JP2002149785A - Method for evaluating installation performance - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a method for roughly evaluating the performance of an installation. SOLUTION: The method comprises a step 2 for dividing evaluation items into basic items and attractive items, a step 4 for setting a performance standard for each evaluation item included respectively in the basic items and the attractive items to set multiples corresponding to the performance standard for the respective evaluation items, a step 5 for fixing some indexes common to the basic items and the attractive items, a step 6 for deciding the weight of the respective evaluation items included in the basic items by the judgment of a specialist, a step 7 for deciding the weight of the respective evaluation items included in the attractive items by the judgment of respective users, a step 8 for setting the upper limit value and the lower limit value of a required performance standard for the attractive item, a step 9 for actually investigating a building for judging it, a step 10 for removing a building having an evaluation item which does not meet the lower limit of the required performance standard for the attractive items from a list of comparison objects and a step for multiplying a multiplier corresponding to each performance standard by the weight to obtain an evaluation point.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to, for example, a case where an office building owner examines the contents of a renewal or an end user (rent or purchase applicant) selects an apartment house that meets his needs. The present invention relates to a facility performance evaluation method which roughly, but simply and rationally evaluates the performance of a facility to provide information for supporting those decision making, and displays the result in an easy-to-understand manner.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, when evaluating the performance of a facility, it is general that a building diagnosis is performed by a specialist.

[0003]

However, in order to perform an accurate evaluation, there are items that require a high level of specialized knowledge and measurement using a special device, and the cost is high, so that it is often difficult to carry out the evaluation.

[0004] In addition, for example, when an office building owner examines the contents of a renewal or when an end user selects an apartment house that meets his needs, accurate evaluation is not always necessary from the beginning. It is important to roughly evaluate the performance of the facility and narrow down the facilities that should be scrutinized. In addition, when a building contractor or the like makes a renewal proposal to a customer, there is a problem that if a building diagnosis is to be performed, a plurality of persons having specialized knowledge need to cooperate, and prompt response is difficult.

On the other hand, in the conventional facility performance evaluation, there are many items that most people need the performance and some objective evaluation criteria exist. However, items whose importance differs greatly depending on the values of customers and end users (hereinafter referred to as `` users '') are not included, or even if they are present (without proper support) The evaluation criteria and importance are set.

[0006] For this reason, it is impossible to respond to different values and needs depending on users. For some items, the evaluation result is displayed in a professional numerical value, and it is difficult to determine whether the level desired by the user is satisfied. Therefore,
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION An object of the present invention is to provide a facility performance evaluation method that allows a user without specialized knowledge (or a person in charge of the construction industry) to roughly evaluate the performance of a facility without any trouble or cost.

[0007] Another object of the present invention is to provide a facility performance evaluation method in which results are displayed in an easy-to-understand manner, and which can be used for reviewing renewal contents and making decisions such as selecting a facility. Another object of the present invention is to provide a facility performance evaluation method capable of covering items used when a user evaluates a facility and reflecting different values depending on the user in the evaluation. .

[0008]

The invention according to claim 1 is
The items (evaluation items) for evaluating the performance of the facility are classified into basic items and attractive items, and the performance level is determined for each of the evaluation items included in each of the basic items and attractive items. Setting a multiple according to the performance level, determining some indices common to the basic item and the attractive item, and determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item by an expert's judgment Determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the attractive item according to each user's judgment; and, for each evaluation item included in the attractive item, an upper limit of a performance level required to be satisfied. Determining the value and lower limit at the discretion of each user; and actually examining the building to determine which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item; For each evaluation item included in the attractive item, a step of removing from the comparison target a building that has an evaluation item that does not satisfy the lower limit of the performance level that requires that the evaluation item be satisfied, and for each of the evaluation items, Multiplying a multiple according to each performance level to obtain an evaluation point.

According to a second aspect of the present invention, in the facility performance evaluation method according to the first aspect, a step of obtaining a basic performance point by adding up the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the basic items is further added. It is characterized by doing. According to a third aspect of the present invention, in the facility performance evaluation method according to the first aspect, a step of obtaining an attractive performance point by adding up the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the attractive item is further added. Features.

According to a fourth aspect of the present invention, in the facility performance evaluation method according to the third aspect, a step of adding the basic performance point and the attractive performance point to obtain an overall performance point is further added. Features. The invention according to claim 5 is
The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 4, further comprising a step of creating a bar graph comparing a plurality of facilities with the total performance point.

According to a sixth aspect of the present invention, in the facility performance evaluation method according to the first aspect, the evaluation item having the larger evaluation point is determined as a sales point, and the evaluation item having the smaller evaluation point is determined as a weak point. Is further added. In the invention according to claim 7, in the facility performance evaluation method according to claim 6, a step of totalizing the obtained evaluation points for each of several indices common to the basic item and the attractive item is further added. It is characterized by doing.

