JP2003187066A - Information processing method and its support system and tool used therefor - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an information processing method for immediately, inexpensively, and efficiently obtaining a result as a group by grouping and integrating knowledge possessed by an individual. <P>SOLUTION: This information processing method is executed by a plurality of information processing means as a group. The plurality of information processing means are divided into a plurality of groups so that a difference is generated between the groups. The respective groups introduce an information processing result as a group by executing information processing within the groups independently of the other group, and introduces the information processing result as a whole by integrating the information processing result of the groups by mutually evaluating the information processing result of the other group by using a common criterion for evaluation. In this case, a division into the plurality of groups is made so that a different is generated in the information processing result between the groups. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2003,JPO

Description

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention collects knowledge and the like possessed by a plurality of humans and computer-based agens for improving productivity in industrial activities based on ergonomic and artificial intelligence engineering techniques. The present invention relates to an information processing method, a support system therefor, and tools used therefor.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art Among various industrial production activities, productivity directly affects the results of the production activities and has a great influence on the development of the industry. is important. Examples of productivity improvement include reduction of manufacturing cost in the manufacturing industry, specifically, improvement of material utilization efficiency, improvement of yield, improvement of operating rate of mechanical equipment, etc. is important. Another example is the improvement of product development efficiency, in which, for example, the efficiency of grasping customer needs is improved, the appropriateness of determination of product specifications corresponding thereto is improved, the development period of elemental technology is shortened, These will be very important, as the introduction of production equipment will become more precise. Furthermore, in order to improve the efficiency of sales, it is necessary to improve the efficiency and accuracy of grasping the market situation, improve the efficiency of activities to think of new needs based on it, and improve the efficiency of the method of delivering products to customers and collecting money. These are very important. Also, for example, improve efficiency in solving problems related to nonconforming product occurrence rates at manufacturing sites (for example, shortening the period).
Improving the efficiency of solving problems related to customer complaints in service operations (reducing the number of complaints or developing new products and services based on complaints) is also included in productivity improvement.

The productivity in various scenes of these various industries largely depends on the efficiency of information processing for work promotion. In other words, it collects information about the target accurately, processes it in a short time, creates a countermeasure for the target based on the result, executes the countermeasure, and further acquires new information from the process of execution. The efficiency of a series of information processing such as collecting and modifying countermeasures greatly controls productivity. Therefore,
The efficiency of information processing for work promotion greatly influences the results of industrial activities, and as a result, has a great influence on the development of industry. Therefore, there is a need for a highly efficient information processing method, which is especially desired in recent years when information technology has been developed.

[0004] In industrial information processing, the main body of information processing is an organizational group, which is a collection of people, or an agent on a computer. The conventional problems in each case will be described below.

When the subject of executing information processing is an organization group, which is an aggregate of people, the individual people can be positioned as information processing means. In the conventional information processing method, knowledge (information, opinion, knowledge, knowledge expression, knowledge evaluation data, knowledge evaluation function, concept, learning algorithm, etc., possessed by individuals (individual information processing means) forming an organization , Hereinafter referred to as “knowledge”) is sufficiently processed by other constituent members (other information processing means), or there is no efficient mechanism for developing individual knowledge etc. as a group. . Therefore, the efficiency of information processing as a group is low, leading to low productivity, which has been a very serious problem.

[0006] For example, a conference can be regarded as a kind of information processing performed by an organizational group, but the problems in the conventional conference method are as follows. That is, in the conventional meeting method, it is customary for the participating members to verbally give their opinions under the direction of the chairman. As a result, it does not represent the original idea of each individual.
Furthermore, the speaker does not explicitly deny even if he or she disagrees with the member who has spoken before, finds a compromise somewhere, and inserts his / her opinion in a modified form. We will try to avoid conflicts of opinion with us as much as possible. Therefore, the conclusion of the meeting is a compromise, for example, to the statement of the first speaker or the power of the organization members. In such a meeting method, the degree of sharing the meeting contents is remarkably low. As a result, the meeting participants seemed to agree superficially to the conclusions of the meeting, but they were not really fully satisfied,
In the execution scene, it is usual that even the minimum correspondence cannot be executed. In such a conventional method of meeting (that is, information processing), the result of the action based on the conclusion of the meeting is low as described above, and not only the productivity is very low,
The meeting takes time and the efficiency of the meeting is low.

[0007] In order to deal with such a problem, some improvements have been proposed in the past. That is, JP-A-10-30
In Japanese Patent No. 3892, as a conference management method and its support device, conference participants are divided into a plurality of groups (upper conference group and lower conference group), and discussions are individually conducted for each theme to increase the total amount of information. Attempts at ways to manage meetings in a reduced and efficient manner have been proposed. However, the publication does not provide an opportunity to vigorously discuss the meeting results of each group with each other, nor an opportunity to vigorously discuss the knowledge of individuals with the knowledge of others. Therefore, the conclusion is an ambiguous compromise, as in the conventional meeting described above, and had the same problems as above. Also,
Since there is no opportunity to enjoy the various viewpoints of each individual as a whole, there is a problem that the diversity of information to be handled is reduced, and as a result, only inefficient information processing can be performed.

On the other hand, "a new dimension of the idea of the technique of teamwork that teamwork opens" (Shinichiro Yoshida, Chuokoron Shinsha, 2000.
In 2.25), a method of operating the conference by dividing it into multiple groups and proceeding with the discussion is proposed. However, this method is only a measure for people who do not make announcements or comments (a method for making such people make announcements or comments). Therefore, at first glance, this method increases the chances of each individual's announcement and remarks, but there is no mechanism for competing the knowledge of each individual with the knowledge of other members and developing it as a group. Discussions in this way at meetings are superficial. Furthermore, in this proposal,
The method of integrating and discussing the contents discussed in each group as a whole is not disclosed, and the result of higher level information processing that can be achieved only by fighting the results of information processing in each divided group. Could not be produced, and as a result, the efficiency of the meeting (ie information processing) remained low.

Further, as an example of the information processing relating to the productivity improvement in the scenes other than the meeting, in order to realize the information processing relating to the method for improving the efficiency in the production of articles, more specifically, for example, the production method in which the manufacturing cost is reduced There is information processing of. In the conventional example against this, for example, the top of the organizational group sets policies and priority issues for manufacturing cost reduction, and based on these, the middle managers formulate detailed plans and concrete methods, On this basis, the terminal tissue members would simply carry out the indicated method. In other words, in the conventional information processing related to productivity improvement, the plan and the concrete method formulated based on the limited knowledge owned by the top management and the middle management are transmitted to the organization members, and the end members transmit the plan. It was a form of information processing that was only executed. In other words, rather than performing information processing that efficiently integrates the knowledge owned by the individuals of the organizational group including the end members as a group, it is a so-called limited direction from the top to the end members. It can be said that only information was transmitted. Therefore, in the conventional information processing method for improving productivity, the information processing efficiency is poor, and as a result, a significant reduction in manufacturing cost cannot be realized, resulting in poor productivity.

Further, another specific example of information processing relating to productivity improvement is information processing relating to efficient formulation of a business plan. In the conventional information processing method in this example,
For example, it has been common practice to discuss and revise a business plan drafted by some planning staff at a meeting composed of the top layer, and then adopt the agreed plan as a business plan. In this case, it is difficult to share the contents of the business plan because the members of the organization who execute the business plan are not the members who have formulated the business plan, and as a result, it is not possible to change the response to changes in the situation. , As a result, the business result (performance) was low. This is because in the information processing work of business planning, there is no opportunity to develop and integrate knowledge possessed by individuals of the relevant organizational group as a group.

Further, a case where the subject of information processing is an agent on a computer will be described. Traditionally,
Various types of information processing using agents on computers are performed in various industrial fields. These are, for example, text / drawing creation software, various search software, various knowledge management database software, various agents operating on the Internet, financial market forecast software, corporate information management software, factory operation support software. , Distribution support software, etc. The agent on the computer that executes such information processing is positioned as an information processing means having knowledge and the like.

Conventionally, there has been an attempt to improve the efficiency of information processing by preparing a plurality of information processing means as described above, but in this case, the basic configuration has the same knowledge etc. in a plurality of information processing means. Then, the information processing is performed aiming at a single result, and the purpose was simply to obtain the information processing result quickly. That is, the plurality of information processing means perform information processing in a coordinated manner and are not competitive. Therefore, advanced information processing that is further developed from preset knowledge and the like cannot be performed, and only simple conclusions that can be obtained by extending from the initially set knowledge and the like can be derived, and as a result, the quality of information processing results is extremely low. , It was very difficult to produce the result of information processing with intellectual creativity (emergence: for example, new interpretations of phenomena, formation of concepts, new ideas, etc.). If you try to realize the result of intelligent creative information processing by the conventional method, it requires a large amount of data and a high calculation speed that cannot be realized.
It can be said that it is impossible in reality.

Conventionally, there has been proposed an attempt to give information to a plurality of information processing means and to perform information processing while correcting the knowledge and the like by using a genetic algorithm. An efficient concrete means including a process of systematically operating the processing means as a group and integrating the information processing results of the respective information processing means as a group has not been disclosed. Therefore, also in this case, the efficiency of information processing remains low.

[0014]

As described above, the above-mentioned meeting management method and the supporting apparatus therefor, the method described in "Meeting Techniques, New Dimension of Ideas Opened by Teamwork", or In the conventional method of information processing for productivity improvement, it is extremely unlikely that the knowledge and the like of each individual member of the organizational group will be fully utilized, and that it will be developed and integrated by the group, and the efficiency of information processing will be extremely high. It was bad.

Furthermore, since the conventional organizational group composed of a plurality of agents on a computer has only the function of cooperating with each other and does not have the function of competing with each other, highly efficient information processing can be achieved. It was practically impossible to produce results.

The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances. That is, the purpose is to obtain a high-level information processing result in a short time, at low cost and efficiently, in an organizational group consisting of a plurality of people, by fully utilizing the intellectual creativity of each individual who constitutes the group. An information processing method, a support system therefor, and tools used therefor are provided, and a highly efficient information processing method is provided for an organizational group consisting of a plurality of agents on computers each having knowledge and the like. , To achieve high productivity.

[0017]

In order to achieve the above object, the information processing of the present invention includes knowledge, knowledge expression, knowledge evaluation data, knowledge evaluation function, concept, learning algorithm, etc. (hereinafter referred to as knowledge). Is a method of information processing performed by an organizational group consisting of a plurality of independent information processing means individually having a division process of dividing the plurality of information processing means into a plurality of groups, and a subsequent division process within the group. A first work process for leading a result of information processing as a group, and a second work process that is subsequently performed as a whole to integrate a result of information processing in the group to lead a result of information processing for the entire organizational group; And wherein the dividing step is to divide the plurality of groups so that a difference in information processing results between the groups, and the first working step comprises: Group is intended to proceed independently of other groups, the second working process,
A first gist is to have a first evaluation work process in which the results of information processing of other groups are mutually evaluated using a common evaluation criterion.

Further, the second work process is a 2-1 work process for exchanging the information processing results as the group, and the information processing results of other groups are respectively grouped by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. Second independent evaluation within
-2 work process (first evaluation work process), displaying, outputting and notifying the evaluation result to another group 2-3 work process, knowledge held in each group, and the evaluation result 2-4 exchanging things related to
Process, the process of correcting the knowledge held by another group based on the knowledge held by another group obtained through exchange, the difference in the information processing result for each group is within a predetermined range. The second gist is to have a second to sixth work process for obtaining the information processing result as a whole.

Further, the second work process is a 2-1 work process for exchanging information processing results as the group, and the information processing results of other groups are respectively grouped by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. Second independent evaluation within
-2 work process (first evaluation work process), displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to another group 2-3 work process, intelligently fostering information processing results executed by another group The work process of 2-7, the group that originally produced the information processing result that other people trained knowledge,
The work process No. 2-8, the result of the work process No. 2-7, the result of the work process No. 2-8, and the result of the work process No. The 2-9th work process for exchanging, the 2-7th work process result and the 2-8th work process result are evaluated according to the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 2-9 Displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result of the work process to another group, the 2-11th work process, knowledge possessed by each group, and the like related to the evaluation result among the groups. Exchange and correct the knowledge held by other groups based on the knowledge held by other groups obtained through the exchange The difference in the information processing result for each work process group of No. 2-12 is within a predetermined range 2-13 to get the information processing result as a whole That it has a work process and a third gist.

Further, in the dividing step, each of the plurality of information processing means is evaluated on the basis of a predetermined parameter, and division is performed so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups is maximized. The summary of

Further, in the dividing step, a plurality of parameters are extracted, a weighting coefficient is set for each of the plurality of parameters, and each of the plurality of information processing means is assigned to each of the plurality of parameters and the weighting coefficient. The fifth gist is to perform the evaluation based on the above-mentioned evaluation and to divide the evaluation so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups becomes maximum.

Further, the sixth gist is to alternately repeat the first work process and the second work process.

