CN108885724B - Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer-readable recording medium - Google Patents
Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer-readable recording medium Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN108885724B CN108885724B CN201680083889.1A CN201680083889A CN108885724B CN 108885724 B CN108885724 B CN 108885724B CN 201680083889 A CN201680083889 A CN 201680083889A CN 108885724 B CN108885724 B CN 108885724B
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- history information
- failure history
- similar
- similar failure
- serviceman
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
- 230000010365 information processing Effects 0.000 title claims description 16
- 238000003672 processing method Methods 0.000 title claims description 4
- 238000011282 treatment Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 81
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 59
- 238000000605 extraction Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 26
- 239000000284 extract Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 17
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 64
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 description 26
- 239000013598 vector Substances 0.000 description 15
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 7
- 230000010485 coping Effects 0.000 description 6
- 230000007257 malfunction Effects 0.000 description 6
- 238000013024 troubleshooting Methods 0.000 description 6
- 230000006870 function Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000009825 accumulation Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000012797 qualification Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012937 correction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000001186 cumulative effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011835 investigation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000877 morphologic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003287 optical effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004092 self-diagnosis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000000638 solvent extraction Methods 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/20—Administration of product repair or maintenance
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/10—Services
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
- Maintenance And Inspection Apparatuses For Elevators (AREA)
Abstract
A similar failure history determination unit (5) extracts, from a plurality of pieces of failure history information describing the occurrence status of a failure, a procedure for the failure, and a maintainer who has performed the procedure, 2 or more pieces of failure history information describing occurrence statuses similar to the occurrence status specified as an extraction condition by the maintainer (200) as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, and extracts, from the extracted 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, similar failure history information describing the maintainer (200) as maintainer failure history information. A display priority determination unit (8) calculates the similarity between the treatment described in the similar failure history information and the treatment described in the maintainer failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority for similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the treatment. A similar failure history output unit (9) outputs similar failure history information having a high priority in priority.
Description
Technical Field
The present invention relates to a technique for providing information on past equipment failure to a maintenance person.
Background
Documents of the prior art
Patent document
Patent document 1: japanese patent laid-open No. 2008-257433
Patent document 2: japanese patent laid-open publication No. 2002-154085
Disclosure of Invention
Problems to be solved by the invention
In the related art, the degree of familiarity or proficiency is determined based on the number of years of experience or the cumulative working time of the maintainer, and therefore, the same measure is displayed for the maintainers having the same degree of familiarity or proficiency. The knowledge and experience of each maintainer with respect to the fault is different, but in the prior art, the disposition prompted to the maintainer is uniformly selected. In order to solve the failure early, it is effective to present unknown treatment that the maintenance worker has not experienced in the past to the maintenance worker, compared to treatment that the maintenance worker has experienced and is skilled in the past, but there is a problem in the related art that appropriate treatment reflecting the knowledge and experience of the maintenance worker cannot be presented to the maintenance worker.
The present invention is mainly intended to solve such problems, and is intended to present appropriate treatment for each maintenance worker based on knowledge and experience of the maintenance worker.
Means for solving the problems
An information processing apparatus of the present invention includes: an extraction unit that extracts, from a plurality of pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses of failures, a procedure for the failures, and a serviceman who has performed the procedure are described, 2 or more pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses similar to the occurrence status specified as an extraction condition by an arbitrary serviceman are described as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, and extracts, from the extracted 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, similar failure history information in which the serviceman specified the extraction condition is described as serviceman failure history information; a priority setting unit that calculates a similarity between the treatment described in the similar failure history information and the treatment described in the maintainer failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority to similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the treatment; and an output unit that outputs the similar failure history information having a high priority with priority.
Effects of the invention
In the present invention, a treatment having a low similarity to a treatment that the maintainer has experienced in the past is preferentially presented to the maintainer. Therefore, according to the present invention, it is possible to preferentially present unknown treatment that the maintenance person is not familiar with to the maintenance person, and it is possible to present appropriate treatment reflecting the knowledge and experience of the maintenance person to the maintenance person.
Drawings
Fig. 1 is a diagram showing an example of a functional configuration of an elevator-like failure search system according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 2 is a diagram showing an example of failure history information according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 3 is a diagram showing an example of similar failure history information of embodiment 1.
Fig. 4 is a diagram showing an example of the serviceman failure history information according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 5 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the maintenance person authentication unit and the failure status acquisition unit according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 6 is a flowchart showing an operation example of the similar failure history determination unit according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 7 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the display priority determination unit according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 8 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the display priority determination unit according to embodiment 1.
Fig. 9 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the similar failure history output unit in embodiment 1.
Fig. 10 is a flowchart showing an example of vectorization processing of embodiment 1.
Fig. 11 is a diagram showing an example of failure history information according to embodiment 5.
Fig. 12 is a diagram showing an example of treatment time information according to embodiment 5.
Fig. 13 is a diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the elevator-like trouble shooting system according to embodiments 1 to 5.
Detailed Description
Description of the structure
Fig. 1 shows an example of a functional configuration of an elevator-like trouble shooting system 100 according to the present embodiment. The elevator-like malfunction retrieval system 100 is an example of an information processing apparatus. The operation performed by the elevator-like failure search system 100 is an example of an information processing method and an information processing program.
The elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 stores failure history information in which a failure history of an elevator is described, extracts failure history information matching knowledge and experience of a maintenance worker, and presents the extracted failure history information to the maintenance worker.
In the following, an elevator will be described as an example of the maintenance target equipment, but the maintenance target equipment is not limited to an elevator.
The communication terminal 1 is a communication device such as a computer or a smartphone. The maintenance person 200 accesses the elevator-like trouble retrieval system 100 using the communication terminal 1.