According to an eighth aspect of the present invention, in the facility performance evaluation method according to the sixth aspect, a step of creating a list of the sales points and weak points is further added. The invention according to claim 9 is
8. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 7, further comprising a step of creating a radar chart based on the obtained evaluation points with some indexes common to the basic items and the attractive items. And

The invention according to claim 10 is a step of extracting an item (evaluation item) for evaluating the performance of the facility, and a step of classifying the extracted evaluation item into basic items and attractive items. Determining a performance level for each of the evaluation items included in each of the basic item and the attractive item; tiering the evaluation items; and setting a multiple according to the performance level for each evaluation item. Determining some indices common to the basic item and the attractive item; determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item by an expert's judgment; Determining the weight of each evaluation item by the judgment of each user, and requesting that each evaluation item included in the attractive item be satisfied Determining the upper limit and lower limit of the performance level to be determined by each user; actually examining the building to determine which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item; and For each evaluation item to be satisfied, a step in which a building having an evaluation item that does not satisfy the lower limit of the performance level that is required to be satisfied is removed from the comparison target, and for each of the evaluation items, the weight is set according to the performance level. Multiplying a multiple to obtain an evaluation point; summing the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the basic item to obtain a basic performance point; and evaluating the evaluation point of each evaluation item included in the attractive item. And obtaining an attractive performance point; and summing the basic performance point and the attractive performance point to obtain an overall performance point.

In the present invention, the target facilities are not only office buildings and apartment houses, but also medical and welfare facilities, factories, and the like.
It covers all types of buildings, such as educational facilities and detached houses, and may be new or used. In addition, the performance of a facility refers to the degree of functional fulfillment or aging.

[0015]

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Hereinafter, the present invention will be described based on embodiments shown in the drawings.

FIG. 1 shows a flowchart of a facility performance evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention (corresponding to all claims). Hereinafter, the present embodiment will be described with reference to this flowchart. Here, an office building will be described. First, in the step (1), for example, an operator evaluates the performance of the facility (evaluation item) from a database stored in a hard disk or the like via a processing device such as a personal computer according to the facility or purpose targeted. Extract.

Here, as the database, for example,
Building Maintenance Management Working Group, Takenaka Corporation: Building Maintenance Maintenance Handbook From Daily Management to Renewal, Japan Management Association Management Center, 199
1. Japan Facility Management Association, JAST94
(Facility evaluation method) From the evaluation items created based on the conventional facility performance evaluation methods such as the manual and 1994, those related to the operation of the facility were extracted and stored.
Furthermore, in this embodiment, interviews with facility managers and users and surveys of existing facilities were performed, and necessary items were added. At this time, items related to obsolescence (incompatibility with social needs) as well as aging were included.

Next, in step (2), the expert judges whether the evaluation item extracted in step (1) is a basic item or an attractive item, and based on the judgment, the basic item is determined. And attractive items. For example, the classified evaluation items are pasted on a work table having a predetermined format, and the data is stored.

Here, the basic items are items for which most people need the performance and there are objective evaluation criteria to some extent, and mainly ensure safety and health such as seismic performance and sound insulation performance. Items related to In addition, attractive items are those items whose importance and performance level that must be met greatly differ depending on the user's values, and mainly items related to convenience and comfort, such as interior and exterior grades and information technology. I do.

For example, regarding the distance from the nearest station and the number of parked vehicles, when selecting an office building, there are some people who place importance on them and others who care little about them. Therefore, they are considered attractive items. On the other hand, steps such as steps and toilets for wheelchair users are socially required items for office buildings, and the required levels are not expected to change much. Therefore, these are defined as basic items.

Next, in step (3), as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the evaluation items stored in the work table are hierarchized. Here, it is divided into basic items and attractive items.

For example, viewing the extracted evaluation items at once,
Similar ones are grouped in order from the most specific one. A "nameplate" indicating a higher-level concept common to them is attached. Next, the “nameplates” are compared and grouped in the same manner. This is repeated until finally several groups are formed.

If there is no specific evaluation item, it is created appropriately. FIG. 4 shows an example of the procedure. For example,
"Installation of guidance equipment (for visually impaired)" and "guide in Braille" have similar meanings in terms of "consideration for visually impaired". Therefore, a common nameplate "Consideration for the visually impaired" is added.

Next, "consideration for the visually impaired" and "consideration for the wheelchair user and the elderly" have similar meanings in terms of "consideration for the weak." Therefore, a common nameplate "Consideration for the weak" is attached. Next, since the meaning of “consideration for wheelchair users and the elderly” alone is abstract, the evaluation items “steps in the aisle” and “toilet dedicated to (wheelchair)” that specifically indicate this are set.

Here, the setting of the first level index will be described. As a result of stratification, those finally classified into several groups are used as first-level indices (obtained instead of being set from the beginning). In the past, classification was made based on professional standards such as aging and obsolescence, or skeletons and facilities, so it was difficult for users to understand what kind of utility or hindrance they had. Even if it is the same aging, if the skeleton is aging, it is a problem related to safety such as seismic performance.On the other hand, if the equipment is aging, it is a problem related to operation costs such as maintenance cost. However, the meaning is different for the user.

Therefore, the evaluation items were categorized based on criteria that are meaningful for the user, such as "securing safety" and "reducing operating costs". Next, in step (4), a performance level is determined for each evaluation item included in each of the classified basic items and attractive items. In addition, a multiple is set for each evaluation item according to the performance level.

