8. Could be related to an employment position
9. Could be related to a requirement
10. Could be related to an advertising campaign (which help wanted ad
brings in the most applicants?)
The list could go on...
-Adrian
On 7/27/2012 10:19 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
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
