JP2000122995A - Device and method for aiding asynchronous argument - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an asynchronous argument aiding device capable of smoothly advancing a creative argument in a converging direction by entering various opinions. SOLUTION: The subjects of arguments are stored in a subject relation storing part 1. Relation between subjects, e.g. a main subject and a sub-subject, is defined by a subject relation defining part 3. A subject group information is provided to a user by a subject relation providing part 2. Opinions can be inputted to each subject. These opinions are divided into assertions to be solutions for the subject and other comments by an opinion sorting part 9 and these assertions and comments are respectively stored and managed by an assertion storing part 7 and a comment storing part 8. An opinion group display part 5 provides the comparison display of assertion groups, the display of comments groups, etc., to the user. Consequently assertions can be provided to the user without being buried under comments and the argument can be smoothly advanced. Since comments can be readily inserted, a creative argument can be executed.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

[0001] 1. Field of the Invention [0002] The present invention relates to an asynchronous discussion support apparatus for supporting an asynchronous discussion that is performed using a mail or an electronic bulletin board.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art In an online asynchronous conference using an e-mail or an electronic conference room, discussions are advanced in a form of rebutting the opinion of the other party. When such discussions are actually advanced, not only are discussions to solve the issues raised in the discussions, but also discussions on how to discuss them are discussed. Therefore, there is a problem that the discussion is idle or the whole picture of the discussion becomes invisible. Also, in the course of the discussion, once the solution has been adopted, the discussion will be reconsidered, and the discussion will go round and the discussion will not converge.

However, good opinions cannot be obtained if the opportunity to submit opinions is limited in the process of discussion in order to prevent such problems. Conversely, new ideas are created through an iterative process of opinions that have not grown to a solution, questions and answers, and simple comments on others' opinions.

[0004] In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, to efficiently promote asynchronous meetings, and to carry out creative discussions, not only effective solutions but also opinions that have not grown to solutions,
It is necessary to be able to capture opinions at various stages, such as questions and answers and simple comments on other people's opinions, and to be able to classify and manage them so that they do not mix. In addition, for one problem, it is necessary to be able to separate and manage the discussion for solving the problem and the discussion on the discussion method. Furthermore, it is necessary to control the discussion so that unnecessary discussions do not occur.

In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, various support devices and support systems have been developed. First, as a system for assisting a participant in making a decision through discussion, for example, as described in JP-A-4-216164 and JP-A-4-241509, evaluation items for a solution to a problem are determined in advance. In advance,
In some cases, participants in the discussion input evaluation values for these evaluation items and evaluate the overall will.

[0006] These decision support systems are suitable for providing a solution for solving the entire problem, and when their evaluation items are determined in advance. For example, there is a case where products provided by respective manufacturers are solutions to the problem of deciding a purchased product, and various performances, prices, delivery dates, and the like are evaluation items. However, if there is no set of candidate solutions to the problem, instead of proposing a new set of solutions, the solution is divided into individual sub-tasks and creatively solved for each sub-task. Must be given. In such a case, items (evaluation items) to be considered during the discussion are created. In this regard, decision support based on evaluation values is not suitable.

[0007] Systems for classifying and managing discussions have also been developed. For example, in the electronic conference support system described in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 5-236131, a field for describing the type of a comment is provided for classification and management.
For example, if there is a comment of the type of question, the comment is separated such as a question phase, a draft, and a comment phase. Thus, for example, it is possible to determine which phase is in a certain discussion. With such a structure, each opinion can be referred to for each phase, but it is not intended to actively advance the discussion phase. Therefore, the remarks cannot be aggregated, and it is still difficult to bring the discussion to convergence.

On the other hand, gIBIS (graphhi)
cal Issue BasedInformation
n System) and other Design Ra
Tionale (DR) technology has been proposed. This technology is described in, for example, Nagano and Miyachi, "Distributed Software Development", Kyoritsu Shuppan, 1996, pp. 92-10
1 and the like. This technology is a challenge
In response to e), a solution (Position) and an evaluation argument (Argument) leading to solution solution derivation are logically constructed and presented with links to their answers, pros and cons, questions, and proposals. . The purpose is to select a logically appropriate solution from among multiple solutions, record the history of the selection, and use it in the future.

However, since this DR technology accepts only solutions having a logical configuration, it is difficult to present opinions, and opinions, questions and answers, There is a problem that it is difficult to publish a simple comment or the like to another person's opinion. Therefore, it is difficult for this technology to create new ideas. For example, in the case of expressing a positive opinion for a solution, a procedure is required in which the reason for the agreement is first prepared as an evaluation argument, and the evaluation argument and the solution are linked by a link to the opinion. In other words, there is a high threshold that it is not possible to make a statement of yes or no without a rationale. In addition, for example, when it is desired to ask a trivial question about a solution, a procedure is first required in which a question is prepared as an issue, and the issue and the solution are linked by a question link.

[0010] Suppose that the heights of these thresholds were overcome, and that opinions and disagreements, trivial questions, and various other degrees of opinions were made. These manifestations are expressed in a uniform logical configuration. For this reason, it is expected that opinions such as trivial questions and answers will occupy most of the remarks, and that important solutions and the essential flow of discussion will be buried in them and become invisible.

[0011] Further, the DR technique does not have a viewpoint of distinguishing between a solution to a problem and a proposal on a discussion method. Therefore, as described above, for one problem, a solution for the problem and a proposal for the discussion method are mixed, and it is inevitable that the discussion will be idle like an actual meeting. For example, gIBIS
Then, it is possible to express that the task has been changed by associating the corrected task with a certain task using a replacement link.
However, this is merely an expression of the results of discussions on the method of discussion, and discussions on the method of discussion and solution discussions on the original problem are mixed until the change is made. Since the discussions on these discussion methods and the solution discussions on the issues are expressed in a uniform logical configuration, the essential flow of the discussion disappears,
The discussion spins off. It goes without saying that discussions on a number of discussion methods that did not change the subject are also embedded in the uniform logical structure.

In gIBIS, the decision (Decis
ion) node is introduced, and it is possible to express a determined solution among various solution solution candidates by a decision node. However, they are merely intended to explicitly distinguish between adopted and non-adopted solutions, and not to prevent rework of the discussions that are taking place in actual meetings. If you are not satisfied with the adoption of a solution, you can continue and repeat the discussion.

[0013] gIBIS itself represents a discussion of one issue. However, in actual discussions, usually, a plurality of tasks are related to each other with a parent-child relationship such as a task-subtask. Considering the solution of such a plurality of related issues, if the issues are repetitively repeated in the above-mentioned discussion, it will not be possible to reach the solution of the entire problem. In order to solve the entire problem, it is desirable that the progress of each problem solution be related to each other. For that purpose, it is desirable that the progress of each problem can be expressed and controlled.

In the above-mentioned DR technology, SIBYL / DRL is used to express the decomposition of a problem. An issue can be expressed as a combination of sub-tasks, and it can be expressed as to which sub-task a certain solution will solve.
However, it is essentially the same as gIBIS described above, but simply represents the logical structure of a discussion consisting of a plurality of problem groups, and does not advance or control the solution of each problem or the overall solution.

[0015]

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention has been made in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, and allows for a creative discussion taking in various opinions, as well as for smooth and convergence of the discussion. It is an object of the present invention to provide an asynchronous discussion support device that can proceed.

[0016]

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention defines and edits task-specific information and task-related information for a task group consisting of a plurality of tasks, and holds the information so that it can be displayed on the terminal. It is possible to decompose a task into a task structure based on a combination of subtasks and hold the task structure. Then, the input opinion is held, and the held opinion can be displayed according to the instruction from the terminal, so that the point of the discussion on the spot can be clarified. In addition, questions and answers and exchange of opinions are accumulated for each task, and the history of the exchange of opinions can be displayed.

At this time, opinions on the respective issues are separately incorporated into a claim that can be a solution to a certain issue and a comment on a certain claim or comment, or a statement of a user's own opinion or disagreement with the opinion is input. Make it possible. This allows us to capture various degrees of opinions, such as opinions that have not grown to a solution, questions and answers, simple comments on others' opinions, intentions of disagreement, etc., and also poses a psychological barrier to users. It can be lower and creative discussions are possible. In addition, since these opinions can be managed and displayed separately, it is possible to avoid the possibility that a possible solution is buried in other comments, and to compare and discuss important solutions. It is possible to easily confirm the essential flow and the like. In addition, we maintain a distinction between potential solutions and opinions on how to discuss,
By managing, it is possible to prevent idle discussions, and to enable efficient discussions.