First, as shown in Table 1, for example, a standard level (level 3) is set. For the basic items, we adopted the standard specifications that the building should meet at the moment, referring to laws and guidelines. For example, as for a step in a passage, 20 mm is set as a guide of a step that can be overcome by a wheelchair according to the Heart Building Law (there is no rule on penalties). Regarding the width of the aisle, it was judged that the standard width was 1.4 m based on the data of recently completed office buildings.

[Table 1] Next, as for the attractive items, for example, as shown in Table 2, there is no guideline that can be used to set a standard level. Therefore, it has to be decided arbitrarily. However, when the system is used, the user changes his or her own level as shown in step (8), so it is not necessary to set a standard level.

[Table 2] In Table 1, levels other than the standard level (level 3) were set with reference to the following.

In Table 2, standard levels (level 3)
Other levels were provisionally set with reference to the following. Level 1: Very inferior to the standard level (Level 3). Level 2: Inferior to the standard level (Level 3). Level 4: Excellent compared to the standard level (Level 3).

Level 5: Very superior to the standard level (Level 3). Review the results and adjust if there are any problems (change the level)
did. For example, in Table 2, the office building in Marunouchi would give twice the score for the "area" (see step (11)) than the office building in Akasaka, but "there is a real difference (Isn't it twice different?) "Or" Is there any more difference? " Initially, office buildings that were more than 10 minutes away from the nearest station were level 2, but were re-evaluated in the market, so they switched to level 1.

Next, in step (5), as shown in FIG. 3, some indices (seven in this embodiment) common to basic matters and attractive matters are determined. Here, the seven indicators are “social image”, “reduction of operating costs”, “response to organizational change”, “secure safety”, “maintenance of health”, “response to work” , "Employee comfort."

Here, "reduction of operating costs" refers to running costs such as utility costs, maintenance costs for equipment and buildings, and the like. "Responding to a change in fabric" means that information equipment can be easily added or the layout can be easily changed. “Social image” refers to consideration for the disabled and the elderly, consideration for the environment, and prevention of public disasters.

"Ensuring safety" refers to fire prevention and evacuation measures, crime prevention measures, measures to prevent falls of furniture and equipment, and the like. "Maintaining health" means the cleanliness of water and air,
Noise measures, refresh measures, etc. “Correspondence to work” refers to the size of the space around the seat, ease of movement, ease of communication, and the like.

"Employee morale" refers to the condition of the washroom and toilet, the appearance of the space, and the like. This index can be appropriately changed, and the number thereof is also arbitrary. Then, as shown in FIG. 3, basic performance and attractive performance are included for each of the seven indexes. In FIG. 3,
For convenience, only "social image" is shown.

Next, a step (6) of determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item by the judgment of the expert, and a step of determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the attractive item by the judgment of each user Move to (7). Here, steps (6) and (7) may be performed in parallel without any context, or may be performed individually. First, in step (6), the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item is determined by judgment of an expert.

Here, the weight is determined because some items are important and some are not so important, so that the weight is reflected in the result. It is very difficult to set weights for dozens of evaluation items at once.
Therefore, the evaluation items are hierarchized, and weights are allocated in order from a higher evaluation item. By tiering, the number of evaluation items compared at one time is reduced (about 2 to 5). The weight of each evaluation item is set by multiplying the allocated weights in order.

For the distribution of weights, a technique called a hierarchical analysis method is used. In the hierarchical analysis method, evaluation items having the same higher evaluation item are paired into two pairs, and a person with specialized knowledge determines which is important and how important. Here, the weighting of the evaluation items will be described. First, the second
With respect to the evaluation items of the level, the value of the importance for those higher items (the evaluation items of the first level) is obtained. In the example of Fig. 2, 5 such as "Consideration for the weak" and "Danger of public disaster"
For each of the two evaluation items, the value of importance for the higher item “social image” is set.
The largest value (0.32) is given to "Consideration for the weak".

Similarly, for the evaluation items of the third and fourth levels, the importance of the higher items is quantified, and then
The weight of about 70 evaluation items in the fourth-level evaluation item (the third level if there is no evaluation item) is obtained by the following method. In other words, the importance of the higher rank items is multiplied in order from the first level, and the total of the weights of the evaluation items included in the basic performance and the total of the weights of the evaluation items included in the attractive performance are set to 100. Become In the example of FIG. 2, a weight of 0.80 out of 100 points is given to “step on the passage”.

The evaluation items are, in principle, associated with the seven indices on a one-to-one basis, but some correspond to a plurality of indices. For example, "state of refresh space" is associated not only with "maintaining health" but also with "employee morale". Although the importance of the first-level evaluation items is all the same (0.14), if there is a unique need, such as to emphasize "securing security" over "responding to organizational change", It is also possible to respond by changing the weight. For example, when it is desired to place more importance on "securing security" than on "responding to organizational change", the latter may be given a larger weight. Then, the weight of the sub-item belonging to “securing security” also increases accordingly.

