Mcgovern, Robert J. (Potomac, MD, US)
Ferry, Leslie (Vienna, VA, US)
Anderson, Erik (Olney, MD, US)
Koczara, Pam (Sterling, VA, US)
Smith, Brent (Oak Hill, VA, US)
Farmer, Brian (Reston, VA, US)
Evans, Andrew (Alderson, WV, US)
Plaque It!
Sponsored by: Flash of Genius |
1. A method of operating an employment system comprising: receiving an attribute of an employment seeker; associating said employment seeker and an employee seeker; receiving a change made to said attribute; and notifying said employee seeker of said change.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said attribute is work history information.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein said attribute is skill information.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said attribute is education history information.
5. A method of operating an employment system comprising: receiving an attribute of an employment seeker; associating said employment seeker and an employee seeker; associating a history with said attribute; and presenting said history to said employee seeker.
6. A method of operating an employment system comprising: receiving an attribute unit, wherein said attribute unit comprises: an attribute identifier; associating a duration with said attribute unit; and associating at least a portion of said duration with said attribute identifier.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein associating said duration comprises: receiving a beginning time.
8. The method of claim 6 wherein associating said duration comprises: receiving an ending time.
9. The method of claim 6 wherein associating said duration comprises: receiving said duration.
10. A method of operating an employment system comprising: enabling a first entity to specify an attribute; enabling said first entity to specify a threshold recency condition; and determining whether to associate said first entity and a second entity at least partly based upon whether a recency measure associated with said attribute for said second entity satisfies said threshold recency condition.
11. A method of operating an employment system comprising: receiving a desired quantity of time, wherein said desired quantity of time is associated with an attribute; adjusting said desired quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted desired quantity of time; receiving a quantity of time, wherein said quantity of time is associated with said attribute; adjusting said quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted quantity of time; and comparing said adjusted desired quantity of time and said adjusted quantity of time.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein adjusting said desired quantity of time includes: partitioning said desired quantity of time into one or more time periods; adjusting each time period for recency; and combining each adjusted time period.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein adjusting each time period includes multiplying each time period by a factor, wherein the factor depends on the recency of the time period.
14. A method of operating an employment system comprising: enabling a user of said employment system to specify a first comparison condition; determining a first group of a plurality of entities, wherein said first group satisfies said first comparison condition; determining a second comparison condition, wherein said second comparison condition is the result of modifying a comparison condition field of said first comparison condition; determining a second group of said plurality of entities, wherein said second group satisfies said second comparison condition, wherein at least one member of said second group is not also in said first group; displaying information about said first group; and displaying information about said second group, wherein said step of displaying information about said first group is performed at least partly concurrently with said step of displaying information about said second group.
15. The method of claim 14 further comprising: determining a third comparison condition, wherein said third comparison condition is the result of modifying said comparison condition field of said first comparison condition and wherein said third comparison condition is not identical to said second comparison condition; determining a third group of said plurality of entities, wherein said third group satisfies said third comparison condition; and displaying information about said third group.
16. The method of claim 15 wherein said information about said first group, said information about said second group and said information about said third group are displayed substantially colinearly.
17. The method of claim 14 wherein said information about said first group is an indicator of a size of said first group.
18. The method of claim 14 wherein determining said second comparison condition is performed automatically.
19. A method of operating an employment system comprising: providing said employment system; determining human resources information from said employment system; and providing said human resources information to a user of said employment system.
20. A method of operating an employment system comprising: enabling an employment seeker to enter a first match profile; enabling an employee seeker to specify a second match profile; and generating a match score, wherein said match score is determined by matching desires from said first match profile with attributes of said second match profile and matching desires from said second match profile with attributes of said first match profile.
21. A method of operating an employment system comprising: collecting a plurality of employer seeker profiles; collecting a plurality of employee seeker profiles; bi-directionally matching said employer seeker profiles and said employee seeker profiles; and displaying at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results to at least one employer seeker or at least one employee seeker.
22. The method of claim 21, wherein said displaying includes: ordering the bi-directional matching results based on a bi-directional match score; and displaying at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results according to the ordering.
23. The method of claim 21, wherein approximately 70% of any matching score in the bi-directional matching results depends upon the quality of the match between employee seeker desires and employment seeker attributes and approximately 30% of the matching score depends upon the quality of the match between employment seeker desires and employee seeker attributes.
24. A method of operating an employment system comprising: enabling a first user to remove a second user from a favorites list; and notifying the second user of the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
25. The method of claim 24, further comprising: prompting the first user to enter a reason for the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list; and providing the reason to the second user, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
26. A method of operating an employment system comprising: matching a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user; and displaying to the user the quality of the match between the first match profile and the second match profile, wherein displaying includes: determining one or more components for display, wherein the components contribute to the quality of the match; and displaying a geometric representation for each of the components, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match.
27. The method of claim 26, wherein displaying to the user the quality of the match also includes: associating a color or pattern with each of the components, wherein the color or pattern corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match; displaying a textual representation for each of the components, wherein the textual representation is associated with the color or pattern associated with the geometric representation of the component.
28. The method of claim 26, wherein the geometric representation is a wedge in a pie chart.
29. A method of operating an employment system comprising: matching a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user; matching the first match profile and a third match profile; displaying to the user the quality of the first match between the first match profile and the second match profile, wherein displaying the quality of the first match includes: determining one or more components of the first match for display, wherein the components of the first match contribute to the quality of the first match; and displaying a geometric representation for each of the components of the first match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the first match contributes to the quality of the first match; and displaying to the user the quality of the second match between the first match profile and the third match profile at least partly concurrently with displaying the quality of the first match, wherein displaying the quality of the second match includes: determining one or more components of the second match for display, wherein the components of the second match contribute to the quality of the second match; and displaying a geometric representation for each of the components of the second match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the second match contributes to the quality of the second match.
30. An employment system comprising: a storage device operable to store an attribute of an employment seeker; an association unit operable to associate said employment seeker and an employee seeker; and a notification unit operable to notify said employee seeker of a change to said attribute, if said change occurs.
31. The employment system of claim 30 wherein said attribute is work history information.
32. The employment system of claim 30 wherein said attribute is skill information.
33. The employment system of claim 30 wherein said attribute is education history information.
34. An employment system comprising: a storage device operable to store an attribute of an employment seeker; a first association unit operable to associate said employment seeker and an employee seeker; a second association unit operable to associate a history with said attribute; and a display unit operable to display said history to said employee seeker.
35. An employment system comprising: a storage device operable to store an attribute unit, wherein said attribute unit comprises: an attribute identifier; a first association unit operable to associate a duration with said attribute unit; and a second association unit operable to associate at least a portion of said duration with said attribute identifier.
36. An employment system comprising: a user interface operable to enable a first entity to specify an attribute and to specify a threshold recency condition; and a processor operable with said user interface to determine whether to associate said first entity and a second entity at least partly based upon whether a recency measure associated with said attribute for said second entity satisfies said threshold recency condition.
37. An employment system comprising: a storage unit operable to store a desired quantity of time, wherein said desired quantity of time is associated with an attribute, wherein said storage unit is also operable to store a quantity of time, wherein said quantity of time is associated with said attribute; and a processor operable to adjust said desired quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted desired quantity of time, adjust said quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted quantity of time and compare said adjusted desired quantity of time and said adjusted quantity of time.
38. The employment system of claim 37, wherein said processor is also operable to partition said desired quantity of time into one or more time periods, adjust each time period for recency and combine each adjusted time period.
39. The employment system of claim 38, wherein said processor is also operable to multiply each time period by a factor, wherein the factor depends on the recency of the time period.
40. An employment system comprising: a user interface operable to enable a user of said employment system to specify a first comparison condition; a processor operable to determine a first group of a plurality of entities, wherein said first group satisfies said first comparison condition, wherein said processor is also operable to determine a second comparison condition, wherein said second comparison condition is the result of modifying a comparison condition field of said first comparison condition, and wherein said processor is also operable to determine a second group of said plurality of entities, wherein said second group satisfies said second comparison condition, wherein at least one member of said second group is not also in said first group; and a display unit operable to display information about said first group to display information about said second group at least partly concurrently.
41. The employment system of claim 40, wherein said processor is also operable to determine a third comparison condition, wherein said third comparison condition is the result of modifying said comparison condition field of said first comparison condition and wherein said third comparison condition is not identical to said second comparison condition, wherein said processor is also operable to determine a third group of said plurality of entities, wherein said third group satisfies said third comparison condition, and wherein said display unit is also operable to display information about said third group.
