one or more performance criteria for the first evaluee. The evaluation analyzer module can also calculate a first evaluee proficiency score of the first evaluee based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee and on the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee. The display module can be configured to display one or more personnel evaluation reports. 
     In one embodiment, a method for evaluating one or more evaluees can comprise providing an evaluation analyzer module and providing a display module. The evaluation analyzer module can be configured to (a) receive personnel culture alignment data comprising one or more first evaluee culture scores of a first evaluee, correlated to one or more business culture criteria for the first evaluee, and (b) receive personnel performance data comprising one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee, correlated to one or more performance criteria for the first evaluee. The evaluation analyzer module can also calculate a first evaluee proficiency score of the first evaluee based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee, and on the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee. The display module can be configured to display one or more personnel evaluation reports. At least the evaluation analyzer module can be executable by one or more data processor devices. 
     In one embodiment, an evaluation interface module can be operable on one or more processors, storable in one or more memory units, displayable at a client computer, and/or configured to couple to a personnel management system comprising an evaluation analyzer module. The evaluation interface module can comprise an evaluation interface panel and a first evaluee evaluation report panel. The evaluation interface panel can be configured to (a) receive personnel culture alignment data comprising one or more first evaluee culture scores of a first evaluee, correlated to one or more business culture criteria for the first evaluee, and (b) receive personnel performance data comprising one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee, correlated to one or more performance criteria for the first evaluee. The first evaluee evaluation report panel can be configured to present a first evaluee proficiency score of the first evaluee, where the first evaluee proficiency score can be received from the personnel management system and calculated by the evaluation analyzer module based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores and the one or more first evaluee performance scores. The display module can also be configured to present an evaluation grid comprising a performance score axis a culture score axis perpendicular to the performance score axis, and a first evaluee proficiency marker representative of the first evaluee proficiency score relative to the performance score axis and the culture score axis. 
     In one embodiment, a personnel management system can comprise an evaluation analyzer module and a report module. The an evaluation analyzer module can be executable by one or more data processor devices and configured to rate a first evaluee with respect to one or more business culture alignment tools. The report module can be configured to generate one or more personnel evaluation reports based on the one or more business culture alignment tools. The one or more business culture alignment tools can comprise a first business culture alignment tool, and the first business culture alignment tool comprise (a) a first requirement comprising a first goal for implementation by the first evaluee, and (b) a first scoring criteria configured to quantify a first score for the first requirement. The one or more personnel evaluation reports can comprise a first evaluee report comprising the first score of the first business culture alignment tool, the first score based on the first scoring criteria for the first requirement of the first evaluee. 
     In one embodiment, a method can comprise (a) providing an evaluation analyzer module configured to rate a first evaluee with respect to one or more business culture alignment tools, and (b) providing a report module configured to generate one or more personnel evaluation reports based on the one or more business culture alignment tools. The one or more business culture alignment tools can comprise a first business culture alignment tool, and the first business culture alignment tool can comprise a first requirement comprising a first goal for implementation by the first evaluee. The one or more personnel evaluation reports can comprise a first evaluee report comprising a first score of the first business culture alignment tool, the first score based on a first scoring criteria for the first requirement of the first evaluee. At least the evaluation analyzer module can be executable by one or more data processor devices. 
     In one embodiment, an evaluation analyzer can be operable on one or more processors, storable in one or more memory units, and displayable at a client computer. The evaluation analyzer can comprise an interface module and a report module. The interface module can be configured to receive first evaluation data of a first evaluee. The report module can be configured to generate one or more personnel evaluation reports. The evaluation analyzer can be configured to rate the first evaluee with respect to a first business culture alignment tool. The one or more personnel evaluation reports can be based at least in part on the first business culture alignment tool. The first business culture alignment tool can comprise (a) a first requirement comprising a first subjective goal for implementation by the first evaluee, and (b) a first scoring criteria configured to objectively quantify a first objective score for the first requirement. The one or more personnel evaluation reports can comprise a first evaluee report comprising the first objective score of the first business culture alignment tool, the first objective score based on the first scoring criteria for the first subjective goal of the first requirement. 
     Other examples and embodiments are further disclosed herein. Such examples and embodiments may be found in the figures, in the claims, and/or in the present description. 
     Turning to the drawings,  FIG. 1  illustrates block diagram of evaluation system  1000 , according to a first embodiment for managing evaluations of personnel, such as employees or contractors of a business. Evaluation system  1000  is merely exemplary and is not limited to the embodiments presented herein. Evaluation system  1000  can be employed in many different embodiments or examples not specifically depicted or described herein. 
     In the present example, evaluation system  1000  comprises main system  1100  configured to communicate with client computer  1200  via communications network  1300 . In some examples, communications network  1300  can be a combination of wired and/or wireless networks. For example, communications network  1300  can include the Internet, wireless or wired computer networks, cellular telephone networks (e.g. a 4G (fourth generation) cellular network), and the like. In the same or other examples, evaluation system  1000  may rely on cloud computing between main system  1100  and client computer  1200  through communications network  1300 . In such examples, most computing and/or data storage operations can be performed at or by main system  1100 , and/or client computer  1200  can act primarily to implement a user interface to input or access information to or from main system  1100 . Client computer  1200  can implement the user interface via user interface module  1260 , which can comprise a webpage and/or a graphical user interface (GUI) presented on display  1280  of client computer  1200 . 
     Main system  1100  comprises processor module  1110 , operating system module  1190 , evaluation analyzer module  1120 , display module  1130 , database module  1140 , and communications module  1150 . Main system  1100  can also comprise user interface module  1160  and display  1180  as shown in  FIG. 1 , which can be similar to user interface module  1260  and display  1280  of client computer  1200 , but are configured instead for local input or access to or from main system  1100  without relying on communications network  1300 . In examples where main system  1100  comprises user interface module  1160  and display  1180 , client computer  1200  may be optional, and vice-versa. 
     Evaluation system  1000  can also comprise database module  1440 , which can be located remote of main system  1100 , and/or can be accessible thereto via communications network  1300 . Database module  1440  can be similar to database module  1140 , and where evaluation system  1000  comprises one of them, the other one can be optional. 
     In some embodiments, “main system,” as used herein, can refer to a single computer, single server, or a cluster or collection of servers. Typically, a cluster or collection of servers can be used when the demands by client computers, such as client computer  1200 , are beyond the reasonable capability of a single server or computer. In many embodiments, the servers in the cluster or collection of servers are interchangeable from the perspective of the client computers. 
     In some examples, a single server can include processor module  1110 , evaluation analyzer module  1120 , display module  1130 , database module  1140 , communications module  1150 , and/or operating system module  1190 . In other examples, a first server can include a first portion of these modules. One or more second servers can include a second, possibly overlapping, portion of these modules. In these examples, main system  1100  can comprise the combination of the first server and the one or more second servers. 
     In some examples, database module  1140  (and/or database module  1440 ) can include one or more indexes to store information about one or more personnel evaluations. All of these indexes can be a structured collection of records or data, for instance, which is stored in database module  1140 . For example, the indexes stored in database module  1140  can be an XML (Extensible Markup Language) database, MySQL, or an Oracle® database. In the same or different embodiments, the indexes could consist of a searchable group of individual data files stored in storage component  1140 . 
     In various embodiments, operating system module  1190  can be a software program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer and/or a computer network. Operating system module  1190  performs basic tasks such as, for example, controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing the processing of instructions, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files. Examples of common operating systems for a computer include Microsoft® Windows, Mac® operating system (OS), UNIX® OS, and Linux® OS. Common operating systems for a mobile device include the iPhone® operating system by Apple Inc. of Cupertino, Calif., the Blackberry® operating system by Research In Motion (RIM) of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, the Palm® operating system by Palm, Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif., the Android operating system developed by the Open Handset Alliance, the Windows Mobile operating system by Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash., or a Symbian operating system by Nokia Corp. of Espoo, Finland. 