In the example of FIG. 5, the weights of three evaluation items such as "consideration for the weak" with respect to "social image" are allocated. When comparing "consideration for the weak" and "consideration for the environment", the former is determined to be "somewhat important", and a multiple of 1.4 corresponding to "somewhat important" is in the upper right of the table. In addition,
This multiple is uniquely set for each word such as "slightly" or "pretty" which expresses the difference in degree, so as to suit many feelings.

The table of FIG. 5 shows how much the evaluation items arranged vertically at the left end were evaluated as more important than the evaluation items arranged horizontally at the top row. The opposite side of the diagonal, the lower left, is the reciprocal of a multiple of 1.4.
1 is entered on the diagonal line ("Equally important" because the same evaluation items are compared).

After the importance is compared for all the combinations, for example, as shown in FIG. 6, a geometric mean of multiples arranged side by side for each evaluation item is obtained. Next, the values of the geometric mean are summed. The value obtained by dividing the geometric mean of multiples of each evaluation item by the total is the weight of the item. In the example of FIG. 6, 1, 0.71,
Find the geometric mean of 1.4. For the other items, calculate the geometric mean and add them together. The weight of "consideration for the weak" is 0.1 divided by the geometric mean of 1.00 and the total of 3.12.
It becomes 32. This means that 32% of the total weight of "social image" is allocated to "consideration for the weak."

Similarly, the weights of "consideration for the weak" are "consideration for wheelchair users and the elderly" and "consideration for the visually impaired".
Distribute to. Furthermore, the weight of "consideration for wheelchair users and the elderly" is allocated to three items such as "steps for passages". Finally, the weights of the respective evaluation items are obtained by multiplying the weights assigned from the top items.

Weight of "passage steps" for "social image" = weight of "consideration for the weak" for "social image" x "for wheelchair users and the elderly for" consideration for the weak " Weight of "consideration" x "weight of" passage steps "for" consideration for wheelchair users and elderly people "= 0.32
× 0.67 × 0.49 = 0.11 ・ Weight of “dedicated toilet” to “social image” = 0.32 × 0.67 × 0.31 = 0.07 ・ “Social image” Weight of "passage width" for
0.32 × 0.67 × 0.20 = 0.04 Next, the step (7) of determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the attractive item by the judgment of each user will be described.

FIG. 7 shows the case of the user A who attaches importance to the “status”, particularly the location (area).
From FIG. 7A, it can be understood that the request of the user A is “very important” in “status” rather than “service to a visitor”. From FIG. 7B, the request of the user A is:
It can be understood that “location” is “extremely important” than “interior / exterior grade”.

From FIG. 7 (c), it can be understood that the request of the user A is "extremely important" for "area" rather than "distance from the nearest station". Therefore, user A
Weight of “area” based on the requirement of “0.80 × 0.8”
9 x 0.89 = 0.63 (63 of all social images
%), While the weight of “distance from the nearest station” =
0.80 × 0.89 × 0.11 = 0.08 (8% of the total social image).

From FIG. 7D, it can be understood that the request from the user A is "very important" for the "parking lot" than for the "meeting space". From FIG. 7E, it can be understood that the request of the user A is that “the number of parked vehicles” and “parking method” are “equally important”. Therefore, user A
Weight of “the number of parked vehicles” = 0.20 × 0.
89 × 0.50 = 0.08 (8 of the whole social image
%), Whereas the weight of the “method” = 0.20 × 0.
80 × 0.50 = 0.08 (8 of the whole social image
%).

FIG. 8 shows the case of the user B who attaches importance to the “service to the visitor”, particularly the parking lot (parking method). As shown in FIG. 8A, the request of the user B is “slightly important” for “service to visitor” than for “status”.
It can be understood that

From FIG. 8B, it can be understood that the requirement of the user B is that “location” and “grade of interior and exterior” are “equally important”. From FIG. 8 (c), it can be understood that the request of the user B is "significantly important" for "area" rather than "distance from the nearest station". Therefore, the weight of “area” = 0.42 × 0.50 × 0.67 = 0.14
(14% of the total social image), whereas the weight of “distance from the nearest station” is 0.42 × 0.50 × 0.
33 = 0.07 (7% of the total social image).

From FIG. 8D, it can be understood that the request of the user B is "very important" for the "parking lot" than for the "meeting space". From FIG. 8E, it can be understood that the request of the user B is “very important” in the “parking method” than in the “parking number”. Therefore, the weight of “the number of parked vehicles” based on the request of the user B = 0.58 ×
0.80 × 0.20 = 0.09 (9% of the entire social image), whereas the weight of the “parking method” = 0.58
× 0.80 × 0.80 = 0.37 (37% of the total social image).

As described above, for the user A, the “area” occupies 63% of the entire social image, and for the user B,
“Parking” will account for 37% of the total social image. In this way, different values for each user are reflected as differences in the weight of the evaluation items.

Next, in step (8), for each evaluation item included in the attractive item, the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the performance level required to satisfy the evaluation item are determined by the judgment of each user.

The case of the user A will be described with reference to FIG. The performance level has a range to be evaluated. The upper limit (displayed in bold) that does not increase the evaluation even if the level is higher, and the lower limit (displayed in oblique characters) that is not evaluated if the level is lower than that ) Is set. Here, the standard level (level 3) is used as a guide for each evaluation item.
Adjust the level accordingly.