[0018] Status information indicating the stage of discussion, such as during discussion, end of discussion, and proposal for gathering, can be provided as information unique to the subject. By using this status information, the agenda that must be discussed at present can be understood, and the discussion can be controlled so that unnecessary discussions do not occur. Further, it is possible to efficiently solve the entire problem even for a problem including a plurality of problem groups.

By using this status information, for example, when the stage of discussion on a certain task progresses, the status of another task is changed, or the discussion of another task is started with the gathering of a certain task as a trigger. You can also control the progress of the discussion.

Further, as the information specific to the assignment, for example, chair information on the chair of the assignment or participant information on the participants of the assignment can be provided. Thus, for example, when it is desired to perform a specific discussion for various reasons, the progress of the discussion can be controlled so that only those having a specific authority can perform the operation.

[0021]

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a first embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, 1 is an assignment relation holding unit, 2 is an assignment relation presenting unit, 3 is an assignment relation definition unit, 4 is an opinion holding unit, 5 is an opinion group display unit, 6 is an opinion input editing unit,
7 is an assertion holding unit, 8 is a comment holding unit, 9 is an opinion classification unit, and 10 is a terminal. In the configuration shown in FIG. 1, one terminal 10 is connected, but a plurality of terminals (not shown) may be connected. The terminal 10 is supposed to display data according to the instruction of the display data calculated on the server side, and to send a text string or an event string to the server side for input, like an X terminal, for example. However, for example, WW
As in the case of using Java on W, a configuration in which the terminal side has some functions of the components may be used.

The task relation holding unit 1 holds, as task group information on a plurality of tasks, information unique to each task and relation information between the tasks. FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of an example of the task group information. In the example shown in FIG. 2, each assignment is represented as a record having the following fields, and the entire assignment group is represented by such a record arrangement.・ Issue name ・ Issue goal ・ Requirements expected for solution ・ Agenda setter ・ Pointer to detailed explanation of the issue ・ Parent issue name ・ Parent issue ID

The task relationship holding unit 1 has the following functions. -A function to return a record corresponding to an externally assigned issue number. A function of detecting a change in a record given from the outside with a record of a corresponding assignment number, and performing an update process on the assignment group information. -A function for performing a new record registration process for the task group information for a new record given from the outside. A function of performing an issue deletion process for deleting a record of an assignment number corresponding to an assignment number given from the outside from the assignment group information. -A function to transmit updated information to the outside in response to the update of the task group information.

The assignment relation presenting section 2 has a function of returning newly converted display data to the terminal 10 in response to reception of update information of the assignment group information or an external display data request. The display data is obtained by converting the task group information held in the task relation holding unit 1 into display data that clarifies the relationship between tasks, for example, the relationship between a parent task and a subtask. . FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a method of displaying a relationship between tasks by the task relationship presentation unit. As a method of displaying the relationship between the tasks, for example, as shown in FIG. 3, only the task name of each task is displayed as a whole so that the relation between the tasks becomes clear, or a link is displayed from the whole display. There is a method of displaying details of each issue. In the method shown in FIG. 3A, the entire display is performed by a tree structure display. In the method shown in FIG. 3B, the entire display is performed by indentation display. Further FIG.
(C) shows an example of a detailed display of the task. In addition,
The display data may include data that is not displayed, such as an assignment ID or a parent assignment ID.

In the terminal 10, for example, FIG.
Each task can be selected from the entire display as shown in (B) with a pointer such as a mouse. If necessary, it is possible to perform a detailed display of the selected task as shown in FIG. Also, in the example of the detailed display of the assignment shown in FIG. 3C, for example, for the detailed description of the assignment, a URL is described as a pointer to the description, and the selection jumps to the detailed description. can do. In the following description, an example in which an indent display as shown in FIG.

The assignment relation definition unit 3 enables the assignment relation to be defined from the terminal 10 and held in the assignment relation holding unit 1, or the assignment relation held in the assignment relation holding unit 1 to be edited. Specific functions include, in response to a request from the terminal 10, a function for returning a corresponding task relation definition input form, and receiving a task relation definition form from the terminal 10 and performing data conversion processing as appropriate. Relationship holding unit 1
Has a function of making a desired request. In the terminal 10, a task can be selected from the entire display described above using a pointer such as a mouse. By selecting a desired command from the edit menu as needed, a request for an assignment relation definition input form to the assignment relation definition unit 3 can be made. The assignment-related definition input form is sent from the assignment-related definition section 3 in response to the request, and is edited, and a registration execution instruction is performed by, for example, a registration button, so that the assignment-related definition form is assigned to the assignment-related definition section 3. Will be replied to.

In this example, the commands selectable from the edit menu are, for example, the following command groups. -New assignment add command: Adds a sub assignment to the selected assignment. -Assignment information change command: Changes information about the selected assignment. -Assignment deletion command: Deletes the selected assignment and its sub-assignments. In addition to the above three basic commands, the following commands may be prepared as commands for easily changing the structure between tasks in particular. LEFT: The parent task of the parent task is set as a new parent task.・ RIGHT: Assign a sibling issue sharing the same parent issue as a new parent issue. UP: Move up and down (change the order of those sharing the same parent task) CUT: Delete yourself and its children from the task relationship and move them to a temporary storage area. PASTE: As a sub-task of the selected one, the one in the temporary storage area is added.

The opinion holding section 4 holds a plurality of opinions for each of the tasks held in the task relation holding section 1. In this example, the opinion holding unit 4 has an assertion holding unit 7 and a comment holding unit 8. The assertion holding unit 7 holds a plurality of opinions (arguments) that can be a solution to each problem. FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram of an example of claim information and comment information. FIG. 4A shows an example of the claim information held by the claim holding unit 7. The claim holding unit 7 can hold information such as: • target issues • claim title • claim content • proposer • proposal submission date and time. In the example shown in FIG. 4A, the information of the proposer is not shown.

The comment holding unit 8 holds a comment for an assertion and a comment for another comment. Comments are opinions that do not directly answer a given task, and include rebuttals, conditioning, questions, and responses. FIG.
FIG. 3B shows the structure of the comment information held in the comment holding unit 8. This comment holding unit 8 can also hold the same information as the claim holding unit 7 as comment information. However, information indicating a claim or other comment is held in the target column.

The opinion holding unit 4 has the following functions. A function of returning a record corresponding to a claim ID or comment ID given from outside. -A function for performing new record registration processing for assertion information or comment information for a new record given from the outside. A function of deleting a record of a corresponding ID from claim information or comment information for a claim ID or comment ID given from outside. -A function to send updated information to the outside in response to the update of assertion information or comment information. A function of returning related assertion information and comment information to an externally given assignment ID.

The opinion group display unit 5 sends the newly converted claim group and comment group display data to the terminal 10 in response to the reception of the update information of the claim information or comment information or the external display data request. Has a function to return. The display data is obtained by converting the assertion information and the comment information held in the opinion holding unit 4 into display data that clarifies the relationship between the opinions.

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of an example of an assertion display and a comment display displayed by the opinion group display section. As a method of displaying claim information, for example, as shown in FIG. 5A, a list of claims for each task can be displayed, and a contrast display of a group of claims that clarifies the relationship between the claims with respect to the task can be performed. . In the terminal 10, for example, by selecting an arbitrary task from the entire display of the task group as shown in FIG. 2 and issuing a "contrast assertion" command, the selected task is displayed as shown in FIG. You can move to the display of the claim group contrast display. In the contrast display of the group of claims, the details of the selected claim can be displayed.

As a method for displaying comment information,
For example, as shown in FIG. 5B, a list of comments for a claim or a comment can be displayed. This comment information can be displayed by, for example, referring to a link from the claim displayed in the contrast display of the claim group as shown in FIG. In the terminal 10, when an arbitrary claim is selected and a "comment display" command is issued in the contrast display of the claim group as shown in FIG. 5 (A), the selected claim is shown in FIG. 5 (B). The screen moves to the comment group display screen as shown above. In the comment group display, the comment group for the selected assertion and the comment group for them are listed and displayed in chronological order or in the form of a comment chain. By selecting an arbitrary comment, the details of the selected comment can be displayed. In the comment group display, for example,
The already read comment and the unread comment may be displayed separately. Here, the comment group display screen is generated for each claim, but there is also a method of displaying the claim group and the comment group on the same screen, and classifying and presenting the comment group according to the claim that is the basis of the comment .