     As used herein, “processor” means any type of computational circuit, such as but not limited to a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a controller, a complex instruction set computing (CISC) microprocessor, a reduced instruction set computing (RISC) microprocessor, a very long instruction word (VLIW) microprocessor, a graphics processor, a digital signal processor, or any other type of processor or processing circuit capable of performing the desired functions. 
       FIG. 2  illustrates a flow chart of method  2000  for implementing evaluation system  1000  of  FIG. 1 . Method  2000  is merely exemplary and is not limited to the embodiments presented herein. Method  2000  can be employed in many different embodiments or examples not specifically depicted or described herein. In some embodiments, the activities, the procedures, and/or the processes of method  2000  can be performed in the order presented. In other embodiments, the activities, the procedures, and/or the processes of method  2000  can be performed in any other suitable order. In still other embodiments, one or more of the activities, the procedures, and/or the processes in method  2000  can be combined or skipped. 
     Block  2100  of method  2000  comprises displaying, via a display module of the evaluation system, an evaluation interface to receive from a user evaluation data of business personnel. In the present example, the evaluation data can comprise personnel culture alignment data and personnel performance data. In some examples, the evaluation system can be similar to evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ), and/or the display module can be similar to display module  1130  of main system  1100  ( FIG. 1 ). In the same or other examples, the display module can comprise a display itself, and can be configured to present one or more user interfaces of the evaluation system, such as the evaluation interface. In other examples, such as shown in  FIG. 1 , the display module can display the one or more user interfaces, such as the evaluation interface, via a user interface module coupled to a display, such as user interface module  1160  coupled to display  1180  at main system  1100 , and/or such as user interface module  1260  coupled to display  1280  at client computer  1200  ( FIG. 1 ). 
     Method  2000  comprises block  2200  for receiving the personnel culture alignment data of block  2100  at an evaluation analyzer module of the evaluation system. In some examples, the personnel culture alignment data may correspond to expectations for personnel with respect to one or more cultural requirements of the organization for whom the personnel works. Such cultural requirements may also be called alignment requirements or alignment tools, because they enable the organization to align their teams and team members culturally with respect to a mission/vision statement, behaviors/values traits, and/or leadership traits. Organizations develop their cultural requirements, often with professional consultants, to identify the mission/vision of their organization as well as the behavioral values and leadership traits that should guide their personnel to accomplish the organization&#39;s mission/vision. It can be said that a mission/vision is the “what” of an organization does, and the behavioral values are the “how” the organization does it. In some examples, one or more of the cultural requirements may be the same for all personnel of the organization. For example, the mission/vision statement requirement may be the same for all, while leadership trait requirements can vary depending on an individual&#39;s position. There can be examples, however, where all cultural requirements may be tailored to be applicable to all personnel of the organization. 
     There can be examples where cultural requirements can be considered as “soft” requirements, because they may have no quantitative metrics and can be evaluated subjectively. In some examples, a “soft” scoring criteria can be devised to enable an objective evaluation regardless of any non-quantitative or subjective nature of cultural requirements. In the same or other examples, a “soft” scoring criteria similar to the following may be presented to an evaluee to grade the evaluee with respect to a cultural requirement or alignment tool:
         “If you don&#39;t remember this Alignment Tool you can&#39;t score more than—0—. Remember it, but not word for word, you can add—2—points. Remember it word for word, you can add—4—points. Have 3 examples where you have used this Alignment Tool as it relates to your job to make the company more successful, you can add—2—points each. You must put these examples in the notes for this Alignment Tool found in your “Requirements For My Next Evaluation” before your actual evaluation date. Remember this Alignment Tool word for word and have 3 clear examples of where you used this Tool as it relates to your job to make the company more successful, you are a—10—! If your manager has examples where you didn&#39;t use this Alignment Tool as it relates to your job, he or she can subjectively take points away.”       

     In some examples, the evaluation analyzer module of block  2200  can be similar to evaluation analyzer module  1120  of main system  1100  ( FIG. 1 ). Block  2200  can comprise sub-block  2210  for receiving, as part of the personnel culture alignment data, one or more first evaluee culture scores of a first evaluee. Other sub-blocks of block  2200  are described later. 
     Method  2000  also comprises block  2300  for receiving the personnel performance data of block  2100  at the evaluation analyzer module of the evaluation system. In some examples, the personnel performance data may correspond to expectations for personnel with respect to one or more performance requirements of the organization for whom the personnel works. The performance requirements can be cascaded down from an organization&#39;s strategy, objectives and/or annual operating plan, and can denote specific requirements for which a team and/or team member will be accountable. Performance requirements describe specific performance items or activities like sales, costs, delivery, etc. for which a specific team or a specific team member can being held accountable, and are, therefore, subject to a performance evaluation. Performance requirements can be considered as “hard” requirements from a scoring criteria perspective, because they can have quantitative metrics that are objectively measurable. 
     In some examples, Block  2300  of method  2000  can comprise sub-block  2310  for receiving, as part of the personnel performance data, one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee. Other sub-blocks of block  2300  are described later. 
     The personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and the personnel performance data of block  2300  may be received by evaluation system  1000  from the user via user interface module  1260  and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ) in some examples, and then routed to evaluation analyzer module  1120  for evaluation and/or to one or more of database modules  1140  or  1440  for storage. In the same or other examples, as seen in  FIG. 1 , communications module  1150  can be coupled to database module  1140  and/or database module  1440  to send the personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and/or the personnel performance data of block  2300  thereto for storage, and/or to send to the evaluation analyzer module the personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and/or the personnel performance data of block  2300  from database module  1140  and/or database module  1440 . 
     In the same or other examples, communications module  1150  can be configured to couple to user interface module  1260  of client computer  1200  via communications network  1300 . User interface module  1260  is configured to receive the personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and the personnel performance data of block  2300  input thereto by a user, and to send the personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and the personnel performance data of block  2300  to communications module  1150  via communications network  1300 . As indicated previously, communications network  1300  can comprise a cloud computer network or be configured to support cloud computing for evaluation system  1000  in some embodiments. 
       FIG. 3  illustrates evaluation interface  3000 , which can be similar to the evaluation interface of block  2100  of method  2000  in  FIG. 2 . In some examples, evaluation interface  3000  can be presented as an evaluation interface panel by user interface module  1260  and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ). In the present example, evaluation interface  3000  can be used by an evaluator for an evaluation of an evaluee. In some examples, the evaluator can be the manager or supervisor of the evaluee. 
     Evaluation interface  3000  comprises culture score interface  3100  configured to receive from the evaluator a score for each of one or more evaluee culture scores of the evaluee. In the present example, culture score interface  3100  comprises: (a) mission statement score interface  3110  configured to receive from the evaluator mission statement score  3111  reflective of an assessment of the evaluee with respect to business mission statement criteria  3112 , (b) behavior score interface  3120  configured to receive from the evaluator behavior score  3121  reflective of an assessment of the evaluee with respect to business values criteria  3122 , and (c) leadership score interface  3130  configured to receive from the evaluator leadership score  3131  reflective of an assessment of the evaluee with respect to leadership criteria  3132 . Accordingly, the one or more evaluee culture scores of the evaluee can comprise mission statement score  3111 , behavior score  3121 , and/or leadership score  3131  in  FIG. 3 . 
     Evaluation interface  3000  also comprises performance score interface  3200  configured to receive from the evaluator a score for each of one or more evaluee performance scores of the evaluee. In the present example, performance score interface  3200  comprises performance score interface  3210  configured to receive from the evaluator performance score  3211  reflective of an assessment of the evaluee with respect to performance criteria  3212 . It should be noted that, due to space constraints,  FIG. 3  presents only one evaluation criteria and score interface for each of culture score interface  3100 , behavior score interface  3120 , leadership score interface  3130 , and performance score interface  3210 . Nevertheless, each of such interfaces can comprise one or more evaluation criteria and score interfaces, as denoted by the “ . . . ” symbols. 
     In some implementations, the culture criteria from culture score interface  3100  (such as business mission statement criteria  3112 , business values criteria  3122  or leadership criteria  3132 ) and/or the performance criteria from performance score interface  3200  (such as performance criteria  3212 ) may be generated or designed to suit to the evaluation system client of evaluation system  1000 . For example, the evaluation system client may be a person or company having specific goals that it wishes to advance with respect to its business culture and/or personnel performance. In some examples, the evaluation system client may be the owner of client computer  1200  and/or may be provided with access to user interface module  1260  by the evaluation system provider of evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ). In the same or other examples, at least some of the culture criteria and/or the performance criteria for evaluation interface  3000  may be generated or recommended by the evaluation system provider upon consultation from the evaluation system client to suit the needs or goals of the evaluation system client. 
     In the present example of  FIG. 3 , evaluation interface  3000  also comprises comment sections for each of mission statement score interface  3110  (with comment sections  3113  and  3114 ), behavior score interface  3120  (with comment sections  3123  and  3124 ), leadership score interface  3130  (with comment sections  3133  and  3134 ), and performance score interface  3210  (with comment sections  3213  and  3214 ). In the present example, the comment sections are split between positive comment sections ( 3113 ,  3123 ,  3133 , and  3213 ) and improvement comment sections ( 3114 ,  3124 ,  3134 , and  3214 ), although there can be other embodiments with other and/or additional types of comment sections. 
     Evaluation interface  3000  also comprises importation interface  3300  configured to import one or more prior scores or prior comments from a prior evaluation of the evaluee. As an example, when importation interface  3300  is actuated by the evaluator, the one or more prior scores and/or the one or more prior comments can be retrieved from database module  1140  ( FIG. 1 ) and/or database module  1440  ( FIG. 1 ) and imported into evaluation interface  3000 . 
     Evaluation interface  3000  further comprises one or more evaluee notes interfaces, such as evaluee notes interfaces  3115 ,  3125 ,  3135 , and  3215 , configured to access and present one or more notes previously entered into evaluation system  1000  by the evaluee regarding the evaluee&#39;s own proficiency with respect to at least a portion of one or more business culture criteria (such as business mission statement criteria  3112 , business values criteria  3122  or leadership criteria  3132 ), or with respect to a portion of one or more performance criteria (such as performance criteria  3212 ). In some examples, the one or more notes previously entered by the evaluee may be retrieved from database module  1140  ( FIG. 1 ) and/or database module  1440  ( FIG. 1 ). The evaluee&#39;s notes can be beneficial to the evaluator when determining the one or more evaluee culture scores or the one or more evaluee performance scores of the evaluee. 
     In the present example, evaluation interface  3000  also comprises evaluation criteria modification interface  3400  configured to add to evaluation interface  3000  a new business culture criteria to the one or more business culture criteria in culture score interface  3100 , and/or to add to evaluation interface  3000  a new performance criteria to the one or more performance criteria in performance score interface  3200 . In some examples, the new business culture criteria and/or the new performance criteria can be added for the current evaluation, or for subsequent evaluations. 
     Backtracking to  FIG. 2 , block  2400  of method  2000  comprises calculating, with the evaluation analyzer module, a first evaluee proficiency score of the first evaluee based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee, and the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee. Block  2500  of method  2000  comprises displaying, via the display module of the evaluation system, one or more personnel evaluation reports based on the personnel culture alignment data and the personnel performance data received by the evaluation analyzer in blocks  2200  and  2300 . 
     In the present example of  FIG. 1 , user interface module  1260  of client computer  1200  can be configured to send the personnel culture alignment data of block  2200  and the personnel performance data of block  2300  received from the user to communications module  1150  of main system  1100  via communications network  1300 . In addition, user interface module  1260  can be configured to receive, from main system  1100 , the one or more personnel evaluation reports of block  2500  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) displayed by display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) for presentation to one or more users at display  1280  of client computer  1200 . In the same or other examples, user interface module  1160  may be configured similarly to user interface module  1260 , but may receive the one or more personnel evaluation reports of block  2500  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) from within main system  1100  for presentation at display  1180  without having to rely on communications network  1300 . 
     Block  2500  comprises sub-block  2510  for displaying a first evaluee evaluation report of the first evaluee.  FIG. 4  illustrates evaluee evaluation report  4000 , which can be similar to the first evaluee evaluation report of the first evaluee displayed by the display module in sub-block  2510  of block  2500  in method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). In some examples, evaluee evaluation report  4000  can correspond to the evaluation and scores gathered for the evaluee via evaluation interface  3000  ( FIG. 3 ). In the same or other examples, evaluee evaluation report  4000  can be presented as an evaluee evaluation report panel by user interface module  1260  ( FIG. 1 ) and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ). 
     In the present example, evaluee evaluation report  4000  presents evaluee score section  4200  comprising evaluee proficiency score  4211 , which can correspond to the first evaluee proficiency score calculated by the evaluation analyzer module in block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) based on the evaluation data input via evaluation interface  3000  ( FIG. 3 ). In some examples, each of the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee (such as mission statement score  3111 , behavior score  3121 , and leadership score  3131  from  FIG. 3 ) and each of the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee (such as performance score  3211  from  FIG. 3 ) may be averaged together by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) to calculate evaluee proficiency score  4211 . In the same or other examples, when calculating the first evaluee proficiency score, evaluation analyzer module  1120  can be configured to consider different evaluative weights assigned to at least a portion of the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee and/or assigned to at least a portion of the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee. 
     Evaluation report  4000  also comprises evaluation grid  4100 , with performance score axis  4110  and culture score axis  4120  perpendicular to performance score axis  4110 . In the present example, performance score axis  4110  represents, a range of performance scores that an evaluee may attain based on the one or more culture scores received during his/her evaluation, as calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) in block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). Similarly, culture score axis  4120  represents a range of culture scores that the evaluee may attain based on the one or more evaluee performance scores received during his/her evaluation, as calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) in block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). In the present example, display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to calculate and/or display evaluee proficiency marker  4151  at evaluation grid  4100 , where evaluee proficiency marker  4151  is representative of evaluee proficiency score  4211  with respect to performance score axis  4110  and culture score axis  4120 . 
     Evaluee evaluation report  4000  comprises culture scores section  4300  presenting the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee received by evaluation analyzer  1120  ( FIG. 2 ) at block  2210  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). For example, culture scores section  4300  presents scores and evaluation criteria initially entered into evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ) via evaluation interface  3000  ( FIG. 3 ) during the evaluee&#39;s evaluation, such as mission statement score  3111  for business mission statement criteria  3112 , behavior score  3121  for business values criteria  3122 , and leadership score  3131  for leadership criteria  3132 . 
     Similarly, evaluee evaluation report  4000  comprises performance scores section  4400  presenting the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee received by evaluation analyzer  1120  ( FIG. 2 ) at block  2310  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). For example, performance scores section  4400  presents scores and evaluation criteria initially entered into evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ) via evaluation interface  3000  ( FIG. 3 ) during the evaluee&#39;s evaluation, such as performance score  3211  for performance criteria  3212 . 