More specifically, the serviceman 200 logs in the elevator-like trouble retrieval system 100 using the communication terminal 1. And, the serviceman 200 transmits a retrieval request to the elevator-like trouble retrieval system 100 using the communication terminal 1. The communication terminal 1 receives the failure history information extracted by the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 from the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100, and displays the received failure history information.
The elevator-like malfunction retrieval system 100 is a computer having a hardware configuration shown in fig. 13. The hardware shown in FIG. 13 is described in detail below.
Next, a functional configuration of the elevator-like malfunction retrieval system 100 shown in fig. 1 will be explained.
The maintainer authenticating unit 2 receives a login request from the communication terminal 1. Then, the maintainer authenticating section 2 requests the communication terminal 1 to input the maintainer id (identifier) and the password of the maintainer 200. Further, the maintainer authenticating unit 2 receives the maintainer ID and the password input by the maintainer 200 from the communication terminal 1, and checks the received maintainer ID and password against the maintainer ID and password stored in the maintainer information storing unit 10. Then, in the case where the maintainer ID and the password received from the communication terminal 1 match the maintainer ID and the password stored in the maintainer information accumulating portion 10, the maintainer authenticating portion 2 permits the maintainer 200 to log in the elevator-like trouble searching system 100. The maintainer authenticating unit 2 outputs the maintainer ID of the maintainer 200 to the failure situation acquiring unit 3 after allowing the maintainer 200 to log in.
The failure status acquisition unit 3 acquires the occurrence status of a failure as the extraction condition and the serviceman ID. After the login is permitted by the serviceman authentication section 2, the serviceman 200 transmits a retrieval request to the elevator-like trouble retrieval system 100 using the communication terminal 1. The search request includes the occurrence status of a failure (hereinafter referred to as status or failure status) as an extraction condition of failure history information. The failure status acquisition unit 3 receives the search request, acquires the occurrence status as the extraction condition from the received search request, and notifies the similar failure history determination unit 5 of the attendant ID and the occurrence status notified from the attendant authentication unit 2.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 extracts 2 or more pieces of failure history information in which occurrence conditions similar to the occurrence conditions specified as the extraction conditions by the maintenance worker (i.e., the occurrence conditions notified from the failure condition acquisition unit 3) are described as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information. Then, the similar failure history determination unit 5 extracts, as the serviceman failure history information, similar failure history information in which the serviceman ID of the serviceman 200 (i.e., the serviceman ID notified from the failure status acquisition unit 3) is described from the extracted 2 or more similar failure history information.
Then, the similar failure history determination section 5 stores the similar failure history information in the similar failure history storage section 6, and stores the serviceman failure history information in the serviceman failure history storage section 7.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 is an example of an extraction unit. The operation performed by the similar failure history determination unit 5 is an example of the extraction process.
The failure history storage unit 4 stores failure history information.
Fig. 2 shows an example of failure history information according to the present embodiment. Each row of fig. 2 is fault history information.
As shown in fig. 2, the failure history information includes a failure history ID, a model, a status, a procedure, a responsible maintainer ID, a failure occurrence date, and the like. In this way, the failure history information describes the attributes of failures that occurred in the past.
The failure history ID is an ID that uniquely determines a failure.
The model is a model of a failed elevator.
The status is the occurrence status of a failure of the elevator, and can be freely described by a maintenance worker.
The procedure is a procedure performed by the maintenance worker for the failure, and can be freely described by the maintenance worker.
The responsible maintainer ID is the ID of the maintainer who has handled the fault.
The failure occurrence date is the year, month and day when the failure occurred. In fig. 2, the date of occurrence of the failure is described, but the date and time of failure (including the time) may be described.
The similar failure history storage unit 6 temporarily holds the similar failure history information extracted by the similar failure history determination unit 5. The similar failure history storage unit 6 outputs the similar failure history information to the display priority determination unit 8.
The serviceman failure history storage unit 7 temporarily holds the serviceman failure history information extracted by the similar failure history determination unit 5. The serviceman failure history storage unit 7 outputs serviceman failure history information to the display priority determination unit 8.
The display priority determination unit 8 acquires the similar failure history information from the similar failure history storage unit 6, and acquires the serviceman failure history information from the serviceman failure history storage unit 7. Then, the display priority determination unit 8 checks the similar failure history information with the serviceman failure history information, and sets a priority in the similar failure history information. More specifically, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the similarity between the treatment described in the similar failure history information and the treatment described in the maintainer failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority for similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the treatment.
The display priority determination unit 8 calculates the similarity between the situation described in the similar failure history information and the situation described in the serviceman failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority to the similar failure history information having a higher similarity with respect to the situation.
The display priority deciding unit 8 is an example of a priority setting unit. The operation performed by the display priority determination unit 8 is an example of the priority setting process.
The similar failure history output unit 9 preferentially outputs the similar failure history information with the higher priority set by the display priority determination unit 8 to the communication terminal 1.
The similar failure history output section 9 is an example of an output section. The operation performed by the similar failure history output unit 9 is an example of the output processing.
The serviceman information storage unit 10 stores the serviceman ID and the password of the serviceman.
Description of actions
Next, an operation example of the elevator-like malfunction search system 100 according to the present embodiment will be described with reference to flowcharts of fig. 5 to 9.
Fig. 5 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the maintainer authenticating unit 2 and the failure state acquiring unit 3. Fig. 6 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the similar failure history determination unit 5. Fig. 7 and 8 are flowcharts showing an example of the operation of the display priority determination unit 8. Fig. 9 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the similar failure history output unit 9.
First, the serviceman 200 accesses the serviceman authentication unit 2 using the communication terminal 1 to log in the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100.
Then, the maintainer authenticating section 2 transmits an input screen for the maintainer 200 to input the maintainer ID and the password to the communication terminal 1.
Next, the serviceman authentication unit 2 receives the serviceman ID and the password input by the serviceman 200 from the communication terminal 1 (step S10).