The opinion input / editing section 6 makes it possible to input an opinion from a terminal 10 by distinguishing an assertion on a certain task or a comment on an assertion or comment. More specifically, in response to a request from the terminal 10, a function for returning a corresponding opinion input form, and after receiving the opinion form from the terminal 10 and performing appropriate data conversion processing, the opinion holding unit 4
Has a function of making a desired request. In the terminal 10, for example, a request for an opinion input form to the opinion input editing unit 6 can be made in the following three methods. Method 1: For example, in the display of a group of claims as shown in FIG. 5 (A), the field of the assignment name is selected with a pointer such as a mouse, and an "input opinion" command is issued. Method 2: For example, in the display of a group of claims as shown in FIG. 5 (A), an arbitrary claim is selected by a pointer such as a mouse, and an "input opinion" command is issued. Method 3: For example, in a comment group display as shown in FIG. 5B, an arbitrary comment is set to a selected state, and an "input opinion" command is issued.

The opinion input editing unit 6 has an opinion classifying unit 9, and transfers the received opinion input form request processing to the opinion classifying unit 9. The opinion classifying unit 9 sends a form for inputting a claim when the received request is based on the method 1 described above, and a form for comment input when the received request is based on the method 2 or 3, to the terminal 10. I will send it back. In the terminal 10, the received opinion input form is edited, and a registration execution command is issued by, for example, a registration button, and the opinion form is returned to the opinion input editing unit 6.

Further, the opinion input editing unit 6 can enable editing of an opinion by using, for example, an "edit opinion" command. At this time, the editing of opinions can be applied only to the claims to improve the claims that can be a solution to the problem. Further, it is preferable that the comment is not editable in order to take responsibility for the content of the comment. Of course, it is also possible to configure so that all of them can be edited or none of them can be edited.

Next, the operation of the first embodiment of the present invention will be described. FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an example of an operation when newly registering a problem according to the first embodiment of the present invention. The terminal 10 is connected to the apparatus via a user management unit (not shown) or the like, and requests display data from the assignment presentation unit 2 in S31. Terminal 10
The assignment-related presentation unit 2 requested to display data by
At 32, the task relation holding unit 1 is requested to record all the tasks. The task relationship holding unit 1 executes S33
, Records for all assignments are returned to the assignment-related presentation unit 2.

The task relation presenting section 2 that has received the reply from the task relation holding section 1 creates display data from the records for all the tasks received in S34. As the display data, for example, indent display data for overall display shown in FIG. 3B and detailed display data of each task shown in FIG. 3C can be created. Then, the created display data is returned to the terminal 10.

In S35, the terminal 10 displays an indent, for example, as shown in FIG. 3B according to the display data. The user can perform a detailed display, for example, as shown in FIG. 3C on the selected task by selecting the task from the indent display using a pointer such as a mouse as necessary.

In step S36, the user selects a task to be a parent task of the task to be newly registered from the indentation display by using a pointer such as a mouse, and selects a new task addition command in the edit menu. An assignment relation definition input form request is made to the relation definition unit 3. At this time, the assignment ID and the assignment name of the selected assignment are also transmitted at the same time.

In step S37, the assignment relation definition unit 3 that has received the assignment relation definition input form request generates a new assignment ID in response to the request, and assigns the received assignment ID and assignment name to the parent assignment ID and the parent assignment, respectively. As a name, an input form for adding a new assignment is generated and transmitted to the terminal 10. The input form for adding a new assignment to be transmitted is, for example, as shown in FIG.
A structure similar to that of the detailed display of the problem shown in FIG. Note that the system side can automatically input fields such as the parent task name and the setter, and the other fields are blank. The input form for adding a new assignment also includes undisplayed data such as a new assignment ID and a parent assignment ID.

In S38, the user inputs necessary fields on the terminal 10. At this time, fields automatically input by the system, such as the parent task name, the setter, and the input date and time, cannot be edited. When the input is completed, the user issues a registration instruction. Thereby, the new assignment adding form in which the necessary items are input is transmitted to the assignment relation definition unit 3.

In S39, the assignment relation definition unit 3 that has received the new assignment adding form newly generates a record for registration, and generates the values of the respective fields of the received new assignment adding form. And a request for registration of the record is made to the assignment relation holding unit 1. Upon receiving the registration request, the task relationship holding unit 1 proceeds to S40
, The received record is registered as new assignment in the assignment group information. When the registration process is completed, the assignment relation holding unit 1 transmits the updated assignment group information to the assignment relation presentation unit 2.

Task relation presentation section 2 receiving the task group information
In S41, indentation data shown in FIG. 3B and detailed display data of each assignment shown in FIG. 3C are created as display data from the assignment group information received in the same manner as in S34, Terminal 10 replies. In S42, the terminal 10 updates the indent display and the detailed display thereof. With the above, a new assignment is registered.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation when changing the object structure in the first embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of a specific example for changing the object structure. Steps in FIG. 7 that indicate operations similar to those in FIG. 6 are given the same reference numerals, and descriptions thereof will be omitted. In the following operation example, for example, an object structure as shown in FIG.
The operation for changing to the problem structure as shown in FIG. In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, a to i indicate tasks, and parent-child relationships are indicated by line segments. That is, FIG.
In (A), the parent task of tasks h and i is task f, the parent task of tasks e and f is task b, and the parent task of tasks b, c, and d is task a. Then, a case where the parent task of the task f is changed to the task c will be described.

Steps S31 to S35 are the same as the operations for newly registering the task shown in FIG. 6, and the entire display and detailed display are performed on the terminal 10 according to the instruction. In S51, the user selects a task (task f) whose parent task is desired to be changed from the indent display with a pointer such as a mouse, and selects a task information change command in an edit menu. As a result, the terminal 10 makes a task relation definition input form request to the task relation definition unit 3. At this time, the assignment ID of the selected assignment f is also transmitted.

In S52, the task relation definition unit 3 receiving the request for the task relation definition input form responds to the request in
It requests the record corresponding to the received assignment ID from the assignment relation holding unit 1 and acquires the record. Then, an assignment information change input form is generated based on the acquired records, and transmitted to the terminal 10. The assignment information change input form can have, for example, the same structure as the assignment detail display shown in FIG. In each field, the current field value of the record is entered. Therefore, in the example illustrated in FIG. 8, the assignment name “b” is input in the parent assignment name field of the assignment information change input form generated from the record corresponding to the assignment f. The assignment information change input form also includes data that is not displayed, such as an assignment ID and a parent assignment ID.

In step S53, the user selects a parent task name field displaying the task name "b" on the terminal 10 with a pointer such as a mouse, and displays a task name list. Task name "c" is selected. As a result, the value of the parent assignment name field and the parent assignment ID that is not displayed can be changed. By completing the change and instructing the registration, the assignment information change form in which the parent assignment has been changed is transmitted to the assignment relation definition unit 3.

[0049] In S54, the assignment relation definition unit 3 that has received the assignment information change form newly generates a record for registration, and generates a record for each field in the received assignment information change form. Post to each field. Then, a request for registering the record is made to the task relationship holding unit 1.

Upon receiving the registration request, the assignment relation holding unit 1
At 55, the task group information is updated based on the received record. First, a record that matches the assignment ID of the received record is extracted from the assignment group information.
Next, the fields of the received record and the extracted record are compared, the changed field is specified, and the field value of the changed field is updated. In this example, since the parent assignment name and the parent assignment ID have been changed, the values of these two fields are changed. When the necessary update processing is completed, the assignment relation holding unit 1 transmits the updated assignment group information to the assignment relation presentation unit 2. Hereinafter, FIG.
The same operation as S41 and S42 is performed, and the updated whole display and detailed display are performed.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing an example of an operation when a comment for an assertion is input according to the first embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, steps for performing the same processing as in FIG. 6 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and description thereof will be omitted.

Steps S31 to S35 are the same as the operation for newly registering the task shown in FIG. 6, and the terminal 10 performs the entire display and the detailed display according to the instruction. In S61, the user selects a task of interest from the indent display with a pointer such as a mouse, and selects an assertion comparison command in the menu. As a result, the terminal 10 requests the opinion group display unit 5 for display data. At this time, the assignment ID of the selected assignment is also transmitted at the same time.

In S62, the opinion group display unit 5 that has received the request for display data requests the opinion holding unit 4 for assertion information and comment information related to the received assignment ID. Upon receiving this request, the opinion holding unit 4 first executes S63
Request the claim holding unit 7 for claim information related to the received assignment ID. In S64, the claim holding unit 7 that has received the request sequentially scans each record of the held claim information, compares the target task field in each record with the received task ID, and determines a record in which both match to the relevant claim. The information is returned to the opinion holding unit 4 as information.