First, for the “area”, the user A
In response to the question "Where is the area a guideline?", We asked for "Akasaka or Roppongi is a guideline", "Areas to consider from Marunouchi to Shinjuku and Shibuya" As shown in (b), the rulers are shifted to the right one by one so that "Akasaka, Roppongi" becomes level 3 (standard), and the higher level 4 is "Marunouchi" and the level 3 is higher.
Level 2 lower than (standard) was input as "Shinjuku, Shibuya", and level 1 lower than level 2 was input as "Ueno, Ikebukuro". Level (0) was set to "Others".

Here, level 1 is the lower limit. next,
Regarding "Distance from the nearest station", user A asks "How long is the approximate distance from the nearest station on foot?" As shown in FIG. 9 (a), "2 to 3 minutes" is set to level 3 in order to present a request "No" or "No problem for more than 10 minutes".
Shift the ruler to the right one by one so that it becomes (standard), level 4 above it "less than 1 minute", level 2 below level 3 (standard) "4-9 minutes", level 2 above The lower level 0 was input as "10 minutes or more". Level 1 is blank.

Here, level 0 is the lower limit. next,
If it exceeds the upper limit, it is considered equivalent to the upper limit. For example, in "distance from the nearest station", even a one-minute walk is regarded as equivalent to a two- to three-minute walk.

FIG. 10 shows the same question as in FIG.
Shows the results obtained. Similarly, for the “parking number” and the “parking method”, the request satisfied by the user A is confirmed, and input is made in the corresponding places. Next, in step (9), the building is actually surveyed to determine which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item.

As to the basic performance, as shown in FIG. 13, there is shown an example in which there is no step in the passage, there is no dedicated toilet, and the width of the passage is less than 1.4 m. here,
The circles indicate the relevant ones. On the other hand, for the attractive performance, the property A “Marunouchi, 3 minutes on foot, no parking lot” and the property “Shibuya, 7 minutes on foot, parking lot (mechanical, 1
5) were evaluated by reflecting the values of users A and B, respectively. The results are shown in FIGS.

In FIG. 11A, the evaluation of the property A of the user A who attaches importance to “area” is indicated by a circle. In FIG. 11B, the evaluation of the property B of the user B who attaches importance to the “parking method” is indicated by a circle. FIG. 12 (a)
Indicates the evaluation of the property A of the user A who attaches importance to the “area” to the property B by a circle.

In FIG. 12B, the evaluation of the property B of the user B who places importance on the “parking method” is indicated by a circle.
As described above, the evaluation of the building that matches the user's sense of value is increasing. Next, in step (10), buildings having evaluation items that do not satisfy the lower limit are excluded from candidates. FIG.
In (b), since the “parking number” is circled to “none” for the user B, the user B is inaccurate (the lower limit is “6 to 9”), and I decided to remove it.

Next, in step (11), for each evaluation item, a multiple corresponding to the performance level is multiplied by the weight of the item. First, looking at the basic performance, as shown in FIG. 13, "No step in the passage" corresponds to level 5.
Since the multiple corresponding to level 5 is × 2, the weight of the passage relating to this building × multiple = 0.11 × 2 = 0.22.

Similarly, “dedicated toilet” is -0.07,
The "width of the passage" is -0.08. Next, looking at the attractive performance, for example, in the case of the user A with respect to the property A in FIG. 11, “Marunouchi” corresponds to the level 4. Since the multiple corresponding to level 4 is x1, the weight of the "area" for this building x multiple = 0.63 x 1 = 0.63. Similarly, "distance from the nearest station" is 0, and "parking number" is-
0.08.

Since the "parking method" is not required, no score is given. As for the property b, FIG.
As shown in FIG. As a result of the evaluation in FIG. 11, it can be seen that the evaluation of the property A of the user A is high. As a result of the evaluation in FIG. 12, it can be seen that the evaluation of the property B of the user B is high. Next, in the step (12), the evaluation item having a large score in the step (11) is defined as a sales point,
Small evaluation items are used as weak points.

In the example of the table shown in FIG. 13, the absence of steps in the passage is a part of the selling point of the building. Conversely, the low score, the width of the aisle and a dedicated toilet are some of the building's weak points. Next, step (1)
In 3), the scores obtained in step (11) are totaled for each of the seven indices.

The sum of the scores of the evaluation items corresponding to “social image” is the score of “social image”. Similarly, scores are calculated for indices such as "securing safety".

Next, in step (14), for the basic items, the scores obtained in step (11) are summed to obtain a basic performance point of the building. Here, the sum of the scores of all the evaluation items corresponding to the basic items is the basic performance point. Next, in step (15), for the attractive items, the scores obtained in step (11) are summed to obtain an attractive performance point of the building. Here, the sum of all the evaluation items corresponding to the attractive items is the attractive performance point.

Next, in step (16), the basic performance point of the building obtained in step (14) is compared with step (1).
The overall performance point is obtained by adding the attractive performance point of the building obtained in 5). Next, in step (17), as shown in FIG. 14, a bar graph (comparison between facilities) comparing the total performance points of the buildings to be compared is generated.