The serviceman authentication unit 2 checks whether or not the received serviceman ID and password are appropriate (step S11). That is, the serviceman authentication unit 2 checks whether or not the received serviceman ID and password match those stored in the serviceman information storage unit 10. In the case where the received serviceman ID and password are appropriate serviceman IDs and passwords, the serviceman authentication section 2 permits the serviceman 200 to log in the elevator-like malfunction retrieval system 100. The serviceman authentication unit 2 outputs the serviceman ID of the serviceman 200 to the failure situation acquisition unit 3.
When the received maintainer ID and password are not the appropriate maintainer ID and password, the input screen is transmitted to the communication terminal 1 again, and the maintainer ID and password input by the maintainer 200 are received from the communication terminal 1 again.
After the login of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is permitted by the maintainer authentication section 2, the maintainer 200 transmits a retrieval request to the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 using the communication terminal 1. As described above, the occurrence status of the failure is included in the search request as the extraction condition of the failure history information. The failure status acquisition unit 3 receives a search request from the communication terminal 1 (step S20). The failure status acquisition unit 3 acquires the occurrence status as an extraction condition from the received search request, and notifies the similar failure history determination unit 5 of the attendant ID and the occurrence status notified from the attendant authentication unit 2.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 calculates the similarity between the status (status specified by the serviceman 200) notified from the failure status acquisition unit 3 and the status of each piece of failure history information stored in the failure history storage unit 4, and extracts failure history information in which a status similar to the status notified from the failure status acquisition unit 3 is described as similar failure history information (steps S30 to S40).
More specifically, the similar failure history determination unit 5 converts the statement of the status specified by the serviceman 200 into a vector (step S30). Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 reads out the failure history information from the failure history storage unit 4 one by one until all the failure history information is read out (step S31, step S32). Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 converts the status described in the obtained i-th failure history information into a vector (step S33). Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 calculates the similarity between the situation described in the ith failure history information and the situation notified from the failure situation acquisition unit 3, using the vector obtained in step S30 and the vector obtained in step S33 (step S34). The similarity failure history determination unit 5 calculates the similarity using the cosine similarity or the distance of the vector. Next, the similarity failure history determination unit 5 converts the value of the similarity calculated in step S34 into a value between 0 and 1 (step S35). The larger the set value, the higher the similarity.
Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 compares the similarity obtained in step S35 with a threshold value (step S36), and when the similarity obtained in step S35 is equal to or greater than the threshold value, stores the ith failure history information as similar failure history information in the similar failure history storage unit 6 (step S37). Then, the similar failure history determination unit 5 compares the responsible serviceman ID described in the ith failure history information with the serviceman ID notified from the failure status acquisition unit 3 (step S38). When the maintainer IDs match, the similar failure history determining unit 5 also stores the i-th failure history information as maintainer failure history information in the maintainer failure history storage unit 7 (step S39).
Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 adds 1 to i (step S40), and repeats the operations from step S31 onward with respect to the next failure history information.
The method of converting a sentence into a vector of steps S30 and S33 is illustrated in detail in fig. 10.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 divides the condition notified from the failure condition acquisition unit 3 or the i-th failure history information word into words by morphological analysis (step S100).
Next, the similar failure history determination unit 5 gives a weight to the divided word (step S101). For example, the similar failure history determination unit 5 may perform weighting according to the Frequency of occurrence of words by a TF-IDF (Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency) method. Also, elevator terminology can be weighted more heavily than other terminology.
Subsequently, the similarity failure history determination unit 5 converts the word into a vector by using the Bag-of-Words method or the like (step S102).
The operation of the similar failure history determination unit 5 will be described with reference to a specific example.
It is assumed that the failure history information shown in fig. 2 is stored in the failure history storage section 4.
At this time, it is assumed that the maintainer 200 whose maintainer ID is "123" inputs "sound during traveling" as the extraction condition.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 calculates the similarity between the condition "sound at the time of traveling" of the extraction condition and the condition of each failure history information stored in the failure history storage unit 4. Then, the similar failure history determination unit 5 extracts failure history information having a similarity equal to or greater than a threshold as similar failure history information. Here, the similar failure history determination unit 5 extracts failure history information having failure history IDs of 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 as similar failure history information. As a result, as shown in fig. 3, the similar failure history storage unit 6 stores the failure history information having failure history IDs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 as similar failure history information.
The similar failure history determination unit 5 extracts similar failure history information in which "123" is described in the column in charge of the maintainer ID as the maintainer failure history information. As a result, as shown in fig. 4, the similar failure history information having failure history IDs 1 and 4 is stored in the serviceman failure history storage unit 7 as serviceman failure history information.
Next, an operation example of the display priority determination unit 8 will be described with reference to fig. 7 and 8.
When all the pieces of failure history information are read out in step S31 of fig. 6, the display priority determination unit 8 reads out the pieces of similar failure history information one by one from the similar failure history storage unit 6 until all the pieces of similar failure history information are read out (step S50, step S51). Next, the display priority determination unit 8 converts the obtained term of the status of the i-th similar failure history information and the term of the treatment into vectors (step S52, step S53). The display priority determination unit 8 converts the words into vectors by the method shown in fig. 10. Next, the display priority determination unit 8 reads the maintenance worker failure history information one by one from the maintenance worker failure history storage unit 7 until all the maintenance worker failure history information are read (step S54, step S55). Next, the display priority determination unit 8 converts the read-out term of the status of the jth serviceman failure history information and the term of the treatment into vectors (step S56, step S57). The display priority determination unit 8 converts the words into vectors by the method shown in fig. 10.
