問41
頻出度★★★
システム開発プロジェクトにおいて, プログラム作成の生産性を向上させるための施策として, 新しく参加したメンバに対し, 開発ツールの利用スキル向上のトレーニングを計画した。この施策の効果を評価する指標として, 最も適切なものはどれか。
平成25年度 秋期 ITパスポート試験 問41
マネジメント系プロジェクトマネジメント › プロジェクトマネジメント
This question's explanation and your answers so far.
解説
問 41
Incorrectア
The cumulative number of participants in the training only shows how widely the training was carried out, that is, the scale of implementation. Even if many people attended, it tells you nothing about whether their skills actually improved or whether the productivity of program creation rose as a result. It measures only the activity volume of the measure (the amount of work done before any output appears), not the intended outcome, so it is not appropriate as an indicator of effectiveness.
Incorrectイ
The number of times the training is conducted is likewise an indicator of progress and implementation volume, showing how much of the planned training has been carried out. The count is useful for managing whether the measure is being executed as planned, but repeating sessions is not the goal in itself. No matter how many times it is held, if productivity does not change then the measure had no effect, so this is not appropriate as an indicator of effectiveness.
- ウ
正解 The correct answer is ウ. What this question asks you to evaluate is whether the training measure actually raised the productivity of program creation as intended. Productivity is the ratio of how much work output is produced relative to the resources put in (person-hours, that is, number of people × time). For program creation it is measured as the amount of program written in a given period ÷ the person-hours spent. Choice ウ, the amount of program creation per member per day, is exactly the output per unit of effort (one person-day), so it directly expresses productivity itself. Therefore, by comparing this value before and after the training, you can judge that the skills in using development tools improved and the goal of better productivity was achieved if the value went up, and that the measure was not effective if it did not. As a principle, an indicator for evaluating the effect of a measure should be an outcome indicator that directly measures the goal of the measure, which here is improving productivity.
Incorrectエ
The total time each member participated in the training is the time each member put into the training, in other words an input indicator (resources invested). Attending for a long time does not necessarily mean the skills were acquired and productivity rose; on the contrary, training time is a number on the cost side that was paid in order to improve productivity. It does not express an outcome, so it is not appropriate as an indicator of effectiveness.
ここがポイント
- An indicator for evaluating the effect of a measure should be an outcome indicator that directly measures the goal of the measure itself. Indicators of implementation volume or input such as the number of sessions held, the number of participants, or hours attended show only how much was done; they are useful for progress management but cannot evaluate effectiveness.
- Productivity = amount of output ÷ person-hours invested. For the productivity of program creation, express it as output per unit of effort such as one person-day, like the amount of program creation per member per day, and judge improvement by comparing the value before and after the measure.
用語