42. The employment system of claim 41 wherein said information about said first group, said information about said second group and said information about said third group are displayed substantially colinearly.
43. The employment system of claim 40 wherein said information about said first group is an indicator of a size of said first group.
44. The employment system of claim 40 wherein determining said second comparison condition is performed automatically.
45. An employment system comprising: a database operable to store transactions of said employment system; a processor operable to determine human resources information from said database; and a display device operable to display the human resources information to a user of said employment system.
46. An employment system comprising: a storage unit operable to store a first match profile and a second match profile; and a processor operable to generate a match score, wherein said match score is determined by matching desires from said first match profile with attributes of said second match profile and matching desires from said second match profile with attributes of said first match profile.
47. An employment system comprising: a storage unit operable to store a plurality of employer seeker profiles and a plurality of employee seeker profiles; a processor operable to bi-directionally match said employer seeker profiles and said employee seeker profiles; and a display unit operable to display at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results to at least one employer seeker or at least one employee seeker.
48. The employment system of claim 47, wherein said processor is also operable to order the bi-directional matching results based on a bi-directional match score, and wherein said display unit is also operable to display at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results according to the ordering.
49. The employment system of claim 47, wherein approximately 70% of any matching score in the bi-directional matching results depends upon the quality of the match between employee seeker desires and employment seeker attributes and approximately 30% of the matching score depends upon the quality of the match between employment seeker desires and employee seeker attributes.
50. An employment system comprising: a user interface operable to enable a first user to remove a second user from a favorites list; and a communication unit operable to notify the second user of the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
51. The employment system of claim 50, wherein said user interface is also operable to prompt the first user to enter a reason for the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list, and wherein said communication unit is also operable to provide the reason to the second user, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
52. An employment system comprising: a processor operable to match a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user; and a display unit operable with said processor to display to the user the quality of the match between the first match profile and the second match profile, to determine one or more components for display, wherein the components contribute to the quality of the match and to display a geometric representation for each of the components, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match.
53. The employment system of claim 52, wherein said display is also operable with said processor to associate a color or pattern with each of the components, wherein the color or pattern corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match and to display a textual representation for each of the components, wherein the textual representation is associated with the color or pattern associated with the geometric representation of the component.
54. The employment system of claim 52, wherein the geometric representation is a wedge in a pie chart.
55. An employment system comprising: a processor operable to match a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user, and to match the first match profile and a third match profile; a display unit operable with said processor to display to the user the quality of the first match between the first match profile and the second match profile, to determine one or more components of the first match for display, wherein the components of the first match contribute to the quality of the first match, to display a geometric representation for each of the components of the first match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the first match contributes to the quality of the first match, to display to the user the quality of the second match between the first match profile and the third match profile at least partly concurrently with displaying the quality of the first match, to determine one or more components of the second match for display, wherein the components of the second match contribute to the quality of the second match, and to display a geometric representation for each of the components of the second match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the second match contributes to the quality of the second match.
56. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive an attribute of an employment seeker; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate said employment seeker and an employee seeker; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive a change made to said attribute; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to notify said employee seeker of said change.
57. The computer program product of claim 56 wherein said attribute is work history information.
58. The computer program product of claim 56 wherein said attribute is skill information.
59. The computer program product of claim 56 wherein said attribute is education history information.
60. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive an attribute of an employment seeker; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate said employment seeker and an employee seeker; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate a history with said attribute; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to present said history to said employee seeker.
61. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive an attribute unit, wherein said attribute unit comprises: an attribute identifier; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate a duration with said attribute unit; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate at least a portion of said duration with said attribute identifier.
62. The computer program product of claim 61 wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate said duration comprises: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive a beginning time.
63. The computer program product of claim 61 wherein associating said duration comprises: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive an ending time.
64. The computer program product of claim 61 wherein associating said duration comprises: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive said duration.
65. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable a first entity to specify an attribute; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable said first entity to specify a threshold recency condition; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine whether to associate said first entity and a second entity at least partly based upon whether a recency measure associated with said attribute for said second entity satisfies said threshold recency condition.
66. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive a desired quantity of time, wherein said desired quantity of time is associated with an attribute; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to adjust said desired quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted desired quantity of time; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to receive a quantity of time, wherein said quantity of time is associated with said attribute; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to adjust said quantity of time for recency to produce an adjusted quantity of time; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to compare said adjusted desired quantity of time and said adjusted quantity of time.
67. The computer program product of claim 66, wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to adjust said desired quantity of time includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to partition said desired quantity of time into one or more time periods; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to adjust each time period for recency; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to combine each adjusted time period.
68. The computer program product of claim 67, wherein adjusting each time period includes multiplying each time period by a factor, wherein the factor depends on the recency of the time period.
69. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable a user of said employment system to specify a first comparison condition; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine a first group of a plurality of entities, wherein said first group satisfies said first comparison condition; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine a second comparison condition, wherein said second comparison condition is the result of modifying a comparison condition field of said first comparison condition; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine a second group of said plurality of entities, wherein said second group satisfies said second comparison condition, wherein at least one member of said second group is not also in said first group; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display information about said first group; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display information about said second group, wherein said step of displaying information about said first group is performed at least partly concurrently with said step of displaying information about said second group.
70. The computer program product of claim 69 further comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine a third comparison condition, wherein said third comparison condition is the result of modifying said comparison condition field of said first comparison condition and wherein said third comparison condition is not identical to said second comparison condition; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine a third group of said plurality of entities, wherein said third group satisfies said third comparison condition; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display information about said third group.
71. The computer program product of claim 70 wherein said information about said first group, said information about said second group and said information about said third group are displayed substantially colinearly.
72. The computer program product of claim 69 wherein said information about said first group is an indicator of a size of said first group.
73. The computer program product of claim 69 wherein determining said second comparison condition is performed automatically.
74. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to provide said employment system; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine human resources information from said employment system; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to provide said human resources information to a user of said employment system.
75. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable an employment seeker to enter a first match profile; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable an employee seeker to specify a second match profile; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to generate a match score, wherein said match score is determined by matching desires from said first match profile with attributes of said second match profile and matching desires from said second match profile with attributes of said first match profile.
76. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to collect a plurality of employer seeker profiles; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to collect a plurality of employee seeker profiles; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to bi-directionally match said employer seeker profiles and said employee seeker profiles; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results to at least one employer seeker or at least one employee seeker.
77. The computer program product of claim 76, wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to order the bi-directional matching results based on a bi-directional match score; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display at least a portion of the bi-directional matching results according to the ordering.
78. The computer program product of claim 76, wherein approximately 70% of any matching score in the bi-directional matching results depends upon the quality of the match between employee seeker desires and employment seeker attributes and approximately 30% of the matching score depends upon the quality of the match between employment seeker desires and employee seeker attributes.
79. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to enable a first user to remove a second user from a favorites list; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to notify the second user of the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
80. The computer program product of claim 79, further comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to prompt the first user to enter a reason for the removal, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to provide the reason to the second user, if the first user removes the second user from the favorites list.
81. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to match a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display to the user the quality of the match between the first match profile and the second match profile, wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine one or more components for display, wherein the components contribute to the quality of the match; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display a geometric representation for each of the components, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match.
82. The computer program product of claim 81, wherein computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display to the user the quality of the match also includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to associate a color or pattern with each of the components, wherein the color or pattern corresponds to how much the component contributes to the quality of the match; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display a textual representation for each of the components, wherein the textual representation is associated with the color or pattern associated with the geometric representation of the component.
