For sure. These are all valid arguments for doing in-dept analysis on the effectiveness of the interviews (or surveys).
Nonetheless, how the interview was/is conducted (by phone, online, face-to-face or otherwise) are of less importance to the why of the interview. Also the same applies to the items 1,2, and 6. More important are elements are, obviously, who is the party that is executing the interview, who is interviews, what is the underpinning subject, what are the questions, the types of the questions, and the response. Also, who may see the survey (is it confidential, etc), who may see the outcome to do statistical analysis, who may access individual responses, etc., But I am wondering where the intention to change this comes from. 2012/7/27 Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> > Yes but Adrian has some points: > > > A job interview: >> >> 1. Has an estimated start time and end time >> 2. Has an actual start time and end time >> 3. Can be cancelled, postponed, or rescheduled >> 4. Includes a number of parties in various roles >> 5. includes a number of communication events >> 6. Has a location >> 7. Has a status (the outcome of the interview) >> > > 1+2) Time, duration, (both estimated and actual) > 3) status > 6) location, > 7) result > > It's not as simple as a phone call (which could though have also the same > attributes, but will then be a conf call) or mail exchange (etc.) > > Disclaimer: did not had a chance to check the data model nor re-read the > book at this stage > > Jacques > > From: "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > > Adrian, Hans, >> >> Thinking a bit more about the jobinterview, I would say that it a specific >> type of survey (like a customer satisfaction survey or employee >> satisfaction survey). For that, some functionalities are already available >> in the Content application/solution. >> >> But a jobinterview involves a higher level of privacy and security. >> >> Nonetheless, an interview (or a survey) is exchanging communications >> between multiple parties. >> >> My 2 cents. >> >> 2012/7/27 Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com**> >> >> Adrian, >>> >>> Just telling me it should stay, is not enough, you have to provide >>> reasoning for that. >>> >>> my opinion is that a job interview is just a communication event of the >>> new type 'Jobinterview' with the roles already there. A job interview can >>> then already relate to other communication events of type email or >>> others..... >>> >>> Hans >>> >>> >>> On 07/27/2012 01:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> >>> I agree that employee leave belongs in the Work Effort entities. >>>> >>>> The JobInterview entity should stay, but its model needs to be fixed. >>>> There should be a JobInterviewRole entity that connects the JobInterview >>>> with Party, then the jobIntervieweePartyId and jobInterviewerPartyId >>>> fields >>>> can be removed. We can also add a JobInterviewComm entity that connects >>>> JobInterview to communication events. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 7/27/2012 7:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> >>>> Replacing them with the indicated entities...... >>>>> >>>>> On 07/27/2012 12:27 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand the question. Are you proposing removing those >>>>>> entities? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/27/2012 4:42 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> we intend to reduce the number of entities in HR: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EmplLeave >>>>>>> EmplLeaveReasonType >>>>>>> EmplLeaveType -> workeffort+related-entities so it also appears on >>>>>>> the calendar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JobInterview >>>>>>> JobInterviewType -> communication event and related entities >>>>>>> >>>>>>> any comments or suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