Further, the first work process is a third work process in which the individual information processing means belonging to the group independently carry out the result of the individual information processing, and subsequently, the third work process in the group. A fourth work process for integrating the results of the individual information processes to derive the result of the information process as a group, in the fourth work process, the individual information processing means in the group mutually exchange other information. A seventh gist is to have a second evaluation work process in which results of information processing by the processing means are evaluated using a common evaluation criterion.

The fourth work process is a fourth work process of exchanging the information processing results as the individual, and the information processing results of other individual products are independent by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 4-2 work process (second evaluation work process) to be evaluated by the above, the 4th work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to other individuals, knowledge possessed by each individual, etc. Of the above, the items related to the above evaluation results are exchanged among the individuals.
-4, correcting the knowledge held by the individual based on the knowledge held by the other individual obtained through the exchange
An eighth gist is to have the fifth process, the fourth to sixth work processes for obtaining the information processing result as a whole in which the difference in the information processing result for each individual is within a predetermined range.

The fourth work process is the fourth work process of exchanging the information processing results as the individual, and the information processing results of other individual products are independent by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 4-2 work process (second evaluation work process) to be evaluated by the above, the 4-3 work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to another individual, and the information processing result executed by the other individual 4-7 work process of intellectually fostering the intellectual process, the individual who originally produced the information processing result that the other fosters knowledge,
-7th work process, which is carried out in parallel and independently of each other, and which carries out the information processing result, the 4-8th work process, the result of the 4-7th work process, and the result of the 4-8th work process. A fourth to ninth work process for exchanging the following, a fourth to a tenth work process for evaluating the result of the fourth to seventh work process and the result of the fourth to eighth work process with a predetermined same evaluation criterion, The 4-11th work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result of the 4th-9th work process to other individuals, the knowledge possessed by the individual, and the like, are related to the evaluation result. 4-12 Work process of exchanging information between each other and modifying the knowledge held by the other person based on the knowledge held by the other person obtained by the exchange. The ninth summary is that it has a work process No. 4-13 to obtain the information processing result as a whole which is within the range of To.

A method of information processing performed by a group of organizations comprising a plurality of information processing means, wherein each information processing means independently leads the result of individual information processing A sixth work process that integrates the results of the individual information processes performed by the entire group and guides the results of the information processing of the entire organizational group, wherein the sixth work process is an individual information processing unit. The tenth gist of the present invention is to have a third evaluation work process for mutually evaluating the results of the information processing of other information processing means using a common evaluation criterion.

The sixth work process is the 6-1th work process of exchanging the information processing results as the individual, and the information processing results of other individual products are independently independent by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 6-2 work process (third evaluation work process) to be evaluated by the following, and 6-3 work to display, output, and notify the evaluation result to other individuals , A process of exchanging information related to the evaluation result between individuals, a process of correcting the knowledge held by the individual based on the knowledge held by the other individual obtained through the exchange, An 11th gist is that it has a process 6-5, and a 6-6 work process for obtaining an information processing result as a whole in which a difference in information processing result for each piece is within a predetermined range.

The sixth work process is the 6-1th work process for exchanging the information processing results as the individual, and the information processing results of other individual products are independent by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 6-2 work process (third evaluation work process) to be evaluated by the above, the 6-3 work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to another person, and an information processing result executed by another person 6-7 work process of intellectual training of the person, the person who originally produced the information processing result that other people trained knowledge,
-6th to 8th work processes, which are carried out independently and concurrently with the 7th work process, to foster the information processing result, results of the 6-7th work process and results of the 6-8th work process A sixth to ninth work process for exchanging the above, a sixth to seventh work process for evaluating the results of the sixth to seventh work processes and the sixth to eighth work processes according to the same predetermined evaluation criteria, The 6-11 work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result of the 6-9 work process to other individuals, the knowledge possessed by each individual, and the like related to the evaluation result are grouped. 6-12 work process for exchanging information between each other and correcting the knowledge possessed by the individual based on the knowledge possessed by the other individual obtained through the exchange. It is preferable to have the 6th to 13th work steps to obtain the information processing result as a whole which is within the range of And of the subject matter.

A thirteenth gist is that the information processing means is a computer or an agent on the computer, and the information processing includes learning performed by these and knowledge creation performed jointly.

The evaluation work process indicates that the result of information processing of another group or the result of information processing of another individual information processing means is inferior according to the evaluation standard determined each time. , Or displaying that it is excellent is the 14th gist.

In the case where there is a process of displaying that the evaluation criteria are excellent, the result of information processing of another group or the information processing result of another individual information processing means is more excellent. The fifteenth summary is that we have a knowledge development process that aims to

Further, the present invention is a support system for supporting the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the division standard is displayed, the division process end is displayed, and each group is displayed. Means for inputting or detecting the end of the first work process in (1) and notifying or warning the unfinished groups that it has not finished, and for notifying each group that the first work process has finished in all groups. A support system comprising at least one of a means for notifying, a means for notifying that the second work process should be performed, and a means for clearly indicating the evaluation standard. This is the 16th summary.

Further, according to the present invention, in the dividing step, each of the plurality of information processing means is evaluated based on a predetermined parameter, and the information processing means is divided so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups is maximized. A support system characterized by the above is defined as the 17th summary.

Further, according to the present invention, a plurality of parameters are extracted in the division process, a weighting coefficient is set for each of the plurality of parameters, and each of the plurality of information processing means is provided with the plurality of parameters and the weighting coefficient. An eighteenth aspect of the invention is a support system, characterized in that the evaluation is performed based on each of the above, and the evaluation is executed so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups becomes maximum.

A system for supporting the information processing method according to claim 5 or 7, wherein the end of the third or fifth work process is input or detected and the end is not completed. Means for notifying or warning that, the means for notifying each of the completion of the third or fifth work process of all the individuals, and notification that the fourth or sixth work process should proceed A nineteenth aspect of the present invention is a support system including at least one of: a means for performing the evaluation and a means for clearly indicating the evaluation criteria.

Further, the present invention is a tool used in the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information processing means stores information for specifying the information processing means, such as the name of the information processing means, and the information processing means. Means for storing information about the characteristics of the above, means for storing information about the reference of the division in the division process, and the first or third or fifth means.
At least the means for storing the result of the information processing of the group or the individual in the work process, and the means for storing the information about the evaluation standard in the second, fourth or sixth work process. Zuka 1
A twentieth gist of the present invention is a tool characterized by having one.

[0037]

BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION Hereinafter, the principle of the information processing method of the present invention will be described in detail by comparing it with a conventional method and appropriately including an actual application example.

In general, the perception of knowledge can be more clearly, accurately and deeply discerned by comparing it with knowledge other than that which owns it. Furthermore, at this time,
The substance becomes clearer when compared with more different knowledge. Based on this principle, the inventor has devised the following whole system as a very efficient method of information processing for improving productivity.

That is, the basis is to divide an organizational group consisting of information processing means (people or agents on a computer) into some groups so as to make a difference, and the divided groups are independent. It is to execute information processing work and to evaluate the result of the work with the same evaluation criteria. Then, the evaluation clearly indicates and points out that the work results of other groups deviate from the evaluation criteria, or expresses that they are superior to the work results of its own group, and then other The purpose is to bring up the work results of the group in one's own group.

Further, the above-mentioned work for each group includes starting the individual work of each information processing means, and evaluating the result by the same evaluation criteria in the group. Then, the evaluation clearly indicates or points out that the work result of other information processing means is out of the evaluation standard, or expresses that it is better than one's work result, and It is to bring up the work results of other information processing means by oneself.

Alternatively, even when the group of organizations is not divided into groups, it is a method in which the information processing means individually work and the results are evaluated as a whole by the same evaluation criteria. . And the evaluation is similar to the above, clearly indicating and pointing out that the work result of other information processing means is out of the evaluation standard, or is superior to one's own work result. It is to express the thing and to bring up the work result of other information processing means by oneself.

The above process will be specifically described below.

FIG. 1 is a conceptual diagram showing the process of the individual system of the present invention. 2 and 3 are an overall view of an individual whole system in the case of having a division process, and a partial view showing the divided in-group work. Figure 4
FIG. 7 is an overall view of an individual whole system having no division process.

First, the process of the individual system in the case of division will be described.

First, as shown in FIG. 2, an organization group (team) is divided into several groups. At this time, this division is performed so that there is a difference in the work results in the groups. Then, each group independently performs information processing regarding the same theme or task (first work process = first individual work).

The work in each group starts with a work described ("written") as an individual work process (third work process = second work process). For example, describe various kinds of knowledge (situations, problems, questions, etc.) regarding the subject matter of information processing. In addition, "write"
As a method to do so, it is better to write it in a one-leaf format for ease of information processing after that. Also, it is better to use pictures / photos rather than letters to represent it on a large piece of paper. It is desirable in terms of quality (specificity) and amount of information.

Then, as a first step (fourth work process) of all work processes (fourth work process = second all work processes) as a group, a list of these written papers can be viewed. Stick out side by side so that everyone can look around at once so that they can do it. Then, if necessary, ask each other about the ambiguity of the contents written on the paper in the list.

Next, as a second step (the 4-2nd work process) of all work processes as a group, evaluation is performed (second evaluation process). That is, it is displayed that the work result performed by the other information processing means is out of the evaluation standard.

Specifically, for example, on a paper written by another person,
Strike a mark (preferably displayed in red, etc. to make it as exciting as possible). The work of displaying that it is out of the evaluation standard is referred to as "x striking".

Alternatively, it is displayed that the work result performed by the other information processing means is superior (compared to its own work result) in terms of the evaluation standard. Specifically, a circle (for example, in green) is put on a paper written by another person. The work of displaying that it is excellent will be referred to as "stroke". At this time, the above-mentioned evaluation is carried out individually and independently (not while discussing, but individually).

The criteria for this evaluation are the same within the group. If different evaluation criteria are used, each will be evaluated on its own, and as a result, discussions about the evaluation results will not be focused, and the theme will be deeply analyzed and integrated. Therefore, the desired information processing cannot be performed.

As an example of the above-mentioned evaluation criteria, there is a method of setting the one that fills the "gap between the desired state and the current state". For example, "things that are not in the work (information processing) development policy", "things that are different from the facts", "things that are not listed in past information", "things that are not new information", and " Things that are not related to the mechanism of the target (theme or issue), "Things that are individual opinions or questions,""Things that are not specifically expressed", "Things that are insufficient in depth", "Unusual Things that have not been done, "and so on. In such an example, the "gap between the desired state and the present situation" that could not be recognized by itself can be clearly recognized by being pointed out by others, and can be deeply understood in the process of discussing it. Like Further, as an example of the evaluation standard, in order to clarify the work result of oneself and others, it is possible to set a different one from the work result of oneself. For example, "what is different from my own survey result", etc. In this case, the difference becomes clearer by the evaluation process. In this way, the evaluation criteria can be appropriately changed depending on the subject and the situation, and it may be determined by the leader of the group or in some cases by the members of the group, and the information processing means is a computer or In the case of an agent on a computer, it may be predetermined for each process, or the information processing means itself may be determined as an organizational group from among predetermined options according to the content of the information processing work.

Further, as a method of "x striking" or "○ striking", a report showing a work result of each information processing means, a memo, or information shown in an output using an electronic information medium is used. Of the difference or error, denial, warning, or display of praise, agreement, etc.

Specifically, a cross, a circle or various lines,
Such as characters, pictures, colors, etc., or sound such as buzzer, siren, sound such as sound or light, generation of cards, signs, stickers, paper, presentation, posting or pasting, electronic information Blinking of part or all of the screen of the display device, change of display color, change of font used, or the like can be used alone or in combination. However, in any case, it is necessary to clearly communicate the evaluation.

For example, a red sticker (meaning x) or a green sticker (meaning ◯) may be attached, for example, in addition to the method of writing an x mark or a o mark on the paper of a report document created by another individual. You can put it on, and of course, you can also display the name of the evaluator on the sticker.

Regarding the above-mentioned evaluation work, the information may be given anonymity to the creator and the evaluator, or the evaluation may be performed in a place where the information creator is not present. This is to separate the written content from the person who wrote it and to make a fair evaluation.

After striking ×, the person striking × and the person striking × discuss and decide on their suitability. In that case, it is important that the written content originates from the fact that the situation or problem is captured. Furthermore, if it is not possible to settle the matter easily, it is also important to verify it in the actual product or on-site. It is also effective to conduct an experiment of actually executing the measures when there is no match in the place where measures are taken.

Then, the result as a group produced as a result of this x stroke is owned as shared knowledge as a group.