     As can be seen in evaluation report  4000 , culture scores section  4300  and performance scores section  4400  present culture status icons and performance status icons, respectively, for the scores and criteria therein. For example, culture scores section  4300  comprises culture status icon  4113  (correlated to mission statement score  3111  and mission statement criteria  3112 ), culture status icon  4123  (correlated to behavior score  3121  and business values criteria  3122 ), culture status icon  4133  (correlated to leadership score  3131  and leadership criteria  3132 ), and performance status icon  4213  (correlated to performance score  3211  and performance criteria  3212 ). In the present example, the culture status icons and performance status icons comprise pie chart icons indicating of a score percentage for their correlated culture scores or performance scores. In the same or other examples, the culture status icons and performance status icons can comprise color-coded icons, such as icons with variable red, yellow, and green hues, that vary based on the score percentage of the icon&#39;s correlated culture score or performance score. 
     In the present example, evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to calculate evaluee combined culture score  4220 , as displayed by display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) in evaluee score section  4200  of evaluation report  4000 . Evaluee combined culture score  4220  can be based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores of the first evaluee received by evaluation analyzer  1120  ( FIG. 2 ) at block  2210  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ), such as those shown in culture scores section  4300  of evaluation report  4000 . In the present example, evaluee combined culture score  4220  corresponds to an average of the culture scores shown in culture scores section  4300 , but there can also be embodiments where evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to consider different evaluative weights for one or more of the culture scores in culture scores section  4300  when calculating evaluee combined culture score  4220 . 
     Evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured also to calculate evaluee combined performance score  4230 , as displayed by display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) in evaluee score section  4200  of evaluation report  4000 . Evaluee combined performance score  4230  can be based on the one or more first evaluee performance scores of the first evaluee received by evaluation analyzer  1120  ( FIG. 2 ) at block  2310  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ), such as those shown in performance scores section  4400  of evaluation report  4000 . In the present example, evaluee combined performance score  4230  corresponds to an average of the culture scores shown in culture scores section  4400 , but there can also be embodiments where evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to consider different evaluative weights for one or more of the performance scores in performance scores section  4400  when calculating evaluee combined culture score  4230 . 
     Focusing on evaluation grid  4100 , performance score axis  4110  presents a performance score range configured to comprise evaluee combined culture score  4230  for the evaluee. Similarly, culture score axis  4120  presents a culture score range configured to comprise evaluee combined culture score  4220 . Display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to calculate the location for evaluee proficiency marker  4151  at an intersection between performance intersect line  4111  and culture intersect line  4121 , where performance intersect line  4111  is perpendicularly intersected to performance score axis  4110  at the value for evaluee combined performance score  4230 , and where culture intersect line is perpendicularly intersected to culture score axis  4100  at the value for evaluee combined culture score  4220 . Performance intersect line  4111  and culture intersect line  4121  are shown in  FIG. 4  for illustrative purposes only to illustrate how the location of evaluee proficiency marker  4151  is calculated, and there can be embodiments where performance intersect line  4111  and culture intersect line  4121  need not be shown as part of evaluation grid  4100 . 
     In the present embodiment, display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) is also configured to display target zone  4160  in evaluation grid  4100  at evaluation report  4000 , where target zone  4160  is representative of both a predetermined threshold culture score that the evaluee should strive for his/her evaluee combined culture score  4220 , and a predetermined threshold performance score that the evaluee should strive for his/her evaluee combined performance score  4230 . Target zone  4160  can be highlighted, comprising a different color and a delineated border with respect to other areas of evaluation grid  4100 . Display module  1130  is configured to calculate the location of evaluee proficiency marker  4151  to be within target zone  4160  when both (a) evaluee combined culture score  4220  equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold culture score, and (b) evaluee combined performance score  4230  equals or exceeds the predetermined threshold performance score. 
     Evaluation report  4000  also comprises in the present example an evaluee proficiency momentum indicator  4250  configured to correlate evaluee proficiency score  4211  to a proficiency momentum classification, such as a decreasing proficiency classification, a stable proficiency classification, or an increasing proficiency classification. In some examples, such momentum correlation may be carried out by evaluation analyzer module  1120  or by display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ). There can be examples where the momentum correlation of evaluee proficiency score  4211  to the proficiency momentum classification can be based on a ratio between evaluee proficiency score  4211  and a maximum proficiency momentum score. In the same or other examples, the momentum correlation can consider or be based on a comparison between evaluee proficiency score  4211  and a prior evaluee proficiency score from a prior evaluation of the evaluee. 
     Evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ) can also be configured to present a comparison of the evaluee&#39;s proficiency with respect to prior evaluations. For example, evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to receive, in sub-block  2220  of block  2200  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ), one or more prior evaluee culture scores from a prior evaluation of the evaluee. Similarly, evaluation analyzer module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to receive, in sub-block  2320  of block  2300  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ), one or more prior evaluee performance scores from a prior evaluation of the evaluee. In some examples, evaluation analyzer module  1120  can receive the one or more prior evaluee culture scores and/or the prior evaluee performance scores from either of database modules  1140  or  1440  ( FIG. 1 ). Evaluation analyzer module  1120  can thus calculate prior evaluee proficiency score  4520  ( FIG. 4 ) for the prior evaluation of the evaluee based on the one or more prior evaluee culture scores and the prior evaluee performance scores in a calculation similar to that described above with respect to block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) for the first evaluee proficiency score and/or for evaluee proficiency score  4211  ( FIG. 4 ). 
     Once prior evaluee proficiency score  4520  is calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ), display module  1130  can display it in evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ) if desired. For example, evaluation report  4000  comprises historical score section  4500  where historical proficiency scores of the evaluee, including evaluee proficiency score  4211 , prior evaluee proficiency score  4520  and prior evaluee proficiency score  4530  are presented relative to each other. In addition, display module  1130  can concurrently display in the present example one or more of prior evaluee proficiency markers  4152 - 4153 , similar to evaluee proficiency marker  4151 , but representative of prior evaluee proficiency score  4520  and  4530 , in evaluation grid  4100 . 
     Returning to  FIG. 2 , method  2000  can also comprise, as sub-block  2520  of block  2500 , displaying a team evaluation report for a team comprising the first evaluee described above with respect to  FIGS. 3-4  and a second evaluee. In such examples, block  2200  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) can comprise sub-block  2230  for receiving at the evaluation analyzer one or more second evaluee culture scores of an evaluation of the second evaluee, and block  2300  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) can comprise sub-block  2330  for receiving at the evaluation analyzer one or more second evaluee performance scores of an evaluation of the second evaluee. 
       FIG. 5  illustrates team evaluation report  5000 , which can be similar to the team evaluation report of sub-block  2520  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). 
     In some examples, team evaluation report  5000  can be presented as a team evaluation report panel by user interface module  1260  and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ). In the present example, team evaluation report  5000  presents aggregated evaluation data from evaluations of team members of a user&#39;s team. For example, team evaluation report  5000  comprises evaluation grid  5100 , which can be similar to evaluation grid  4100  ( FIG. 4 ), but presents information with respect to the user&#39;s team rather than just information about a single evaluee. 
     In the present example, evaluation analyzer  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) can calculate first evaluee proficiency score  4211  ( FIGS. 4-5 ) as described above with respect to  FIGS. 3-4 , and can calculate second evaluee proficiency score  5212  ( FIG. 5 ) in similar fashion based on the one or more second evaluee culture scores and the second evaluee performance scores received at sub-blocks  2230  and  2330  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). Display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) can thus display first evaluee evaluation marker  4151  at evaluation grid  5100  as described above for  FIG. 4 , and can also concurrently display second evaluee evaluation marker  5152  at evaluation grid  5100 , where second evaluee evaluation marker  5152  is similar to first evaluee evaluation marker  4151 , but representative of second evaluee proficiency score  5212 . 
