reduction of entities in HR
Locked
12
12
 
|
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 |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
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 > > > |
|
|
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 >> >> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
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 >>> >>> >>> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
Also, the PerformanceReview model needs to be fixed in the same way as
JobInterview - relate parties to it using an intersection entity. Taking it even further, JobInterview and PerformanceReview could be based on a more generic entity - something like PartyInterview, then each subtype can add its own properties. -Adrian On 7/27/2012 7:46 AM, 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication event.
-Adrian On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
|
|
I agree with Hans.
2012/7/27 Adrian Crum <[hidden email]> > I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication event. > > -Adrian > > > On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Adrian Crum-3
Adrian,
Since you still do not provide reasoning, let me explain a bit more to you. From the data model resource book volume 1 page 47: *A communication event records any type of contact between parties with a relationship for example,phonecalls, meetings, emails and so on.* Why does an interview not fit in this example list? Regards, Hans On 07/27/2012 02:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication event. > > -Adrian > > On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
A sales order includes products, but a sales order is not a product. A
job interview might include communication events, but a job interview is not a communication event. Using your logic, a sales order should be a communication event - because it records a contact between a buyer and a seller. If you don't understand the data model, then you shouldn't change it. -Adrian On 7/27/2012 8:22 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > Adrian, > > Since you still do not provide reasoning, let me explain a bit more to > you. > > From the data model resource book volume 1 page 47: > *A communication event records any type of contact between parties > with a relationship for example,phonecalls, meetings, emails and so on.* > > Why does an interview not fit in this example list? > > Regards, > Hans > > > On 07/27/2012 02:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication event. >> >> -Adrian >> >> On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > |
|
|
On 07/27/2012 02:33 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> A sales order includes products, but a sales order is not a product. A > job interview might include communication events, but a job interview > is not a communication event. > > Using your logic, a sales order should be a communication event - > because it records a contact between a buyer and a seller. > > If you don't understand the data model, then you shouldn't change it. > thank you Adrian, for the nice and polite conversation, this could be the reason we cannot get other committers than just framework programmers for whom the communication via this medium could be improved. First you do not not provide any reasoning and now you assume your knowledge is far superior.... if you think that an order and a product is similar to an interview and communication event, then i wonder who is understanding the data model..... sorry Adrian, not sound nice....... > -Adrian > > On 7/27/2012 8:22 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> Adrian, >> >> Since you still do not provide reasoning, let me explain a bit more >> to you. >> >> From the data model resource book volume 1 page 47: >> *A communication event records any type of contact between parties >> with a relationship for example,phonecalls, meetings, emails and so on.* >> >> Why does an interview not fit in this example list? >> >> Regards, >> Hans >> >> >> On 07/27/2012 02:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>> I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication event. >>> >>> -Adrian >>> >>> On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
Maybe you should follow the advice of Dirty Harry: "A man's gotta know
his limitations." 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) So, a job interview includes communication events, but it is not a communication event. If anything, it resembles a Work Effort. -Adrian On 7/27/2012 8:43 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > On 07/27/2012 02:33 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> A sales order includes products, but a sales order is not a product. >> A job interview might include communication events, but a job >> interview is not a communication event. >> >> Using your logic, a sales order should be a communication event - >> because it records a contact between a buyer and a seller. >> >> If you don't understand the data model, then you shouldn't change it. >> > thank you Adrian, for the nice and polite conversation, this could be > the reason we cannot get other committers than just framework > programmers for whom the communication via this medium could be improved. > > First you do not not provide any reasoning and now you assume your > knowledge is far superior.... > if you think that an order and a product is similar to an interview > and communication event, then i wonder who is understanding the data > model..... > > sorry Adrian, not sound nice....... > >> -Adrian >> >> On 7/27/2012 8:22 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> Adrian, >>> >>> Since you still do not provide reasoning, let me explain a bit more >>> to you. >>> >>> From the data model resource book volume 1 page 47: >>> *A communication event records any type of contact between parties >>> with a relationship for example,phonecalls, meetings, emails and so >>> on.* >>> >>> Why does an interview not fit in this example list? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >>> >>> >>> On 07/27/2012 02:02 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> I don't agree that a job interview is just another communication >>>> event. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>>> On 7/27/2012 7:59 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by hans_bakker
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 <[hidden email]> > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by hans_bakker
so you would add the types to respective workflow and communication events?
Hans Bakker sent the following on 7/26/2012 8:42 PM: > 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 > > > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Pierre Smits
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" <[hidden email]> > 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 <[hidden email]> > >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
The job interview model is not in the DMRB - it was something we created
internally. The current model has some flaws that are easily fixed, but it is fundamentally correct, and it can be expanded to accommodate more data. For example, there might be information about the interview that a government agency requires for reporting. -Adrian On 7/27/2012 9:52 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > 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" <[hidden email]> >> 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 <[hidden email]> >> >>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
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 <[hidden email]> > 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" <[hidden email]> > > 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 <[hidden email]**> >> >> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> |
Re: reduction of entities in HR
|
|
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 <[hidden email]> > >> 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" <[hidden email]> >> >> 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 <[hidden email]**> >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> |
|
|
Indeed. When speaking of surveys, interviews, etc in general.
Maybe the entire (global?) solution should be revisited and reviewed. Hmm. I find the fla DMRS ambiguous. |
|
|
I meant the DRMB.
2012/7/27 Pierre Smits <[hidden email]> > Indeed. When speaking of surveys, interviews, etc in general. > > Maybe the entire (global?) solution should be revisited and reviewed. > > Hmm. I find the fla DMRS ambiguous. > |
«
Return to OFBiz - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |