JP2000181960A - Information processing system - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To objectively evaluate the achieving difficulty and examination insufficiency of a target and to supply an accurate work guideline in the future. SOLUTION: The CPU 14 of an information processor is provided with four function constitutions 14a, 14b, 14c and 14d as processes based on a program loaded to a memory 15. A basic evaluation part 14a evaluates the achieving difficulty and examination insufficiency of an end target included in an evaluation object plan for which the targets are sequenced. A width evaluation part 14b evaluates the achieving difficulty and examination insufficiency of the target by considering the width of the examination of the target. A depth evaluation part 14c evaluates the achieving difficulty and examination insufficiency of the target by a recursive processing so as to consider the depth of the examination of the target. A control processing part 14d outputs the work guideline corresponding to the balance of the evaluation values from an output device 11 together with the achieving difficulty and examination insufficiency of the respective targets.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to an information processing system for assisting a planner in making a plan.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art A method of evaluating the difficulty of a work based on the frequency of occurrence of mistakes is disclosed in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. Hei 7-2960065. However, this evaluation method cannot evaluate the difficulty of achieving the target set at the planning stage.

[0003] The difficulty of achieving the target set at the planning stage is usually evaluated by (1) using the difference or ratio between the target value and the actual value as a scale, or (2) based on the experience of a skilled person. It is evaluated by discretionary judgment based on For example, a predetermined evaluation function E (x, y) that gives a difference between the actual value x (kg) and the target value y (kg) or the like is used to evaluate the degree of achievement of the goal of reducing the product weight. Or,
A skilled person intuitively ranks the difficulty of achieving the target into three or five levels based on his or her own experience.

[0004]

However, the above-mentioned conventional evaluation method (1) evaluates the degree of difficulty of achieving a target simply by the relationship between the target value and the actual value. The disadvantage is that the reliability of the results is low. Similarly, the conventional evaluation method (2) also has a disadvantage that the reliability of the evaluation result is low. This is because there is a possibility that the judgment of a skilled person may be arbitrary.

[0005] Further, in the above-mentioned conventional evaluation method (1), a predetermined evaluation function E (x, y) is uniformly determined regardless of whether a target has been sufficiently studied or not. Since the planner uses the evaluation,
It is not possible to determine whether the problem was caused by insufficient consideration of the goal or the goal itself was not feasible. Therefore, the planner cannot obtain an appropriate plan policy based on the evaluation result alone. In the above-described example, the planner refers to the evaluation result by the predetermined evaluation function E (x, y), and needs to further study the target value y (kg). kg) cannot be determined.

Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to improve the reliability of the evaluation on the feasibility of a target in the planning stage. It is another object of the present invention to assist a user in obtaining a planning guideline.

[0007]

In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the present invention provides an end target of the series represented by breakdown structure information representing a series of goals to be achieved step by step until the completion of the plan. The evaluation value regarding the feasibility of the target is received, and while following the sequence, the evaluation value regarding the feasibility of each target included in the sequence is sequentially calculated based on the evaluation value regarding the feasibility of the lower target of the target. An information processing system comprising: a depth evaluation unit; and an output unit that outputs an evaluation value of each target.

According to the information processing system of the present invention,
Since the feasibility of the overall goal is evaluated based on the evaluation results of the feasibility of the more specific lower goals, the conventional evaluation method (only the relationship between the actual value given to the goal and the target value) It is possible to obtain a more reliable evaluation result than the evaluation method for evaluating its feasibility.

[0009] The "evaluation value regarding the feasibility of the target" here may be any value that can be used as an index when the user determines the feasibility of the target. Specifically, it is desirable to use at least one of the degree of difficulty in achieving the goal and the degree of insufficient study.

The "plan" mentioned here includes a process plan, a new product development plan, and the like. The targets include the required time and man-hours for each process included in the process plan, specifications and costs required for a new product and its components, and the like.

Further, the present invention is such an information processing system, and further determines work guide information corresponding to the evaluation value from work guide information prepared in advance, and stores the work guide information. There is provided an information processing system comprising means for outputting from the output means.

According to the information processing system, the user is provided with appropriate work guide information according to the evaluation result of the target, so that the user can grasp the target that is difficult to achieve and the target that is insufficiently studied, and Can quickly take appropriate measures. Thereby, the plan is optimized.

When the user visually grasps the evaluation result, the index value may be output from the output means with an appearance corresponding to the index value.

[0014]

Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

First, the configuration of the information processing apparatus according to the present embodiment will be described.

As shown in FIG. 1A, the information processing device 1
Reference numeral 00 denotes a CPU 14 for executing an achievement difficulty evaluation process (described later) and various control processes, a memory 15 for temporarily storing various data, an input / output interface 16 for controlling data input / output with a connected device, Are connected to each other.

Each input / output interface 16 has an input device 10 for receiving data input from a user.
(Keyboard, mouse, etc.), an output device 11 (display device, printer, etc.) for outputting an evaluation result of the achievement difficulty evaluation process, an achievement difficulty evaluation program defining the achievement difficulty evaluation process, and a process plan management table (described later). ) Is stored, and a disk drive (not shown) for installing an achievement difficulty evaluation program or the like from a storage medium (such as a CDROM) is connected to the external storage device 13.

The CPU 14 evaluates the difficulty level of the four functional components shown in FIG. 1B, that is, the target difficulty level of the process and the like, as a process based on the difficulty level evaluation program loaded in the memory 15. Basic evaluation processing unit 14
a, width evaluation processing unit 14 that evaluates the range of study of a target such as a process
b, a depth evaluation processing unit 14c that evaluates a study depth of a target such as a process, and a control processing unit 14d that controls these.

Next, the configuration of a process plan to be evaluated by the achievement difficulty evaluation target process according to the present embodiment and the above-described process plan management table will be described.

FIG. 2 shows a Gantt chart created based on an example of a process plan to be evaluated. In this process plan, only one type of deployment plan S1-1 is prepared for the uppermost process T1. According to the development plan S1-1, the process T1 is developed into three lower processes T11, T12, and T13. In the process T13, two development plans S13-1 and S13-2 are prepared. According to one deployment plan S13-1, the process T13 is developed into two lower processes T131-1, T132-1, and according to the other deployment plan S13-2, the process T13 is divided into three lower processes T13-1.
131-1, T132-2, and T133-2. In the following, developing a certain process into more detailed lower processes is referred to as "breaking down the process", and the development plan is referred to as a breakdown structure plan.

In the process plan management table, for each process plan, a process plan ID of the process plan and process plan information indicating the configuration and contents of the process plan are stored by the user. It is registered. For example,
As shown in FIG. 3, the process plan information of the process plan on which the Gantt chart shown in FIG. 2 is based includes, for each process employed in the process plan,
The process ID 30 of the process, the target value (man-hour, construction period, cost, etc.) 31 and the actual value (man-hour, construction period, cost, etc.) 32 of the process, and the breakdown structure of each breakdown structure plan prepared for the process Breakdown structure information 33 in which the plan ID 33a is associated with the lower process ID column 33b of the lower process is included.

Next, the achievement difficulty evaluation processing according to the present embodiment will be described.

When the input device 10 receives the input of the processing start command, the CPU 14 loads the achievement difficulty evaluation program from the external storage device 13 into the memory 15 and starts the achievement difficulty evaluation process described below.

First, the process plan I of the process plan to be evaluated I
When the input device 10 receives the input of D, the control processing unit 1
4d extracts the process plan information associated with the process plan ID (hereinafter referred to as process plan information Q) from the process plan management table. And the control processing unit 1
4d shows the breakdown structure plan information corresponding to the process ID of the top process in the process plan plan to be evaluated as process plan information Q
Remove from

When the control processing unit 14d obtains the process ID of the uppermost process from the process plan information Q, the control processing unit 14d controls the other functional components 14a, 14b, and 14c to execute the following process. . The flowchart is shown in FIG.

When the control processing unit 14d acquires the process ID "A", in S40, the breakdown structure plan information corresponding to the acquired process ID "A" (hereinafter referred to as breakdown structure plan information P). From the process plan information Q. Then, with reference to the breakdown structure plan information P, it is determined whether or not a breakdown structure plan is prepared for the process.

If the result of the determination in S40 is that there is no breakdown structure proposal, the control processing unit 14d
The target value y and the actual value x associated with “A” are extracted from the process plan information Q, and are extracted from the basic evaluation processing unit 14.
Give to a. In S46, the basic evaluation processing unit 14a sets the steady value 1.00 to the degree of insufficient study U of the process, and sets the target value y and the actual value x to the input data of the predetermined evaluation function E (x, y). The difficulty level E of the process is calculated. The control processing unit 14d outputs the evaluation result E,
U is stored in the memory 15 in association with the acquisition process ID.

Here, an example of an evaluation function E (x, y) for calculating the achievement difficulty E of the process is shown below.

E (x, y) = (xy) / x (1) On the other hand, if the judgment result in S40 indicates that the breakdown structure plan is present, the control processing unit 14d determines in S41 that the breakdown structure plan is present. From information P, all breakdown structure proposals I
D. Extract "B ₁ ", "B ₂ ", ..., "B _n " and arrange them
Stored in the memory 15 as {B ₁ , B ₂ ,..., B _n }. Then, in S42, the control processing unit 14d
The breakdown structure plan IDs are selected from {B ₁ , B ₂ ,..., B _n } in the order of arrangement, and each time the processing from S43 onward is executed.

In S43, the control processing unit 14d first selects the breakdown structure plan ID “B _i ” selected in S42.
Lower associated with the process ID column _{{A 1, A 2, ...} , A m}
From the breakdown structure plan information P and store it in the memory 15. Further, in S44, lower process IDs are selected in the order of arrangement from the lower process ID sequence {A ₁ , A ₂ ,..., A _m }, and in each case, the lower process ID “A _i ” is acquired in S45. S4 using as process ID
The processing after 0 is executed recursively.

When all lower process IDs are selected in S44, the breakdown structure plan B selected in S42 is selected.
Achievement difficulty E ₁ , E ₂ ,..., E of all lower processes included in _i
m and the degree of insufficient study U ₁ , U ₂ ,..., U _m are obtained. At this stage, that is, in S48, the depth evaluation processing unit 14
c is the evaluation result {E ₁ , E ₂ ,..., E _m }, {U ₁ , U ₂ ,
..., and U _m} as input data of a predetermined evaluation function, calculates the achievement difficulty level F _i and considering insufficient degree V _i of the breakdown proposed structure B _i.

[0032] Here, previously shown an example of the evaluation function for calculating the achievement difficulty level F _i and considering insufficient degree V _i breakdown proposed structure, respectively.

F _i = Max {E ₁ , E ₂ ,..., E _m } (2) V _i = 1 / {1 / U ₁ + 1 / U ₂ +... + 1 / U _m } (3) _{max {E 1, E 2,} ..., E m} is achieved difficulty level E ₁ of all sub-steps involved in the breakdown proposed structure B _i, E _2, ...,
Of E _m, the value indicating the maximum difficulty, it is an achievement difficulty level F _i of the breakdown proposed structure B _i.

For example, the breakdown structure plan S13- of the process plan draft on which the Gantt chart shown in FIG. 2 is based.
The achievement difficulty and the insufficient study degree of 1 are evaluated as follows by these evaluation functions (2) and (3). Lower process T131-1 in breakdown structure plan S13-1
And T132-1 are evaluated to be 0.33 and 0.20 by the above-described recursive processing. Therefore, the difficulty F of the breakdown structure plan S13-1 is represented by an evaluation function
It is evaluated as 0.33 according to (2). Further, the lower process T1
Since the degree of insufficient study of 31-1 and T132-1 is both evaluated to be 1.00 by the above-described recursive processing, the degree of insufficient study V of the breakdown structure plan S13-1 is calculated by the evaluation function (3). Evaluates to 0.50.

As described above, when all the lower process IDs have been selected in S42 while executing the processes in and after S43 each time, the breakdown structure plan information P selected in S41 is selected.
All breakdown structure contained in draft _{B 1, B 2, ...,} B n
Achievement difficulty F ₁ , F ₂ ,..., F _n and insufficient study degree V ₁ , V
₂ ,..., V _n are obtained. At this stage, that is, in S47, the width evaluation processing unit 14b indicates the evaluation result.
_{{F 1, F 2, ...} , F n}, {V 1, V 2, ..., V n} as input data of a predetermined evaluation function, achievement difficulty level E of the step corresponding to the acquisition process ID "A" And the degree of insufficient study U is calculated. The control processing unit 14d compares the evaluation results E and U with the acquisition process ID.
And stored in the memory 15.

Here, an example of an evaluation function for calculating the achievement difficulty level E and the insufficient study level U of the process corresponding to the acquisition process ID will be described.

E = Min {F ₁ , F ₂ ,..., F _n } (4) U = 1 / {1 / V ₁ + 1 / V ₂ +... + 1 / V _n } (5) F ₁ , F ₂ ,..., F _n } is the minimum difficulty F ₁ , F ₂ ,..., F _n of all the breakdown structure plans prepared for the process corresponding to the acquisition process ID. The value indicating the difficulty level is defined as the achievement difficulty level U of the process.

For example, the difficulty level of the process T13 and the degree of insufficient study included in the process plan draft based on the Gantt chart shown in FIG.
According to (5), it is evaluated as follows. Breakdown structure plans S13-1 and S13 prepared for process T13
The difficulty level of 13-2 is set to 0.
Since it is evaluated as 33 and 0.20, the difficulty level E of the process T13 is evaluated as 0.20 by the evaluation function (4). In addition, the inadequacy of studying the breakdown structure plan S13-1 and the breakdown structure plan S13-2 is evaluated to be 0.50 and 0.33 by the above-described repetitive processing. Is evaluated as 0.50 by the evaluation function (3).

When the processing shown in the flowchart of FIG. 4 is completed, the control processing unit 14d determines the degree of achievement difficulty and the degree of insufficient study of each step stored in the memory 15 by the step ID of each step, the target value, and Output from the output device 13 in association with the actual value. For example, when the process plan on which the Gantt chart shown in FIG. 2 is based is to be evaluated, the evaluation result and the like are output from the output device 13 in a layout as shown in FIG. At this time, appearances such as a display color, a character size, a character font, and blinking may be changed according to the evaluation result so that the user can visually grasp the evaluation result.

Further, the control processing section 14d compares the achievement difficulty level and the insufficient study level for each process with reference values provided in advance for each process. Then, from among a plurality of pieces of work guide information prepared in advance, work guide information corresponding to the combination of the comparison results is selected and output from the output device 13. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 6, (A) when the degree of insufficient study exceeds the reference value, work guide information indicating that the process is insufficiently reviewed and a more detailed breakdown should be output. Output from the device 13;
(B) If the degree of insufficient study is lower than the reference value, but the achievement difficulty exceeds the reference value, work guide information is output to the effect that the target of the process should be reviewed or an alternative target plan should be considered. Output from the device 13. If both (c) the achievement difficulty level and the insufficient study level are smaller than the respective reference values, the output device 13 outputs work guide information indicating that the process can be executed.

As described above, according to the achievement difficulty evaluation processing according to the present embodiment, based on the evaluation results (achievement difficulty and insufficient study) of a plurality of steps constituting the uppermost step. Because the feasibility of the top process is evaluated, the conventional evaluation method (evaluation method for evaluating the feasibility of the final goal only based on the relationship between the target value and the actual value given as the final goal) is used. More reliable evaluation results can be provided to the user. Then, by referring to the evaluation result, the user can
It is possible to accurately grasp the degree of difficulty of achievement and the degree of insufficient study of each process included in the process plan draft. Furthermore, according to the achievement difficulty evaluation processing according to the present embodiment, since the work guide information according to the evaluation result is provided to the user,
The user can determine a planning guideline from now on with reference to the work guide information, and can promptly execute an appropriate countermeasure.

The evaluation target of the achievement difficulty evaluation processing according to the present embodiment is not limited to the process plan. For example, a specification development plan of a product or the like can be evaluated. As shown in FIG. 7, the product specification of a new product is expanded so that the product specification is expanded into one or a plurality of module specifications, and further, each module specification is expanded into a primary or multi-order part specification. This is because a hierarchical structure with the product specifications at the top, that is, a breakdown structure, is created as it is developed.

FIG. 8 shows an example of a specification development table created based on the specification development plan.

In the upper table of the specification development table, the left column 80
In the upper column 81, product specifications T1-1, T1-2, T1-3 and module specifications T2-1, T2-2, T2-3, T2-4,
T2-5 has been written out. In a middle column 82 associated with the product specification in the left column 80 and the module specification in the upper column 81, the presence or absence of association between the two specifications in the breakdown structure is a predetermined symbol (here, both specifications). If there is a relationship between them, it is indicated by ○). From the above table, it can be seen that, for example, the product specification T1-1 is developed into two module specifications T2-2 and T2-3 related thereto.

In the table below the specification development table, the left column 83 shows the part specifications T3-1, T3-2, T3-3, T3-4, T
3-5, T3-6, and T3-7 are written out. And
In the middle column 84 associated with the component specifications in the left column 83 and the module specifications in the upper column 81 of the above table, a predetermined symbol (here, the presence or absence of association between the two specifications in the breakdown structure) is used. , When there is a relationship between the two specifications, it is indicated by)). From the table below, for example, the module specification T
2-2 has two related component specifications T3-2,
It can be seen that it is expanded to T3-6.

When the component specifications are further developed into detailed specifications, a similar binary table for associating the component specifications with the detailed specifications may be added.

When a specification development plan having a breakdown structure represented by such a specification development table is to be evaluated, a management table similar to the above-described process plan management table is, of course, prepared. It is necessary to be able to extract information (see FIG. 3) necessary for the achievement difficulty evaluation process from the management table.

It is desirable to use, for example, the following function as an evaluation function for calculating the degree of difficulty of the specification and the degree of insufficient study.

1. It is desirable that the evaluation function used for calculating the achievement difficulty level E in S46 of FIG. 4 be selectively used as follows according to the type of the target value y and the magnitude relationship between the target value y and the actual value x. However, as for the degree of insufficient study U, a steady value may be set as in the case described above.

(1) When the target value y is the desired value E (x, y) = {(xy) / x} ² (2) When the target value y is the desired value i) y> x In the case of (1), E (x, y) = {(x−y) / x} ² ii) If y ≦ x, E (x, y) = 0.0. In the case of small value i) When y <x, E (x, y) = {(xy) / x} ² ii) When y ≧ x, E (x, y) = 0. 0 2. As an evaluation function for calculating the achievement difficulty E in S47 of FIG. 4, an evaluation function similar to the above-described case may be used. However, it is desirable to use the following function as the evaluation function used to calculate the degree of insufficient study U.

2. U = 1 / {(1 / V ₁ + 1 / V ₂ +... + 1 / V _n ) +1} As an evaluation function for calculating the achievement difficulty level F in S48 of FIG. 4, the same evaluation function as that described above may be used. However, it is desirable to use the following function as an evaluation function used to calculate the degree of insufficient study V.

V _i = 1 / {(1 / U ₁ + 1 / U ₂ +... + 1 / U _m ) +1} As a result, an evaluation result as shown in FIG. 9 and work guide information similar to the above case are obtained. Is output from the output device 11.

[0053]

According to the present invention, the reliability of the evaluation on the feasibility of the target in the planning stage can be improved. Further, the user can easily acquire a more appropriate planning guideline.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1A is a schematic configuration diagram of an information processing system according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 1B is a functional configuration diagram of a CPU.

FIG. 2 is a Gantt chart according to one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a data structure of process plan information according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an achievement difficulty evaluation process according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an evaluation result by an achievement difficulty evaluation process according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing classification of work guide conditions according to one embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a breakdown structure of a product specification.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a specification development table according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an evaluation result by an achievement difficulty evaluation process according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[Explanation of symbols]

 REFERENCE SIGNS LIST 100 information processing device 10 input device 11 output device 12 bus 13 external storage device 14 CPU 14 a basic evaluation processing unit 14 b width evaluation processing unit 14 c depth evaluation processing unit 14 d control processing unit 15 Memory 16 ... I / O interface

 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────続 き Continuing from the front page (72) Inventor Atsuyuki Kubota 292 Yoshida-cho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture Inside of Hitachi, Ltd.Production Technology Laboratory (72) Inventor Eimi Eguchi 292 Yoshida-cho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa Inside Hitachi, Ltd. Production Technology Research Laboratory (72) Inventor Yuzo Hiroshige 292 Yoshida-cho, Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture F-term in Hitachi, Ltd. Production Technology Research Laboratory F-term (reference) EE03 EE33 FF02 FF03 FF04 FF09 5H215 AA06 BB11 BB20 CC07 CX01 GG09 HH03

Claims (7)

[Claims] 1. An information processing system for supporting the planning of a plan, comprising: executing a terminal goal of the series represented by breakdown structure information representing a series of goals to be achieved stepwise until the completion of the plan. While receiving the evaluation value regarding the possibility, and sequentially following the sequence, the evaluation value regarding the feasibility of each target included in the sequence is determined based on the evaluation value regarding the feasibility of the lower target of the target. An information processing system comprising: an evaluation unit; and an output unit that outputs an evaluation value of each target. 2. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein when there are a plurality of alternatives in a sequence derived from at least one of the targets, the depth estimating means includes a plurality of alternatives. An evaluation value of the target is calculated for each alternative, and the information processing system further calculates the evaluation value of the target based on the evaluation value calculated for each of the alternatives by the depth evaluation unit. An information processing system comprising a width evaluation unit. 3. The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein work guide information according to the evaluation value is determined from work guide information prepared in advance, and the work guide information is output. An information processing system further comprising means for outputting from the means. 4. An acquisition function for capturing a breakdown structure information item representing a sequence of goals to be achieved stepwise until the completion of the plan; and a feasibility of an end goal of the sequence represented by the breakdown structure information. A depth evaluation that receives an evaluation value for each target and sequentially calculates an evaluation value for the feasibility of each target included in the sequence based on the evaluation value for the feasibility of a lower target of the target while following the sequence. A storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to implement a function and a function of outputting an evaluation value of each target from an output device. 5. The storage medium according to claim 4, wherein the program further comprises: a function of selecting work guide information according to the evaluation value from work guide information prepared in advance; A storage medium for causing a computer to realize a function of outputting guide information from the output device. 6. An achievement difficulty evaluation method for causing an information processing device to execute an evaluation process on the feasibility of each goal gradually achieved until the completion of a plan, the information processing device comprising: Breakdown structure information that represents a series of goals that are achieved in stages until the completion of
The first step of capturing the target value and the actual value of the end target of the series, the information processing apparatus calculates the achievement difficulty of the end target based on the target value and the actual value of the end target of the series, And, while setting a specified value to the degree of insufficient study of the terminal goal, while following the sequence, sequentially, the achievement difficulty and insufficient study of each goal included in the series,
A second step of calculating based on the achievement difficulty and insufficient study of the lower goal of the goal; and the third step of outputting the achievement difficulty and insufficient study of each goal by the information processing apparatus. An achievement difficulty evaluation method characterized in that: 7. The achievement difficulty evaluation method according to claim 6, wherein, when a plurality of alternatives are present in a series derived from at least one of the goals, the information processing apparatus is configured to: In the second step, for each of the alternatives, the difficulty of achieving the target and the degree of insufficient study are calculated, and based on the calculation result for each of the alternatives, the degree of difficulty of achieving the goal and the degree of insufficient study are calculated. Is calculated.