The opinion holding unit 4 further determines in S65 that
Each record of the related claim information received from the claim holding unit 7 is sequentially scanned, and the claim ID of each record is transmitted to the comment holding unit 8 to request comment information related to the claim ID. In S66, the comment holding unit 8 sequentially scans each record of the held comment information, compares the target field in each record with the received assertion ID, and stores the matched record in the temporary storage unit (not shown). Remember. Next, each record of the comment information to be held is sequentially scanned again, and the target field in each record and each comment I in the record group stored in the temporary storage unit are scanned.
D is compared with, and a record matching any of the comment IDs is stored in the temporary storage means. In this manner, the operation of collating the target field of each record of the comment information with the comment ID of the record group newly stored in the temporary storage unit and storing the matched record in the temporary storage unit is repeated until there are no more matched records. Do. Thereby, the comment information related to the subject ID is extracted from the held comment information. When the extraction is completed, the comment storage unit 8 returns the record group stored in the temporary storage unit to the opinion storage unit 4 as related comment information.

In step S67, the opinion holding unit 4 returns the related assertion information received from the assertion holding unit 7 and the related comment information received from the comment holding unit 8 to the opinion group display unit 5.
In S68, the opinion group display unit 5 creates display data based on the received related assertion information and related comment information. The display data may be, for example, comparison display data of the claim group shown in FIG. 5A and comment group display data for each claim shown in FIG. 5B. The opinion group display unit 5 returns the created display data to the terminal 10.

In step S69, the user selects an arbitrary claim from the display of the claim group as shown in FIG. By issuing the command, for example, as shown in FIG. 5B, a comment group can be displayed for the selected claim.

In step S70, the user selects a notable claim from the display of the group of claims with the pointer such as a mouse, and selects an opinion input command in the menu. As a result, the terminal 10 requests the opinion input editing unit 6 for an opinion input form. At this time, the claim ID of the selected claim is also transmitted.

In S71, the opinion input / editing unit 6 to which the opinion input form request has been made transfers the assertion ID to the opinion classifying unit 9 in S71. In S72, the opinion classification unit 9 recognizes that the passed data is the assertion ID, and newly generates a comment ID. Then, the input form for new comment is generated using the assertion ID passed from the opinion input editing unit 6 as the target ID, and transmitted to the terminal 10. The comment input form to be transmitted may have the same structure as the comment detail display as shown in FIG. 5B, for example. The comment input form also includes data that is not displayed, such as a comment ID and a target ID.

In S73, the user inputs necessary fields to the comment input form received from the opinion classifying unit 9 at the terminal 10, and instructs registration. Thereby, the input new comment form is transmitted to the opinion input editing unit 6.

In S74, the opinion input editing unit 6 that has received the new comment form newly generates a record for registration, and transcribes the value of each field of the received new comment form to each field of the generated record.
It requests the opinion holding unit 4 to register the record.

Upon receiving the registration request, the opinion holding unit 4 proceeds to S75.
Since the value of the field of the target ID of the received record is the assertion ID, it is determined that the record is comment information, and registration processing of the record in the comment holding unit 8 is performed. Once the registration process is complete,
In S76, the opinion holding unit 4 specifies the assignment ID targeted by the newly registered comment, requests the claim holding unit 7 for the claim information, and based on the obtained related claim information, the comment holding unit 4. 8 to obtain comment information. Then, the display is updated via the opinion group display unit 6 with the obtained related assertion information and comment information. This process
The processing can be performed by the same procedure as the above-described processing of S63 to S68. With the above, comments on the assertion are input.

When an assignment is selected and an opinion input command in the menu is selected while the indent display as shown in FIG. The selected assignment ID is passed. In this case, the opinion input editing unit 6 passes the received assignment ID to the opinion classification unit 9, and the opinion classification unit 9 generates a claim input form using the received assignment ID as the target ID, and generates Send to After inputting each field of the claim input form, the user instructs registration, so that the opinion input editing unit 6 causes the claim holding unit 7 to hold the claim.

When a comment is selected while a comment group is displayed as shown in FIG. 5B, for example, and an opinion input command in the menu is selected, the comment input editing unit 6 Is passed the selected comment ID. In this case, the opinion input / editing unit 6 transfers the received comment ID to the opinion classifying unit 9, and the opinion classifying unit 9 generates a comment input form using the received comment ID as a target ID and sends the comment input form to the terminal 10. Send to After inputting each field of the comment input form, the user instructs registration, so that the opinion input editing unit 6 causes the comment holding unit 8 to hold the comment.

In this manner, the assertion, the comment on the assertion, and the input of the comment on the comment are performed. The input claims and comments are stored and managed separately in the claim holding section 7 and the comment holding section 8, so that important claims can be compared and discussed without being buried in comments. Opinions and questions can be freely input as comments, so creative discussions can be held.

FIG. 10 is a block diagram showing a second embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, the same parts as those in FIG. 1 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and description thereof will be omitted. Only different points will be described.
Reference numeral 11 denotes an attitude input unit. In the second embodiment,
It shows a structure that can express the pros and cons.

In the second embodiment, the assertion holding unit 7
And a field for holding a list of supporters and a list of opponents, with respect to the assertion information held by (1) and the comment information held by the comment holding unit 8. FIG.
FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram of an example of assertion information according to the second embodiment of the present invention. The example of the claim information shown in FIG. 11 has fields of a supporter list and an opponent list in addition to the claim information described in FIG. Here, only a configuration example of the assertion information is shown, but the comment information can be similarly configured.

When generating the display data of the claim group and the comment group, the opinion group display unit 5 determines the number of the supporters based on the supporter list and the disagreement list included in the claim information and the comment information. , Display data is generated so as to display the number of opponents. FIG.
It is an explanatory view of an example of a contrast display screen of a group of claims in a 2nd embodiment of the present invention. In the example shown in FIG. 12, when the claim group is compared and displayed, the number of supporters of each claim is represented by "+" and the number of opponents is represented by "-". The notation is arbitrary, and for example, the approval may be indicated by “「 ”and the opposite may be indicated by“ × ”. In addition to expressing the number of supporters and the number of opponents in a row of symbols as described above, for example, “○ 3: ×
Various display methods can be applied, such as directly displaying a number such as "1" or enumerating names.

The attitude input section 11 enables the user to input an expression of an attitude of the user who agrees or disagrees with each opinion. Here, similarly to the opinion input editing unit 6, the expression of the attitude is realized by inputting a command. The commands added here are three commands of the approval command, the opposite command, and the hold command. -When the approval command is input, enter the name of the user who input the command in the supporter list. If the dissent list contains a name, remove it from there. If you agree with another claim, remove it from the list. If the opponent command is entered, add the name of the user who entered the command to the opponent list. Except when the name is on the list of supporters. "Agree"
Unlike commands, even if you are on the dissent list of another claim, do nothing to the dissent list for that claim. If a hold command is entered, remove the name from both the favor and disagree lists. In this context, in favor of multiple arguments, we disagree in favor of multiple arguments in the sense that they represent an attitude toward a possible solution. However, an arrangement may be made in which a plurality of assertions can be expressed, for example, in favor of similar claims. Also, with regard to the opposition to the comments, more than one opinion may be agreed.

The operation of the second embodiment is almost the same as that of the first embodiment. When instructing input of an opinion, one of the approval command, the opposite command, and the hold command is selected. Thus, the attitude input unit 11 updates the supporter list and the opponent list of the claim information held by the claim holding unit 7 or the comment information held by the comment holding unit 8 as described above. Do. The updated content is displayed on the terminal 1 by the opinion group display unit 5.
It is reflected on the display of 0.

FIG. 13 is a block diagram showing a third embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, the same parts as those in FIG. 10 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and description thereof will be omitted. Only different points will be described. Reference numeral 12 denotes a charging restriction unit. In the third embodiment, an example is shown in which a status indicating the state of a discussion is introduced, and the input of opinions is restricted in accordance with the status to prevent repetition of the discussion. Note that, in this example, the attitude input unit 11 is provided in the same manner as in the above-described second embodiment, but the attitude input unit 11 may not be provided.

The assignment relation holding unit 1 has, as unique information of each assignment, information of the assignment status, the chairperson, the closing proposal, and the conclusion in addition to the information described in the first embodiment. I have.

The following are assumed as the values of the task status. -Not started: Discussion has not started and no opinions have been input. Arguments can be defined.・ Under discussion: Claims and comments can be input. -Closing proposal: A closing proposal has been issued to end the discussion. It is in a state where it can not do anything other than expressing its pros and cons.・ End of discussion: A state in which conclusions have been reached and claims and comments cannot be entered. Of course, other states may be assumed.