Next, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the similarity between the situation of the ith similar failure history information and the situation of the jth serviceman failure history information, based on the vector of the situation of the ith similar failure history information and the vector of the situation of the jth serviceman failure history information (step S58). Next, the display priority determination unit 8 converts the value of the similarity calculated in step S58 into a value between 0 and 1 (step S59). The larger the set value, the higher the similarity.
Next, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the degree of similarity between the treatment of the ith similar failure history information and the treatment of the jth serviceman failure history information, based on the vector of the treatment of the ith similar failure history information and the vector of the treatment of the jth serviceman failure history information (step S60). Next, the display priority determination unit 8 converts the value of the similarity calculated in step S60 into a value between 0 and 1 (step S61). The larger the set value, the higher the similarity.
Next, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the priority of the i-th similar failure history information based on the similarity of the situation obtained in step S59 and the similarity of the treatment obtained in step S61 (step S62). More specifically, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the priority using the following equation (1).
Priority leveli,j＝a*Sim_ri,j+b*(1-Sim_ai,j) Formula (1)
Here, a is Sim _ ri,jThe coefficient of (a). Sim _ ri,jIs the similarity between the condition of the ith similar fault history information and the condition of the jth maintainer fault history information. b is Sim _ ai,jThe coefficient of (a). Sim _ ai,jIs the similarity between the handling of the ith similar fault history information and the handling of the jth maintainer fault history information.
When the serviceman 200 has performed a procedure similar to the procedure taken in a certain situation in the past, the display priority determination unit 8 lowers the priority of the similar failure history information in which the procedure is described because the serviceman 200 has knowledge and experience about the procedure. On the other hand, since the maintainer 200 does not have knowledge or experience about the treatment that the maintainer 200 has not performed in the past, the display priority determination unit 8 increases the priority of the similar failure history information in which the treatment is described. According to the above equation, the i-th similar failure history information in which the similar situation to the situation of the failure that the maintainer 200 has dealt with and the treatment that the maintainer 200 has not taken is described has a high priority.
The display priority determination unit 8 calculates the priorityijThereafter, j is added with 1 (step S63), and the priority is calculated using the next serviceman failure history informationi,j+1。
Then, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the priority using the ith similar failure history information and all the serviceman failure history information stored in the serviceman failure history storage unit 7ijThen, the priority of the ith similar failure history information is determined.
When the maintainers 200 have performed similar treatment in the past under similar conditions, the treatment is performed at a plurality of prioritiesijThere are smaller values in. Therefore, the display priority determination unit 8 selects the priority based on the equation (2)ijThe minimum value of (a) as the priority of the ith similar failure history information (referred to as priorityi) (step S64).
Priority leveliMin (priority)i,j) Formula (2)
The display priority determination unit 8 selects the priorityiThereafter, 1 is added to i (step S65), and the priority of the i +1 th similar failure history information is calculatedi+1。
As described above, the display priority determination unit 8 according to the present embodiment sets a higher priority to similar failure history information having a lower degree of similarity with respect to treatment, and sets a higher priority to similar failure history information having a higher degree of similarity with respect to situation.
An example of calculation of the priority will be described using similar failure history information shown in fig. 3 and the serviceman failure history information shown in fig. 4.
According to fig. 4, the maintenance worker 200 has dealt with the door shoes in a situation of "sound while driving". In fig. 3, the handling of similar failure history information having failure history IDs 1, 4, and 7 is the handling for the door shoe, and therefore, these similar failure history information have a lower priority. On the other hand, in fig. 3, the similar failure history information items having failure history IDs of 2 and 5 are handled as corrections to the oil supply to the guide rail or the bolt, and the maintenance worker 200 does not take these items, and therefore, the similar failure history information items have a higher priority.
In step S50 of fig. 7, after the display priority determination unit 8 reads all the similar failure history information and calculates the priorities, the similar failure history output unit 9 rearranges the similar failure information in descending order of priority as shown in fig. 9 (step S70). Then, the similar failure history output part 9 outputs the rearranged similar failure history information to the communication terminal 1 of the serviceman 200 (step S71).
Thus, the communication terminal 1 displays the similar failure history information having a higher priority.
Description of effects of embodiments
As described above, in the present embodiment, a procedure with a low degree of similarity to a procedure that the maintenance person has performed in the past is preferentially presented to the maintenance person. Therefore, according to the present embodiment, unknown treatment that the maintenance person is not aware of can be presented to the maintenance person with priority. The maintenance person can cope with the failure of the elevator in consideration of the already-proven disposition that has been experienced in the past and the newly-prompted disposition.
In embodiment 1 above, the priority is determined based on the similarity of the status of the failure history and the similarity of the treatment. Even if a maintenance person has sufficient knowledge and experience for a certain model, the maintenance person may not have sufficient knowledge and experience for other models. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the display priority determination unit 8 determines the priority according to the similarity of models. Specifically, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the similarity between the model described in the similar failure history information and the model described in the serviceman failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority for the similar failure history information having a higher similarity with respect to the model. That is, if the model described in the similar failure history information is the same as the model described in the serviceman failure history information, the display priority determination unit 8 sets a higher priority in the similar failure history information. Even if the model described in the similar failure history information is different from the model described in the serviceman failure history information, if the model is similar (for example, a new model and an old model of the same model), the display priority determination unit 8 sets a higher priority to the similar failure history information than the same model but than the completely different model. When the model described in the similar failure history information is completely different from the model described in the maintainer failure history information, a lower priority is determined in the similar failure history information.
By adding an item relating to the similarity of the model to the above equation (1), the display priority determination unit 8 can calculate the priority reflecting the similarity of the situation, the similarity of the treatment, and the similarity of the model.
The present embodiment is the same as embodiment 1 except that similarity of models is reflected in calculation of priorities. Therefore, the functional structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is shown in fig. 1, and the hardware structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is also shown in fig. 13. The operation of the elevator-like trouble shooting system 100 according to the present embodiment is also shown in fig. 5 to 9.