83. The computer program product of claim 81, wherein the geometric representation is a wedge in a pie chart.
84. A computer program product comprising: a computer usable medium having computer readable program code embodied therein configured to operate an employment system, said computer program product comprising: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to match a first match profile and a second match profile, wherein the first match profile is associated with a user; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to match the first match profile and a third match profile; computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display to the user the quality of the first match between the first match profile and the second match profile, wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display the quality of the first match includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine one or more components of the first match for display, wherein the components of the first match contribute to the quality of the first match; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display a geometric representation for each of the components of the first match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the first match contributes to the quality of the first match; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display to the user the quality of the second match between the first match profile and the third match profile at least partly concurrently with displaying the quality of the first match, wherein said computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display the quality of the second match includes: computer readable code configured to cause a computer to determine one or more components of the second match for display, wherein the components of the second match contribute to the quality of the second match; and computer readable code configured to cause a computer to display a geometric representation for each of the components of the second match, wherein the size of the geometric representation corresponds to how much the component of the second match contributes to the quality of the second match.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a match-based employment system and method. More specifically, the present invention relates to an employment system in which job seekers and potential employers are matched without the use of traditional resumes.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
An employment system is any electronic system which facilitates those looking for a position (i.e., employment seekers, or job seekers) in finding a position and/or which facilitates those seeking to fill a position (i.e., employee seekers, or employers) in finding someone to fill the position. Typical employment systems enable employers to post available positions, and further enable job seekers to search available positions for positions that meet some search criteria. Some employment systems enable job seekers to post a resume, and further enable employers to search for resumes that contain certain keywords. However, traditional employment systems are inefficient for many reasons.
Employers have difficulty finding desirable candidates for positions by searching resumes on an employment site because information is not necessarily presented in a uniform manner for each resume. Typically, an employer enters one or more keywords and the database of job seeker resumes are searched to determine which resumes contain the keywords. Similarly, job seekers enter keywords upon which the database of available jobs are searched. Thus, if an ideal job seeker leaves pertinent information (e.g., language experience, a certification, security clearance level, etc.) out of a resume or even puts the information into the resume without using the keywords searched upon (e.g., using synonyms or containing a typo), the employer may never find the ideal job seeker's resume. Boolean searches (searches using keywords and/or strings that can be resolved to truth values in addition to Boolean operators such as AND, OR and NOT) may provide improved search results, but still suffers from the same problem. Further, a keyword and/or Boolean search may generate many false-positive results because the keyword is present in a resume but not in the correct context. Such false-positive results waste the potential employer's time.
Further, if a potential employer finds a resume that appears ideal, the first indication the employer may receive that information in the resume is inaccurate is when the employer contacts or interviews the job seeker, or even after the job seeker is hired. By the time the potential employer discovers the inaccuracy, considerable time and effort has been wasted.
In employment systems in which potential employers post available positions, potential employers are often inundated with resumes from unqualified job seekers. Some job seekers submit their resume to any position they find desirable, regardless of whether they meet any specified required qualifications on the hope that they will either be the most qualified applicant or that they will be qualified enough to get an interview and perhaps gain employment as a result.
Because unqualified job seekers submit their resumes, potential employers must sift through the submitted resumes to find the qualified applicants, which is an inefficient use of their time. Further, if the ratio of resumes from qualified applications to resumes from unqualified applicants becomes small, the potential employer may disregard all resumes from the employment system and discontinue further use of the employment system.
Another inefficiency of many employment systems is that they do not offer guidance to both job seekers and potential employers on improving their use of the employment system. As a result, an employer may be unaware that a much broader pool of qualified job seekers may be available if some conditions of the position were altered. Similarly, a job seeker may be unaware that a broader pool of positions may be available if they alter the conditions of their job search.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
In one embodiment of the present invention, a match-based employment system and method of operation are provided. The match-based employment system collects a plurality of employer seeker and employee seeker profiles, bi-directionally matches the employer seeker and said employee seeker profiles and displays at least a portion of the results to an employer seeker or an employee seeker. The match-based employment system can also order the bi-directional matching results based on a bi-directional match score and display the bi-directional matching results according to the ordering. The match-based employment system can also perform the matching such that approximately 70% of a matching score depends upon the quality of the match between employee seeker desires and employment seeker attributes and approximately 30% of the matching score depends upon the quality of the match between employment seeker desires and employee seeker attributes.
In another embodiment, an employment system is provided. The employment system enables a user to specify a first comparison condition and determines a first group from a plurality of entities, wherein the first group satisfies the first comparison condition. The employment system also determines a second comparison condition, wherein the second comparison condition is the result of modifying a comparison condition field of the first comparison condition and determines a second group of entities, wherein the second group satisfies the second comparison condition, wherein at least one member of the second group is not also in the first group. Further, the employment system displays information about the first and second groups at least partly concurrently.
Additional features and advantages of the present invention are described in, and will be apparent from, the following Detailed Description of the Invention and the figures.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
FIG. 1 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for matching employment seekers with positions in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for an employment seeker to seek to fill a position in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for factoring attribute recency when matching in an employment system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 4 is a flow diagram of a preferred process of providing feedback to system users in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 5 is a diagram of different search results, such as the results generated by the process of FIG. 4, displayed in parallel lines in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 6 is a diagram of different search results, such as the results generated by the process of FIG. 4, displayed in intersecting lines in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of a preferred matching process in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an attribute unit in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 9 is a preferred process for entering an attribute unit, in particular a work unit, in accordance with the present invention.
FIG. 10 is the process of brokering user profile in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 11 is a preferred process for providing feedback about removal from a favorites list in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 12 is a diagram of a graphical depiction of the strength of components of a match score in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 13 is a diagram of multiple graphical depictions, such as the one in FIG. 12, being displayed concurrently in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 14 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for obtaining contact information for a shy seeker in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 15 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for entry of employee seeker desires in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 16 is a flow diagram of a preferred process for managing an employment system human resources information database in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 17 is a diagram of different search results, such as the results generated by the process of FIG. 4, displayed in parallel lines with larger values corresponding to larger circles in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 18 is a block diagram of a general purpose computer for use in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Match-Based Employment System Overview
Referring now to FIGS. 1-18, in one embodiment of the present invention, a match-based employment system is provided. FIG. 1 shows a preferred process for matching employment seekers with positions. Preferably, at step 100 , an employment seeker (i.e., a system user searching for a full or part time job, independent contractor position, volunteer position, etc.) enters relevant qualifications information (e.g., skills, experience, education, etc.) by entering one or more attribute units; however relevant qualifications information can be entered into fields in any suitable manner. Similarly, at step 105 , the employment seeker preferably enters attributes that the employment seeker desires in a potential position. It should be noted that steps 100 and 105 can be performed in any order, including simultaneously.
At step 110 , an employee seeker (i.e., a system user searching for an employment seeker to fill a job/position) enters relevant information about itself and a position as well as attributes the employee seeker desires in a good match for the position. Then, at step 115 , a matching system compares the attributes desired by the employment seeker with the open positions on the system to generate a match level for each position for the employment seeker.
Next, at step 120 , the match results are presented to the employment seeker. Preferably, only positions with a match level that satisfies a threshold condition are presented to the employment seeker. Alternatively, a specified number of positions are presented to the employment seeker at one time, ranked by match level and with the highest ranking positions being presented first. It should be noted that matching results can be presented to the employment seeker in any suitable manner.
At step 125 , the matching system also compares the attributes desired by the employee seeker with attributes of the employment seekers on the system to generate a match level for each employment seeker for the position. Preferably, the comparison of steps 115 and 125 are performed simultaneously and return the same value to both the employment seeker and the employee seeker for a pairing of employment seeker and job opening (i.e., two-way matching); however, the comparisons can be performed in any suitable order and the results from one comparison can be used to modify the results of the other comparison.
Then, at step 130 , the match results are presented to the employee seeker. Preferably, only employment seekers with a match level that satisfies a threshold condition are presented to the employee seeker. Alternatively, a specified number of employment seekers are presented to the employee seeker at one time, ranked by match level and with the highest ranking employment seekers being presented first. It should be noted that matching results can be presented to the employee seeker in any suitable manner.
FIG. 2 shows a preferred process for an employment seeker to seek to fill a position; however other suitable processes can be followed. Instead of submitting a resume when interested in a position as is common in traditional employment systems, employment seekers can indicate their interest in positions presented to them. After matching results are presented to an employment seeker, at step 200 , an employment seeker indicates his or her interest in one or more of the positions that are presented to the employment seeker (e.g., the match results of step 120 . At step 205 , it is determined whether the employment seeker is displayed to the employer seeker for the indicated position. Preferably, the employment seeker is displayed to the employee seeker if the employment seeker is one of the top matches for a position and the match is strong enough to satisfy the threshold condition; however the employment seeker can be displayed to the employee seeker under any other suitable conditions. Similarly, the employment seeker is preferably not displayed to the employee seeker if the employment seeker is not one of the top matches, the match is not strong enough to satisfy a threshold condition, or any other suitable reason for the employment seeker to not be displayed.