Next, as evaluation, a case of hitting O will be described. In the present invention, an evaluator (referred to as A)
Indicates that if the work result of another person (referred to as B) is superior (compared to the work result of A) in comparison with the evaluation criteria, that fact is displayed by hitting, and thereafter A is B
We carry out the knowledge development process aiming to improve the work results of. For example, when the work result of B is a countermeasure plan, A devises (independently of B) a countermeasure plan that is more effective than the countermeasure plan. At the same time, B (independently of A) creates a plan that is a better version of his own plan. Then bring each plan and evaluate it again according to the appropriate evaluation criteria to settle ((×
Striking or ○ striking). Then, the above process is repeated. The number of repetitions may be set appropriately,
Further, it is possible to adopt a method of repeating until the difference between both results becomes less than a predetermined value.

In the above knowledge development process, for example, at least one of the constituent elements of the digestive discovery method described later, the work of creating a countermeasure plan, or the fact that occurred in the past with respect to the object is drawn as a picture or a sentence. Process reproduction work process (process reproduction method) reproduced by, etc., reproduction experiment work process (reproduction test method) that reproduces experiments based on information about the target, spot information about the target situation and information about the target such as pictures, sentences, etc. The target watching work process represented by (target watching method), the self-objectification work process (self-objectification method) that reproduces information about the information processing process executed by the information processing means in the past in a picture, a sentence, etc. Behavioral experiment work process (behavioral experiment method), thought experiment (thinking experiment method: role acting technique, main customer transfer method, etc.) A) can be used and the results can be used to further increase information, such as a thought experiment work process, which enables A and B to work better than B's original work results. Perform information processing independently.

In the above object watching work, the situation of the object (object) related to the theme is spot-wise observed and expressed by an information display system such as an actual object or a video image, a photograph, a picture, a sentence and the like. In the process of self-objectification, oneself (subject) reproduces their actions in pictures and sentences, lists them at a glance, looks at it as if it were an object, and investigates the mechanism there. As an example of thinking experiment work, by changing the position (expected goal, mission, function, organizational position, etc.) different from the one including the object or other objects, and actually performing,
Alternatively, a method of processing information related to the theme by a thought experiment can be used. As a concrete example, "misconception" for each information processing means (for each individual) or for each group
And then the individual point of view (or group)
It is possible to use a role acting method in which each person plays a different perspective and creates an idea, and a main customer rearrangement method in which various information is analyzed from the standpoint of an object (object).

In the above knowledge development process, the data or vocabulary related to the object or their relation, the relation strength coefficient,
It includes increasing or decreasing the items of the evaluation coefficient or modifying them.

As described above, according to the present invention, with respect to the information processing work results of individual (individual), "x striking" (work indicating that it is out of the evaluation standard) or "○ striking" (excellent) The work of displaying that there is). As a result, if an X is hit, diversification of viewpoints is promoted, and by deeply discussing each other's knowledge, the quality of information processing is improved, and at the same time sharing is promoted, resulting in Information processing efficiency is increased. Also,
If ○ is hit, it is not easy for the person who made the evaluation to train it in a more advanced direction, and the person who derived the original work result will also compete with it. Since the work is carried out so as to be highly trained, the efficiency of information processing is improved.

Further, in the above evaluation, it is desirable to always display either "x" or "○" for other work results. When actually operated,
There may be cases where neither can be displayed. It is considered that there is an inadequacy in terms of expression that the information processing work result cannot be seen even by other people, or a result that is far apart from being predictable by the evaluator is created. In both cases, forcing the display of either “X” or “○” will result in a correction of the expression and, if necessary, an explanation to the evaluator, and a deeper understanding of this process. The effect that knowledge creation can be done and sharing can be expected at the same time can be expected. Furthermore, the same information processing work result differs depending on the evaluator (“×” or “○”).
In some cases, however, it can be expected that discussions among evaluators who have performed different evaluations will enable deeper knowledge creation and at the same time be shared.

In the above, the other work results are marked with "x" or "○", but in some cases,
There is also a method of forcibly hitting "○". That is, even when other work results are evaluated to be seemingly inferior to their own work results, they are forced to find good points and places where they are likely to be brought up, and then create knowledge. Is the way to do it. In the case of this method,
In the process of finding good points by force, knowledge is created based on it, and knowledge is created very efficiently. As a result, advanced information processing becomes possible.

In this way, individuals are grouped and integrated as a group.

Further, in the present invention, the results of each group are exchanged with each other, and then the results are evaluated on the same basis (first evaluation process). Here, similarly, "×
Strike or circle.

At this time, each individual is first evaluated ((×
Alternatively, it is better to decide the evaluation result (× or ◯) as a group based on the result by hitting (○). that time,
It is best to decide the evaluation as a group based on discussions within the group, without giving a majority vote and without discretion.

Then, the evaluation results as a group are discussed with each other and settled. That is, for those evaluated as “x”, the reason why “x” was hit and the evidence are shown, and counterarguments are made to settle the entire organization group. In addition, for those evaluated as ○, both groups independently develop their knowledge,
Both sides will further evaluate the results. And repeat it. The number of repetitions may be set appropriately,
Further, it is possible to adopt a method of repeating until the difference between both results becomes less than a predetermined value.

The method of hitting x and hitting in the first evaluation work process may be the same as the method of hitting x and hit in the second and third evaluation work processes.

The relation of each work of the individual system executed in this way is as shown in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3.

Further, in the information processing method (individual whole system) of the present invention, a method of grouping / integrating in which individual pieces are directly connected to each other without first dividing the individual pieces into groups can be used. The above-described method of grouping / integrating individuals into groups can be used as it is, and the relationship of each process in that case is shown by the relationship of FIG. 3 and FIG.

In addition, the individual whole system described above (that is, the combination of the first work process and the second work process, the combination of the third work process and the fourth work process, or the fifth work process). The information processing work performed in the work performed by the combination of the work process and the sixth work process) is specifically the work, work, planning, manufacturing, sales, service, survey, research, development of,
This is a production activity that takes place in learning, education, training activities, etc., and includes information processing regarding the status of the target and the response to the target.

As a concrete example of information processing to which the individual system of the present invention is applied, there is a digestion discovery method described below.

That is, it is a list of information related to a target, a list of information for displaying and organizing it so that it can be viewed at a glance, a work process for extracting unclear points regarding a target, and a survey item for sorting out. Survey item arrangement work process, hypothesis creation work process, hypothesis creation work process, research work process that actually investigates and verifies the hypothesis, discovery work process that discovers the mechanism of the target, and countermeasures for the target It is composed of the work process of creating a countermeasure plan, and its details are described below.

First, as the information list overview work process, various texts and reference books related to the subject, various data and reference materials, or actual samples,
Collect as much as possible things that are likely to be related to the "mechanism related to the object" and arrange them all so that you can see the list. For example, the information is pasted on a wall such as a work place or a conference room where information processing is performed or converted into an electronic file so that the information processing means can browse the electronic information terminal. Alternatively, when the information processing means is a computer or an agent on the computer, it is stored in a database that can be shared and used by the entire group of organizations.

Next, in the unclear point extraction work, based on the overview of the above list, individual "don't know" related to the theme,
Output as much as possible. At this time, the target number may be set to 30 or more per piece. In some cases, it is also effective to perform work including extraction of "known things" to clarify the already-explained points and unclear points. It is recommended that no evaluation (e.g., evaluation in terms of importance or effectiveness) be performed in this work.

Then, in order to allow other information processing means in the group to browse and use them, they are pasted on a wall such as a work place or a conference room where information processing is performed, or they are converted into an electronic file, and electronic information is stored. The information processing means can be browsed and used on the terminal.

Next, in the survey item arrangement work process, "survey items" are individually created (written out) based on this "don't know". Thereafter, these items may be evaluated according to a certain evaluation standard to select appropriate or inappropriate items as these “survey items”. As a result, all "survey items" can be determined. After this, it is necessary to decide the researcher for each group and, if necessary, the survey method (where and how to conduct the survey) so that the survey results for the same "survey item" can be competed among the groups. desirable.

As a hypothesis creation work process, a hypothesis is drafted for the above-mentioned “survey item”. The larger the number of this hypothesis is, the more effective they are, and the more different they are from each other, the more effective they are. Specifically, 1 per information processing unit
It is effective to set a target for the number of hypotheses such as 0 or more. At this time, in order to increase the number of viewpoints of the hypothesis, the second hypothesis on the opposite side, which negates the first hypothesis, and the third hypothesis, which negates them, should be issued. It also accepts prying eyes and hypotheses that would not normally be considered.

Next, as a research work process, the actual product, the site, or the data itself is actually researched with a hypothesis. Although this survey differs depending on the subject, it is effective that the survey is basically independent and is conducted separately with the person in charge of the same survey item in another group. Then, describe the survey results individually so that you can see at a glance. For example, writing on paper or recording on an electronic information medium. Then, the information of the written paper or electronic medium is displayed on the screen of the electronic information display device so that each information processing means can browse and use it. Then, for that result,
Evaluate between groups (for example, based on evaluation criteria such as x for those that differ from your own survey results). On this occasion,
In principle, a one-on-one match is the final decision. In some cases, re-examination will be conducted.

In the discovery work process, all the unsuccessful survey results are listed, and the "mechanism" of the revealed (discovered) target is output based on the result.

Further, as a measure proposal work process, a measure as a team is set up based on the individual system as a whole based on the mechanism (discovery) revealed above. In some cases, conduct experiments to confirm the suitability of measures.

In the narrow sense, the digestion discovery method is “List of all” → “Unknown point extraction” → “Survey item arrangement” →
It refers to the process of "hypothesis planning"->"surveyexecution"->"discovery", and in a broad sense, it may include subsequent "response" (countermeasure creation process).

As described above, by executing the above-mentioned digestive discovery method by the individual total system in which the "total" work is performed after the "individual" work and the individual total system that repeats it, Information processing (knowledge creation) about an object that is unclear to the information processing means can be realized at a very high level efficiently in a short time at a low cost.

When this is executed, the fifth work process of the present invention is performed by the individual whole system that does not divide the organizational group.
The sixth work process may be combined, but the effect is more significant when the individual whole system that divides the organizational group and advances is used. That is, the leader of the entire organizational group (herein referred to as “team”) first divides the entire group into groups, and executes the above-mentioned digestive discovery method. This is illustrated in FIG. 5. In FIG. 5, the combination of the work of individual groups (work in divided groups) and the work as a team (work in the entire organization) in the execution of the digestion discovery method is shown. Three representative examples (case-A to case-C) are shown.

As described above, when dividing the information processing means into groups, it is necessary to perform the processing so that there is a difference in the information processing results between the groups. As a concrete method for realizing this, a method of dividing so that the characteristics of the information processing person are different between the groups can be used. When the information processing means is a computer or an agent on the computer, the knowledge and the like possessed by them, that is, a database, knowledge, knowledge representation, knowledge evaluation data,
Knowledge evaluation functions, concepts, learning algorithms, etc., or if they have a genetic algorithm, consider the types and contents of information processing performed in the past as characteristics, and there seems to be differences. Split into.

When the information processing means is a person, the characteristics to be noticed are: (1) division with attention to differences in individuality and idea, (2) attention to differences in abilities, post or position within the organization, age, etc. And (3) division according to the amount of speech. Generally, (1) has a great effect in the case of important tasks, and (2) makes the results of information processing work different depending on the focused ability, position, position, and age, and the leader positively uses this result. In that case, the effect is large, and (3) is more effective in the case of daily meetings and meetings.

Specific examples of the characteristics to be noticed at the time of division are technical phenomena such as knowledge of the “object” possessed by each information processing person, characteristics in mental aspect such as the degree of interest in the object and so-called motivation. Experience related to the subject or experience within the organization to which information processing means of information processing belongs, age, role, etc., age, sex, personality, address, customs, place of origin, professional knowledge, educational background, etc. Attitudes and actions (whether or not they are eloquent, whether or not they actively speak or act, whether they are enthusiastic, etc.), or the mode of action (whether they take a sharp view of the theme or not) Or something)
And so on.

When the leaders are installed in the divided groups, the position within the organization (position, predecessor, old face)
People who have a voice, partitioners (people who talk a lot at meetings and decide the flow of topics and have many instructions), people who have a voice due to their individuality (please refrain from using a leader and hold down the voice) It is better to avoid).

If the division into groups is inappropriate, it is better to repeat the division again. However, if this division is carried out frequently, the group consciousness will be weakened. The inventor refers to the organizational management including the division of the organizational group, the selection of the leader, and the correction of the division as “group dynamics”.

The present invention also provides a more reliable and quantitative method of dividing into a plurality of groups. That is, "parameters" representing the characteristics of the information processing means are extracted, and "weighting coefficients" of the respective parameters are set.

Here, the “parameter” is, for example, as described above, for example, the knowledge or the like they have, that is, the database, the knowledge, the knowledge expression, the knowledge evaluation data,
If the knowledge evaluation function, the concept, the learning algorithm, or the like, or if they have a genetic algorithm, the type and content of information processing performed in the past may be used. In addition, "age", "sex", "personality", "current address", "customs", "hometown", "special knowledge", "education"
Etc., or “attitude” and “behavior” during the work of the information processing means (whether or not they are talking, whether or not they actively speak or act, whether they are enthusiastic, etc.) Alternatively, it may be a “mode of action” (whether or not to take a sharp view on the theme). From these characteristics, what are considered to be important are extracted as “parameters”.