In the chair information, a user having the following authority for the subject is set. Each component executes its function after determining whether the connected user is the chairperson. 1. Definition of the task relation In this example, the change of the task relation by the task relation definition unit 3 is:
Only the chair can do it. Any user can display the relationship. 2. Status change The status value is changed as the discussion progresses. That is, the discussion is changed from “not started” → “under discussion” → “concluding proposal” → “end of discussion”. 3. Delegation of chair authority of sub-discussion In the assignment relation definition unit 3, the chair field can be changed.

In the field of conclusion proposal and conclusion, the contents of the proposal made for ending the discussion performed by the chair, the contents of the conclusion of the discussion, or an ID or pointer indicating these contents are stored. In addition, as will be described later, a conclusion proposal or the like can be input as one of the opinions. In this case, a link to the opinion serving as the conclusion proposal may be stored. In addition, for example, it is also possible to configure so that the closing proposal is treated as one special claim without providing the closing proposal field.

The input restriction unit 12 determines the status value of the target task and the authority of the connected user (whether the user is a chairperson or not).
To limit the input of opinions. FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram of an example of the operation restriction performed by the insertion restriction unit for each status value. FIG. 14 shows restrictions for each status value performed by the input restricting unit 12 for each of the functions of the definition of the task relationship, input of opinions, attitude expression, and detailed display. Here, the definition of the task relation is a restriction of the task relation definition unit 3, and the other is a restriction of the opinion input editing unit 6. The task relationship definition unit 3 and the opinion input editing unit 6 perform each operation after confirming whether or not the operation is possible through the input restriction unit 12.

In the example shown in FIG. 14, the assignment can be defined only by the chair when the status value has not been started or is under discussion. The input of an opinion is only performed when the value of the status is “discussed”. For example, the input of an opinion that revives the discussion after a closing proposal is submitted is limited.
Thereby, it is possible to prevent a round-trip due to reconsideration of the discussion. An expression of attitude can be made to the input opinion or the closing proposal when the status value is under discussion or closing proposal. Detailed display can be performed at any time, but when the value of the status has not started, opinions cannot be input yet, so that detailed display of only the assignment is possible.

Next, an example of the operation according to the third embodiment of the present invention will be described. The definition of the task relationship and the process of inputting an opinion are the same as in the first embodiment. Also, as in the second embodiment, the attitude can be expressed, but the processing in that case is also performed in the second embodiment.
This is the same as the embodiment.

The process for ending the discussion will be described below. If only the value of the status is to be changed, the problem may be dealt with by changing the task information using the task relation definition unit 3. Here, a special command is prepared for the processing for termination. Opinion input editing unit 6 is input restriction unit 12
To determine whether the command can be executed.

When the discussion has converged or a state of circumstance where further progress cannot be expected, the chair issues a termination proposal command. In the processing of the closing proposal, the chair inputs the reason for the proposal, the method of deriving the conclusion (such as proposal of majority decision or assumed conclusion), and the delivery date. The information entered is
It is held in the termination proposal field in the unique information of the assignment.
It is assumed that the end proposal field is further divided into subfields in order to hold such information.

In the state where the closing proposal has been made, the members of the discussion can only express their pros and cons. If the conclusion derivation method is a majority vote, pros and cons are entered for each claim. If the conclusion derivation method is a proposal of a hypothetical conclusion, we express approval or disapproval of the proposal itself.

According to such an end proposal, if the attitude proposal made by each member does not allow the end proposal to be accepted, for example, the proposal of the assumed conclusion is rejected, the status value is being discussed again. Or resubmit it in another form.

When it is determined that the closing proposal has been accepted,
The chair issues a conclusion command and changes the status value to discussion end. In the conclusion command, a conclusion is input. The entered conclusion is entered in the task conclusion field. In this way, a conclusion was able to be obtained for one problem.

FIG. 15 is a block diagram showing a fourth embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, the same parts as those in FIG. 13 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and description thereof will be omitted. Only different points will be described. Reference numeral 13 denotes an input restriction unit, and reference numeral 14 denotes a definition control unit. In the third embodiment described above, the participants in the discussion are divided into two classes, the chairperson and general participants, and only the chairperson can define the task relationship and issue a conclusion proposal. Since there are only two classes, it was sufficient to list only the chair user in the chair field in the assignment's unique information. However, as a class of discussion participants, such a 2
It is not limited to one. In the fourth embodiment, a configuration is shown in which participants in a discussion can be classified into three or more classes.

The assignment relation holding unit 1 has a participant information field as the unique information of each assignment instead of the chair field described in the third embodiment.
FIG. 16 is an explanatory diagram of an example of the task group information including the participant attribute list. In the example shown in FIG.
It has a participant information field as one field. In the participant information field, for example, a participant attribute list as shown in the lower part of the figure can be stored. The participant attribute list shown in FIG. 16 is composed of a participant name and a class of the participant (the participant information field stores the participant attribute list itself, The ID and pointer for the list may be stored.

Here, as an example, a class called an observer is introduced in addition to the chairman and the participants as a class of the participants. Observers may refer to the opinions expressed in the discussion, but shall not input new opinions.

The input restricting unit 13 restricts the input of an opinion in the opinion input editing unit 6, similarly to the input restricting unit 12 in the third embodiment. At this time, by referring to the status information, it is determined whether or not the discussion is at a stage where an opinion can be input, and by referring to the participant information field in the unique information of the assignment, the user who inputs the opinion is It is determined whether or not the input of is performed. Based on such a determination result, inputting of opinions is restricted. For example, a class will be denied input from observers.

When defining the task relation in the task relation definition section 3, the definition control section 14 refers to the status information and the participant information field of the task to determine whether or not the task relation can be defined. Controls the definition of an issue relationship.

The operation of the fourth embodiment is the same as that of the third embodiment, except that the class of three or more participants can be defined.

FIG. 17 is a block diagram showing a fifth embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, the same parts as those in FIG. 13 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and the description thereof will be omitted. Reference numeral 15 denotes a status information propagation unit. In the fifth embodiment, an example is shown in which the status introduced in the third and fourth embodiments is used to control the start and end of another task according to the status value of a certain task. . Here, based on the third embodiment,
Of course, the fourth embodiment may be based.

The task relationship holding unit 1 holds a logical relationship between sub-tasks as one of the fields of each task in the task group information. The logical relations of the sub-tasks are as follows: AND: When all the status values of the sub-tasks are completed, the status value of the own task is completed (conclusion). OR: When one of the status values of the sub-task ends, the status value of the own task ends (conclusion). At least. In addition, for example, the following values may be added.・ TOTAL: When all status values of the sub-tasks are completed, the discussion of oneself can be started (the status is under discussion). Here we discuss the consistency of the conclusions of the sub-tasks. NIL: No sub-task.

It is to be noted that it is also possible to configure so as to operate on the assumption of any one of the logical relations without holding the logical relations of such sub-tasks. For example, it is possible to adopt a configuration in which AND or TOTAL is assumed as the logical relationship of the sub-tasks, and the operation of AND or TOTAL is always performed.

For example, if the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is AN
As an operation at the time of D or OR, when all the status values of the sub-tasks are completed, or when one of them is completed, change the status value of itself during the discussion and start the discussion. Is also good.

The task relation holding unit 1 has a status information transmitting unit 15. When the status information of a certain task is changed, the status information propagation unit 15
Evaluate and change the status information of other tasks based on the relationship between tasks such as sub-tasks and the logical relationship between the sub-tasks.

The task relation definition section 3 makes it possible to select any of the above-described logical relations of the sub-tasks with respect to the relation between the tasks.

Next, a process of changing the status information in the fifth embodiment will be described. When the status value of a certain task is completed, the status information propagation unit 15 notifies the parent task of the task of the event. The parent issue that has been notified of the event inquires about the status of its own sub-issue. -When the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is AND, if the statuses of all the sub-tasks have ended, the status of oneself is changed from the non-discussion start to the discussion end. It then notifies its own parent issue of the status change. -When the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is OR, change the status of oneself from the start of the discussion to the end of the discussion. And
Notify your own parent issue of the status change. -When the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is TOTAL, if the statuses of all the sub-tasks are completed, the status of oneself is changed during the discussion.

In the above description, a parent-child relationship is assumed as a dependency between tasks. However, the relationship between tasks is not limited to this. For example, a relationship other than the parent-child relationship such as a sibling relationship can be defined separately. You may comprise. Here, a dependency between siblings is introduced as an example. This dependency between siblings can be used to define an agenda item whose content depends on the conclusion of the agenda item. If this relationship is defined, the discussion can only begin (the status can be discussed) when an issue is finished.