If the employment seeker is displayed, at step 210 , the employment seeker's interest is also displayed to the employee seeker. Then, the employee seeker determines whether it is interested in the employment seeker at step 215 . It should be noted that the employment seeker's interest is not necessarily displayed to the employee seeker before step 215 or at any other time. If the employee seeker is interested in the employment seeker, preferably the employee seeker initiates contact with the employment seeker at step 220 ; however any suitable process for initiating contact (e.g., the employee seeker indicating interest, paying a fee and then being put into contact with the employment seeker or any other suitable process) can be followed. If the employee seeker is not interested in the employment system, preferably, at step 225 , the employee seeker indicates its disinterest and the employment seeker is notified; however, it is not necessary for the employee seeker to indicate disinterest or for the employment seeker to be notified. The employee seeker can remove an employment seeker from its display, ignore the employment seeker, fill the position without reviewing the employment seeker, or take any other suitable action. Further, the employment seeker may be notified that a position is filled, notified when an amount of time following his or her indication of interest has passed, notified of changes in the position, provided with no notice at all, or provided any other suitable notice.
If the employment seeker is not displayed to the employer seeker, at step 230 , the employee seeker remains unaware of the employment seeker's interest. Thus, unqualified employment seekers (e.g., those whose match scores rank low and/or do not match strongly enough to satisfy a threshold condition) are not displayed to employee seekers, and the employee seeker's time and effort is not spent weeding out interested, but unqualified, employment seekers.
Preferably, changes to an employment seeker's attributes and/or a position are not tracked; however, such changes can be tracked, if desired. In an example embodiment, changes to an employment seeker's attributes are recorded, and when an employment seeker is displayed to an employee seeker for a position, the employee seeker is also able to view changes the employment seeker made to his or her attributes. Since an employment seeker can be tempted to exaggerate attributes when few employee seekers are interested, the tracked changes can provide employee seekers with an indication that some attributes may be inaccurate or exaggerated. Similarly, in another example embodiment, changes to a position are recorded and presented to an employment seeker when the employment seeker views the position.
Preferably, the recency of attributes (e.g., work or skill experience) is taken into consideration during matching without the need for an employee seeker or employment seeker to specify a desired recency value; however, the recency of attributes can be taken into consideration during matching or excluded from consideration in any suitable manner. In one embodiment, matching calculations automatically account for recency by weighing more recent attributes differently than older attributes. For example, a year's experience of C++ programming may be weighted 100% if it was during the past year, 90% if it was a year old, 80% if two years old, 70% if three years old, and so on. The relationship between the weight of an attribute and the attribute's recency can be expressed by any suitable function and preferably will not result in any recency value being associated with a negative weight (e.g., in the progression described above, anything over nine years old would still be weighted 10% or 0% or any other suitable non-negative percentage); however the relationship between recency and weight can be any suitable continuous or discontinuous function.
FIG. 3 shows a preferred process for factoring attribute recency when matching in an employment system; however, any suitable process can be used. At step 300 , employment seekers enter their attributes into the system. The attributes are associated with one or more fixed times or time periods. For example, some employment seeker may have experience programming in Perl from June of 1997 to December of 2003 and from November of 2004 to January of 2005. At step 305 , an employee seeker enters a desired value or amount associated with a particular attribute for an open position. For example, the employee seeker can specify that 5 years of experience programming in Perl is desired for a Senior Perl Programmer position. It should be noted that steps 300 and 305 can occur in any order or simultaneously and can be repeated.
At step 310 , the desired value associated with a particular attribute is modified to account for recency. Preferably, the resulting modified value is equal to the value derived by adjusting the attributes of a hypothetical employment seeker who has the desired amount of that attribute continuously up to the current date for recency; however, any suitable modification can be made. For example, a hypothetical employment seeker who has programmed Perl for the most recent five years would have the most recent year counted as 1 year of experience, the year before that as 0.9 years of experience, and 0.8, 0.7 and 0.6 years of experience for the three years before that, respectively. Thus, the total recency-adjusted value of the hypothetical employment seeker's Perl programming experience is 1+0.9+0.8+0.7+0.6, or 4.0 years of Perl programming experience. As a result, when the employee seeker's desire for 5 years of Perl programming experience is modified to account for recency, it becomes 4 years of Perl programming experience.
At step 315 , the attribute values entered in step 300 are adjusted for recency. For example, in the case of the employment seeker discussed above who had experience programming in Perl from June of 1997 to December of 2003 and from November of 2004 to January of 2005, assuming it is now March of 2005, the November 2004 to January 2005 experience counts as 0.25 years. The March 2003 to December 2003 experience counts as 0.675 years (i.e., 90% of 0.75 years). Similarly, March 2002 to February 2003 counts as 0.8 years, March 2001 to February 2002 counts as 0.7 years, March 2000 to February 2001 counts as 0.6 years, March of 1999 to February 2000 counts as 0.5 years, March 1998 to February 1999 counts as 0.4 years and June 1997 to February 1998 counts as 0.225 years (i.e., 30% of 0.75 years). As a result, the employment seeker has 0.25+0.675+0.8+0.7+0.6+0.5+0.4+0.225=4.15 years of recency-adjusted Perl programming experience.
At step 320 , the recency-adjusted desired attribute values for employee seekers are matched with the recency-adjusted attribute values of employment seekers. Continuing the examples above, the employee seeker's recency-adjusted desired Perl programming experience value of four years would be satisfied by the employment seeker's recency-adjusted Perl programming experience of 4.15 years. However, the effect of recency becomes clearer when observing that had the employment seeker not programmed in Perl from November 2004 to January 2005, the employment seeker's Perl programming experience would not be sufficient to satisfy the employee seeker's experience desires even though the employment seeker had over five years of Perl programming experience earlier in his or her career. The recency adjustments of the above examples are for illustrative purposes, and it should be noted that any other suitable adjustments can be made.
Preferably, an employee seeker and/or employment seeker does not need to specify any recency value or calculation and recency is automatically factored into matches; however, in various embodiments an employee seeker and/or employment seeker can specify a recency value or calculation or manually cause recency to be factored into matches in any suitable manner, or recency can not be factored into matches. In one embodiment, an employee seeker can specify a desired attribute and a desired recency for the attribute. For example, an employee seeker may specify that a good candidate for a position will have at least three years of C++ experience within the last 7 years. Similarly, in another embodiment, an employment seeker may specify a recency condition for a desired position. For example, an employment seeker may desire that the position be with a relatively new company and could specify that the company be one that started within the past three years. Alternatively, the employment seeker may desire a company with a mature casual dress code and could require that the initiation of the casual dress code be no more recent than the last 5 years.
Preferably, the match-based employment system does not make individually determined recommendations for changes to employee seeker, position and/or employment seeker attributes; however, an alternative match-based employment system can provide individually determined change recommendations to employee seeker, position and/or employment seeker attributes or any other suitable user-controlled data. For example, the alternative match-based employment system can periodically and/or occasionally prompt a seeker to provide additional and/or alternative information, thus improving the seeker's use of the system. Specifically, for an employee seeker that has failed to provide dress code information for a position and is offering $50,000 in compensation, the match-based employment system can prompt the employee seeker to enter dress code information to potentially improve match scores. The alternative match-based employment system can also determine that employment seekers (who possess the attributes desired by the employee seeker) specify an average desired compensation of $100,000 and/or that employment seekers with the specified skills have accepted positions offering an average of $80,000 in desired compensation. The information is provided to the employee seeker, and the employee seeker is given the opportunity to alter his or her match profile for the position.
Similarly, for an employment seeker who has entered several programming-related skills, but not some others that the system has determined are frequently associated with one or more of the entered skills and who is seeking $80,000 in compensation, the alternative match-based employment system can prompt the employment seeker to provide the missing associated skills to potentially improve match scores. The alternative match-based employment system can also determine that recently filled positions that possess the attributes desired by the employment seeker had a compensation level of only $65,000. The information is provided to the employment seeker, and the employment seeker is given the opportunity to alter his or her match profile.
Preferably, the match-based employment system supplies feedback to users to provide them with information on how their matching results would change if they changed their own attributes and/or their desired attributes; however, the match-based employment system can provide other suitable kinds of feedback or no feedback at all. FIG. 4 shows a preferred process of providing feedback to system users; however, feedback can be provided by any other suitable process. The system alters one or more attributes of the matching profile for a user and generates alternative matching results for the altered profile. At step 400 , the system determines the attributes that will be altered. It is preferred that the system determine the attributes to be altered at one time; however, the system can determine the attributes individually and at any suitable time during the feedback process or in any other suitable manner.