The "weighting coefficient" represents the degree of importance of the plurality of extracted "parameters". For example, when parameter A and parameter B are selected as “parameters” for evaluation, when parameter A is considered to be more important, parameter A is determined according to its relative importance.
The "weighting coefficient" of parameter B is set to "5", and the "weighting coefficient" of parameter B is set to "1".

In this way, the "parameter" is extracted,
After setting the "weighting coefficient", evaluation is performed for each parameter for each information processing means. Then, group division is performed so that the value obtained by multiplying the evaluation value by the “weighting coefficient” is as different as possible between the groups.

At this time, a value obtained by summing the evaluation values of all the parameters is calculated for each information processing means, and the value may be divided into groups, or information may be obtained based on the evaluation value of a certain parameter. The processing means may be divided into several large groups, which in turn may be divided into smaller groups based on other parameters.

In the process of this evaluation, the leader who divides the group can change the "parameter" and "weighting coefficient" as appropriate and recalculate the evaluation value. Then, as much as possible, it is possible to determine a division method that causes a difference in the total evaluation value between the groups.

The above-described combination of “parameter” extraction, “weighting coefficient” setting, evaluation value calculation, and division into groups can be executed quickly and reliably by a computer.

The combinations for extracting these “parameters”, setting the “weighting factors”, calculating the evaluation values, and dividing into groups have a “parameter” column and a “weighting factor” column. It can be efficiently executed by a tool composed of various media of the above format.

The work of the individual whole system which is performed by the combination of the work of "individual" and the work of "all" as described above and the repetition thereof is schematically shown in FIG. It shows the case of only "strike"). In the present invention, since information processing is performed by the "individual" and "all" systems in this manner, a variety of viewpoints and ways of thinking held by each individual or group is guaranteed.

As a conventional information processing method, there is known a method of conducting debate by debate. This method divides into a plurality of groups with different opinions or conclusions on the topic of debate, criticizes the opinions and conclusions of other groups, and develops the arguments to support their own opinions and conclusions. In a sense, this method is based on the fact that "competiting for victory or defeat" in the dispute with other groups.

However, such a conventional "debate method" and the method of the present invention are essentially different in the following two points.

First, in the case of the "debate method",
They are divided into groups so that there is a difference in the state before the information processing. In other words, in the case of the present invention, the information processing results are divided so that there is a difference, whereas in the conventional debate method, it is held in the first stage of the discussion, that is, the state in which the investigation regarding the target is insufficient. Grouping is done based on the opinions or conclusions that have been issued.
For this reason, it is not possible to respond to the situation in which it is necessary to change or revise one's own opinion due to the subsequent survey results, the opinions of other groups, or related information and knowledge, and as a result, the opinion changed or revised We cannot expect the information processing results produced by intellectually stimulating other groups. For this reason, deep information processing cannot be performed not only by the group but also by the entire organization.

Secondly, the debate method does not actually have a process of evaluating the results of other groups using the same criteria. For this reason, the discussions are subject to each other's subjectivity, and in the end, they become so-called water-based arguments.

The debate method is essentially different from the method of the present invention in the two points described above. The fact that the conventional debate method is insufficient as an information processing method is a well-known fact due to the fact that public discussions on TV programs and the like are only so-called water-based theory and deep information processing cannot be realized. There is.

An effective example of the above-mentioned individual whole system, that is, an example of the "best selection evaluation method" will be introduced.

For example, when a policy is indicated from the top of a certain organizational group, it is generally difficult to make the entire organizational group understand and spread the policy. Can be achieved. That is, first, the organization group is divided into some groups so that the results are different, and then the divided groups are caused to independently perform the work (for example, the above-mentioned unknown point extraction work). In this case, the work in the group is also executed in the individual whole system (individual → group). Then, the work results of the individual are viewed as a group, and from among them, "the item that is evaluated to be the most suitable for the policy" (best selection) is selected for each individual (individual). Then, based on the results, discussions will be made within the group, and 10 “those that are evaluated as most suitable for the policy” as a group will be selected. After carrying out the above in each group, all the results are viewed as a list of the entire organization, and the “those that are evaluated to be the most in line with the policy” selected by the group are mutually “not in line with the policy” Let them be evaluated as evaluation criteria (make them hit x).
After that, the results are discussed among the groups and settled. According to this process, the “policy” can be understood by the entire organization in the process of lateral evaluation and debate, and at the same time, sharing including tacit knowledge is possible.

In the above, 1 selected in the group
Among the 0 items that are evaluated as most suitable for the policy, the top of the relevant organizational group (that is, the one who created the policy) reviews the results of each group and It may be appropriately selected so that the direction (and its degree) of deviation from is covered as much as possible. By doing so, the deviation direction from the policy can be covered as much as possible, the evaluation time can be shortened, and the efficiency is further enhanced.

[0109]

EXAMPLES Next, specific examples of the implementation of the information processing method of the present invention will be described.

<Embodiment 1> The following is an example in which the information processing method of the present invention is applied to productivity improvement in a business office of a component manufacturer having electric equipment. The facility has 68 regular employees and 64 part-time employees (hereinafter part-time employees).
The first manufacturing department (36 regular employees and part 3
2 people, and the 2nd manufacturing department (23 regular employees and part 29)
It consists of three departments: a person) and a management department (9 regular employees and 3 part-time employees). The 1st manufacturing department is in charge of 4 types of products, which are the main mass-produced products of this plant, and the 2nd manufacturing department is in charge of manufacturing small-quantity, high-mix type products such as individually ordered products and developed products.

This parts manufacturer is one of the electric equipment manufacturers' business division that became independent in 1994.
Since its establishment in 1994, the performance of all three business sites has been sluggish. Even at those business sites, the results of FY 1997 were large deficit with sales of 19.3 billion yen and profits and losses of -2.3 billion yen. It was In this situation, the present inventor applied the method of information processing of the present invention as an experiment as follows in order to verify the effect, with the aim of improving the productivity of the establishment (the test subject The experiment was performed after imposing a confidentiality obligation on the information processing method of the invention and taking measures to prevent the technical contents of the invention from being publicly known).

On April 18, 1998, the person in charge of the business office gathered all business offices and gave an instruction for a "waste collection operation". That is, it is the setting of a task of competing for how many wastes can be found and collected, which are often present in the business activities in the business establishment. Furthermore, "collect from the facts" was presented as a work development policy.

In response to this, on the same day, the person in charge of the first manufacturing department divided the department members so that there would be a difference. That is, there are 36 regular employees in 1A group (6 people: people with long experience in front-end process), 1B group (8 people, people with short internal experience in front-end process), 1C group (10 people: back-end process) Person with long experience in charge) 1D group (12 people:
The person who is in charge of the back-end process and has a short experience), and the 32 part-time employees are divided according to the product they are in charge of, and each is given a name (nickname). , "Digital" group (8 people: product S), "Karachi" group (8 people: product T),
The group is "Gumi Cho" (8 people: product U). As described later, the division as described above leads to a difference in the result of the work carried out thereafter due to the difference in the person in charge of the process, work experience, or product in charge.

Similarly, the second manufacturing department has seven members.
The teams were divided into three teams, and the management department divided the members into three teams in order to make a difference.

After such division, each group in each department started its own activity in response to the above problem. Within each group, I wrote down what I think was useless for each individual. In the example of the 1D group, each person wrote out one by one, aiming at more than three cases each day. And
Four days later, I brought them together in a 1D group and wrote them by each other based on a unified standard of “What is out of the task ×” and “There was no such thing as finding my own waste ○” Evaluated things. And those who originally wrote that they were evaluated as ○ were subject to the creation of three or more training plans for that item.

As a result, what was initially evaluated as being out of the task and hit x is not directly evaluated as useless by the discussion between the person who wrote it and the person who evaluated it, but It was indirectly recognized as causing waste, which led to a deeper interpretation of waste, which resulted in more waste items.

Further, as one example of those evaluated as “◯”, there is an item “It is useless to replace the inspection device for each product”. On the other hand, those who rated it as “good” are wasteful because the tray in the manufacturing process is different for each product.
Three items were further extracted: “It is wasteful that each product has a different shipping packaging box” and “It is wasteful that the inspection result entry table is different for each product”. On the other hand, the person who originally wrote the above also extracted "useless items" to develop it, brought them with them, and evaluated them further. Due to the application of such individual system, April 1st of 1D group
The number of wastes collected per day was 146, which was sorted by item.

On the other hand, similarly, each group independently proceeded with waste collection work, and posted the activity results (waste catalogs) of all groups to the cafeteria on April 27. Then, using the unified evaluation criteria "X for things that are out of the work development policy" and "○ for things that are not in our collection",
The results of each group were evaluated. As a result, by striking x from other groups, it became possible to capture the object more deeply.

As an example, "material loss in the previous process is wasted" was issued from the 1C group (post process), while the 1B group in charge of the previous process indicated that "work development policy = X was struck with the intent of deviating from "collecting from facts" (ie, not based on data). At this point, the two groups became a hot topic for discussion, while the 1B group showed the material loss data up to now, while the 1C group pointed out the problem of the data collection method itself. , Information was exchanged. Based on this, 1B
The group has renewed the way of thinking of material loss in its own process, and has come to recognize that there is much more waste than conventional recognition.

Furthermore, the management department group reported that "traffic accidents during commuting are useless", and most of the other groups evaluated it as "○". On the other hand, other groups have proposed three or more plans to develop it. Examples of this include “wasting to fall down the stairs in the premises”, “wasting to have a product shipping truck in a traffic accident”, and “promotion by a specific department without doing their own safety management”. There was such a thing as waste, and as a result, a lot of waste was collected.

As described above, according to the whole-personal system of the present invention, it is possible to efficiently collect and integrate the knowledge and information possessed by an individual as a group, and to make a difference. By dividing into groups, the work results for each group will differ to a considerable extent, so it is possible to clarify the difference, and as a result,
It was demonstrated that grouping and integration between groups can be performed with extremely high efficiency.

By the above-mentioned “waste catalog” presentation, the waste collected there becomes a common property of the entire business site. Furthermore, based on each "waste item, a countermeasure plan was made by each individual system by the individual whole system of the present invention, and waste elimination activities were performed. For example, a" material use-up operation "that was conducted for each group. These were "Traffic near miss reproduction operation" and "No inspection operation".

The above waste collection activity is continuously carried out by the individual system of the present invention, and at the second "Waste Catalog" presentation (May 21st), the entire business establishment is 4569.
The waste of the individual was extracted. In addition, the results of the examination of each group of those countermeasure plans or the progress status of their specific efforts were also reported. While the first presentation was limited to the collection of waste within the business, the second presentation was, for example, waste related to collaboration between the headquarters and the business (for example, sales The feature was that the contents of orders received from the person in charge and waste due to delays such as the timing of corrections were also extracted.

Even after the second presentation, the "waste collection" activity and the countermeasure activity are carried out by the individual system of the present invention in each group in each department, and the first half of 1998 is completed. At that point, the company's full-year business results for fiscal 1998 are expected to greatly improve both sales and profits.

[0125] Further, on October 1, 1998, the manager of the business office instructed "excavation of waste" as an issue for the second half of the year. This is because the "waste collection" in the first half was limited to the actual collection of waste, whereas the "digging waste" in the second half was to find latent waste.

On the other hand, the person in charge of each department appropriately modified the conventional grouping and changed the division contents so as to make a difference, and promoted the above-mentioned subject by the individual system of the present invention.

As an example of the group's unique activity relating to the waste finding, which is an application of the individual system of the present invention, there is a "why why strategy" of the "Gumi super group". For the purpose of excavating waste, this is to write out each and every question that each person has in doubt in their own work on a "why why sheet". For example, there are two devices that have the same function as the device used by oneself, but why the thickness of the power cable supplied to the device is different? As a result of a later investigation, it can be seen that the estimated design accuracy of the power consumption of the device is not sufficient and a considerable over-spec power circuit is attached, which causes a large loss. It was In this way, the "why why sheet" of each individual is evaluated as a group and the discussion (including investigation of related matters and verification by experiments) is performed as a group by all group members. I have summarized "Waste I dug up".

In the same way, "excavation of waste" was conducted in each group, and the first "exhaust excavation exhibition" was held on October 28, 1998. Here, the excavation contents of each group are explained. Then, evaluation and discussions were conducted using × and ○ strokes, and the results were shared among the business establishments.

Further, the above-mentioned activities are continuously executed by the individual system of the present invention, and the "waste excavation exhibition" is held every week. As a result, actualized and hidden waste in production activities was collected and excavated with extremely high efficiency. In addition, in parallel with that, those measures can be improved by individual → group → general discussion,
We succeeded in gathering and integrating various viewpoints that individuals have, without ruining the group as a whole.

As a result, the business performance in the 1998 fiscal year was significantly improved with the sales amount = 28.7 billion yen and the profit / loss = 3.2 billion yen. According to the information processing method of the present invention, the productivity can be improved in a very short time. It was demonstrated that it can be performed with high efficiency.

<Second Embodiment> Next, a second embodiment of the present invention will be described.

This embodiment is another embodiment in which the information processing means is a person, and it is a solution of the problem of the wrong address for sending the materials to the trainees in the training institute mainly for companies called "management center". Here is an example.

Among the information processing means (workers) of the management center, the information processing means involved in the work of sending this material are the information processing means A (hereinafter A), the information processing means B (hereinafter B), and the information processing means C. (Hereinafter C), information processing means D
There were four (hereinafter D). However, sometimes there was a problem with sending the materials, that the address was wrong. Specifically, in May 1999, there were 12 cases (0.60% of occurrence rate) in which materials were returned without being delivered to the recipient, and the destination of the material was not the current correct destination. 23 of the 1987 items were delivered three days or more later (incidence rate: 1.15%). Also, 1999
In June of the year, materials were not returned to the other party and were returned 3 out of 2013 (occurrence rate: 0.15%), and the material was not sent to the correct destination at least 3 days. Delayed items 5 out of 2013 (incidence rate 0.25%)
Met.

On the other hand, when the first survey was conducted, the information processing means A and B were in charge in May 1999,
It was found that the information processing means C and B were in charge in June 1999. Furthermore, data such as work calendar and personality were obtained.

Thus, the four workers were divided into groups. This procedure is shown in FIG. That is, as shown in FIG. 9A, the data of each worker was input with respect to the three parameters (work calendar, frequency of destination errors, and personality). Next, as shown in (b) of the same figure, a weighting coefficient was set for each parameter, and the evaluation score of each worker was evaluated in seven levels from -3 to 0-3. Further, as shown in FIG. 7C, the product of the evaluation points of the parameters of each worker and the weighting coefficient was calculated, and the sum of them was calculated as the characteristic value of each worker. Based on this, as shown in FIG. 3D, the characteristic values (total of the characteristic values of the group members) for each group were obtained for the three types of grouping (case-1 to case-3). . As a result, the grouping of case-1 in FIG. 6D maximizes the difference in characteristic value between groups. As a result, this is divided into those who have many mistakes and those who have few.

Therefore, the person in charge of the management center divides these information processing means into the case-1 division method, that is, (a) group of information processing means A and B and (b) group of information processing means C and B. Divided into and. After that, the following work was performed separately for each of the two groups.

(A) In the group, first, a work was carried out so that various kinds of information related to the material sending could be overlooked on the imitation paper so that it could be viewed at a glance. This includes the original name list that is the basis for designating the destination of the material, the name list of the destination to be sent this time, the work standard that was originally created for the work of sending the material, and a diagram that schematically shows the procedure for entering the address. , A route map from the posting of materials to post-mailing to the other party, the distribution of information when the affiliation of the recipient was changed or personnel changes were included. Then, what kind of work each of the information processing means A and B performed was first described separately in order on the paper A3. In addition, I also practiced each of these tasks and videotaped them.

Regarding the paper described by each information processing means,
Based on whether or not "Is the method different from the work standard that was originally created?", I evaluated each of the different papers by marking the different places with a red cross. As a result, four X marks were printed on the paper of the information processing means A and six X marks were printed on the paper of the information processing means B. As a result, both of the information processing means were different from the original work standard. I knew I was working. We had a discussion in front of the paper with the cross. This discussion became very fierce, and it was pointed out that there is a problem not only in the work method of each other but also in the work standard that was originally created. And as a result of the experiment,
It was estimated that when the work described in the work standard document was performed, the destination error occurred at an average rate of 1%. In this way, it was also found that the work standard that was originally created had deficiencies.

After this, for each of the information processing means A and B, among the work contents of oneself, the points different from the work standard document originally created are written out one by one. There were 21 and 17 cases for information processing means A and B, respectively. In addition,
Although the work standard document and the work content of each person were not strictly grasped at the time of the above-mentioned x stroke, this time, since it was strictly conducted by each person, the number of different points increased. This was put on the wall so that you can see the list in order of work, and each explained the contents. In some cases, the information processing means performs work that deviates from the content of the work standard due to error or negligence, but as a better method than the work standard, each person devised their own work content and changed it. There were things.

On the other hand, the information processing means A and B marked with "x" based on "the difference from their own method" as the evaluation criteria. Based on the list of various information related to the material transmission that was already described on the imitation paper, which was already described, a discussion was conducted to discuss the evaluation results. Occasionally misdirection may occur), and through the discussion,
The good parts and problem parts that were devised were clearly grasped, and the result was that the tacit knowledge held by each individual was shared. At this time, if the discussion was not enough to decide which work method was better, the experiments were conducted by actually trying the work, and the decisions were made one by one. Based on these discussions, about the mechanism of occurrence of wrong address when sending materials and measures against it,
(A) Grouped together.

On the other hand, also in the group (b), similarly, a list of various information related to the material sending is displayed, and the work contents of each of the information processing means C and D and the work standard document originally created are listed. I wrote down the paper, discussed the work of crossing them, discussed about it, and summarized the mechanism of occurrence of wrong address when sending the material and the countermeasure against it in the (b) group.

The results of these (a) group and (b) group were brought together. In this embodiment, as already mentioned,
The results of the work in each group were partially duplicated because the groups were divided into groups of information processing means with a high occurrence rate of destination errors and information processing means with a small occurrence rate, that is, there was a difference. However, the results were quite different. Then, regarding the mechanism of occurrence of a wrong address when sending each other's materials, x was given based on the criteria of "things different from theirs" and "things different from the facts". As for the countermeasures, they were struck with the criteria of "one that is superior to their own countermeasures" and "one that has a better viewpoint than the ones they have established".

As a result, the (a) group displays 7 × for the result of the (b) group, and vice versa.
For the group, (x) 4 x's are displayed in the group. Then, with respect to these results, the arguments were submitted between the groups, and the actual experiments were conducted to discuss and conclude. In the end, there were one case and two cases in the (a) and (b) groups, respectively. It was discovered that there was a mistake about the mechanism.

Further, the group (a) displays two circles for the countermeasure plan of the group (b). It is (1)
It was to create a list of address changes due to changes, etc., and (2) Improve the table to improve the visibility of the address book. Regarding these,
(A) The group created five proposals for improving each of (1) and (2). On the other hand, the (b) group, which originally created the above (1) and (2), created five proposals to further improve them and five proposals to further improve the countermeasure proposal of the (b) group. Bringing them together, and evaluating each other based on "less effective" and "infeasible" as evaluation criteria, and then discussing, winning, and concluding, the whole of the advanced countermeasure plan (4
People) and arranged these as new work standards.

As described above, in the course of this discussion, the points of elucidation of the mechanism for occurrence of a destination error and the countermeasure method became very clear, and at the same time, the optimum work standard was created.

By executing this work standard, 19
In December 1999, the rates of cases in which materials were returned without being delivered to the other party and those in which materials were delayed for more than 3 days were 0.07% and 0.06%, respectively. 0.04% and 0.03% respectively, February 2000 0.02% and 0.01% respectively, March 2000 0.00% and 0.01% respectively, showing remarkable improvement effects. Was given. Converting this to a monetary amount, including the post-processing labor cost related to the wrong address, the annual productivity improvement was estimated to be about 2.1 million yen.

As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to sufficiently pursue the cause of the defect occurrence, to share the problems in the process, and to take a method of another person whom the user does not know. Not only is there an advantage of being able to discover and share many things, but we can expect the participation of people with little experience in the working group and suggestions from ideas that do not fit in the framework of each information processing method, and supervisors, veterans, and newcomers. The advantage of being able to communicate, the advantage of being able to naturally revise the standard book while valuing each one's know-how one by one, and sharing of the revised content at the same time However, it is possible to enjoy the excellent points that cannot be realized by the conventional method. Therefore, the method of the present invention is, for example,
It can be expected that a very large effect can be exerted in the analysis of the cause (true cause) of the nonconformity product (defective product) problem of the product in the production site of the company and the countermeasure thereof.

The conventional method for solving the above problem,
The approach is described below for reference. In other words, after receiving defect information, the cause of the defect and countermeasures are written only by the supervisor of the department in which the defect occurred and the defect generator. It is not possible to. In such a method, it is practically possible to grasp the cause (true cause) of the problem occurrence. Therefore, the countermeasure is irrelevant and the effect is not improved.

<Embodiment 3> Next, a third embodiment of the present invention will be described.

In other words, this is an example in which the present invention is applied to a conference when the information processing means is a person. Here, X
As an example, a case in which the number of attendees (information processing means) at the conference is eight and there is one chair at the conference in the organizational group named

First, the chair gave the theme of this conference.
In other words, it is a meeting of adoption regarding the necessary expense budget for the four departments of this organization group in FY1999. As related materials, the actual expenses of each department for the past three years and their contents and details, as well as the budget contents and details of necessary expenses for the relevant year, were distributed to all attendees. In addition, the Chairman presented again the “policy on behavior (management)” that had been examined in advance and had already been agreed as a whole.

Now, it takes about 20 minutes from the start of the conference to organize the materials so that they can be overlooked, and each person in charge explains about them, and answers the questions from the attendees and attends the contents. So that people can understand. After this, the chair asked the eight attendees about the pass / fail of the budget proposal that is currently presented, and as a result, it was judged to be generally good (a) group of four, and generally denied (b) group. Divided into 4 people. And we discussed this budget proposal in each room. As for the method, first, the budget plan was marked with an X mark based on the criteria that "it does not fit the above policy". After that, (a) the group had a discussion about it, but there were 2 people who did not say much at that time.
Since I was named, I divided the two people and divided the (a) group into two groups: (a) group (ordinary speech) and (a) group (insufficient speech). As a result, the two people who had few comments until now became proactive due to the need, and the number of comments increased.

On the other hand, in (b) the group, in a discussion scene within the group, frequently speaking in a very loud voice, and possibly in a state where discussions are mixed up (excessive speech)
Since there were two people, I also divided these two people and divided the (b) group into two (b) group (excessive speech) and (b) group (ordinary speech). As a result, it was difficult to make a statement because it was disturbed by two people who had too many words.
The names became able to speak normally, and since the two who were over-speaking no longer listened silently, discussions proceeded with over-speaking. The lively debate has begun to develop.

In this way, after the (a) group and the (a) group are integrated through the x striking process,
(A) The group's view of the original plan, and similarly, the (b) group's view of the original plan was summarized through the integration of the (b) group and the (b) group through the x striking process.

Furthermore, a discussion is made by cross-marking the above-mentioned (a) group's view of the original plan and (b) the group's view of the original plan on the basis that they are different from their group's view. Overlaid. As a result, the problems of the original plan were highlighted, the opinions of all were gathered, the future budget plan could be adopted unanimously, and the questionnaire to all participants after this meeting ( Eight out of eight people (100%) expressed their consent to this final proposal and expressed their willingness to act based on it by an anonymous method. The total time required for the main conference was 4.5 hours, which was shorter than the conventional average of 4.7 hours for the conference. Furthermore, the revenues of the four departments of the organization are 114% and 112%, respectively, compared to the previous year.
%, 135%, and 123%, showing remarkable improvement, and the effect of improving productivity by applying the present invention was confirmed.

As described above, according to the conference using the information processing method of the present invention, a deep understanding of the theme (current problems, priorities, problems in each department, countermeasures, countermeasures, concrete future Action guidelines, staffing, staffing, etc.)
, And at the same time, each participant's sense of ownership, sense of participation, or sense of belonging arises as a result, and as a result, he / she agrees and actively supports the conclusions decided at the meeting as described above. We were able to confirm the practically great effect of being able to express that they would behave in a positive manner.

Furthermore, continuing from the above year, 1997
At the budget meeting in the fiscal year, as an evaluation, in addition to the × striking based on the criterion that "it is different from the viewpoint of one's own group", the simultaneous striking was performed. In other words, the work results of each group are evaluated based on the criteria of "things that are superior to their own views" and "those considered from a perspective that is not in their own views", and then those that are struck with The evaluator and the evaluatee independently learned the work results. At that time, the number was forced so that seven or more proposals superior to the proposal were created. As a result, knowledge development will progress further and the effect of a larger meeting will be obtained, and the profits of the four departments of this organization for the relevant fiscal year will be 1 each compared to the previous fiscal year.
62%, 143%, 132%, and 154% showed further remarkable improvement, and the effect of improving productivity by applying the present invention was confirmed.

The conventional methods and approaches corresponding to the above-mentioned embodiments are described below for reference. That is, at a regular meeting, the participating members verbally give their opinions and ideas under the direction of the chair. However, in that case, there is a problem in that the statement is easily influenced by the statements, opinions and ideas of other members and does not represent the true idea of each individual. Therefore, the conclusion of the meeting is to say that the opinions expressed are “good and bad”.
Yes, it is a compromised form of "grinding". Also, the speaker does not explicitly deny if he or she disagrees with the member who spoke before, and finds a compromise somewhere, and there,
You will be careful to avoid conflicting opinions with other members, such as giving your own opinion. As a result, what came out of the discussion was an ambiguous compromise, which was an opinion representing the group, but no one's idea and no one was convinced.

Actually, a similar budget meeting in 1995 in the above-mentioned organizational group named X proceeded by the conventional method, but as a result of the questionnaire (by anonymity) to the attendees after that meeting, Only 3 out of 9 people (33%) agreed with the final plan and expressed their willingness to act on it. Also, the meeting time at this time was 5.1 hours. In this way, in the conventional method of conferencing, even if the participants of the meeting seemed to agree on the conclusion of the meeting on the surface, they were not convinced in reality, and it was unavoidable because it was decided at best as a whole. They were unable to respond to the level of obedience, leading to collective action that did not lead to positive action.

<Embodiment 4> Next, an embodiment of a support system for a method of information processing according to the present invention and a tool used therefor will be described. In this embodiment, an example in which a conference similar to the conference described in the third embodiment of the present invention described above is held on a computer network is shown. Participants are also 8
There was one chairman (leader) and the theme was "decision of next product specifications". This organization (named Y) is an organization whose business purpose is to provide training sessions for companies and the like, and this next product will specifically determine the content of the next training session. It is a thing. The outline of the flow of the conference support system is as shown in FIG. The screen of the electronic information device used by the chair is shown in the flowchart of FIG. 10, and the steps that have been completed are gray so that you can easily see what stage you are currently in and what you should do now.
Further, the steps to be executed may be displayed in a pink color. Further, this screen may be made viewable by each participant of the conference on the computer network, if necessary.

The chairperson first notifies each participant of necessary information such as the conference participant, the theme of the conference, the schedule of the conference, and the like by the electronic information network device in a usual manner.
Then, the chair collects information on the usual behaviors and characteristics of each participant, and based on this result, as shown in FIG. 14, four division standard parameters of years of service, work charge, behavior pattern, and personality are set. From each viewpoint, each participant was evaluated, and the weighting coefficient of each parameter was determined, and grouping was performed so that the difference between groups was maximized. As can be seen from the figure, when the participants are divided by ABGI and CDEF, the difference between the groups becomes maximum.

At this time, as a tool for grasping the behavior / characteristics of each participant (first step in FIG. 10), FIG.
The entry sheet shown in (a) was used. This sheet is displayed on the screen of the electronic information device so that each item can be entered, and of course, it is possible to output it on paper or the like as necessary.

Further, as a tool for specifying the four division standard parameters, the division standard entry sheet of FIG. 11B can be used. When the chair notifies each participant of the contents of the division, the tool shown in FIG.
A tool was used for the division content notification sheet shown in 1 (c). After making sure that everyone has received the information,
The end of the dividing process is displayed (fourth step).

Next, the work for each group is started (fifth step). This "work for each group" may actually include work for each individual in the group and subsequent collaborative work in the group.

Steps 5-1 to 5-9 in FIG. 10 are a flow chart illustrating the detailed contents of the fifth step. The flow charts illustrated in steps 5-1 to 5-9 by themselves represent a process that can be completed as the information processing of the present invention. That is, in steps 5-1 to 5-5, information processing is performed for each individual in the group. Then, in steps 5-6 to 5-9, the individual work results are evaluated within the group, and the results of the entire group are derived.

The individual work of steps 5-1 to 5-5 can be started on the electronic information device for each individual, for example. The tool used at this time is shown in FIG.
Alternatively, it is the personal entry sheet shown in FIG.

On the personal information processing entry sheet shown in FIG. 12 (a), each person freely describes the theme and also enters the name of the person who entered. After completing this, step 5
At -6, notification is given to proceed to the fourth work process, and at step 5-7, evaluation criteria are specified. Then, based on this evaluation standard, step 5-
At 8, the evaluation work is performed within the group.

An example of a tool used for mutually evaluating within a group is the evaluation sheet of FIG. 12 (b). The evaluation standard at this time is decided by the chairperson, for example, and the group information processing means is notified by the evaluation standard entry sheet of FIG. 11D, and is transcribed in the evaluation standard column of the evaluation sheet of FIG. 12B. Based on this evaluation standard, as shown in FIG. 12B, by clicking the click button for hitting x or the click button for hitting o, a mark x or a mark o is displayed. FIG. 12 (c) shows an example of the case of the cross mark. At this time, it is preferable that the cross mark is displayed in red and blinks so that the viewer can recognize it ergonomically clearly. When it is marked with a circle, it is better to display it in green or blue, for example, so that it gives an ergonomically clear impression that is different from that of x. In addition, an evaluator comment section is prepared so that the reason for the × or ○ stroke can be entered, and each participant can freely describe the reason. At this time, the evaluator filled in his name. In addition, in the screen of this evaluation step, the writer's name may be deleted on the screen in order to obtain its anonymity.

Next, after the evaluation of each individual is completed, FIG.
The contents of the screen shown in (d) are displayed collectively as in the screen of FIG. 12 (e) so that each individual in the group can view the list. At this time, as shown in FIG. 12D, the names of the writers and the evaluators are known to all members of the group. In addition, in the example of FIG. 12 (e), when four personal work results are displayed, x is displayed by the other three, and one cannot be evaluated (neither x nor o is attached) In the case of this evaluation impossible result, the person who outputs the work result and the evaluator individually exchange information (questions and answers, etc.), and finally display × or ○. Is good.

With respect to those evaluated as “X”, discussions will be conducted between the writer and the evaluator using the electronic information device, regarding the individual results. The tool used at this time is shown in Fig. 12 (f).
It is a sheet of. Based on this discussion, we draw conclusions as a group.

On the other hand, with respect to those evaluated as ◯, the evaluator and the writer of each of them independently develop their knowledge. This result can be entered using the personal work result entry sheet of FIG. 12A or FIG. 11F, and after the entry, the appropriate evaluation criteria are used in the same manner as above. Perform the evaluation using the evaluation sheet of (b), and repeat this appropriately (the chairman can browse the process and end the repetition at an appropriate time, or can set the end time in advance. Alternatively, a method of predetermining the number of repetitions may be adopted). This leads to a conclusion as a group.

A work result as a group is created by the discussion within the group after the above-mentioned × -stroke or ○ -stroke. The tool used at that time is the group work result entry sheet of FIG.

When the entry for each group is completed on this sheet, it is detected by the function of detecting the end of work for each group which is the sixth step shown in FIG. At this time, if the work for each group of all the groups is not completed by the date and time specified in advance, all the persons are notified this time at the same time as the notification / warning to the group. This completes the work for each group of all groups (7th step)
Then, everyone is notified of the work of the group work of all groups, which is the eighth step shown in FIG.

Next, the chairman notifies all the members that they will proceed to the second work process (the ninth step shown in FIG. 10), and the criteria for evaluation between the groups are notified to all members according to FIG. 11 (d). (10th step). Based on this,
Individuals in each group evaluate individually and bring them together to summarize the evaluation results as a group. This is shown in Figure 1.
The personalized evaluation sheet shown in 2 (b) can be used.

Receiving this evaluation result, the groups proceed with discussions on the electronic information device (11th step: the tool to be used is FIG. 12F), and the final result is summarized as a whole (shown in FIG. 10). 12th step). This completes the whole work, and the results obtained there are distributed to everyone.

Although the support system for dividing the entire organization group into groups has been described above, the case where the whole organization group is not divided is as follows. In FIG. 10, the third work is the fifth work and the second work is the second work. The work is the third work, the fourth work is the sixth work, the second whole work is the third whole work,
By replacing the second evaluation work with the third evaluation work, steps 5-1 to 5-9 shown in FIG. 10 are performed.

As described above, by using the support system and tool of this embodiment, the information processing method of the present invention can be efficiently executed. Specifically, the meeting using the above electronic information device was held in February 1999, but the average per capita required for the meeting from the start of the meeting to the final conclusion. The meeting time is 6.2 hours, and the average meeting time per person when a similar meeting is held using the conventional method in December 1998 is 9.7 hours. Was confirmed to be very efficient. Furthermore, the product developed and sold according to the “specification of the seasonal product” determined by the above method has a sales ratio =
1.6 times, profit rate = 2.1 times, and together with the personnel cost related to it, the productivity improvement amount is 92 million yen, and the information processing method, support system and tool of the present invention can be used. It was confirmed that there was a very large effect.

The support system for the information processing method of the present invention and the tools used therefor can be used at a remote location by using the Internet utilizing IT (information technology) technology using an electronic information device alone or in combination. Even if there is, or both inside and outside Japan, participants can exchange information and knowledge with each other without being bound by time at the same time. Absent.

<Embodiment 5> Next, as a fifth embodiment of the present invention, the information processing method of the present invention will be described with reference to the case where the information processing means is a group of people and the theme of the information processing (target). , Work) is applied to the following work model. The reason why the information processing method of the present invention is applied to the following work model will be described below. In other words, when it is implemented in actual industrial activities,
Although it is difficult to give a comparative example under the same conditions as that, in the experiment using the work model described below, the method of the present invention and the conventional method can be compared under the same conditions, and the effect of the present invention is accurate. This is because it can be derived.

The “work model” used here is one that the inventor separately invented as a condensed version of the main points of production activity (work) in a company or the like. That is, it is a work model in which a plurality of teams composed of a plurality of members compete against each other for team performance, and each time a member obtains necessary materials, parts, information, etc. in the process of performing a work, a predetermined amount is required. Expenses are recorded as expenses, and the achievements of each member's work are recorded as a predetermined amount of income.The individual performance of each member is calculated by the difference between the above expenses and income, and the team is based on this. Achievements are being calculated. Furthermore, there is a mechanism in which at least a part of the results of the work performed by a given member of the team is performed by a given other member of the team, and how the member is involved in the work of the team. It is characterized by affecting the individual performance and team performance of other members.

In the following, assuming that there are four teams each consisting of eight people, this work model will be carried out.
This work model will be described more specifically. First, the whole course starts from "Start", as shown in Fig. 8.
Go through some IP and VIP to the goal. Then, a "pair" consisting of two people from the same team starts from the start. What is purchased at this time is a "top view" as shown in FIG. Each person in each pair goes through different courses (Green I course and Green II course) according to this frame, and reaches the VIP and the goal through the IP on the course. At this time, those who have reached the VIP and the goal together earlier than the competing pairs of other teams who started together are given the right to obtain the voucher.
However, the above figure is incomplete by itself, and there are "breaks" to make up for it. The break is
It is installed only on the IP of the course where the other person of each pair progresses, and when each participant gets the IP, it acquires the interrupt used by the other person of the pair and when the pair is prepared by VIP. By exchanging these with each other and completing the course progress information, the entire course is to be progressed. For each course,
A plurality of top diagrams are prepared, and the cost (that is, information cost) varies depending on the amount of information. In addition, the speed of progress is set between Start, IP, VIP, and Goal, and therefore the standard arrival time to each IP, VIP, and goal is set, and the difference between the actual arrival time and the standard arrival time is set. Is shaped as a time cost. The performance of each individual is determined by performance = cash voucher acquisition amount-information cost-time cost. Based on these, pair performance and team performance are sought and these performances are competed.

As subjects (namely, information processors) of this work model (hereinafter, abbreviated as "S-20"), 32 randomly selected male and female subjects aged 23 to 41 were determined. In addition, there was a total of four leaders, one for each team and one for each team. Then, the simple instruction manual on S-20 was distributed to all the members in advance, and the general leader gave an instruction of "Read before the execution day of S-20 and prepare in advance". . Then, on the day of execution, these members were assigned to four teams (A1, A2, B1, B2) of 8 people each.
We divided into two and met together.

Then, the time until the first execution of S-20 was determined by the A1 and A2 teams using the total system of the present invention, while the B1 and B2 teams used the conventional method for comparison. , Researching the manual about S-20,
After discussing the action standard (that is, the countermeasure) in the execution scene, the actual S-20 was carried out, and the effect of the individual whole system of the present invention was verified by each achievement.

Hereinafter, the execution status of the information processing of each team up to the first S-20 will be specifically described.

First, as the beginning of the first day of execution, the total leaders were 32 persons and 4 persons from 10:00 to 10:30.
We gathered together a team leader of people in one place, and as a policy of work development, we were told to everyone that "focus on grasping the mechanism of S-20 and reduce the focus of countermeasures", and other notes etc. I was also told. During this time, A1 and A
The second team leader observed the characteristics of each team member.

10:30 after the above general meeting
Between ~ 15: 00, each team entered each work place (meeting room) and started work. At that time, A1 team and A2 team divided each team into three first. The criteria for the division were whether or not the S-20 manual was read in advance, and whether or not he had listened to the story of the general leader at the general meeting and took notes.
As a result, the four members who read the S-20's manual in advance and listened to the leader of the whole leader and took note of the contents at the above-mentioned general meeting (a) group, And two people who had read the S-20's manual in advance but did not listen to the leader of the whole meeting and took notes at the above general meeting (b).
Group, and without reading the S-20 manual in advance,
At the above general meeting, we divided the two people who did not listen to the talks of the general leader and did not take notes to the group (C). Then, these divided groups were divided into different work areas, and then worked independently from each other until instructed by the team leader to prevent entry into other rooms.
The division of the A1 team is intended to make a difference in the results of the first piece of work.