Overall, it shows which building is suitable for the user. The user can narrow down a building suitable for his needs from a large number of buildings. FIG.
The example shown in FIG. 4 is an image of a graph displayed for two persons having different values, and is arranged in descending order of the basic performance points. Since the attractive performance points differ from user to user, the rank of the total performance point does not match the rank of the basic performance point. In FIG. 14A, the buildings E and D are the same as those in FIG.
In (b), building B and building D are the most promising candidates.

Next, in step (18), a radar chart (rough tendency) is generated with seven indices as axes. For example, as shown in FIG. 15, for each building, a radar chart (created based on step (13)) is displayed centering on an index such as social image and security. The user can check the general features (advantages and disadvantages) of the candidate buildings and further narrow down the buildings to suit the needs.

Next, in step (19), a list of sales points and weak points is generated. For example, as shown in Table 3, important issues are displayed for each building (created based on step (12)). The user can specifically confirm what sales points and weak points are available for the narrowed buildings.

[Table 3] Next, another embodiment for evaluating the performance of an apartment house (apartment) according to the flowchart shown in FIG. 1 will be described.
In the step of performing the same processing as the performance evaluation of the office building, the description thereof is omitted. First, step (1) is different from the case of an office building in the specific evaluation items.

Next, in step (2), basic items and attractive items are different from those of an office building. For example, some people place great importance on choosing a house when it comes to the interior and the view of the living room, while others hardly care. Therefore, they are considered attractive items. On the other hand, sound insulation of floors and doors (of course, some people can be noisy) is an item that many people need,
The required level (although there are individual differences, compared to the attractive items) does not seem to change much. Therefore, these are defined as basic items.

Next, in step (3), FIG.
As shown in FIG. 7, specific evaluation items are different from those of the office building. FIG. 18 shows an example of the layering procedure. For example, "Sound insulation performance of floor" and "Sound insulation performance of door border wall"
Have similar meanings. Therefore, a common nameplate "internal noise" is attached to them. Next, "inside noise" and "outside noise" have similar meanings. Therefore, a common nameplate "quiet" is attached to them.

Next, since the meaning of only "noise from outside" is abstract, the evaluation items "sound insulation performance of sash", "sound insulation performance of exhaust port", etc., which specifically express the meaning, are set. Regarding the setting of the first-level index, the evaluation items were classified according to criteria meaningful to the user, as in the case of the office building. However, specific contents such as "convenient" and "comfortable" are different from those of an office building.

Next, in step (4), a performance level is determined for each of the evaluation items included in each of the classified basic items and attractive items. In addition, a multiple is set for each evaluation item according to the performance level. First, as shown in Table 4, for example, a standard level (level 3) is set. For the basic items, we adopted the standard specifications that the building should meet at the moment, referring to laws and guidelines.

For example, regarding the sound insulation performance of a floor, LH-
It is set with a grade of 60 or higher as a guide. The sound insulation performance of the doorway wall is set to a value of Rr-50 or higher. The sound insulation performance of the sash is set based on the T-1 rating or higher.

[Table 4] Next, regarding attractive items, for example, as shown in Table 5, there is no guideline that can be used to set a standard level. Therefore, it has to be decided arbitrarily. However, when the system is used, the user changes his or her own level as shown in step (8), so it is not necessary to set a standard level.

[Table 5] In Table 4, levels other than the standard level (level 3) were set with reference to the following. In Table 5, levels other than the standard level (level 3) were provisionally set with reference to the following. Level 1: Very inferior to the standard level (Level 3).

Level 2: Inferior to the standard level (level 3). Level 4: Excellent compared to the standard level (Level 3). Level 5: Very superior to the standard level (Level 3). Review the results and adjust if there are any problems (change the level)
did. Next, in step (5), as in the case of the office building, some indices (four in this embodiment) common to the basic matter and the attractive matter are determined.

In the case of a condominium, as shown in FIG. 16, four indices of "convenient", "comfortable", "reliable", and "can live for a long time" are listed. As shown in FIG. 17, each index is composed of attractive performance and basic performance, which is the same as in the case of an office building. Next, in step (6), as in the case of the office building, the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic items is determined by the judgment of the expert.

Next, in step (7), as in the case of the office building, the weight of each evaluation item included in the attractive item is determined by the judgment of each user. FIG. 19 illustrates the case of the user A who emphasizes the appearance, particularly the entrance. From FIG. 19A, it can be understood that the request of the user A is “very important” in “good appearance” than in “open feeling”.

From FIG. 19B, the request of the user A is
It can be understood that “exterior” is “slightly important” than “interior”. From FIG. 19C, the request of the user A is:
It can be understood that "entrance hall" is "quite important" than "living room". Therefore, the weight of “living room” based on the request of user A =
0.73 × 0.42 × 0.33 = 0.10 (10% of total comfort), whereas the weight of “entrance hall” = 0.73 × 0.42 × 0.67 = 0 .20
(20% of the total comfortable).