At step 405 , the system selects an attribute that has not yet been altered. At step 410 , the attribute is altered. The attribute can be altered by adding or subtracting a value, multiplying or dividing by a value, applying a function, selecting fixed points on a scale of possible values for that attribute, entirely or partly randomly or pseudo-randomly, or in any other suitable manner. At step 415 , the matching profile with the altered attribute is matched by the system. At step 420 , an indicator of the quantity and/or quality of the matching results for the altered profile is recorded. Preferably, the indicator is the number of results that have a matching value greater than a threshold value; however, the indicator can be any suitable indication of match result quantity and/or quality.
At step 425 , it is determined whether the selected attribute is to be altered and matched again. If the selected attribute is to be altered and matched again, the process repeats at step 410 . If not, at step 430 , it is determined whether another attribute is to be altered and matched. If another attribute is to be altered and matched, the process repeats at step 405 . If not, at step 435 , the recorded indicators are displayed to the user.
FIGS. 5 and 6 show preferred display configurations of feedback provided by the process of FIG. 4; however, the feedback can be displayed in any suitable configuration. The displays are based on a hypothetical employment seeker who, in addition to having other attributes, desires a casual work environment within twenty miles of his home that pays $100,000 a year. Based upon those attributes, the system in the hypothetical example generates five results that satisfy a threshold matching level. The system then generates an alternative matching profile in which all attributes are the same except that the work environment is casual only on Fridays. That alternative matching profile results in ten matches that satisfy the threshold. Similarly, a matching for which the desired distance is five miles yields one match, and when the desired distance is forty miles, the system yields thirty matches. Further, a desired compensation level of $75,000 yields fifteen matches, and a desired compensation level of $150,000 yields zero matches. As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, Each of these alternative matching profile results are presented to the employment seeker by displaying the attribute alteration (i.e., the difference between the matching profile entered by the employment seeker and the alternative matching profile) and the number of matches the alternative matching profile would generate.
In FIG. 5, the user entered a matching profile and two alternative matching profiles generated by altering the same attribute are displayed co-linearly, and a separate, non-intersecting line is displayed for each altered attribute. Thus, line 500 displays the results of modifying the work attire attribute, line 502 displays the results of modifying the distance attribute and line 504 displays the results of modifying the desired contribution level attribute. The indication of results for the unaltered matching profile 506 is displayed on line 500 , line 502 and line 504 . Similarly, indications of results for altered matching profiles 508 are also displayed on line 500 , line 502 and line 504 .
As shown in FIG. 6, when multiple attributes are modified to produce multiple alternative matching profiles, alternative matching profiles based upon the same attribute being modified can be displayed co-linearly, such that the user entered matching profile is a common intersection point for the different co-linearly displayed matching profiles. Thus, line 500 , line 502 and line 504 are arranged such that they intersect at the results indication for the unaltered matching profile 506 , creating a star or asterisk shaped display. The display of FIG. 6 can have the advantage over the display of FIG. 5 of being more compact; however, the display of FIG. 5 may be easier to read when a large number of attributes are altered. It should be noted that feedback can also be displayed using a combination of the displays of FIGS. 5 and 6 or any other suitable display configuration.
In one alternative embodiment, human resources information is determined or mined from the employment system's activity and/or a database of transactions or other suitable data based on the employment system's activity (e.g., positions being filled by employment seekers, position and employment seeker match profiles, etc.) and made available to the employment system's users. For example, system users can determine which employee seekers, or which type of employee seekers (e.g., web-based programming consultant firms, Fortune 500 companies, Pharmaceutical companies, political consultants, etc.), are hiring, which regions (e.g., Southern States, Chicago-area, Alaska, etc.) or fields (e.g., JAVA programming, truck driving, security, toxic mold litigation, etc.) are hiring, what compensation rates are being offered, the common attributes of employment seekers that are being hired (e.g., education level, certificates held, age, experience level, desired compensation level, etc.), the common attributes of employee seekers and/or positions that are generating interest (e.g., benefits, work environment, compensation level, type of work, etc.), the compensation level being sought by employment seekers with particular skills, or any other suitable information. System users can use the human resources information when generating their own matching profiles, when deciding whether to modify their matching profile, when just investigating the marketplace, or for any other suitable reason. Users can mine or query the human resources information by constructing custom database queries (e.g., an SQL query), using standard, system-provided queries, using query wizards or in any other suitable manner. If desired, the queries can be read-only; thus, preventing a user from altering the information stored in the database.
Preferably, matching is performed by a matching engine on one or more servers; however, matching can be performed by any suitable custom matching engine, suitable commercially available matching engine, or by any other suitable mechanism. As shown in FIG. 7, a matching engine compares matching profiles, attribute/field by attribute/field to determine a matching value for the profiles. Each attribute or field of a profile is compared with a corresponding attribute or field in another to determine how well the two match. Using compensation level as an example, the compensation level specified by an employment seeker could be $100,000 while the compensation level specified by the position is $50,000. When comparing the two, the match engine can assign a value of 0 to indicate it is not an exact match (returning 1 only when the values match exactly or within some threshold error). Alternatively, the matching engine can not assign values in an all-or-nothing manner and assign a value of 0.5 to indicate that the offered compensation is only half of the desired compensation. Similarly, if the position offered $135,000, the matching engine can assign a value of 1 to indicate the offer meets or exceeds the desire, 1.35 to indicate by how much the offer exceeds the desire, or any other suitable value assignment.
The determination process can be the same for each attribute pair; however the determination process can also vary from one pair of attributes to another pair. For example, the matching engine may assign values in an all-or-nothing manner for work attire preferences, but assign values in a percentage satisfaction manner for salary and distance from a location. In the matching process shown in FIG. 7, the matching engine is supplied with not just attribute values, but also information on how to perform comparisons. At step 700 , a list of attributes from two profiles are provided to the engine along with information on how to perform individual attribute comparisons. It should be noted that the information on how to perform individual attribute comparisons could alternatively be programmed into the engine, provided at a different time than profile information, or provided in any other suitable manner. At step 705 , each attribute from the first profile is compared with its corresponding attribute in the second profile and the comparison produces a value in accordance with the information on how to perform that particular individual attribute comparison. Preferably, if an attribute is not provided, the comparison produces a value of zero; however, the matching engine can produce any suitable value.
At step 710 , each value is weighted. Preferably, each attribute is associated with a weight value that is multiplied by the value generated in step 705 ; however, weighting can be accomplished by any other suitable weighting process or formula. At step 715 , the weighted values are combined to produce a combined value. Preferably, the weighted values are combined by summing all of the weighted values; however, the weighted values can be combined by multiplying the weighted values together or any other suitable process or formula. Preferably, the combined value is scaled to a range of 0 to 100% to produce a match score or value, with 100% being an ideal match on each attribute; however, the combined value can be scaled to any suitable range, including ranges with maxima in excess of 100%. Further, the combined value can be the match score or value without scaling, or any other suitable operation can be performed on the combined value to produce the matching score or value.
Employment seeker Match Profile Collection and Management
In one embodiment, an employment seeker match profile comprises an employment seeker background profile and an employment seeker preference profile. Preferably, the match-based employment system enables the collection of background profile information and one preference profile; however, an alternative match-based employment system can enable collection of more than one preference profile, more than one background profile, or any other suitable information. In such an alternative match-based employment system, a template for generating additional profiles can be based upon an existing preference profile.
Preferably, the match-based employment system enables editing and/or deletion of existing preference profiles and/or background profiles; however, editing or deletion of preference profiles or background profiled can be disallowed, if desired. An audit trail (e.g., which element was changed, old value, date changed) is preferably not generated or stored; however, an audit trail for background data changes or preference data changes can be generated, stored and made available to employee seekers viewing the employment seeker's details. The audit trail can provide an indication to employee seekers when an employment seeker may be exaggerating about his or her background. If desired, no audit trail is maintained when missing data is supplied, under the assumption that such data is less likely to be exaggerated.