That is, the division standard directly indicates the attitude / behavior of each information processing means (participant) working on this work model (S-20). The difference between them is the first as described later. It has a great influence on the result of each work.

Now, the groups divided into three each worked in different rooms. In the (1) group of the A1 team, based on the contents of the S-20 manual, "I have this is the mechanism of the S-20" was written out individually for each individual on a sheet of A3 by magic (No. 2 pieces of work). Then, stick each of them to the wall, and set the common evaluation standard to "objects that are out of the mechanism of S-20" with respect to this, and use red magic for "objects that are out of the mechanism of S-20". A large "x" is attached to the entire paper for each individual member.

After that, as work of the group (second work of the second group), those marked with X can be discussed with each other to deepen the understanding of the mechanism of S-20 as a whole, and in addition, I was able to share it in time. In addition, as a typical example of the thing that is marked with X, there is one that thinks about "countermeasures" rather than "mechanism", or one that imagines and writes "mechanism" that is convenient for you. can give. It can be understood that they are not written in the manual of S-20 by being marked with X by each other, and it is easy to understand the "mechanism" of S-20. did it.
Based on the results, we summarized "The mechanism of S-20 is like this" for the entire group and put the points on A3 paper.
I organized and described three cases.

On the other hand, the (b) group and the (c) group proceed in the same manner, and the (b) group and the (b) group respectively
(C) Group's "This is how the S-20 works" is A3
I summarized the points on the paper. (B) The number of cases in the group was 9, and the number of cases in the group (c) was 5,
(C) The group's items were written in an easy-to-understand manner using diagrams. Up to this point, the "first piece of work" shown in Fig. 1
Equivalent to.

Next, the papers collected for each group are pasted on the walls of different rooms, and the other groups have the same evaluation standard "S- written in the instruction manual of S-20" regarding the contents. "No 20 mechanism" is used, and as in the above, "x" is added to each individual member (second work), and then a group discussion (all second work) is conducted. Crosses as groups were attached to each other.

After that, the groups discussed about them (first whole work). At this time, since these are products grouped together, the owner's consciousness has sprung up and it is not easy to be convinced by the X mark struck by others,
It became a fierce debate, and in the course of repeating the debate, it was possible to understand, digest, delve into, and share a strong level of situation and information, knowledge across groups. In particular,
As a result, 4 of 13 (a) groups were marked with an X, and 5 of 9 (B) groups were marked with an X. In addition, the five marks in the (C) group were not marked with an X. Here, the result (the result of the fourth work process, that is, the result of the second work) summarized in each of the above groups is
The first evaluation process between the groups (the second work process, that is, the first whole work process) results in a more rigorous evaluation and is marked with a cross, and the whole work is performed at a higher level throughout the work. As a result, understanding and sharing have advanced.

The two members of group (c), who did not read the S-20 manual in advance and did not take notes, proceeded their work intensively under the remark that "this is a big deal," In addition to the bullet points, it was also possible to devise ways to organize them in an easy-to-understand manner using diagrams. Also, the contents organized by each group are quite different,
(A) There are 5 work results that other groups do not have, and (b) 1 work result for the group.
(C) There are three cases in the group, and when viewed as the A1 team as a whole, "S- written in the manual of S-20
Understanding of "20 mechanisms" progressed, and there were 19 cases as a whole, but there were 4 cases that were newly born in the process of this first whole work, and there were 23 cases as a whole.
In other words, through the above process, the knowledge about the target was digested and deepened, and it was not possible for individual groups to do it.
Information processing was carried out at a deep level that could only be reached by fighting the results of groups that were divided so as to make a difference.

After that, the three groups are again divided into different rooms, and the next theme is "how to act in the execution scene of S-20", that is, the countermeasures, as described above. Work → Work in groups,
We made conclusions as a group, then brought them together and made a conclusion for the team as a whole.

On the other hand, in the same manner, the A2 team first divided. The criteria for division at that time are "whether or not the S-20 manual was read in advance, and whether or not the person who hurriedly moves from the place of the general meeting to the work place (meeting room) of each team. We used "people" to divide into two groups. The division of the A2 team was also made with the intention that there would be differences in the groups, that is, the results of the first piece would be different.

[0196] Similarly, the A2 team also "S-20 mechanism described in the S-20 manual" and "S-20
-20. How do you act in the situation? ”That is, regarding the measures, as in the above, through the process of individual work → group work → team (all) work, that is, work by individual whole system I proceeded.

The work of the A1 and A2 teams up to this point is 1.
It was done by 5:00.

On the other hand, the B1 team also divided the work at the beginning. The division standard at that time is "S-2 in advance.
0 Whether I read the instruction manual and whether I was listening to the story of the overall leader at the overall meeting. ”I divided it so that it was as homogeneous as possible. That is, B
1 Readers will not be better than others if they haven't read in advance, so don't listen to the readers who read in advance, and don't listen to them. The people who were listening were divided into two groups so that the groups could be as homogeneous as possible so that the people who listened to could receive assistance.

As a result, in the discussions in each group, the person who read the S-20 in advance and the person who listened well to the leaders of the group proceeded with the meeting unilaterally. Those who didn't read or listened to books rarely participated in the discussion and there was no lively discussion. In addition, we also set up a forum for the whole team to integrate the groups.
We evaluated each other fairly and did not rigorously pursue any points that we felt were inappropriate, and the discussion remained vague. As a result, other members of the team will be asked whether those who have not read in advance or those who have not heard the story understand the mechanism of S-20, or whether they understand the measures established as a team. It was 15:00 without knowing it.

Also, the B2 team gathers in one room as a whole team for 15 minutes from the start of the team work,
All team members discussed the S-20 manual. The situation at that time was observed by the B2 team leader, who was divided into three groups based on who actively spoke during the discussion, those who did not, and whether or not the S-20 manual was read in advance. . Then, after 20 minutes, work was performed separately for each group. At that time, the individual work, "The mechanism of S-20 is like this" was independently written, and the result was evaluated as the work of the group.

However, in this case, instead of marking X with the same standard, the procedure was performed without setting a clear standard, so that each member somehow marked something different from his / her own understanding, resulting in that As a result, even if other people give a cross to each other, "I have that kind of way of thinking", "I have that kind of understanding,""Because each person is different,""Idon't understand that." As a result, there was no intense discussion and the sharing of information within the group remained. In that state, "S" as a group
This is how the -20 works. " Furthermore, instead of putting the X mark with the same criteria in the evaluation of other groups and their results, we did not set clear criteria. As a result, the discussion was not intense and the information was not shared by the team as a whole. Similarly, with regard to the countermeasure plan, we proceeded to work with individuals → groups → teams, but again, because we did not make a clear evaluation of the deliverables of other people and groups with the same criteria, we still discussed. Did not get activated. It became 15:00 in this state.

Now, after such a preliminary state, 15:
The first execution of S-20 started from 00. As a result, each team's achievement is A1 team = 85,
000 dollars, A2 team = 79,000 dollars, B1 team = -67,000 dollars, B2 team = -32,000
Met. As is clear from these results, it was proved that the performance was improved and the productivity was increased by adopting the individual whole system of the present invention.

Now, the first execution of S-20 is 20:
The second preparation of S-20 started two days immediately after that and started at 00. Before the first execution of S-20, the information about S-20 owned by the members was only the S-20 instruction manual that was distributed in advance, but after the first execution of S-20, , Actual map of each course, map showing the whole course, voucher acquisition table, IP passing sheet, real IP, VIP and each signboard etc. can be seen and touched first, The amount of information (information necessary to understand the mechanism of S-20) has increased overwhelmingly as compared to before the execution of the S-20th time, and the quality thereof has also dramatically improved. Relying on this information, each team clarified the mechanism of S-20, made countermeasures based on it, and prepared for the second execution of S-20.

At this time, the A1 and A2 teams proceeded with the conventional work (information processing), and the B1 and B2 teams performed the work of the present invention. This is because the personal abilities and qualities of the members of the A1 and A2 teams are higher than those of the B1 and B2 teams by accident, and as a result, the first S
This is to obtain data that rejects the hypothesis that -20's performance was high.

Specifically, after the first execution of S-20, the B1 and B2 team leaders appropriately divide the teams into groups so that there is a difference between the groups,
The divided groups worked independently during the first work. First, the work in the group starts by writing for each individual (second work of the second person), marks the results with each other X, and discusses them in the group, and the work as a group ( The result of information processing) was made (the second whole work). Then, other groups evaluated the deliverables of the group. Specifically, first, for each group's deliverables,
Marked, discussed the results and evaluated as a group (marked x). Based on the mutual evaluation results of the group's deliverables, the team as a whole discussed and produced the deliverables for the team as a whole (first work).

Now, as the work for the execution of the second S-20, after the execution of the first S-20 is completed,
A general meeting was held, and the general leader gave instructions for each of the following steps as a digestive discovery method.

Step 1 = “List All”: List all things that are considered to be related to the mechanism of S-20.

Step 2 = “Unknown point extraction”:
Out of the list, I would like to say "I don't know" about the mechanism of S-20.

Step 3 = Organize survey items: Organize survey items based on what is not known.

Step 4 = Hypothesis creation: Create a hypothesis for the survey item.

Step 5 = Survey: The actual survey and hypothesis verification regarding the survey items are performed.

Step 6 = Discovery: Discover based on the survey result Note that the hypothesis of Step 4 is performed between Step 2 and Step 5, and the order of Step 3 may be reversed.

The situation of the above specific execution will be described. B2
First of all, the team started the work in the list of Step 1 with the grouping (division) until then (B2).
The team has already been split to make the differences prior to the first S-20 run). In the next step 2 (don't know), I wrote down one thing that I didn't understand for each individual on A4 paper. At that time, the target number is 5
It was set as 0 cases. Then, the contents of the grouping (division) were changed into 4 people (α group) and 4 people below which the number of actually written cases exceeds 50 (group β). After that, each group wrote an "I don't understand" item and evaluated it within the group based on the criteria of "things related to the mechanism of S-20." At this time, there were two people who did not actively perform individual work in the β group, so they were further divided, and as a result, 4 people (α group), 2 people (β group: originally in the β group It was divided into three groups: two who were active) and two (two who were in the γ group: β group and were not active).

By the way, when "don't know" is extracted in each of the α group, the β group, and the γ group, they are 72 cases, 89 cases, and 132 cases, respectively.
There was a reversal phenomenon in the number of cases with more than 50 people (α group) and less than 50 people (β group and γ group) when dividing, and in the γ group that did not actively participate, after that, Actions were also aggressive and agile, resulting in the highest number of cases.

By bringing these results together and evaluating each other's deliverables (results of information processing) on the basis of "what is out of the mechanism of S-20", there are 4 cases in α group, The β group was marked with 3 cases and the γ group was marked with 2 times, and the team as a whole discussed about this. It should be noted that the team hit by the X and the team hit by the X have a vigorous debate in order to counteract and explain each other, and through this, the entire team naturally advances in the most correct direction, and at the same time, the knowledge of the entire It has become possible to develop and share it.

Next, step 2 for the team as a whole
From “(don't know)”, the team decided to unify the survey items as step 3 and arranged them. Specifically, for example, it is related to the shape of the arrow in the frame drawing, or related to the target object indicating symbol and the lead line attached to it.

Further, based on the above, first, three survey items (survey items, ...) Are defined in common for the team. Then, seven or more hypotheses were created for each group (step 4). The team also shared the actual location of the survey. Then, an actual investigation was conducted (step 5). That is, the survey items for each of the three groups, and each of them are surveyed for each individual (actually, a detailed survey is conducted from a specific place to another place of the first course, for example, various types written in a frame diagram). (Refer to what is indicated by the symbol in the course of the course) and bring them together. First, write out the individual's survey and the findings (corresponding to part of Step 6) on paper, and then The results are marked with X in the group based on "a thing different from the result of my research".

[0218] When the discussion is conducted based on the results, it becomes a fierce discussion and actively tries to inform the other party of the method of investigation and how each other thinks about each other, and as a result, sharing of strong knowledge within the group. It has been made. As the discussion went on, knowledge that was not noticed by the individual would be perceived again by interacting with the tacit knowledge of other people in discussions with other people, and new discoveries could be made. became. That is, for example, in the α group, there are two findings and four findings based on the survey results of each individual.
There were 7 cases in total, excluding duplication in 1 case, 4 cases,
As a result of the discussion based on cross-criterion based on the above-mentioned common criteria, the total number increased from 7 to 4 and became 11 as a whole (Step 6). Furthermore, other survey items were similarly surveyed by the individual system. , 30 hours after the end of the first S-20, a total of 34 discoveries (clarification of the mechanism of S-20) were made. The work model S-20
Was prepared and prepared in advance by the inventor, but the mechanism (arrangement) intentionally created by the inventor was 25 in total. However, by studying S-20 by the method of the present invention, the B2 team found out that the inventor had unintentionally created a mechanism, which was 9 cases, and as a result, as described above, As 34 cases. As described above, according to the present invention, it has been proved that it is very effective in elucidating a mechanism (knowledge of a state of tacit knowledge) that has become a mechanism without being conscious.