By defining such a dependency other than parent and child,
To use it, the following changes may be made. First, the task relationship holding unit 1 can hold such a dependency relationship separately from the parent-child relationship of the task-subtask. Specifically, for a given task, the source (or its list), its destination (or its list), or both may be held. The task relationship definition unit 3 provides an interface for defining these dependencies. For example, when two tasks are selected and a dependency addition command is issued, a dependency is set from the brother task at the top of the list to the brother task at the bottom of the list among the sibling tasks. The older brother task is the source of the dependency, and the younger brother task is the destination of the dependency.

When a dependency relationship is set between tasks, when the status of the dependency source is completed, the event is transmitted to the task of the dependency destination. If the dependent task has a subtask, the task itself cannot be started, and a startable signal is transmitted to the subtask. The sub-task also signals the sub-tasks of the sub-task. This is repeated until there are no sub-tasks, and the status of the tasks without sub-tasks is changed to “under discussion”.

As described above, when there is a sub-task, when the condition of the logical relationship of the sub-task is satisfied, there is a case in which oneself can start and a case in which oneself ends. It is also possible to configure a configuration in which, when the process is terminated by itself, the process may be started in advance regardless of notification of an event from a dependent source. In this case, there are two start conditions for the task, namely, that the condition of the logical relationship of the sub-task is satisfied and that the dependent source ends.

An example of use of the fifth embodiment will be described. FIG. 18 is an explanatory diagram of a specific example of a dependency relationship and a logical relationship between tasks. The example illustrated in FIG. 18 illustrates the tasks set when discussing a certain employee trip plan, and the dependency and logical relationship between the tasks. In order to carry out an employee trip, the schedule, location, and access method shall be determined as a basic plan. That is, schedule, place, and access means are set as sub-tasks of the basic plan. These sub-tasks are ANDed in the sense that if the schedule, location and access means are determined, the basic plan will be satisfied.

On the other hand, as for the access means, any of a train, a bus, and a private car may be employed, and an OR connection is made in the sense that the access means is determined if any of these sub-tasks is satisfied. Also, since the access means cannot be determined unless the location is determined, it is defined to have a dependency with the location. In addition, issues such as “banquets” are discussed after the basic plan is determined, and dependencies from the basic plan are defined.

First, the chair starts discussion on “schedule” and “place”. Discussion cannot be started for other sub-tasks because their dependencies are defined. If you try to start a discussion, the system will reject the change. In this way, the tasks that can be changed at the start of the discussion and the tasks that cannot be changed can be determined based on the logical relationships and dependencies of the tasks. For this reason, for an issue that can be changed to the start of a discussion, a configuration in which the system automatically starts a discussion is also possible.

If it is determined that the discussion on “place” is exhausted, the chair issues a discussion end proposal command. If it is deemed that it is good to decide on a certain claim, select that claim and issue a termination proposal command. On the other hand, if the opinion is broken and it is determined that there is no other method than the majority decision, a conclusion proposal command is issued without selecting an assertion. FIG. 19 is an explanatory diagram of an example of the termination proposal. FIG. 19A shows an example in which “Atami” is selected as a place, for example. FIG.
In (A), the assertion "Atami" is underlined to indicate that it was selected.

As shown in FIG. 19 (A), when the user selects “Atami” and issues a termination proposal command, the opinion input editing unit 6
Presents the conclusion proposal input sheet as shown in FIG. 19B to the chairperson, for example. If the end proposal command is issued without selecting an assertion, an end proposal input sheet with no conclusion proposed in the title is presented. The chair inputs the reasons for the proposal, the method of deriving the conclusion, the deadline, etc. on the closing proposal input sheet.

The closing proposal input sheet in which each item has been input is stored in the closing proposal field in the assignment group information, for example, as described in the third embodiment. Alternatively, such an end proposal may be input to the opinion input editing unit 6 as one assertion. In this case, the assignment group information may be configured to hold the ID of the claim to be the final proposal or to hold a link to the claim.

When the conclusion proposal is made, the task relation holding unit 1
Changes the status of the sub-task to “closed proposal”. The input restriction unit 12 refers to this status and disables inputting and editing of a new opinion. In FIG. 19C,
In response to this, the fact that the opinion addition command and the edit command are unavailable is indicated by changing the display state of the button. Also, since the status was closed,
Conclusion Indicates that the command is available. A list of allegations is provided for a proposed conclusion.

At this point, after a certain period of time, the participant waits for an expression of attitude. If there are many votes for the closing proposal, the chair issues a conclusion command. The opinion input editing unit 6
Present the chair with an input sheet prompting you to enter your conclusions. When the chair inputs the conclusion in this input sheet and closes the sheet, the opinion input editing unit 6 writes the conclusion in the conclusion field of the assignment in the assignment relationship holding unit 1. In addition, the status information is set to “end the discussion” for the assignment in the assignment relation holding unit 1.

The status information propagation unit 15 informs the “basic plan”, which is the parent task of “place”, that the sub-task “place” has ended based on the information held in the task relationship holding unit 1, and changes the status. Ask for a check. By examining his / her sub-task, the task “basic plan” shows that the sub-task “place” has ended, but the sub-task “access means” has not ended. Since the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is AND, the parent task “basic plan”
Does not change its own status.

The status information propagation unit 15 notifies the task “access means” having a dependency relationship with the task “location” that the status of the task “location” has been changed. The task "access means" examines the status of tasks that are also dependent, and all of these tasks are "discussed"
If so, it is determined that it is possible to start itself. In this case,
Since there is no other dependent issue, the issue “access means” can be started. However, since he / she has a sub-task, a start-capable notification is sent to the sub-task. The sub-task further examines its own sub-task. This is repeated to change the status of the task having no sub-tasks to “under discussion”. Here, since the sub-tasks “train”, “bus”, and “private car” of the task “access means” do not have any sub-tasks, the statuses of the tasks “train”, “bus”, and “private car” are discussed. Turns inside.

The process for ending the discussion proceeds in the same procedure as in the case of the above-mentioned problem “place”, and the process “access means”
It is assumed that the status of the task “bus”, which is one of the sub-tasks, is “end of discussion”. Also in this case, propagation of status information occurs. In the parent task "access means", the logical relationship of the sub-tasks is OR, and the task "bus" which is one of the sub-tasks is "discussed", so the status of the parent task itself is "discussed". To That is, the task “access means” ends when the discussion on the task “bus” ends, and the discussion on the other sub-tasks “train” and “private car” can also end.

Further, when the discussion of the task “access means” is completed, a change in status is propagated to the parent task “basic plan”. Since the logical relationship between the sub-tasks of the task “basic plan” is AND, it is determined whether or not the statuses of all the sub-tasks have been discussed. As described above, the sub-tasks “place” and “access means” have been discussed. Once the assignment "Schedule" is over,
The discussion on the topic “Basic Plan” is over. Assignment "Basic Plan"
When the discussion is over, the status change is notified to the parent task, and the status of the dependent task “banquet item” is changed during the discussion.

By repeating such processing,
Discussion on each task is advanced according to the logical relation and dependency relation of the tasks. In this way, the flow of the entire discussion can be controlled, and the discussion can proceed in an orderly manner.

FIG. 20 is a block diagram showing a sixth embodiment of the present invention. In the figure, the same parts as those in FIG. 13 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and description thereof will be omitted. Only different points will be described. Reference numeral 16 denotes a problem solution holding unit, 17 denotes a discussion method holding unit, 18 denotes an opinion classifying unit, and 19 denotes an input limiting unit. In the sixth embodiment, an example will be described in which the discussion for solving the problem and the discussion on the discussion method are separately managed.

The opinion holding unit 4 has a problem solution plan holding unit 16 and a discussion method plan holding unit 17. Problem solution plan holding unit 16
Holds opinions (arguments) that can be a solution to the problem.
Further, the discussion method plan holding unit 17 holds an opinion (argument) on how to proceed the discussion. Claim information held by the problem solution holding unit 16 and the discussion method holding unit 17 has an opinion type field in addition to the claim information held by the claim holding unit 7 in the above-described first embodiment. The value of the opinion field is: 1: An opinion that can be a solution to the problem. Of course, this value is not limited to 1, 2. The problem solution plan holding unit 16 and the discussion method plan holding unit 17 can be configured to manage comments as well as comments. In this case, the assertion and the comment may be separated, and the comment may be managed in the same manner as in the comment holding unit 8 in the above-described first embodiment.