Preferably, the match-based employment system prompts a user to enter a majority or substantially all of the user's information before any matching results are presented to the user; however, an alternative match-based employment system can present initial matching results to a user after the user enters only a subset of the user's information or at any other suitable point in the information gathering process. The alternative system can prompt the user to enter missing criteria throughout the remainder of the user experience.
Preferably, one or more attributes included in the matching criteria are provided by entering an attribute unit; however, attributes can be provided in any suitable manner. As depicted in FIG. 8, an attribute unit 800 is comprised of a duration 802 and one or more attributes 804 associated with that duration 802 . It should be noted that the graphical representation of an attribute unit 800 in FIG. 8 is intended only to illustrate the concept and that attribute unit 800 can be represented virtually using a table, a structure, an array, an object, a class, or any other suitable virtual representation. An attribute associated with a duration may be associated with a portion of the duration (e.g., 10%) or the entire duration.
Types of attribute unit include, but are not limited to, work units or employment attribute units (e.g., employment skill units and/or employment exposure skill units), educational background units and status units.
In one embodiment, employment seekers enter their work experience in work units (i.e., blocks of time that represent a particular job or assignment wherein the employment seeker applied a set of skills and held a particular title and had a particular set of responsibilities). For example, an employment seeker who worked as a sales representative for four years at IBM and then worked as a manager at IBM for four more years may enter two work units, one for the sales representative experience and one for the manager position experience. Within each work unit, employment seekers apportion how much of their time at the position represented by the work unit that they spent on each skill therein (i.e., C++ 90%, Java 10%, Internet applications 45%, game platforms 68%, operating systems 5%, PDA applications 15%, etc.).
A preferred process for entering an attribute unit, in particular a work unit, is shown in FIG. 9; however, an attribute unit can be entered in any suitable manner. At step 900 , a time period is entered. The time period is preferably entered by specifying a beginning point (e.g., a specific date, a year and month, etc.) and an ending point (e.g., specific date, year and month, current/present, etc.); however, the time period can be entered in any suitable manner. At step 910 , an identifier for the unit is entered. Preferably, the identifier is a combination of an organization (e.g., an employer) and a descriptor (e.g., a job title); however, the identifier can be any suitable identifier for distinguishing the unit from other units. Preferably, an indication of whether the unit involved management activities and, if so, an indication of the quantity, quality or character of the management activities are also entered; however, it is not necessary to enable entry of this information.
At step 920 , a high level skill set is selected. Preferably, the high level skill sets are categorized by industry, wherein the skills in a high level skill set are the skills associated with that industry; however, the high level skill sets can be categorized in any other suitable manner. Preferably, the high level skill sets include one or more skills; however, the high level skill set can also, or instead, include a trait of the unit (e.g., the industry to which the unit relates). Also, when the high level skill sets include one or more skills, those skills are preferably organized hierarchically; however, the skills can be organized in non-hierarchically or in any other suitable manner.
At step 930 , a flavor bucket is selected. Preferably, the flavor bucket is part of the top level of a hierarchy of skills in the high level skill set; however, the flavor bucket could be any suitable set of skills. Also, the flavor bucket is preferably associated with a profession, wherein the skills associated with that profession are included in the flavor bucket; however, the flavor bucket can be associated with any other suitable categorization of skills.
At step 940 , the skills associated with the flavor bucket are displayed. Preferably, the skills are organized hierarchically; however, the skills can be organized non-hierarchically or in any other suitable manner. At step 950 , the skills to be associated with the unit are selected. If the skills are organized hierarchically, it is beneficial for the user to enter as specific of skills (i.e., low on the hierarchy) as possible because when matching is performed, if the unit's skill is included in the hierarchy below the desired skill, preferably, the desired skill is met. However, if the unit's skill is above the desired skill in the hierarchy, the desired skill is preferably not met. However, the effect of the hierarchy on matching can follow any suitable protocol.
Preferably, a user can search for a skill to associate with the unit outside of the high level skill set and/or flavor bucket; however, employment systems can disable searching for skills outside of the high level skill set and/or flavor bucket. Thus, if a user misjudges the hierarchy, he or she can still find the appropriate skill for the unit if it is available.
At step 960 , the user assigns weights to one or more of the selected skills. Preferably, the user has a limited number of points (e.g., 10) to apportion between the skills; however, the weights can be assigned in any other suitable manner. If the user does not apportion any points to a skill, that skill is preferably not considered in the matching calculations, but is still visible to potential matches viewing the user's profile. However, skills that are not apportioned any points can be included in the matching calculations in any suitable manner.
Preferably, the user can also associate other information (e.g., text) with the unit that is not used in the matching calculations; however, employment systems are not required to enable users to associate such information with the unit.
A work unit may be independent of any particular position. For example, an employment seeker who worked as a programmer for four years, but who spent two years of that time devoted to one project, one month in an intensive training program, and the remainder of the time working on various different projects may enter one work unit for the two year project, one work unit for the training month, and one or more work units for the remainder of the time.
Preferably, the recency of an attribute is figured into the match calculation in the manner described above; however, recency can be figured into the match calculation in any suitable manner. For example, a duration can be recorded for a attribute unit (e.g., a work unit) as part of the attribute unit's creation. A duration can be entered indirectly by specifying a beginning and ending date. Alternatively, a duration can be entered directly and may be accompanied by either a beginning or ending date. The recency of a skill can be determined by comparing the time period of an attribute unit with another duration that ends at the present time. For example, an attribute unit having a duration of two years beginning five years ago and ending three years ago would be counted as recent in its entirety if a recency requirement is “within five years.” However, only the most recent one year of the same attribute unit would be counted as recent if the recency requirement is “within four years.”
Preferably, employment seekers are not able to specify an importance level for their attributes; however, if desired, an employment system can enable employment seekers to specify an importance level for their attributes. Such an importance level can be used when associating employment seekers and employee seekers to enable an employment seeker to emphasis or de-emphasis any of their attributes. Thus, a programmer who has five years of Cobol experience but does not wish to use Cobol in any new position can specify a low importance level to the Cobol experience. As a result, that programmer will match better to open jobs that require some Cobol experience than if the programmer left that experience out of his profile. At the same time, that experience will be de-emphasized so that his match results are not dominated by his Cobol experience. Similarly, an attorney with experience in patent interference matters and who is more interested in positions that involve that area of the law than any other area can specify a high importance level to the patent interference experience.
Preferably, employment seekers are not able to enter and/or match upon exposure skills (i.e., skills seekers have picked up over time but have not applied seriously in a professional capacity); however, if desired, and employment system can enable employment seekers to enter exposure skills in employment exposure skills units. For matching purposes the duration of an employment exposure skill unit is a time period less than or equal to the smallest granularity for job-related work units. Thus, the weighing of employment exposure skills tend to be small when associating employment seekers and employee seekers. The recency of these exposure skills can vary or can be assigned a fixed value (e.g., now or current).
Preferably, employment seekers enter their education history in the form of a list of one or more degrees/diplomas received. For each entry, employment seekers can preferably specify the type of diploma, the issuing institution, the date received and/or a description of the educational experience; however, if desired the employment system can enable employment seekers to specify any other suitable information. Preferably, the description of the educational experience is not used to associate employment seekers with employee seekers; however, the educational experience can be part of the matching calculation in any suitable manner. Preferably, the description is displayed to employee seekers who match with the employment seeker. Preferably, educational degrees/diplomas/certificates are ordered, and the highest ordered educational entry for an employment seeker is used as the “highest degree attained” education attribute when associating employment seekers and employee seekers; however, education history information need not be ordered and can be figured into the match calculation in any suitable manner.
Alternatively, employment seekers can enter their education history using educational background units in a manner similar to entry of employment history in work units. Educational history units can correspond to the duration of a degree program, a semester or quarter of a degree program, individual courses, and/or units of courses. Attributes included in educational background units can include subjects or skills taught, project types, degrees or certificates earned, evaluation of performances, etc.
Preferably, a brokerage of user background details and preference profile is maintained (e.g., as part of one or more match-based employment systems or as a separate, dedicated system). As employment seekers or employee seekers move from one match-based employment system site to another, it is determined (e.g., via cookie, etc.) whether they have background data and/or matching profiles available in the brokerage. If such data is present in the brokerage, the seeker is able to transfer their information to the new site. Thus, seekers are spared the need to re-enter data. Preferably, the transfer is automatic; however, the transfer could require the user to acknowledge the transfer or be performed in any other suitable manner. Preferably, changes to background data and/or other seeker information on any site is propagated to all sites.