As shown in FIG. 19D, the request of the user A is
It can be understood that "there is room in the space" is "quite important" than "the view is good". From FIG. 19 (e), it can be understood that the request of the user A is that “the living room” and “the surrounding environment” are “equally important”. Therefore, the weight of the “residential floor” based on the request of the user A = 0.
18 × 0.33 × 0.50 = 0.03 (3% of total comfort), whereas the weight of “peripheral environment” = 0.1
8 × 0.33 × 0.50 = 0.03 (3% of comfortable overall).

FIG. 20 illustrates the case of the user B who attaches importance to a feeling of openness, particularly a high floor with a good view. FIG.
From (a), it can be understood that the request of the user B is "very important" when "having a feeling of openness" is better than "good appearance". From FIG. 20B, it can be understood that the request of the user B is “slightly important” for “interior” than for “exterior”.

As shown in FIG. 20C, the request from the user B is
It can be understood that "living room" is "quite important" than "entrance hall". Therefore, the weight of “living room” based on the request of user B =
0.11 × 0.58 × 0.37 = 0.04 (4% of the total comfort), whereas the “entrance hall”
Weight = 0.11 × 0.58 × 0.33 = 0.02 (2% of comfortable overall).

As shown in FIG. 20D, the request from the user B is
It can be understood that "the view is better" is "extremely important" than "there is room in the space". FIG.
From (e), it can be understood that the request of the user B is "significantly more important" for the "living floor" than for the "environment."
Therefore, the weight of the “residential floor” based on the request of the user B = 0.44 × 0.89 × 0.67 = 0.26 (26% of the comfortable whole area), Weight = 0.58 × 0.80 × 0.80 = 0.13 (13% of the comfortable total).

As described above, for the user A, 20% of the total comfortable rooms are “entrance halls”.
26% of the user B who is comfortable is occupied by the “(residential floor)”. Thus, different values for each user are reflected as differences in the weight of the evaluation items.

Next, in step (8), the following is performed. The case of the user A will be described with reference to FIG. When asked, "What is the standard for the floor finish of the living room?", "The flooring of the integrated material is a guide,""It is better if it is natural wood,""Carpet may be used, but other than that is not a problem." Since the request was presented, as shown in FIG. 21 (a), the “flooring of accumulated material” is level 3 (standard), the “natural wood flooring” is higher level 5, and the “carpet” is level 3 (standard). The lower level 2, "vinyl tile", was entered as the lower level 1. Here, level 1 is the lower limit.

Next, when asked, "What is the finish of the entrance hall?", "Granite is a guide", "Marble is better", "tiles may be used, but others are out of the question" 21 (a), "granite" is level 3 (standard), "marble" is level 4 higher than it, and "tile" is level lower than level 3 (standard), as shown in FIG. 2. "No finishing" was entered as level 1 below. Here, level 1 is the lower limit.

Next, a request was similarly received from the user A for the "living floor" and the "surrounding environment" and input as shown in FIG. 21 (a). Next, a level 3 (standard) is used as a guide for each evaluation item, and the level is adjusted accordingly.

FIG. 22 shows the result of asking the user B the same question as in FIG. Next, step (9)
Then, as in the case of an office building, the building is actually surveyed to determine which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item. In the basic performance, as shown in FIG. 23, “sound insulation performance of floor” is lower than LH-65 class, “sound insulation performance of doorway wall” is higher than Rr-55 class, and “sound insulation performance of sash” is T.
The case of -2 class equivalent or higher is shown as an example.

Next, the results shown in FIGS. 24 and 25 were obtained for the attractive performance. In FIG. 24A, the evaluation of the property of the user A who attaches importance to “appearance” is indicated by a circle. FIG. 24B shows a user B who attaches importance to the “open feeling”.
The evaluation of the property is indicated by a circle.

In FIG. 25A, the evaluation of the property of the user A who attaches importance to “appearance” is indicated by a circle.
In FIG. 25 (b), the evaluation of the property of the user B who attaches importance to the “open feeling” is indicated by a circle. in this way,
Buildings that match the values of users are highly evaluated.

The next step (10) to step (1)
9) is the same as in the case of an office building. Note that FIG.
6 shows a radar chart for each building, which is based on "convenient", "comfortable", "safe", and "can live for a long time". Table 6 also shows the step (1)
A list of sales points and weak points generated in 9) is shown.

[Table 6] In the above, the present invention has been described as applied to office buildings and apartment houses, but the present invention is not particularly limited to these.

[0091]

According to the present invention, the weight of each evaluation item included in attractive items and the weight of each evaluation item are set in order to assist users who have different requests to select a facility suitable for their request. By determining the upper and lower limits of the performance level required to be satisfied by each user's judgment, it was possible to reflect the values of each user in the magnitude of the attractive performance value.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a facility performance evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing hierarchization of evaluation items in step (3).

FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram showing a hierarchy of evaluation items in “social image” of FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of hierarchizing evaluation items in step (3).

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of comparing the importance of three evaluation items such as “consideration for the weak” with respect to “social image”.

FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of assigning weights of three evaluation items such as “consideration to the weak” to “social image” within the basic performance frame of FIG. 3;

FIG. 7 shows evaluation items in the frame of attractive performance in FIG.
It is explanatory drawing which shows the process which distributes the weight according to the value of the user A.

FIG. 8 shows evaluation items in the frame of attractive performance in FIG.
FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of assigning weights according to a value of a user B.

FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram showing a process in which a user A determines a standard performance level and upper and lower limits of a performance level to be satisfied for evaluation items.

FIG. 10 shows standard performance levels for evaluation items;
FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram illustrating a process in which a user B determines an upper limit and a lower limit of a performance level to be satisfied.

FIG. 11 shows a user A in steps (9) and (10).
It is an explanatory view showing the judgment processing.

FIG. 12 shows a user B in steps (9) and (10).
It is an explanatory view showing the judgment processing.

FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram showing judgment processing in step (9), step (11), and step (12).

FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram showing a bar graph generation process in step (17).

FIG. 15 is an explanatory diagram showing a radar chart generation process in step (18).

FIG. 16 is an explanatory diagram showing hierarchization of evaluation items in step (3) according to another embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 17 is an explanatory diagram showing a hierarchy of evaluation items in “comfortable” in FIG. 16;

FIG. 18 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of hierarchizing evaluation items in step (3).

19 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of assigning weights of evaluation items within the attractive item frame of FIG. 17 according to the value of the user A. FIG.

20 is an explanatory diagram showing a process of assigning weights to evaluation items within the attractive item frame of FIG. 17 according to the value of the user B. FIG.

FIG. 21 shows standard performance levels for evaluation items;
FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram showing a process in which a user A determines an upper limit and a lower limit of a performance level to be satisfied.

FIG. 22 shows standard performance levels for evaluation items;
FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram illustrating a process in which a user B determines an upper limit and a lower limit of a performance level to be satisfied.

FIG. 23 is an explanatory diagram showing judgment processing in step (9), step (11), and step (12).

FIG. 24 is an explanatory diagram showing a determination process of the user A in steps (9) and (10).

FIG. 25 is an explanatory diagram showing a judgment process of the user B in steps (9) and (10).

FIG. 26 is an explanatory diagram showing a radar chart generation process in step (18).

 ────────────────────────────────────────────────── ─── Continuing on the front page (72) Inventor Jun Yamada 1-5-1, Otsuka, Inzai City, Chiba Pref.

Claims (10)

[Claims] 1. Items for evaluating facility performance (evaluation items)
Are classified into basic items and attractive items, performance levels are determined for each of the evaluation items included in each of the basic items and attractive items, and a multiple is set for each evaluation item according to the performance level. Determining some indices common to the basic item and the attractive item; determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item by an expert's judgment; and Determining the weight of the evaluation item by the judgment of each user; and for each evaluation item included in the attractive item, the upper limit value and the lower limit value of the performance level required to be satisfied are determined by each user. Deciding step, actually examining the building and determining which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item, and each evaluation item included in the attractive item About the step of removing, from the comparison target, a building having an evaluation item that does not satisfy the lower limit of the performance level that requires that it be satisfied, and for each of the evaluation items, multiply the weight by a multiple according to each of the performance levels. Determining an evaluation point. 2. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of calculating a basic performance point by summing up evaluation points of respective evaluation items included in the basic items. Facility performance evaluation method. 3. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of obtaining an attractive performance point by summing up the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the attractive item. Facility performance evaluation method. 4. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 3, further comprising a step of adding the basic performance point and the attractive performance point to obtain an overall performance point. Method. 5. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 4, further comprising the step of creating a bar graph comparing a plurality of facilities with the total performance point. 6. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 1, further comprising: a step of determining the evaluation item having the larger evaluation point as a sales point and the evaluation item having a smaller evaluation point as a weak point. A facility performance evaluation method characterized by the following. 7. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 6, further comprising a step of totalizing the obtained evaluation points for each of several indexes common to the basic item and the attractive item. Characteristic facility performance evaluation method. 8. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 6, further comprising the step of creating a list of the sales points and weak points. 9. The facility performance evaluation method according to claim 7, further comprising: a step of creating a radar chart based on the obtained evaluation points with some indexes common to the basic item and the attractive item as axes. A facility performance evaluation method characterized by being added. 10. A step of extracting an item (evaluation item) for evaluating the performance of the facility, a step of classifying the extracted evaluation item into a basic item and an attractive item, and a step of classifying the classified basic item and attractive item. Determining a performance level for each of the evaluation items included in each of the items; hierarchizing the evaluation items; setting a multiple according to the performance level for each of the evaluation items; Determining several indices common to the attractive items; determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the basic item by expert judgment; and determining the weight of each evaluation item included in the attractive item. A step of deciding based on each user's judgment, and for each evaluation item included in the attractive item, a performance level which requires that the item be satisfied. Determining the value and lower limit by the judgment of each user; actually examining the building to determine which performance level corresponds to each evaluation item; and for each evaluation item included in the attractive item. Removing from the comparison target a building having an evaluation item that does not satisfy the lower limit of the performance level required to be satisfied, and evaluating each of the evaluation items by multiplying the weight by a multiple according to the performance level. Obtaining a point; totaling the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the basic item to obtain a basic performance point; totaling the evaluation points of the respective evaluation items included in the attractive item; A facility performance evaluation method, and a step of summing the basic performance point and the attractive performance point to determine an overall performance point.