     Display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to present the evaluation data for the team members in a tabular format in the present example, as seen in team evaluation table  5300  ( FIG. 5 ). Team evaluation table  5300  lists each of the team members of the user&#39;s team, and corresponding evaluation scores calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120 . For example, for team member “Evaluee- 1 ,” team evaluation table  5300  presents evaluee combined performance score  4230 , culture scores including evaluee combined leadership score  5241  and evaluee combined mission &amp; behaviors score  5221 , and evaluee proficiency score  4211 , where: (a) evaluee combined performance score  4230  is derived from the different performance criteria scores in performance scores section  4400  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ), (b) evaluee combined leadership score  5241  is derived from the different leadership traits criteria scores in culture scores section  4300  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ), (c) evaluee combined mission &amp; behaviors score  5221  is derived from the different behaviors and mission statement criteria scores in culture scores section  4300  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ), and (d) evaluee proficiency score  4211  is derived, as described above with respect to  FIG. 4 , from the culture criteria scores in culture scores section  4300  and the performance criteria scores in performance scores section  4400  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ). As another example, for team member “Evaluee- 2 ,” team evaluation table  5300  presents evaluee combined performance score  5232 , culture scores including evaluee combined leadership score  5242  and evaluee combined mission &amp; behaviors score  5222 , and evaluee proficiency score  5212 . Evaluation scores for the rest of the team members may be derived and presented in team evaluation table  5300  in similar fashion to those of “Evaluee- 1 ” as described above. Although the different culture scores for the team members are split between leadership scores column  5312  and mission &amp; behaviors column  5311 , there can be examples where evaluation table  5300  can present the different culture scores for the team members in a single culture column that merges together the scores in leadership scores column  5312  and mission &amp; behaviors column  5311 . 
     Evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) is also configured to calculate team proficiency score  5210  ( FIG. 5 ), which is derived from the different proficiency scores of the team members in proficiency column  5315  of team evaluation table  5300 . For instance, team proficiency score  5210  can be calculated from the different evaluee performance scores in performance column  5313  of team evaluation table  5300  (such as from evaluee combined performance scores  4230  and  5232 ), and from the different evaluee culture scores in culture columns  5311  and  5312  of team evaluation table  5300  (such as from evaluee combined mission &amp; behaviors scores  5221  and  5222 , and from evaluee combined leadership scores  5241  and  5242 ). Team proficiency score  5210  can thus based on the one or more evaluee culture scores of “Evaluee- 1 ” (in culture scores section  4300  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  of  FIG. 4 ), the one or more evaluee performance scores of “Evaluee- 1 ” (in performance scores section  4400  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  of  FIG. 4 ), the corresponding one or more evaluee culture scores the other evaluee(s) in the team (in the culture scores section of their respective evaluee evaluation report), and the corresponding one or more evaluee performance scores of the other evaluee(s) in the team (in the performance scores section of their respective evaluee evaluation report). 
     As seen in  FIG. 5 , display module  1130  ( FIG. 2 ) can be configured to display team combined scores, such as team combined culture score  5220  and/or team combined performance score  5230 , calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 5 ) from the different culture scores or performance scores of the team members. In some examples, team combined culture score  5220  can be based on the one or more evaluee culture scores of “Evaluee- 1 ” (in culture scores section  4300  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  of  FIG. 4 ) and the corresponding one or more evaluee culture scores the other evaluee(s) in the team (in the culture scores section of their respective evaluee evaluation report). In the same or other examples, team combined performance score  5230  can be based on the one or more evaluee performance scores of “Evaluee- 1 ” (in performance scores section  4400  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  of  FIG. 4 ), and the corresponding one or more evaluee performance scores of the other evaluee(s) in the team (in the performance scores section of their respective evaluee evaluation report). 
     Returning to  FIG. 2 , method  2000  can also comprise, as sub-block  2530  of block  2500 , displaying a team relative scoring report for the team of evaluees.  FIG. 6  illustrates team relative scoring chart  6000 , which can be similar to or comprise a portion of the team relative scoring report of sub-block  2530  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). In some examples, team relative scoring chart  6000  can be presented as a team relative scoring report panel by user interface module  1260  and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ). 
     In  FIG. 6 , team relative scoring chart  6000  comprises entries for each of the team members of the team shown in  FIG. 5 , including “Evaluee- 1 ” and “Evaluee- 2 .” Scoring data is presented for Evaluee- 1 , including an identifier for Evaluee- 1 , such as his/her name, and at least two of a combined performance score for Evaluee- 1  (such as evaluee combined performance score  4230 ), a combined culture score for Evaluee- 1  (such as evaluee combined leadership score  5241 , evaluee combined mission &amp; behavior score  5221 , and/or a combination thereof), and/or a combined proficiency score for Evaluee- 1  (such as evaluee proficiency score  4211  from  FIGS. 4-5 ). Similarly, scoring data is presented for Evaluee- 2 , including an identifier for Evaluee- 2 , such as his/her name, and at least two of a combined performance score for Evaluee- 2  (such as evaluee combined performance score  5232 ), a combined culture score for Evaluee- 2  (such as evaluee combined leadership score  5242 , evaluee combined mission &amp; behavior score  5222 , and/or a combination thereof), and/or a combined proficiency score for Evaluee- 2  (such as evaluee proficiency score  5212  from  FIG. 5 ). The scoring data for each of the evaluee team members can thus be presented side by side for ease of comparison. In the present example, the scoring data for the evaluees also comprises status icons and color-coded icons, as described above with respect to evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ), providing a further visual aid for evaluating the proficiency of the different evaluees of the team. 
     In the present example of  FIG. 6 , relative scoring chart  6000  displays high-proficiency section  6100  for evaluees with a high-level evaluee proficiency score, mid-proficiency section  6200  for evaluees with a mid-level evaluee proficiency score, and low-proficiency section  6300  for evaluees with a low-level evaluee proficiency score. At least a portion of the scoring data for the different evaluees of the team is displayed in high-proficiency section  6100 , mid-proficiency section  6200 , or low-proficiency section  6300  depending on the respective evaluee proficiency score of each evaluee. As an example, high-proficiency section  6100  is reserved for evaluees who attain an evaluee proficiency score of 80% or more. Accordingly, the scoring data for Evaluee- 2  whose evaluee proficiency score  5212  is of 8.2 ( FIG. 5 ), is presented in high-proficiency section  6100 . In the same or other examples, mid-proficiency section  6200  is reserved for evaluees who attain an evaluee proficiency score of between 70% and 80%. Accordingly, the scoring data for Evaluee- 1  whose evaluee proficiency score  4211  is of 7.3 ( FIG. 5 ), is presented in mid-proficiency section  6200 . In the same or other examples, low-proficiency section  6300  is reserved for evaluees who attain an evaluee proficiency score of less than 70%. Accordingly, the scoring data for Evaluee- 3  whose evaluee proficiency score  5213  is of 6.1 ( FIG. 5 ), is presented in low-proficiency section  6300 . There can be other examples with different proficiency score cutoffs between high-proficiency section  6100 , mid-proficiency section  6200 , and low-proficiency section  6300 . 