In the above, the priority of the same model or similar models is increased, but the setting of the priority may be reversed in order to preferentially display similar failure history information on models with less knowledge and experience of the maintenance worker.
As described above, according to the present embodiment, similar failure history information can be presented to the maintenance staff in consideration of knowledge and experience of each maintenance staff with respect to the model.
In embodiment 2 described above, the priority is determined based on the similarity of the status of the failure history, the similarity of the treatment, and the similarity of the model. In the present embodiment, time is taken into consideration when calculating the priority. If a new disposal method is proposed, it is preferable to make the proposed new disposal method well known, and to remind more maintenance personnel to utilize the new disposal method. Therefore, in the present embodiment, in order to notify the maintenance worker of the new disposal method, new failure history information is preferentially displayed. That is, in the present embodiment, the display priority determination unit 8 calculates the difference between the date and time described in the similar failure history information and the current date and time for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority for the similar failure history information having a smaller difference.
By adding a term relating to time to the above equation (1), the display priority determination unit 8 can calculate the similarity reflecting the situation, the similarity of the treatment, and the priority of time.
The present embodiment is the same as embodiment 1 except that the time is reflected in the calculation of the priority. Therefore, the functional structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is shown in fig. 1, and the hardware structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is also shown in fig. 13. The operation of the elevator-like trouble shooting system 100 according to the present embodiment is also shown in fig. 5 to 9.
As described above, according to the present embodiment, similar failure history information can be presented to the maintenance person in consideration of time.
In embodiments 1 to 3 described above, similar failure history information is displayed in order of priority. Not only can the similar failure history information be displayed in the order of priority, but also a threshold value can be set in the priority, and only the similar failure history information of the priority higher than the threshold value is displayed.
The present embodiment is the same as embodiment 1 except that only similar failure history information of priority equal to or higher than a threshold is displayed. Therefore, the functional structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is shown in fig. 1, and the hardware structure of the elevator-like failure retrieval system 100 is also shown in fig. 13. The operation of the elevator-like trouble shooting system 100 according to the present embodiment is also shown in fig. 5 to 9.
According to the present embodiment, even if the number of similar failure history information is large, the maintenance worker can view only similar failure history information having a high priority.
In embodiments 1 to 4 described above, similar failure history information is read out one by one and compared with the serviceman failure history information. Therefore, in the handling such as "door shoe replacement" or "oil feeding to the guide rail", the handling time taken by each maintenance worker is not known. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the group division is performed by using similar measures such as "door shoe replacement" and "oil supply to the guide rail". Then, the time taken for the treatment is calculated, and the average of the time taken for the treatment is calculated for each responsible maintainer ID within the group, whereby the time taken for each treatment is known. By taking the time taken for the treatment into consideration, the priority of the treatment that takes time can be increased.
In the present embodiment, the display priority determination unit 8 refers to the treatment time information when calculating the priority. The treatment time information describes, for each of a plurality of treatment groups formed by grouping similar treatments, treatment time that is time required for each of the maintainers to perform the treatment when the treatment belonging to the treatment group is performed. Then, the display priority determination unit 8 sets a higher priority to similar failure history information describing the treatment belonging to a treatment group in which the treatment time of the maintainer 200 (maintainer who has designated the extraction condition) among the plurality of treatment groups is long.
A system administrator may read the content of the treatment and manually perform group partitioning. Further, the treatment with high similarity can be summarized by using a method such as the K-means method.
Fig. 11 shows an example of failure history information according to the present embodiment.
The failure history information shown in fig. 11 is added with a column of the site arrival time, a column of the treatment completion time, and a column of the treatment group number, compared with the failure history information shown in fig. 2. The treatment time can be calculated from the on-site arrival time and the treatment completion time.
The site arrival time is the time when the maintenance worker arrives at the site where the failure occurred.
The disposal completion time is a time at which the maintainer has completed disposal.
The treatment group number is the number of each treatment group.
Fig. 12 shows an example of treatment time information according to the present embodiment.
As shown in fig. 12, the treatment time information shows the treatment time in units of maintenance staff for each treatment group number.
When calculating the priority, the display priority determination unit 8 acquires the procedure time of the serviceman 200 from the procedure time information based on the procedure group number and the responsible serviceman ID included in the similar failure history information, and increases the priority of the similar failure history information having a long procedure time.
For example, in the example of fig. 12, regarding the maintainer ID: 123, and treatment group: 1 treatment time compared, treatment group: the treatment time of 3 is longer. Therefore, the display priority determination unit 8 causes the treatment group to belong to: failure history ID of 3: 3 similar fault history information is higher in priority than the information belonging to the handling group: 1 failure history ID: priority and failure history ID of similar failure history information of 1: 4 priority of similar fault history information.
As described above, according to the present embodiment, similar failure history information can be presented to the maintainer in consideration of the treatment time of each maintainer.
Although the embodiments of the present invention have been described above, 2 or more of these embodiments may be combined and implemented.
Alternatively, a part of one of the embodiments may be implemented.
Alternatively, a part of 2 or more embodiments among these embodiments may be combined and implemented.
The present invention is not limited to these embodiments, and various modifications can be made as necessary.
Description of hardware Structure
Fig. 13 shows an example of the configuration of the elevator-like trouble shooting system 100 according to embodiments 1 to 5.
The elevator similar fault retrieval system 100 is a computer.
The elevator-like malfunction retrieval system 100 has, as hardware, a processor 901, a storage 902, and a communication interface 903.
The processor 901 is an Integrated Circuit (IC) that performs processing.
The Processor 901 is a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), or the like.
The storage device 902 is a RAM (Random Access Memory), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a flash Memory, an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), or the like. The failure history storage unit 4, the similar failure history storage unit 6, the serviceman failure history storage unit 7, and the serviceman information storage unit 10 are realized by a storage device 902.