The opinion group display unit 5 generates display problem data and a discussion method plan when generating display data for displaying a comparison of a group of claims with respect to a certain task.
Send to In the case where the problem solution storage unit 16 and the discussion method storage unit 17 also manage comments, when generating display data for displaying comment groups, the problem solution plan and the discussion method plan are also used. Generate each.

The opinion input editing unit 6 has an opinion classifying unit 18. In the terminal 10, for a given task, a contrast display (and a comment group display) of a group of claims is displayed separately for a problem solution proposal and a discussion method proposal. When receiving the request for the opinion input form, the opinion input editing unit 6 determines which display the request was issued from by the opinion classifying unit 18 and selects one of the request for the problem solution proposal and the one for the discussion method proposal. Select and return the opinion input form.

Further, also in the sixth embodiment,
As in the third or fourth embodiment described above, it is possible to control the discussion based on the status. In that case, an input restricting unit 19 is provided in the opinion classifying unit 18. This input restriction unit 19 restricts the input of opinions according to the status of the target task, similarly to the input restriction unit 12 in the third embodiment described above. However, the restriction of input of opinions according to status only works to input opinions to solve issues,
It can be configured so that there is no restriction on inputting opinions on the method of discussion. Alternatively, a stage of inputting an opinion for a problem solution proposal and a stage of inputting an opinion for a discussion method proposal may be set according to the status. It can also be used for discussion control, such as starting to issue a problem solution after the discussion method is determined.

The operation of the sixth embodiment is the same as that of the first embodiment except that the input opinion is separately managed for the problem solution and the discussion method. Is also the same as in the third or fourth embodiment described above, and a description thereof will be omitted.

As described above, in the sixth embodiment, since the discussion for solving the problem and the discussion on the method of discussion are managed separately, it is possible to prevent the discussion from running idle.

It should be noted that the sixth embodiment is constructed so as to be capable of expressing an attitude as shown in the above-described second embodiment, or is constructed as shown in the fifth embodiment. Thus, it is also possible to configure so that the discussion can be controlled by transmitting the status information.

[0121]

As is clear from the above description, according to the present invention, a task can be decomposed into a task structure by combining sub-tasks, and the discussion can be advanced. Can be At this time, by separating and managing the opinions into “claims” that can be a solution to the problem and “comments” consisting of dissenting opinions and questions and answers, the claims are not buried in many comments, Comparison becomes easy. This allows the discussion to proceed smoothly toward convergence.
In addition, since trivial comments do not fill the claim,
Comments can be easily entered and creative discussions can be promoted from many opinions.

Further, the opinions given in the discussion can be separated and managed into an opinion for solving the problem and an opinion for advancing the discussion, thereby preventing the idle rotation of the discussion and smoothing the discussion. You can proceed to.

Furthermore, by providing a status for an issue and controlling the discussion based on the status, it is possible to clarify the agenda that must be discussed at the present time and to avoid repetition of the discussion. In addition, logical relationships and dependencies between tasks are defined, and the start or end of the discussion of another task can be controlled by the change in the status of a certain task. This will allow the discussion to proceed in an orderly manner.

Further, in this apparatus, questions and answers and exchange of opinions are accumulated for each task, and since these opinions can be displayed, the history of the exchange of opinions can be accumulated and referred to as necessary. There are also benefits. According to the present invention, there are various effects as described above.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram of an example of assignment group information.

FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a method of displaying a relationship between tasks by a task relationship presentation unit.

FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram of an example of assertion information and comment information.

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a claim display and a comment display displayed by an opinion group display unit.

FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an example of an operation when newly registering a problem according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart illustrating an example of an operation when changing the subject structure according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of a specific example in which a subject structure is changed.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating an example of an operation when a comment for an assertion is input according to the first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 10 is a block diagram showing a second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram of an example of claim information according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a contrast group display screen according to the second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is a block diagram showing a third embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram of an example of the operation restriction performed by the insertion restriction unit for each status value.

FIG. 15 is a block diagram showing a fourth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 16 is an explanatory diagram of an example of assignment group information including a participant attribute list.

FIG. 17 is a block diagram showing a fifth embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 18 is an explanatory diagram of a specific example of a dependency relationship and a logical relationship between tasks.

FIG. 19 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a termination proposal.

FIG. 20 is a block diagram showing a sixth embodiment of the present invention.

[Explanation of symbols]

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Assignment relation holding part, 2 ... Assignment relation presentation part, 3 ... Assignment relation definition part, 4 ... Opinion holding part, 5 ... Opinion group display part, 6 ... Opinion input editing part, 7 ... Claim holding part, 8 ... Comment Holding part,
9, 18 ... opinion classification unit, 10 ... terminal, 11 ... attitude input unit, 12, 13, 19 ... input restriction unit, 14 ... definition control unit, 15 ... status information propagation unit, 16 ... problem solution proposal holding unit, 17 ... Discussion method plan holding unit.

 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────続 き Continuing on the front page (72) Inventor Yuji Kobayashi 430 Nakai-cho, Nakai-cho, Ashigarashimo-gun, Kanagawa Prefecture Inside Fuji Xerox Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. (72) Inventor Nobuyuki Takeo 430 Nakaicho Sakai-Kamigami-gun, Kanagawa Prefecture Green Tech Nakai Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. (72) Inventor Tomohiro Sato 430 Nakai-machi Sakai, Ashigara-gun Kanagawa Prefecture Green Tech Nakakai Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. Yoshihiro Masuda 430 Nakai-cho, Nakai-cho, Ashigarashimo-gun, Kanagawa Prefecture Green Tech Nakai Inside Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. (72) Inventor Yuichi Ueno 430 Sakai Nakai-cho, Ashigaruga-gun, Kanagawa Prefecture Green Tech Nakai Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. Inventor Akira Kurosawa 430 Sakai Nakaicho, Ashigara-gun, Kanagawa Green Tech Naka Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. F term (reference) 5B049 AA02 BB11 CC03 EE00 FF01 GG02

Claims (24)