     In some examples, evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to generate recommended compensation and/or promotion adjustments for one or more of the team members. In the same or other examples, as seen in  FIG. 8 , display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) can be configured to display recompense report  8000  for one or more of the team members of the team. In the example of  FIG. 8 , recompense report  8000  presents recompense chart  8300  comprising performance column  5313 , culture column  8311 , proficiency column  5315  with respective scores from the evaluations for each of the team members. In the same or other embodiments, culture column  8311  can be derived from the scores in mission &amp; behavior column  5311  and from leadership column  5312  ( FIG. 5 ). 
     Recompense report  8000  comprises compensation column  8350  presenting recommended compensation adjustments for each of the team members based on respective team member scores in proficiency column  5315 , culture column  8311 , and/or performance column  5313 . For example, recommended compensation adjustment  8351  in compensation column  8350  can be generated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) based on evaluee proficiency score  4211  ( FIGS. 4-5 ,  8 ), evaluee combined performance score  4230  ( FIGS. 4-6 ,  8 ), and/or evaluee combined culture score  4220  ( FIGS. 4 ,  8 ). In some examples, recommended compensation adjustment  8351  can correspond to a value or percentage change in salary amount, and/or a value or percentage change in bonus amount for Evaluee- 1 . Recompense report  8000  also comprises promotion column  8360  presenting recommended promotion levels for each of the team members based on respective team member scores in proficiency column  5315 , culture column  8311 , and/or performance column  5313 . For example, recommended promotion level  8361  recommends that the promotion level for Evaluee- 1  should remain “Stable” or unchanged. Other recommendations are possible. In some examples, the recommended adjustments in compensation column  8350  and/or promotion column  8360  can be automatically calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) based on the respective evaluation scores achieved by each of the team members. In other examples, the recommended adjustments in compensation column  8350  and/or promotion column  8360  may be input by a user such as an evaluator. 
     Returning to  FIG. 2 , method  2000  can also comprise, as sub-block  2540  of block  2500  for displaying a team average criteria scoring report for the team of evaluees.  FIG. 7  illustrates team average criteria scoring chart  7000 , which can be similar to or comprise a portion of the team average criteria scoring report of sub-block  2540  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). In some examples, team average criteria scoring chart  7000  can be presented as a team average criteria scoring report panel by user interface module  1260  and/or user interface module  1160  ( FIG. 1 ). 
     In  FIG. 7 , team average criteria scoring report  7000  comprises team culture scores section  7300  and team performance scores section  7400 , which can be respectively similar to culture scores section  4300  and to performance scores section  4400  of evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ), but portraying information for the whole team rather than for only a single evaluee. 
     Evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to calculate, for each culture criteria of culture scores section  7300 , one or more team culture criteria scores  7310  (such as mission statement team score  7111 , behavior team score  7121 , and leadership team score  7131 ) based on the evaluations of the different team members, such as based on the one or more first evaluee culture scores from the evaluation of Evaluee- 1 , and based on the one or more second evaluee culture scores from the evaluation of Evaluee- 2 . In some embodiments, for each culture criteria of culture scores section  7300 , the corresponding evaluee culture scores of each of the team members may be averaged to derive the corresponding team culture criteria score. As an example, mission statement team score  7111  can be calculated for mission statement criteria  3112  based on the different scores of each of the team members with respect to mission statement criteria  3112  (such as Evaluee- 1 &#39;s mission statement score  3111  for mission statement criteria  3112  ( FIG. 4 ), and Evaluee- 2 &#39;s corresponding mission statement score for mission statement criteria  3112 ). Similarly, behavior team score  7121  can be calculated for business values criteria  3122  based on the different scores of each of the team members with respect to business values criteria  3122 . Similarly, leadership team score  7131  can be calculated for leadership criteria  3132  based on the different scores of each of the team members with respect to leadership criteria  3132 . 
     In addition, evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) is configured to calculate, for each performance criteria of performance scores section  7400 , one or more team performance criteria scores  7410  (such as performance team score  7211 ) based on the evaluations of the different team members, such as based on the one or more first evaluee performance scores from the evaluation of Evaluee- 1 , and based on the one or more second evaluee performance scores from the evaluation of Evaluee- 2 . In some embodiments, for each performance criteria of performance scores section  7400 , the evaluee performance scores of each of the team members may be averaged to derive the corresponding team performance criteria score. As an example, performance team score  7211  can be calculated for performance criteria  3212  based on the different scores of each of the team members with respect to performance criteria  3212  (such as Evaluee- 1 &#39;s performance score  3211  for performance criteria  3212  ( FIG. 4 ), and Evaluee- 2 &#39;s corresponding performance score for performance criteria  3212 ). 
     Once calculated by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) as described above, the one or more team culture criteria scores  7310  and the one or more team performance criteria scores  7410  can be displayed by display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) at team average criteria scoring chart  7000  ( FIG. 7 ). 
     With respect to the description of method  2000  of  FIG. 2  herein, in some examples, one or more of the different blocks of method  2000  can be combined into a single block or performed simultaneously, and/or the sequence of such blocks can be changed. For example, blocks  2200  and  2300  may be combined as a single block when the personnel culture alignment data and the personnel performance data is received substantially simultaneously at evaluation analyzer module  1120  from database module  1140  or  1440  ( FIG. 1 ). In the same or other examples, some of the blocks of method  2000  can be subdivided into several sub-blocks. For example, block  2100  can be subdivided into a sub-block for receiving a portion of the evaluation data from an evaluee user, such as comments or other information to be used during the evaluation, and a sub-block for receiving a portion of the evaluation data from an evaluator user during the evaluation. 
     There can also be examples where method  2000  can comprise further or different blocks. As an example, method  2000  can further comprise a block for determining at least one of a compensation adjustment or a promotion level adjustment for the first evaluee based on at least one of the first evaluee evaluation report of sub-block  2510  and/or the team evaluation report of sub-block  2520 . In some examples, the compensation adjustment or the promotion level adjustment may be calculated and/or recommended by evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) based on at least one of the evaluation scores of the first individual or of the evaluation scores of the team. In addition, there may be examples where method  2000  can comprise only part of the steps described above. For instance, one or more of sub-blocks  2510 ,  2520 ,  2530 , and/or  2540  can be optional in some examples, and in the same or different examples, one or more of sub-blocks  2210 ,  2220 ,  2230 ,  2310 ,  2320 , and  2330  can be optional. Other variations can be implemented for method  2000  without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. 
     Skipping ahead to  FIG. 11 , a flowchart for method  11000  for evaluating business personnel is illustrated therein. In some examples, method  11000  can be implemented as a subset of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). 
     Method  11000  comprises block  11100  for rating a first evaluee with respect to one or more business culture alignment tools. There can be examples where block  11100  of method  11000  can be implemented via an evaluation analyzer module such as evaluation analyzer module  1120  of evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ). Accordingly, as an example, block  11100  of method  11000  may comprise part of block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) in some implementations. The one or more business culture alignment tools may comprise one or more mission statement alignment tools, such as mission statement alignment tool  31100  ( FIG. 3 ), one or more professional values alignment tools, such as professional values alignment tool  31200  ( FIG. 3 ), and/or one or more leadership alignment tools, such as leadership alignment tool  31300  ( FIG. 3 ). 