The communication interface 903 includes a receiver that receives data and a transmitter that transmits data.
The communication Interface 903 is, for example, a communication chip or NIC (Network Interface Card).
The storage device 902 stores programs for realizing the functions of the maintenance person authentication unit 2, the failure situation acquisition unit 3, the similar failure history determination unit 5, the display priority determination unit 8, and the similar failure history output unit 9 (hereinafter, these are collectively referred to as "units").
The processor 901 executes these programs to perform "part" operations.
Fig. 13 schematically shows a state in which the processor 901 executes a program that realizes the function of the "section".
Further, the storage device 902 also stores an OS (Operating System).
Also, at least a portion of the OS is executed by the processor 901.
The processor 901 executes at least a part of the OS, and executes a program that realizes the function of the "section".
Information indicating the processing result of the "section", data, a signal value, and a variable value are stored in a register or a cache memory in the storage device 902 or the processor 901.
The program for realizing the function of the "section" may be stored in a removable storage medium such as a magnetic disk, a flexible disk, an optical disk, a compact disk, a blu-ray (registered trademark) disk, or a DVD.
The "section" may be rewritten as "circuit" or "process" or "step" or "processing".
The elevator-like failure search system 100 may be implemented by an electronic Circuit such as a logic IC (Integrated Circuit), a Gate Array (GA), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), or a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA).
In this case, the "sections" are each implemented as a part of the electronic circuit.
The processor and the electronic circuit are collectively referred to as processing circuitry.
Description of the reference symbols
1: a communication terminal; 2: a maintainer authentication unit; 3: a failure status acquisition unit; 4: a failure history storage unit; 5: a similar failure history determination unit; 6: a similar failure history accumulation section; 7: a maintenance worker failure history storage unit; 8: a display priority determination unit; 9: a similar failure history output section; 10: a maintainer information accumulation part; 100: a lift similar fault retrieval system; 200: a maintenance person.
Claims (8)
1. An information processing apparatus having:
an extraction unit that extracts, from a plurality of pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses of failures, a procedure for the failures, and a serviceman who has performed the procedure are described, 2 or more pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses similar to the occurrence status specified as an extraction condition by an arbitrary serviceman are described as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, and extracts, from the extracted 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, similar failure history information in which the serviceman specified the extraction condition is described as serviceman failure history information;
a priority setting unit that calculates a similarity between the treatment described in the similar failure history information and the treatment described in the maintainer failure history information for each similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority to similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the treatment; and
and an output unit that outputs the similar failure history information having a high priority.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the priority setting unit calculates a similarity between the occurrence status described in the similar failure history information and the occurrence status described in the serviceman failure history information for each piece of the similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority to the similar failure history information having a higher similarity with respect to the occurrence status.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the extraction unit extracts the 2 or more similar failure history information from a plurality of failure history information in which the types of the failure have been described,
the priority setting unit calculates a similarity between the model described in the similar failure history information and the model described in the maintainer failure history information for each piece of similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority to similar failure history information having a higher similarity with respect to the model.
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the extraction unit extracts the 2 or more similar failure history information from a plurality of failure history information in which the date and time of occurrence of the failure is described,
the priority setting unit calculates a difference between a date and time described in the similar failure history information and a current date and time for each piece of similar failure history information, and sets a higher priority for similar failure history information having a smaller difference.
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the output unit outputs only the similar failure history information of the priority level equal to or higher than the threshold value.
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the priority setting unit refers to treatment time information in which treatment time, which is time required for treatment by each maintainer when treatment belonging to a treatment group is performed, is described for each of a plurality of treatment groups formed by grouping similar treatments,
the priority setting unit sets a higher priority to similar failure history information describing a procedure belonging to a procedure group having a longer procedure time of a maintainer who designates the extraction condition among the plurality of procedure groups.
7. An information processing method, wherein,
the computer extracts, from a plurality of pieces of failure history information describing occurrence statuses of failures, dispositions for the failures, and maintainers who have performed the dispositions, respectively, 2 or more pieces of failure history information describing occurrence statuses similar to the occurrence statuses specified as extraction conditions by an arbitrary maintainer as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, extracts, from the extracted 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, similar failure history information describing the maintainers specified as the extraction conditions as maintainer failure history information,
the computer calculates, for each similar failure history information, a similarity between the procedure described in the similar failure history information and the procedure described in the serviceman failure history information, sets a higher priority for similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the procedure,
and the computer preferentially outputs similar fault history information with high priority.
8. A computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon an information processing program for causing a computer to execute:
an extraction process of extracting, from a plurality of pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses of failures, a procedure for the failures, and a serviceman who has performed the procedure are described, 2 or more pieces of failure history information in which occurrence statuses similar to the occurrence status specified as an extraction condition by an arbitrary serviceman are described as 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, and extracting, from the extracted 2 or more pieces of similar failure history information, similar failure history information in which the serviceman specified the extraction condition is described as serviceman failure history information;
a priority setting process of calculating, for each similar failure history information, a similarity between the procedure described in the similar failure history information and the procedure described in the serviceman failure history information, and setting a higher priority for similar failure history information having a lower similarity with respect to the procedure; and
and outputting processing, namely preferentially outputting the similar fault history information with high priority.