FIG. 10 shows the process of brokering user profile in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. At step 1000 , a user enters a profile (i.e., background/attribute information and preferences) on a match-based employment system. At step 1010 , the user is provided with a means for indicating that he or she has created a profile. Preferably, the means is a cookie that includes information about upon which match-based employment system the profile was created; however, the means can be a user identifier, a match-based employment system identifier or any other suitable means. At step 1020 , the user visits a second match-based employment system. At step 1030 , the second match-based employment system is provided with an indication that the user created a profile on another match-based employment system. At step 1040 , the second match-based employment system retrieves the user's profile.
Alternatively, match-based employment systems can interact to perform the function of the brokerage without the need for a separate, dedicated brokerage. For example, when a user visits a site for the first time, there may be an indication (e.g., a cookie or input from the user) that the user has a profile at another match-based site. The profile can then be retrieved from that site. Alternatively, after the site collects sufficient identifying information, it can query other match-based sites to determine whether any of them contain a profile for the user. Preferably, both background information (e.g., attribute units) and preference profiles (i.e., attributes of a desired position, employer or employee) are brokered; however, if desired, only one or the other can be brokered.
Preferably, a seeker is prompted to enter a substantial amount of information before any matching occurs; however, matching can be performed after the seeker enters a minimal amount of data or at any other suitable time. For example, a seeker's (either employment seeker or employee seeker) profile (i.e., background and preferences) can be entered and/or edited iteratively. After matching is performed, the seeker can be prompted to provide additional information or alter existing information in response to various conditions. For example, an employment seeker may not match well with any position displayed to him or her, causing the system to prompt the user to enter missing attributes that might improve the employment seeker's match level for the positions. Alternatively, an employment seeker may match well with a position, but the position is not displayed to the employment seeker because of his or her preferences, causing the system to prompt the employment seeker to augment or modify his or her preferences. Answering iterative data collection questions causes the search/match results to be quickly updated to reflect the new match criteria.
Preferably, seekers (employee seekers or employment seekers) can specify an importance level only for the preferences that they enter (i.e., what they desire in a match; not their own attributes); however, if desired, an employment system can enable seekers to specify an importance level to any match criteria that they enter. The importance level may default to a some value (e.g., a neutral value), thus making it unnecessary for a seeker to enter the importance level for every match criteria. However, if a seeker wishes to raise or lower the relative importance of any criterion in the match, he or she may do so. Preferably, seekers are able to specify importance levels using five levels of granularity for importance; however, any suitable granularity can be used. For example, the granularity of the importance scale can be limited only by the granularity to which the system can differentiate values.
Preferably, the importance weighting acts to adjust the relative importance of the criteria. As a result, marking each criteria as having the highest importance will have the same effect on the match scores as marking each criteria as having the lowest importance. However, if desired, the importance weighting can have an absolute effect on the matching scores (i.e., marking all criteria as having the highest importance will have a different effect on the match scores than marking each criteria as having the lowest importance).
Preferably, an employment seeker is not able to weigh positions by which company is offering the job; however, if desired, an employment system can enable an employment seeker to weigh positions by what company is offering the job. In such a system, if an employment seeker has a strong desire to work for a specific company, that company can be specified as part of the preference information with a high importance weighting. Alternatively, if an employment seeker has a strong desire to not work for a specific company, the company can be specified as part of the preference information with a “not” indication and/or a strongly negative/adverse/anchoring importance level. A hierarchy of company information can be maintained to track which companies are related by being subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, parents, etc.
Seeker Match Execution and Results
Preferably, employment seeker can have only one preference profile and employee seekers can have only one preference profile for each position being offered; however, if desired, seekers (employee seekers or employment seekers) can have more than one preference profile (i.e., the set of attributes they are seeking). In such systems, when a seeker who has more than one profile views matches, the system displays the match results for the current profile. However, seekers may view match results for any of their preference profiles. Similarly, when an employee seeker views a matching employment seeker who has multiple preference profiles, the matching employment seeker is only displayed once in the result set (e.g., for the best matching score for that employment seeker's profiles).
For employment seekers, match results can contain the company name (perhaps being the most prominently displayed element), the position location, position title, the match element contributing the most to the overall score and/or any other suitable information. In embodiments in which the match-based employment system is controlled by or contains only one employee seeker, the results can emphasize an element other than the company name (e.g., department or job title).
In one embodiment, whenever search/match results are visible on the screen, the match criteria used to produce the results are also displayed; however, the match-based employment systems are not required to enable display of match criteria simultaneously with match results. The match criteria can be arranged to indicate whether they are background or preference profile information. Alternatively, the matching criteria can be arranged to indicate whether they are company or current position profile information.
Preferably, for each match result displayed, the match-based employment system displays a score that reflects the quality/strength of the bi-directional match between the employment seeker and the position; however, a score reflecting a uni-directional match or any other suitable score can be displayed or the system can display no score, as desired. Preferably, the bi-directional match score is calculated such that how well the employment seeker meets the job's desires accounts for 70% of the score and how well the job meets the employment seeker's desires accounts for 30% of the score; however, the score calculation can use any suitable weighting of uni-directional matches. Preferably, the score is expressed as a percentage; however, the score can be expressed in any suitable manner.
Preferably, the match score is computed on the basis of all employee seeker criteria, regardless of whether the employment seeker has supplied answers/attributes specified by the employee seeker's preference criteria. Similarly, the match score is preferably computed on the basis of all employment seeker criteria, regardless of whether the employee seeker has supplied answers/attributes specified by the employment seeker's preference criteria. Preferably, such missing elements/attributes are scored as 0; however, the missing elements can be accounted for or left out of the matching calculation in any suitable manner.
In an alternative embodiment, seekers are able to provide feed back for a matching score. For example, a mechanism (e.g., a link, a button, etc.) is provided in the user interface of the match results listing to enable seekers to indicate that they disagree with the match score for a given listing. If a seeker believes that a match score is out of place (e.g., above or below what the seeker believes is a better candidate, or 100% when the match is not what the seeker envisioned, etc.), then the seeker can enter a dialog with the match-based employment system about the perceived mismatch.
The seeker is presented with a number of common reasons for the perceived mismatch (e.g., signal strength, in which case the system begins iterative data collection; or importance/recency weighting, in which case the system queries the seeker about which skills/attributes seem out of proportion and then collects appropriate weighting; or inappropriate expectations, in which case the system automatically performs additional matches based on alterations of the current matching criteria and provide information about the results and/or suggestions based on the additional matches to the seeker). In this manner, seekers can be prompted to enter importance/recency weighting when the seeker was not forced to enter it initially and/or without presenting the seeker with a large matrix of settings, etc.
Further, signal strength can be used in determining the priority of iterative data collection questions. For example, missing criteria/attributes that would likely have the greatest impact on the results (e.g., the match element question whose weight has the biggest potential sway on the match) can be asked first. Weights can be based on the seeker's industry.
Preferably, the user interface indicates the general quality of the match result set with visual cues; however, the interface is not required to indicate the quality of match results or can indicate the general quality in any suitable manner. For example, results with scores including and over a certain threshold (e.g., 90%) are bolded and/or highlighted, scores including and over another threshold (e.g., 60%) but below the higher threshold are in a normal style, and scores below that are grayed out or otherwise visually deemphasized.
Seeker Match Feedback
In an alternative embodiment, a visual indication is provided (e.g., on the match results display where the profile summary is displayed) of the completeness (i.e., signal strength) of the profile criteria. A separate indicator can be provided for the background and preference portions of the match profile. Alternatively, a separate indicator can be provided for the company and position portions of the match profile. The indicator indicates to the seeker that the current state of the match profile may be inadequate to provide accurate matches. Thus, poor scores may indicate incomplete data rather than a lack of good matches in the database. The weights used in the signal strength calculation can be based on the seeker's industry.
As described above and shown in FIGS. 4-6, a seeker is preferably able to view indications of the quality and/or quantity of match results for modifications of the specified match criteria. However, feedback of the quality and/or quantity of match results can be provided in any suitable manner. For example, the match-based employment system can provide a visual indication (e.g., a histogram, etc.) of how much of the candidate pool (i.e., possible matches) falls within reasonable matching bounds (e.g., within the current match profile or within some acceptable error/alterations of the current match profile) given the current match profile data. Thus, a seeker receives an indication of whether the current matching criteria are effectively limiting (i.e., neither too limiting nor insufficiently limiting) the result set.