     Turning back briefly to  FIG. 3 , mission statement alignment tool  31100  is configured to evaluate personnel with respect to a business mission statement requirement based on a business mission statement scoring criteria. Leadership alignment tool  31300  is configured to evaluate personnel with respect to one or more leadership requirements based on one or more leadership scoring criteria. Professional values alignment tool  31200  is configured to evaluate personnel with respect to one or more professional values behavioral requirements based on one or more professional values scoring criteria. For instance, the one or more professional values behavioral requirements may be evaluated with respect to (a) whether the first evaluee treats company resources as his/her own, (b) whether the first evaluee is respectful, honest, and/or straightforward, (c) whether the first evaluee does what he/she says he/she will do, (d) whether the first evaluee has a personal commitment to an end result, (e) whether the first evaluee is fully engaged and/or participates within a team, and/or (f) whether the first evaluee presents and/or pursues solutions as opposed to dwelling on problems. An example of an implementation of these professional values behavioral requirements is shown in behavior score interface  3120  and in the “Behaviors” section of culture scores section  4300  ( FIG. 4 ). 
     Returning to  FIG. 11 , the one or more business culture alignment tools of block  11100  can comprise a first business culture alignment tool, having a first type requirement comprising a first type goal for implementation by the first evaluee. The first type requirement comprising the first type goal can be similar to one of the goals in culture score interface  3100  ( FIG. 3 ) or culture scores section  4300  ( FIG. 4 ). For example, the first type requirement of block  11100  ( FIG. 11 ) may comprise a business mission statement requirement, such as encompassed by business mission statement criteria  3112  ( FIGS. 3-4 ). As another example, the first type requirement of block  11100  ( FIG. 11 ) may comprise a professional values behavioral requirement, such as encompassed by business values criteria  3122  ( FIGS. 3-4 ). As yet another example, the first type requirement of block  11100  ( FIG. 11 ) may comprise a leadership requirement, such as encompassed by leadership criteria  3132  ( FIGS. 3-4 ). 
     A first type goal of the first type requirement may be related to the first evaluee&#39;s behavior, demeanor, attitude, or alignment with respect to the employer&#39;s desired business culture, and thus may be subjective or otherwise not readily measurable in an objective manner. Accordingly, the first business culture alignment tool of block  11100  can also comprise a first type scoring criteria configured to objectively quantify a first score for the first type requirement. Thus, the first type scoring criteria can provide an objective way to assess the first evaluee with respect to the first type goal to thereby “objectify” what might otherwise be a subjective assessment. Via the first type scoring criteria, the first business culture alignment tool can transform the evaluee&#39;s implementation of the first type goal into the objectified first score for the first type requirement. The first type scoring criteria of block  11100  may correspond to one or more of the scoring criteria accessible via mission statement alignment tool  31100 , professional values alignment tool  31200 , or leadership alignment tool  31300  in the example of  FIG. 3 . For example, the first type scoring criteria can be similar to the scoring criteria previously described above with respect to block  2200  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). 
     The first type scoring criteria of block  11100  in method  11000  can comprise a knowledge portion and an implementation portion in some examples. For the first score, the knowledge portion can be configured to objectively quantify a knowledge of the first evaluee about the first type requirement. Similarly, for the first score, the implementation portion can be configured to objectively quantify an implementation of the first type requirement by the first evaluee. 
     In some examples, the knowledge portion of the first type scoring criteria can be configured to objectively add one or more score amounts to the first score, based on the knowledge of the first evaluee about the first type scoring requirement. For example, a first knowledge amount may be objectively added to (or subtracted from) the first score, based the knowledge portion of the first type scoring criteria, if the first evaluee does not know the first type requirement of block  11100 . In this same example, a second knowledge amount may be objectively added to the first score, based the knowledge portion of the first type scoring criteria, if the first evaluee knows about the first type requirement of block  11100 . Also in this example, a third knowledge amount may be objectively added to the first score, based the knowledge portion of the first type scoring criteria, if the first evaluee has memorized word-for-word the first type requirement of block  11100 . The third knowledge amount can be greater than the second knowledge amount, and the second knowledge amount can be greater than the first knowledge amount. For example, in some embodiments, the first knowledge amount can be zero, the second knowledge amount can comprise at least approximately 20% of a maximum score of the first score, and the third knowledge amount can comprise at least approximately 40% of the maximum score of the first score. In this example, the second and third knowledge amounts can be worth up to 2 points and 4 points, respectively, where the maximum score of the first score is 10 points. In other examples, the first knowledge amount can be a positive number if subtracted from the first score, or a negative number if added to the first score. 
     In some examples, the implementation portion of the first type scoring criteria can be configured to objectively add one or more score amounts to the first score, based on the implementation of the first type scoring criteria by the first evaluee. For example, a first implementation amount may be objectively added to the first score for a first implementation by the first evaluee of the first type requirement. A second implementation amount may be objectively added to the first score for a second implementation by the first evaluee of the first type requirement. A third implementation amount may be objectively added to the first score for a third implementation by the first evaluee of the first type requirement. The first, second, and third implementations may be described by the first evaluee in terms of examples of instances where the first evaluee implemented the first type requirement while performing his/her duties and/or to advance the goals of the company. The third implementation amount may be greater than the second implementation amount, and the second implementation amount may be greater than the first implementation amount. For example, in one embodiment, the first implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 20% of a maximum score of the first score, the second implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 20% of the maximum score of the first score, and the third implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 20% of the maximum score of the first score. In this example, each of up to three implementations can be worth up to 2 points, where the maximum score of the first score is 10 points. As another example, the first implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 10% of a maximum score of the first score, the second implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 20% of the maximum score of the first score, and the third implementation amount can comprise at least approximately 30% of the maximum score of the first score. In this other example, the first, second, and third implementations can be worth up to 1 point, 2 points, and 3 points, respectively, where the maximum score of the first score is 10 points. 
     In some implementations, the knowledge portion and/or the implementation portion of the first type scoring criteria can be varied depending on the employee being evaluated. For example, as the first evaluee advances towards a senior employee level, a weight of the knowledge portion with respect to the maximum first score can decrease, and a weight of the implementation portion with respect to the maximum first score can increase. In the same or other examples, such as for an entry level employee, the knowledge portion can comprise up to 40% of the maximum score for the first score, and the implementation portion can comprises up to 60% of the maximum score for the first score. In these examples, the knowledge portion can be worth up to 4 points (e.g., 2 points for knowing, and 2 points for memorizing), and the implementation portion can be worth up to 6 points (e.g., see the specific examples in the previous paragraph), where the maximum score for the first score is 10 points. For a senior or upper-level employee (e.g., a manager), in the same or other examples, the knowledge portion can comprise up to 20% of the maximum score for the first score, and the implementation portion can comprise up to 80% of the maximum score for the first score. In these examples, the knowledge portion can be worth up to 2 points (e.g., 2 points for knowing), and the implementation portion can be worth up to 8 points, where the maximum score for the first score is 10 points. There can also be examples where, for higher-level employees (e.g., C-level executives such as the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer, the chief operating officer, the chief technology officer, the chief information officer, etc.), the implementation portion comprises up to 100% of the maximum score for the first score. 
     Turning to the next step of method  11000 , block  11200  comprises rating the first evaluee with respect to one or more performance execution tools. There can be examples where block  11100  of method  11000  can be implemented via an evaluation analyzer module such as evaluation analyzer module  1120  of evaluation system  1000  ( FIG. 1 ). The one or more performance execution tools can comprise a first performance execution tool, which can be configured to evaluate personnel with respect to a second type requirement. The second type requirement can comprise a second type goal, based on a second type scoring criteria configured to grade an execution of the second type goal. As an example, the first performance execution tool can be similar to performance execution tool  32100 , and the second type requirement may be as encompassed by performance criteria  3212  with respect to the second type goal of “Conduct all team member evaluations on time.” ( FIG. 3 ). Other exemplary second type goals can be seen in performance scores section  4400  of  FIG. 4 . 