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/JP2016/061537 WO2017175378A1 (en) | 2016-04-08 | 2016-04-08 | Information processing device, information processing method, and information processing program |
Publications (2)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN108885724A CN108885724A (en) | 2018-11-23 |
| CN108885724B true CN108885724B (en) | 2022-02-25 |
Family
ID=60000938
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201680083889.1A Active CN108885724B (en) | 2016-04-08 | 2016-04-08 | Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer-readable recording medium |
Country Status (6)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| JP (1) | JP6359228B2 (en) |
| KR (1) | KR101950660B1 (en) |
| CN (1) | CN108885724B (en) |
| DE (1) | DE112016006545T5 (en) |
| TW (1) | TWI597682B (en) |
| WO (1) | WO2017175378A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (10)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP6649416B2 (en) * | 2018-02-02 | 2020-02-19 | ファナック株式会社 | Failure classification device, failure classification method, and failure classification program |
| JP6705845B2 (en) | 2018-02-08 | 2020-06-03 | ファナック株式会社 | Failure site identification device, failure site identification method, and failure site identification program |
| CN113396119B (en) * | 2019-02-14 | 2022-11-29 | 三菱电机株式会社 | Failure support device, computer-readable recording medium, and failure support method |
| US20220129862A1 (en) * | 2019-03-20 | 2022-04-28 | Nec Corporation | Display control device, display control method, and recording medium |
| JP6717555B1 (en) * | 2019-03-27 | 2020-07-01 | 三菱ロジスネクスト株式会社 | Troubleshooting system with notification function |
| KR102235728B1 (en) * | 2019-05-28 | 2021-04-05 | 한국철도기술연구원 | Fault prediction apparatus and method of electric type side entrance door of electric train |
| JP6736733B1 (en) * | 2019-07-22 | 2020-08-05 | 日東電工株式会社 | Facility abnormality action timing determination system, facility abnormality action timing determination method, and computer program |
| JP7160503B2 (en) * | 2019-11-06 | 2022-10-25 | 三菱電機ビルソリューションズ株式会社 | Building information processing equipment |
| JP2023176269A (en) * | 2022-05-31 | 2023-12-13 | 横河電機株式会社 | Apparatus, method, and program for maintaining facility |
| CN116109116B (en) * | 2023-04-13 | 2023-06-16 | 中建安装集团有限公司 | Cloud computing-based comprehensive application program supervision control system and method |
Citations (12)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2010257066A (en) * | 2009-04-22 | 2010-11-11 | Hitachi Software Eng Co Ltd | Troubleshooting support system |
| JP2011227601A (en) * | 2010-04-16 | 2011-11-10 | Mitsubishi Electric Corp | Information providing device and program therefor |
| CN102270485A (en) * | 2010-06-07 | 2011-12-07 | 索尼公司 | Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program |
| CN102271054A (en) * | 2010-06-02 | 2011-12-07 | 微软公司 | Bookmarks and performance history for network software deployment evaluation |
| CN104091290A (en) * | 2014-07-11 | 2014-10-08 | 国家电网公司 | Intelligent substation monitoring information diagnosing and analyzing method |
| JP2014199618A (en) * | 2013-03-29 | 2014-10-23 | Ｎｅｃネッツエスアイ株式会社 | Fault monitoring system |
| CN104298476A (en) * | 2013-07-15 | 2015-01-21 | 日本冲信息株式会社 | Information processing device and information processing method |
| CN104637021A (en) * | 2013-11-08 | 2015-05-20 | 广州市地下铁道总公司 | Condition-maintenance-mode city rail vehicle auxiliary maintenance system |
| CN105069509A (en) * | 2015-08-05 | 2015-11-18 | 上海古鳌电子科技股份有限公司 | Transaction processing system and processing method |
| JP5820072B2 (en) * | 2012-07-11 | 2015-11-24 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Similar failure case search device |
| US9226368B2 (en) * | 2012-01-17 | 2015-12-29 | Cimcon Lighting, Inc. | Fault management for streetlights |
| JP5855036B2 (en) * | 2013-02-28 | 2016-02-09 | 三菱電機株式会社 | Equipment inspection order setting device |
Family Cites Families (16)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TW575818B (en) * | 2000-05-31 | 2004-02-11 | Hannstar Display Corp | Product maintenance recording device |
| JP4004222B2 (en) | 2000-11-15 | 2007-11-07 | トヨタ自動車株式会社 | Maintenance support method and maintenance support device for work robot system |
| JP2007140997A (en) * | 2005-11-18 | 2007-06-07 | Mitsubishi Electric System & Service Co Ltd | Apparatus for diagnosing fault |
| JP2007141128A (en) * | 2005-11-22 | 2007-06-07 | Tokiko Techno Kk | Maintenance management system |
| US20080059120A1 (en) * | 2006-08-30 | 2008-03-06 | Fei Xiao | Using fault history to predict replacement parts |
| JP2008257433A (en) | 2007-04-04 | 2008-10-23 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Reception/transmission device, mobile terminal, program and recording medium |
| JP2008310582A (en) * | 2007-06-14 | 2008-12-25 | Hitachi Ltd | Maintenance work support apparatus and system, and maintenance work support method |
| JP2009187097A (en) * | 2008-02-04 | 2009-08-20 | Hitachi Omron Terminal Solutions Corp | Automatic teller machine |
| US9026304B2 (en) * | 2008-04-07 | 2015-05-05 | United Parcel Service Of America, Inc. | Vehicle maintenance systems and methods |
| US20090292956A1 (en) * | 2008-05-23 | 2009-11-26 | Microsoft Corporation | Trend based test failure prioritization |
| US9081888B2 (en) * | 2010-03-31 | 2015-07-14 | Cloudera, Inc. | Collecting and aggregating log data with fault tolerance |
| WO2011148891A1 (en) * | 2010-05-24 | 2011-12-01 | 日本電気株式会社 | Method and system for analyzing static fault tree from system model |
| KR20140036375A (en) * | 2012-09-12 | 2014-03-26 | 현대로템 주식회사 | Intelligent failure asset management system for railway car |