Preferably, the match-based employment system queues and delivers messages and alerts to seekers; however, employment systems are not required to deliver such feedback. The messages and alerts are preferably accessible from the initial screen the seeker is provided upon logging into the system (e.g., via a web interface); however, the messages and alerts can be accessible in any suitable manner. Alerts can inform seekers of changes that occurred since the seeker's last login (e.g., new matches available, status of employer/seeker contact attempts, etc.). Further, new incoming alerts delivered to a seeker during a session can be revealed to the seeker no matter what page he or she is currently viewing.
Preferably, as shown in FIG. 11, when a seeker removes a possible match from the seeker's favorites list, the seeker is prompted to enter a reason for the removal (e.g., need to make space on favorites list, salary demand too high, better candidate appeared, etc.). At step 1100 , a seeker places a candidate on his or her favorites list. Preferably, the candidate is notified of being placed on the favorites list; however, the system is not required to notify the candidate of being placed on the favorites list. At step 1110 , the seeker removes the candidate from the favorite list. At step 1120 , the seeker is prompted to enter a reason for the removal. Preferably, the seeker is presented with a list of standard reasons; however, the seeker can be prompted to enter the reason in free text or in any other suitable manner. At step 1130 , the candidate is notified of the removal and provided with the reason.
Preferably, a periodic (e.g., weekly) e-mail similar communication is sent to seekers, containing a summary of the current information for a given profile (e.g., preference criteria, matches, etc.); however, an employment system is not required to send such a communication. The e-mail preferably contains a link which enables seekers to jump directly to match-based employment system's user interface for the seeker for more details; however the e-mail can contain any suitable information and is not required to contain a link. Preferably, an alert (e.g., an e-mail, an instant message, a phone call, a notice on the user interface login screen for a seeker, etc.) is sent to a seeker when candidates with a match score above a threshold have indicated interest in the seeker (or a position offered by the seeker). Preferably, the threshold is seeker-specified and/or seeker-adjustable; however, the threshold can be a fixed value set by the system or any other suitable value. Further, the default for the match-based employment system can be to not contact the seeker, requiring the seeker to specifically request being alerted before alerts are sent.
As shown in FIG. 12, a graphical depiction of the strength of components of the match score are preferably displayed when a user views a candidate; however, the graphical depiction can be displayed at any other suitable point or not at all, as desired. Components 1202 are displayed as wedges in a pie chart 1200 , with component strength being indicated by both the size of the wedge (i.e., the length of the radius) and a color or pattern. Matching elements can be grouped together into one component (e.g., Skills 1204 ); however, components can also be individual match criteria (e.g., Salary 1206 ). The components 1202 can also be displayed textually in a list 1208 , and preferably the text for each component appears over the color or pattern corresponding to that component's strength. Also, a legend 1210 is preferably provided to better quantify the strengths being indicated by wedge size and/or color or pattern.
Preferably, as shown in FIG. 13, seekers can compare candidates by displaying side-by-side information similar to the information displayed in FIG. 12 for two or more candidates. Preferably, information for a maximum of three candidates is displayed at one time; however, information for any suitable number of candidates can be displayed at one time. By presenting the information for the Software Engineer position 1300 , the Sr. Software Engineer position 1302 and the Lead Software Engineer position 1304 in this manner, the seeker can quickly perceive differences, if any, between the positions.
Seeker Keeper Management
Preferably, seekers (both employee seekers and employment seekers) indicate up to a fixed number of matches (e.g., 20) as keepers or favorites, thus, forming a favorites list (or keepers list); however, employment systems are not required to enable seekers to indicate favorites. Preferably, employee seekers have a favorites list for each of the positions posted by the employee seeker. The indicators, or bookmarks, help the seeker to remember the matches for future reference. Further, the seeker may enter and record notes for matches on the favorites list. In one embodiment, if a match is removed from a favorites list, any notes recorded by the seeker are lost.
If the seeker wishes to bookmark an additional match once the limit on favorites is reached, the seeker must first remove another match (e.g., a less desirable match) from their existing favorites list. Preferably, the favorites limit is configurable by the match-based employment system administrator; however, the favorites limit can be unconfigurable or configurable by any other suitable entity as desired.
In an alternative embodiment in which seekers can have multiple profiles, employment seekers are preferably limited to only one set of favorites, regardless of their number of profiles, to discourage/disable seekers from creating dummy profiles to get more favorites. Further, all favorites display the match score for each preference profile of the seeker. Thus, a seeker can easily compare a favorite's match score between various preference profiles.
Preferably, seekers can only indicate interest in matches that are first placed in their favorites list; however, if desired, the system can enable seekers to indicate interest in matches not on their favorites list. Thus, a seeker is limited in the number of matches for which it can show interest at any one time by the maximum number of favorites allowed on the favorites list.
When a match is removed from the favorites list, the seeker is preferably asked to provide feedback explaining the reason for removing the match (e.g., interest was not returned, space was needed for a better match, etc.) as discussed above. Similarly, if a match is removed from the system (e.g., the employee seeker unposts a position or indicates that job is now filled, the employment seeker accepts another job or ends his or her use of the system, etc.), all seekers who have the match in their favorites list are notified through the alert system. Further, the favorites slot occupied by the match is preferably automatically vacated.
Position Details and Application Process
Preferably, detailed information for a match is only one click (or enter or other input means) away from the displayed match results; however, detailed information can be any suitable number of clicks away from the displayed match results. For example, when an employment seeker is presented with matching positions, the employment seeker can click on a link for a position to retrieve additional details about the position such as the graphical information described above for FIG. 12.
Preferably, employee seekers are not e-mailed when an employment seeker indicates interest in a position posted by the employee seeker; however, if desired, employee seekers can be e-mailed when an employment seeker indicates interest in a position posted by the employee seeker. Preferably, the employment seeker shows up flagged as “interested” if they show up (i.e., are displayed) in the employee seeker's search/match results for that position. Thus, the system avoids the inefficiencies associated with sending notices and/or resumes to employee seekers when an employment seeker is interested. The employee seeker is no longer flooded with unqualified or lesser qualified applicant information. Further, wherever keepers are displayed for the employment seeker, keepers to which the seeker has indicated interest can be marked to so indicate.
Preferably, as shown in FIG. 14, the match-based employment system enables a seeker to enter a mode whereby a match (e.g., an employee seeker for a matching position or a matching employment seeker) must be authorized to view the seeker's contact information; however, employment systems are not required to provide a shy seeker option. At step 1400 , a seeker enters a shy seeker mode. At step 1410 , matching candidates are not able to view the seeker's contact information without the seeker's permission. At step 1420 , a matching candidate requests to view the seeker's contact information. At step 1430 , it is determined whether the seeker has indicated interest in the candidate. If the seeker has indicated interest in the candidate, at step 1440 , the candidate is provided with the seeker's contact information. If not, at step 1450 , the seeker is asked whether he or she grants permission to view the contact information to that candidate. If the seeker grants permission, the process continues at step 1440 . If not, at step 1460 , the candidate remains unable to view the seeker's contact information.
As a result, when an employment seeker (it is expected that shy seekers will typically be employment seekers rather than employee seekers) indicates interest in a position, preferably, this also authorizes the employee seeker that posted the position to view the employment seeker's contact information. If an employment seeker has not indicated interest in any open position posted by an employee seeker, that employee seeker must request authorization to view the employment seeker's contact info. The match-based employment system mediates the transaction, and contact information is only released to the employee seeker if the shy employment seeker (i.e., an employee seeker who does not want his identity and/or use of the system to be generally knowable) authorizes it. Thus, employment seekers can use the system with less fear of being discovered by their present employers.
Employee Seeker Match Profile Collection and Management
Employee seekers are able to create and edit a profile of their company and/or an available position. Preferably, there is only one company profile per employee seeker; however, an employment system can enable a company of have multiple profiles, if desired. The profile can include a breakdown of departments or divisions for which the human resources account (i.e., HR account) entering the profile has hiring oversight, and this information can be used in organizing position profiles.
Employee seekers are able to create, edit, and delete job match profiles. Each job match profile includes the matching criteria specific for the particular available position. Further, employee seekers can preferably create new job match profiles by duplicating existing profiles.
Preferably, an employee seeker enters a substantial amount of information before any matches are performed; however, an employment system can perform matches after an employee seeker