     Contrary to the first type goal of the first type requirement in block  1100  ( FIG. 11 ), the second type goal of the second type requirement in block  11200  cannot be not subjective and, therefore, can be readily measurable or quantifiable. For example, the second type scoring criteria for the second type goal of “Conduct all team member evaluations on time” in  FIG. 3  can set out a deadline date for meeting the second type goal, such that the evaluee&#39;s performance with respect to the execution of the second type requirement is objectively ascertainable. Accordingly, the second type scoring criteria for the second type goal in block  11200  can be simpler and/or more straightforward than the first type scoring criteria for the first type goal in block  11100 . In the same or other examples, the second type scoring criteria for the second type goal may be listed as part of the second type requirement. 
     Block  11300  of method  1000  comprises generating a first evaluee report of the first evaluee based on the first business culture alignment tool of block  11100 , and the first performance execution tool of block  11200 . Block  11300  of method  11000  may comprise part of block  2500  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) in some implementations. In the same or other examples, the first evaluee report can be similar to evaluee evaluation report  4000  ( FIG. 4 ). 
     The first evaluee report can comprise a first type score of the first business culture alignment tool, where the first type score can be based on the first type scoring criteria for the first type requirement of the first evaluee. For example, the first type score can be similar to mission statement score  3111 , behavior score  3121 , and/or leadership score  3131  ( FIGS. 3-4 ), among others. 
     The first evaluee report can also comprise a second type score of the first performance execution tool, where the second type score can be based on the second type scoring criteria for the second type requirement of the first evaluee. For example, the second type score can be similar to performance score  3211  ( FIGS. 3-4 ), among others. 
     With respect to the description of method  11000  of  FIG. 11  herein, in some examples, one or more of the different blocks can be combined into a single block or performed simultaneously, and/or the sequence of such blocks can be changed. For example, blocks  11100  and  11200  may be combined as a single block, performed simultaneously, and or reversed in order. In the same or other examples, some of the blocks of method  11000  can be subdivided into one or more sub-blocks. There can also be examples where method  11000  can comprise further or different blocks. As an example, method  11000  can comprise a block for gathering evaluation data for or from the first evaluee prior to block  11100 . In addition, there may be examples where method  11000  can comprise only part of the steps described above. For instance, block  11300  may be optional, such as where blocks  11100  and/or  11200  are carried out as part of block  2400  of method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ). Other variations can be implemented for method  11000  without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. 
     Backtracking to  FIG. 9 , a computer  900  suitable for implementing an embodiment of at least a portion of main system  1100  ( FIG. 1 ) or client computer  1200  ( FIG. 1 ) is illustrated. Computer  900  includes a chassis  902  containing one or more circuit boards (not shown), a USB (universal serial bus) port  912 , a Compact Disc Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM) and/or Digital Video Disc (DVD) drive  916 , and a hard drive  914 . A representative block diagram of the elements included on the circuit boards inside chassis  902  is shown in  FIG. 10 . A central processing unit (CPU)  1010  in  FIG. 10  is coupled to a system bus  1014  in  FIG. 10 . In various embodiments, the architecture of CPU  1010  can be compliant with any of a variety of commercially distributed architecture families. 
     System bus  1014  also is coupled to memory  1008  that includes both read only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM). Non-volatile portions of memory  1008  or the ROM can be encoded with a boot code sequence suitable for restoring computer  900  ( FIG. 9 ) to a functional state after a system reset. In addition, memory  1008  can include microcode such as a Basic Input-Output System (BIOS). In some examples, database module  1140  ( FIG. 1 ) can include memory  1008 , USB port  912 , hard drive  914 , and/or CD-ROM or DVD drive  916 . 
     In the depicted embodiment of  FIG. 10 , various I/O devices such as a disk controller  1004 , a graphics adapter  1024 , a video controller  1002 , a keyboard adapter  1026 , a mouse adapter  1006 , a network adapter  1020 , and other I/O devices  1022  can be coupled to system bus  1014 . Keyboard adapter  1026  and mouse adapter  1006  are coupled to a keyboard  904  ( FIGS. 9-10 ) and a mouse  910  ( FIGS. 9-10 ), respectively, of computer  900  ( FIG. 9 ). While graphics adapter  1024  and video controller  1002  are indicated as distinct units in  FIG. 10 , video controller  1002  can be integrated into graphics adapter  1024 , or vice versa in other embodiments. Video controller  1002  is suitable for refreshing a monitor  906  ( FIGS. 9-10 ) to display images on a screen  908  ( FIG. 9 ) of computer  900  ( FIG. 9 ). Disk controller  1004  can control hard drive  914  ( FIGS. 9-10 ), USB port  912  ( FIGS. 9-10 ), and/or CD-ROM or DVD drive  916  ( FIGS. 9-10 ). In other embodiments, distinct units can be used to control each of these devices separately. 
     Network adapters  1020  can be coupled to one or more antennas. In some embodiments, network adapter  1020  can be part of a WNIC (wireless network interface controller) card (not shown) plugged or coupled to an expansion port (not shown) in computer  900 . In other embodiments, the WNIC card can be a wireless network card built into internal computer  900 . A wireless network adapter can be built into internal client computer  900  by having wireless Ethernet capabilities integrated into the motherboard chipset (not shown), or implemented via a dedicated wireless Ethernet chip (not shown), connected through the PCI (peripheral component interconnector) or a PCI express bus. In other embodiments, network adapter  1020  can be a wired network adapter. 
     Although many other components of computer  900  ( FIG. 9 ) are not shown, such components and their interconnection are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, further details concerning the construction and composition of computer  900  and the circuit boards inside chassis  902  ( FIG. 9 ) need not be discussed herein. 
     When computer  900  in  FIG. 9  is running, program instructions stored on a USB drive in USB port  912 , on a CD-ROM or DVD in CD-ROM and/or DVD drive  916 , on hard drive  914 , or in memory  1008  ( FIG. 10 ) are executed by CPU  1010  ( FIG. 10 ). A portion of the program instructions, stored on these devices, can be suitable for carrying out method  2000  ( FIG. 2 ) as described above. 
     Although the personnel management systems and related methods herein have been described with reference to specific embodiments, various changes may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of the present disclosure. For example, in some embodiments, evaluation analyzer module  1120  ( FIG. 1 ) and display module  1130  ( FIG. 1 ) may comprise a single module. Additional examples of such changes have been given in the foregoing description. Other permutations of the different embodiments having one or more of the features of the various figures are likewise contemplated. Accordingly, the specification and drawings herein are intended to be illustrative of the scope of the disclosure and are not intended to be limiting. It is intended that the scope of this application shall be limited only to the extent required by the appended claims. 
     The personnel management systems and related methods discussed herein may be implemented in a variety of embodiments, and the foregoing discussion of certain of these embodiments does not necessarily represent a complete description of all possible embodiments. Rather, the detailed description of the drawings, and the drawings themselves, disclose at least one preferred embodiment, and may disclose alternative embodiments. 
     All elements claimed in any particular claim are essential to the embodiment claimed in that particular claim. Consequently, replacement of one or more claimed elements constitutes reconstruction and not repair. Additionally, benefits, other advantages, and solutions to problems have been described with regard to specific embodiments. The benefits, advantages, solutions to problems, and any element or elements that may cause any benefit, advantage, or solution to occur or become more pronounced, however, are not to be construed as critical, required, or essential features or elements of any or all of the claims, unless such benefits, advantages, solutions, or elements are expressly stated in such claims. 
     Moreover, embodiments and limitations disclosed herein are not dedicated to the public under the doctrine of dedication if the embodiments and/or limitations: (1) are not expressly claimed in the claims; and (2) are or are potentially equivalents of express elements and/or limitations in the claims under the doctrine of equivalents.