| JP6079243B2 (en) * | 2013-01-10 | 2017-02-15 | 日本電気株式会社 | Failure analysis support device, failure analysis support method, and program |
| US20150005054A1 (en) * | 2013-07-01 | 2015-01-01 | Kabam, Inc. | System and method for facilitating gifting of virtual items between users in a game |
| JP6393678B2 (en) | 2013-08-29 | 2018-09-19 | パナソニック インテレクチュアル プロパティ コーポレーション オブ アメリカＰａｎａｓｏｎｉｃ Ｉｎｔｅｌｌｅｃｔｕａｌ Ｐｒｏｐｅｒｔｙ Ｃｏｒｐｏｒａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ | Server apparatus, information providing method, and information providing program |
-
2016
- 2016-04-08 WO PCT/JP2016/061537 patent/WO2017175378A1/en active Application Filing
- 2016-04-08 CN CN201680083889.1A patent/CN108885724B/en active Active
- 2016-04-08 JP JP2018510208A patent/JP6359228B2/en active Active
- 2016-04-08 KR KR1020187023993A patent/KR101950660B1/en active IP Right Grant
- 2016-04-08 DE DE112016006545.0T patent/DE112016006545T5/en not_active Ceased
- 2016-07-15 TW TW105122355A patent/TWI597682B/en active
Patent Citations (12)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JP2010257066A (en) * | 2009-04-22 | 2010-11-11 | Hitachi Software Eng Co Ltd | Troubleshooting support system |
| JP2011227601A (en) * | 2010-04-16 | 2011-11-10 | Mitsubishi Electric Corp | Information providing device and program therefor |
| CN102271054A (en) * | 2010-06-02 | 2011-12-07 | 微软公司 | Bookmarks and performance history for network software deployment evaluation |
| CN102270485A (en) * | 2010-06-07 | 2011-12-07 | 索尼公司 | Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program |
| US9226368B2 (en) * | 2012-01-17 | 2015-12-29 | Cimcon Lighting, Inc. | Fault management for streetlights |
| JP5820072B2 (en) * | 2012-07-11 | 2015-11-24 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Similar failure case search device |
| JP5855036B2 (en) * | 2013-02-28 | 2016-02-09 | 三菱電機株式会社 | Equipment inspection order setting device |
| JP2014199618A (en) * | 2013-03-29 | 2014-10-23 | Ｎｅｃネッツエスアイ株式会社 | Fault monitoring system |
| CN104298476A (en) * | 2013-07-15 | 2015-01-21 | 日本冲信息株式会社 | Information processing device and information processing method |
| CN104637021A (en) * | 2013-11-08 | 2015-05-20 | 广州市地下铁道总公司 | Condition-maintenance-mode city rail vehicle auxiliary maintenance system |
| CN104091290A (en) * | 2014-07-11 | 2014-10-08 | 国家电网公司 | Intelligent substation monitoring information diagnosing and analyzing method |
| CN105069509A (en) * | 2015-08-05 | 2015-11-18 | 上海古鳌电子科技股份有限公司 | Transaction processing system and processing method |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
| Title |
|---|
| 《基于RAMS的地铁列车车载设备维修策略与故障诊断研究》;李国正;《万方数据库》;20141031;1-173 * |
| 《基于案例与规则推理的故障诊断专家系统》;江志农 等;《计算机工程》;20111231;238-243 * |
Also Published As
| Publication number | Publication date |
|---|---|
| DE112016006545T5 (en) | 2018-11-15 |
| TW201810161A (en) | 2018-03-16 |
| WO2017175378A1 (en) | 2017-10-12 |
| CN108885724A (en) | 2018-11-23 |
| KR101950660B1 (en) | 2019-02-20 |
| KR20180097768A (en) | 2018-08-31 |
| JP6359228B2 (en) | 2018-07-18 |
| JPWO2017175378A1 (en) | 2018-08-30 |
| TWI597682B (en) | 2017-09-01 |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN108885724B (en) | Information processing apparatus, information processing method, and computer-readable recording medium | |
| JP6672132B2 (en) | Lift diagnostic system, lift diagnostic device, and lift diagnostic method | |
| CN109614238B (en) | Target object identification method, device and system and readable storage medium | |
| US8285836B2 (en) | Policy creation support method, policy creation support system, and program therefor | |
| US9619314B2 (en) | Management system and management program | |
| JP6623228B2 (en) | Control device and diagnostic system | |
| EP2994828B1 (en) | Apps store with integrated test support | |
| US20160110826A1 (en) | Forensic system, forensic method, and forensic program | |
| CN101794359A (en) | Methods and systems for enabling community-tested security features for legacy applications | |
| US11386352B2 (en) | System and method of training behavior labeling model | |
| US11494893B2 (en) | Systems and methods for managing physical connections of a connector panel | |
| US11722380B2 (en) | Utilizing machine learning models to determine customer care actions for telecommunications network providers | |
| CN109992477A (en) | Information processing method, system and electronic equipment for electronic equipment | |
| CN117435999A (en) | Risk assessment method, apparatus, device and medium | |
| CN116861480A (en) | Sensitive data identification method, device, equipment and storage medium | |
| KR101808392B1 (en) | Apparatus and method for recommending wellness contents | |
| US20190205802A1 (en) | Information processing device, information processing method and computer readable medium | |
| US20220156672A1 (en) | Information processing apparatus and method | |
| US20200005182A1 (en) | Selection method, selection apparatus, and recording medium | |
| JP6620993B2 (en) | Elevator maintenance system | |
| CN108345471B (en) | The method and detection device of detection device processing asynchronous event | |
| JP7481948B2 (en) | Facility monitoring control device and facility monitoring control program | |
| JP2018072195A (en) | Pump soundness evaluating device, pump soundness evaluating method, and program | |
| US20230396511A1 (en) | Capacity Aware Cloud Environment Node Recovery System | |
| US20240185576A1 (en) | Image determination device, image determination method, and recording medium |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant | ||
| GR01 | Patent grant |