[Claims] 1. An asynchronous discussion support device in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected to a plurality of tasks, wherein each task holds information unique to each task and relation information between tasks for a task group including a plurality of tasks. A relationship holding unit, a problem relationship defining unit that enables the terminal to define and edit the problem relationship, and a problem relationship presentation that causes the terminal to display the problems held in the problem relationship holding unit together with the relationship. Means, opinion holding means for holding a plurality of opinions for each task, and opinion input editing means for enabling the input of an opinion on a certain task from the terminal,
Opinion group display means for displaying an opinion group input for a certain problem on the terminal, the opinion holding means, a claim holding means for holding a plurality of claims that can be a solution to each problem, A comment holding means for holding a claim given to each task or a comment group to another comment together with a relation to the original claim or comment, wherein the opinion input / edit means includes a claim to a task and a certain claim; And comment grouping means for allowing comments to be input from the terminal while distinguishing comments for comments and comments, wherein the opinion group display means sorts a group of claims and a group of comments input for a certain task according to the type of opinion. An asynchronous discussion support apparatus, wherein the information is classified and displayed on the terminal. 2. An asynchronous discussion support apparatus in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected to a plurality of tasks. A relationship holding unit, a problem relationship defining unit that enables the terminal to define and edit the problem relationship, and a problem relationship presentation that causes the terminal to display the problems held in the problem relationship holding unit together with the relationship. Means, opinion holding means for holding a plurality of opinions for each task, and opinion input editing means for enabling the input of an opinion on a certain task from the terminal,
Opinion group display means for displaying, on the terminal, an opinion group input for a certain task, and attitude input means for enabling a user to express his or her attitude to each opinion. The means holds the list of supporters and opponents for each opinion, and the asynchronous discussion support device. 3. In an asynchronous discussion support apparatus to which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected, a task which holds information unique to each task and relation information between tasks for a task group including a plurality of tasks. A relationship holding unit, a problem relationship defining unit that enables the terminal to define and edit the problem relationship, and a problem relationship presentation that causes the terminal to display the problems held in the problem relationship holding unit together with the relationship. Means, opinion holding means for holding a plurality of opinions for each task, and opinion input editing means for enabling the input of an opinion on a certain task from the terminal,
An opinion group display unit for displaying, on the terminal, an opinion group input for a certain problem, wherein the opinion holding unit holds a plurality of possible solution solutions for each problem. Means, and a discussion method proposal holding means for holding a plurality of opinions on the method of discussion for each issue, wherein the opinion input / editing means sends an opinion that can be a solution to a certain issue and an opinion on the method of discussion. A second opinion classifying unit that enables the terminal to distinguish and input the opinion from the terminal, wherein the opinion group display unit displays an opinion that can be a solution input to a certain problem and an opinion regarding a method of discussion; An asynchronous discussion support apparatus, wherein the apparatus is classified according to the type of the opinion and displayed on the terminal. 4. The task-specific information held in the task relationship holding means includes status information on the task, and the second opinion classification means performs the task solving based on the status information of the target task. 4. The asynchronous discussion support device according to claim 3, further comprising a second input restriction unit that restricts input of an opinion that can be a solution to the plan holding unit. 5. An asynchronous discussion support apparatus in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can simultaneously connect a plurality of terminals, wherein each of a plurality of tasks has information unique to each of the tasks and relation information between the tasks. A relationship holding unit, a problem relationship defining unit that enables the terminal to define and edit the problem relationship, and a problem relationship presentation that causes the terminal to display the problems held in the problem relationship holding unit together with the relationship. Means, opinion holding means for holding a plurality of opinions for each task, and opinion input editing means for enabling the input of an opinion on a certain task from the terminal,
An opinion group display unit for displaying, on the terminal, an opinion group input for a certain task, wherein the task-specific information held in the task relation holding unit includes status information on the task, The asynchronous discussion support device, wherein the input editing means includes input restriction means for restricting input of an opinion based on status information of a target task. 6. The asynchronous discussion support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the status information has at least status values of “under discussion,” “end of discussion,” and “end proposal.” 7. The asynchronous discussion support apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the task-specific information held in the task relation holding unit includes conclusion information on a conclusion of the task. 8. The task relation holding means includes status information propagation means for changing status information of another task based on relation information between the tasks when status information of the task is changed. The asynchronous discussion support device according to claim 4 or 5, wherein 9. The relation information between the tasks held by the task relation holding unit includes a plurality of types of connection types relating to the parent and child relations of the task and one or more sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task. The definition means is capable of distinguishing and specifying a connection type relating to the parent-child relationship between the task and one or more sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task, and the status information transmitting means is configured to change the status information of the task when the status information of the task is changed. 9. The asynchronous discussion support apparatus according to claim 8, wherein status information of another task is evaluated and changed based on a relationship between tasks and the connection type. 10. The relation information between tasks held by the task relation holding means includes discussion start condition information including at least a dependency relationship between tasks having no parent-child relationship. It is possible to distinguish and specify a plurality of types of inter-issue relationships including at least a dependency relationship between unrelated tasks, and the status information propagation means, when the relationship between non-parent issues is a dependency relationship, When the parent-child relationship between the dependent task and one or more sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task is an AND relationship, and the status value of the sub-task and the status value of the dependent task are all debated, the dependent task is determined. Is changed to Start Discussion, and the parent-child relationship between the dependent task and one or more sub-tasks that decompose the task is an OR relationship, and the 10. The asynchronous discussion according to claim 9, wherein when at least one of the status values is the end of the discussion and the status value of the dependent task is the end of the discussion, the status value of the dependent task is changed to the start of the discussion. Support equipment. 11. In an asynchronous discussion support apparatus to which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected, a plurality of tasks can be connected. A relationship holding unit, a problem relationship defining unit that enables the terminal to define and edit the problem relationship, and a problem relationship presentation that causes the terminal to display the problems held in the problem relationship holding unit together with the relationship. Means, opinion holding means for holding a plurality of opinions for each task, opinion input editing means for enabling input of an opinion for a task from the terminal, and a group of opinions input for the task Is displayed on the terminal, and the task-specific information held in the task relation holding means is at least chair information regarding the chair of the task. Alternatively, the participant relation definition means includes participant information relating to a participant of the assignment, and the assignment relation definition means includes definition restriction means for restricting the assignment relation definition based on the chair information or the participant information of the assignment, and The asynchronous discussion support device, characterized in that the input editing means includes third input restriction means for restricting input of an opinion based on the chair information or the participant information of the subject. 12. The participant information may be a list in which names of participants of the assignment are described, a list in which authority is described for each participant, or a class name indicating authority for each participant. The asynchronous discussion support apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the apparatus is a list. 13. An asynchronous discussion support method for supporting an asynchronous discussion in a system in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be connected simultaneously, wherein task-specific information is provided for each of a plurality of issues from the terminal. And define and edit the relationship information between the tasks and hold them so that they can be displayed on the terminal. In addition to retaining the assertion, the comment is retained along with the original assertion or the relationship to the original comment, and the assertion and comment input for a task in response to an instruction from the terminal are classified into the type of opinion. A method for supporting asynchronous discussion, characterized in that the terminals are classified according to the information and displayed on the terminal. 14. An asynchronous discussion support method for supporting an asynchronous discussion in a system in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be connected simultaneously, wherein task-specific information is provided for each of a plurality of issues from the terminal. And the relationship information between the tasks is defined and edited, and held so as to be displayed on the terminal, and an opinion on each task and an expression of the user's own approval or disapproval of each opinion are input from the terminal, And supporting a list of supporters and opponents of each opinion so as to be displayed. 15. An asynchronous discussion support method for supporting an asynchronous discussion in a system in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected, wherein the terminal has information specific to each of a plurality of issues from the terminal. And define and edit the relationship information between the tasks and hold them so that they can be displayed on the terminal. For each problem, the opinion that can be the solution and the opinion about the method of discussion are separately held, and the opinion that can be the solution and the discussion of the problem are solved in response to an instruction from the terminal. An asynchronous discussion support method, wherein opinions regarding the method are classified according to the type of the opinions and displayed on the terminal. 16. The problem-specific information includes status information on the problem, and when an opinion is input from the terminal, an opinion that can be the solution based on the status information of the problem to be considered. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 15, wherein input of a request is restricted. 17. An asynchronous discussion support method for supporting an asynchronous discussion in a system in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected, wherein status information relating to each of a plurality of issues from the terminal is provided. Define and edit assignment-specific information and assignment information between assignments and hold them so that they can be displayed on the terminal, and when an opinion on each assignment is input from the terminal, the Asynchronous discussion characterized by restricting the input of the opinion based on status information, retaining the opinion that has been permitted and input, and displaying the retained opinion on the terminal in response to an instruction from the terminal. How to help. 18. The status information, at least,
18. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 16, having status values of "during discussion,""enddiscussion," and "end proposal." 19. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 18, wherein the task-specific information includes conclusion information on a conclusion of the task. 20. The method according to claim 16, wherein when status information of a task is changed from the terminal, status information of another task is changed based on relation information between the tasks. Asynchronous discussion support method. 21. The relation information between tasks includes a plurality of types of connection types relating to a task and a parent-child relationship of one or a plurality of sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task. When defining and editing relationship information,
A connection type related to a parent-child relationship between an assignment and one or more sub-assignments obtained by decomposing the assignment can be separately specified, and when status information of a certain assignment is changed, the connection between the assignments and the connection type are determined based on the connection type. 21. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 20, wherein the status information of another subject is evaluated and changed. 22. The relation information between the tasks includes discussion start condition information including at least a dependency relation between the tasks that are not in a parent-child relationship, and the terminal defines the relation information between the tasks with respect to the task group. At the time of editing, it is possible to distinguish and specify at least a plurality of types of inter-issue relations including a dependency relationship between issues that do not have a parent-child relationship. If the relationship between issues that do not have a parent-child relationship is a dependency relationship, When the parent-child relationship between the prior task and one or more sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task is an AND relationship, and the status value of the sub-task and the status value of the dependent task have all been discussed, the dependent task is The status value is changed to “start discussion”, and the parent-child relationship between the dependent task and one or more sub-tasks obtained by decomposing the task is an OR relationship, and the status value of the plurality of sub-tasks is small. 22. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 21, wherein when at least one of the discussions ends and the status value of the dependent task ends, the status value of the dependent task is changed to the start of discussion. 23. An asynchronous discussion support method for supporting an asynchronous discussion in a system in which a plurality of terminals having input means and display means can be simultaneously connected, wherein at least one of the plurality of tasks is assigned to the task group by the terminal. Define and edit assignment-specific information, including chair information about the chair or participant information about the participants of the assignment, and the relationship information between the assignments, and hold the displayable information on the terminal to define the relationship information between the assignments. And when editing, the definition of the related information of the assignment is restricted based on the chair information or the participant information of the subject to be edited, and when an opinion for each assignment is input from the terminal, Opinion input is restricted based on the chairperson information or the participant information of the subject, and the opinions that have been approved and input are kept. And displaying an opinion held on the terminal in response to an instruction from the terminal. 24. The participant information is a list in which the names of the participants of the assignment are described, a list in which the rights are described for each participant, or a class name indicating the rights for each participant. The asynchronous discussion support method according to claim 23, wherein the method is a list.