[0219] Now, based on the findings, and over the next two hours, by the individual system of "each individual" → "group" → "team", the action standard during the second execution of S-20 ( Measures are discussed, and the team as a whole has 4 major measures (must be executed) and 11 small measures (actions that change actions depending on the details): Create something that changes their behavior together).

Experiments for actually trying these measures were also conducted over a period of 2 hours, and there were two new discoveries regarding the mechanism of S-20, and in addition to this, S-20
There were three discoveries about the characteristics of people who perform actions (a way of changing behavior depending on the situation, such as habits, which can be said to be a target system in a broad sense). Then, based on these, two revisions of measures and two new measures were added.

Further, since the team is operated by the individual whole system, these measures are sufficiently shared by the entire team, and the characteristics and characteristics of each member are unintentionally known to other members. , The actual S-
In 20 execution scenes, it was linked to the action according to it.

[0222] For example, because the characteristic that one member is impatient was naturally understood by other members, the member of the partner of the pair who should be together with that member at the VIP, at the meeting at the VIP, " The impatient members will arrive at the VIP first and can't wait for the pair to come and move around the VIP in various ways. "
While leaving the sign indicating that he / she has arrived near the place of the VIP once, he also moves around the VIP in a certain direction, and as a result, is quicker than staying stationary at the VIP. I was able to meet other members, and as a result, I was able to get a voucher because the pair was on the VIP sooner than the competing pair. This action is not based on a prior arrangement but is determined at that time from the characteristics of the other party and the situation at that time, and is one of the high levels of information processing from the viewpoint of knowledge creation.

On the other hand, the B1 team similarly proceeded with the work of each step by the individual system of the present invention. That is,
In the process of discovery from step 1 to step 6, the number of discoveries about the mechanism of S-20 obtained by going through the process of evaluating and discussing by hitting x and concluding it. I was able to catch it.
On the other hand, the subsequent evaluation in the process of planning the measures is
Both × and ○ were executed. In other words, we adopted three things, "things that are unlikely to be effective,""things that could be executed," and "things that are not based on the target mechanism."
And also "what is better than your own measures"
We adopted the evaluation standard of “a perspective far from the measures that I thought of”, and marked “O” for these. Based on these evaluation criteria, as work within the group, first, individual work (creating a countermeasure plan) was performed, and then evaluation of the individual work result was executed individually.

Those marked with x were settled as a result of discussions and experiments. In addition, for those marked with a circle, the evaluator and the evaluatee then independently and independently trained their countermeasure plans. Specifically, create a method to further improve the effect of the countermeasure plan, a correction plan for the defect of the countermeasure plan, and an application of the basic idea of the countermeasure plan to other items. It was a thing. The two parties brought the results together and evaluated and discussed each other, which made the countermeasure plan even better. In this way, the countermeasure plan for the group was confirmed. And
Measures of those groups are evaluated between groups in the same manner as described above, and after the process of finalizing after discussion or fostering knowledge, measures for the B1 team as a whole, major measures 5
We got 7 cases and small measures.

Similarly, the A1 team and the A2 team are
Although the work of each step was advanced, the method was not based on the individual whole system of the present invention, but was based on the conventional method. Specifically, the A1 team is divided so that the teams are divided but there is no difference between the groups (so that they are uniform), while the A2 team is also different as a conventional method different from the present invention. In this way, instead of using the same evaluation criteria when evaluating each deliverable (result of information processing), it is decided to use an arbitrary evaluation criteria.

As a result, the understanding of the mechanism of S-20 did not proceed so much in both teams, and the findings regarding the mechanism of S-20 were A1 team and A2 team, respectively.
There were 9 and 9 cases. Based on this, countermeasures were examined and five major measures, six small measures, five major measures and three small measures were created by the time when the second S-20 was started.

In this way, the A1 team and the A2 team use the conventional method to study and elucidate the mechanism of the S-20 and draft the action standard (countermeasure) for it.
1, the B2 team proceeded by the method of the individual system of the present invention, and the result (performance of each team) of executing the second S-20 was as follows: A1 team = −97,000 dollars, A2 team = −54, $ 000, B1 team = $ 137,000, B2 team = $ 154,000.

As is clear from this result, it is a clear fact that the performance of the present invention is improved and the productivity is remarkably improved by adopting the individual system of the present invention. Furthermore, the difference in performance between the method of the present invention and the conventional method is
Since the performance of the second S-20 was larger than that of the second S-20,
When the quality and quantity of information is substantial like the first time,
It is a remarkable phenomenon that the effect of the present invention is superior to the conventional method.

<Embodiment 6> As a sixth embodiment of the present invention, a case where the information processing means is an organizational group consisting of agents on a plurality of computers and the theme of information processing is financial market forecasting Describe.

In this embodiment, as the information processing means, actual data of the financial market are taken in, and on-site observation, analysis of the information processing process of individual market participants, and eight agents on a computer having a cognitive mechanism are prepared. The invention has been applied to the financial market forecasts it carries out. Common inputs to these agents 1 to 8 are actual data of financial markets, that is, economic conditions (US-Japan GDP, etc.), prices (Japan-US consumer price index, etc.), interest rates (Japan-US official discount rate, long-term interest rates, etc.). ), Money supply (US-Japan money supply), trade balance (US-Japan trade balance, etc.), employment (US-Japan unemployment rate, etc.), personal consumption (US-Japan retail sales, personal income, etc.), intervention (US-US intervention), Euro (dollar / euro, yen / euro), oil (oil price), politics (policies, international incidents), stocks (US / US stock prices), bonds (US / Japan bond prices), short-term trends 1 (variable last week) ), Short-term trend 2 (variable fluctuation value), long-term trend 1 (five-week fluctuation), and long-term trend 2 (variable fluctuation value).

Further, as input to agents 1 to 8 individually, field observations obtained as a result of interviews with 8 financial dealers (actual persons), analysis of information processing process of individual market participants, and Data (knowledge) about cognitive mechanism, knowledge representation, knowledge evaluation data, knowledge evaluation function, learning algorithm, etc. were input respectively. This included the type and extent of data that dealers consider important when forecasting financial markets, and how to read the data regarding these combinations. In addition, various data, key utterances, and political data were input to each agent according to the characteristics of the information source for each dealer, resulting in a difference in these data for each agent. Furthermore, the importance of the data when making a financial forecast from the above various data was set in nine levels, and the importance was made different for each dealer. In addition, each of these agents has a genetic algorithm, but when learning, the algorithm for correcting the importance of each data is an algorithm that assumes three types of operations: selection, crossover, and mutation. The characteristics of the eight agents were also different.

As described above, two types of financial markets are predicted by the agents 1 to 8 having different characteristics. Prediction 1 predicts the financial market from 1992 to 1993 by inputting various data from 1982 to 1991, and includes two steps (a learning step and a prediction step). Learning step is 1982
~ It is the step of learning (correcting knowledge etc.) by giving the data up to 1991 and calculating the financial market of 1992 and comparing it with the actual one. ~ Extrapolation of changes in the financial market in 1995. On the other hand, Prediction 2 gives the data from 1982 to March 1999, makes a prediction from April 1999, and inputs the actual results weekly sequentially, and corrects the prediction method from the prediction and the actual difference. However, the forecast is made every week, and the forecast until March 2000 is made.

First, before executing the above predictions 1 and 2, agents 1 to 8 were divided into two groups so as to have a difference. That is, using the various data (knowledge), knowledge representation, knowledge evaluation data, knowledge evaluation function, learning algorithm, etc. as key parameters, political data, importance of data, importance of genetic algorithm, etc. Further, each of them is provided with an evaluation importance, and according to the parameter and the evaluation importance, the A group (agents 1 to 1
4) and B group (agents 5-8).
Each agent has a production memory that stores knowledge and the like and a working memory that stores the hypothesis and the experimental result, which is connected to the production memory in a cognitive cycle, and the agents 1 to 4 can freely output, browse, and use. Shared working memory is shared. This is shown in FIG. 7, and the agents 5 to 8 also have the same configuration.

First, in the learning step of prediction 1, A
As work within the group, for each agent 1 to 4,
Calculated for January 1992. As a result, the degree of variation for each agent was 7.3 as a separately-determined degree of variation index. Then, the respective calculation results were input to the other agents in the A group.
Each agent evaluates the prediction results of the other three types of agents based on a unified evaluation standard of "what is different from their own prediction results" (in this case, "x strike"),
Furthermore, the different part was detected in detail. Next, the respective evaluation results were exchanged among the agents 1 to 4.
Then, agents 1 and 2, agent 1 and 3, and the like below, in the same order, browsed each other for knowledge or the like having great relation to the item of the difference in the results between the agents, and corrected them. This modification was done by a genetic algorithm. Using the corrected knowledge, etc., each agent was again calculated individually. At this time, the variation degree index was 2.8, and it could not be said that the results were unified as a group A as a whole. And the second
By further evaluating the results of the first time, modifying the knowledge, etc., and repeating these processes four times, a variation index level of 0.45 and almost the same unified results were obtained within the A group. .

Similarly, as the work in the group B, by repeating the work for each agent 5 to 8 and the modification of the evaluation, knowledge, etc., the prediction result of each agent has a variation degree index of 0. Approximately 27, almost identical B group predictions 1 results were obtained.

Next, the results of Prediction 1 for Group A and Group B are exchanged between groups, evaluated, and the knowledge and the like of each agent is corrected. = 0.19 as a whole 19
The calculation result of January 1992 was obtained. The difference between the result and the actual fluctuation of the financial market was 2.1 as a predetermined error index.

Similarly, each agent is divided into two groups and learns by repeating the process of the overall integration of the results.
I calculated every month until February and corrected the knowledge and learned.

Next, as the prediction step of Prediction 1, the financial market for 1993 to 1995 was predicted and calculated using the above-mentioned corrected knowledge and the like. That is, first, similarly to the above, in the group A, the calculation was first performed for each of the agents 1 to 4. At this time, the variation degree index for each agent was 6.8. Then, after exchanging the respective results, evaluation, correction of knowledge, etc., the calculation result of the group A (variation degree index = 0.48) was obtained again by repeating the calculation of three times. Similarly, for the B group, the work is started from the first calculation result (variation degree index = 6.3), and the B group result (variation degree index = 0.
37) was obtained. Then, by exchanging the results of the A group and the B group, evaluating the differences, correcting the respective knowledge and the like, and obtaining the calculation results for the whole 1993 to 1995 of the variation degree index = 0.11. It was The difference between the result and the actual fluctuation of the financial market is 0.9 as an error index.
It was 8, and a very good prediction result was obtained as a long-term prediction of 3 years, and it was confirmed that highly productive information processing was executed.

On the other hand, as comparative examples, agents 1-8
The database was lengthened, the same knowledge and the like as those in the above-described embodiment were input again, and the learning step was first carried out without dividing these. That is, the financial market of January 1992 was calculated individually. Then, another information processing means (referred to as an agent 9) exchanges the result with each other without exchanging, evaluating, and related knowledge with each other.
The error between the calculation results of the agents 1 to 8 and the actual data of January 1992 was obtained, and various characteristics of the agent having a small error or a large error were extracted. Then, the characteristics of each agent are incorporated by a genetic algorithm, and the knowledge etc. of each agent is modified (learning).
I went. Then, every month from February to December 1992 is calculated by repeating the above, and it is compared with the actual result, and the knowledge etc. is corrected every month, and the learning of the agents 1 to 8 is completed. .

[0240] Next, as a prediction step, 1993-
Predicted calculation of changes in the financial market in 1995. This calculates the change of the financial market in the above period in each of agents 1 to 8, and from these, the average value, the most pessimistic forecast, and the most optimistic forecast are calculated by the agent 9.
I asked for seeds. The error index of the difference between these results and the actual change data of the financial market is 3.6, 8.9, and 11.2, which are very large errors compared with the case of the present invention described above. there were.

As described above, in this comparative example, each information processing means does not exchange calculation results with each other, exchange evaluations, related knowledge, etc., and another information processing means exchanges actual results. Due to the method of uniformly obtaining the difference and feeding back the result to each agent, the knowledge and the like of each agent are not sufficiently corrected as compared with the case of the present invention, and as a result, the calculation result and the actual result are compared. The error of was large. This is a method in which, when the information processing means is a person, another person (for example, a person in a position like a teacher) evaluates the information processing result of each person, and the result is unilaterally fed back to each person. You can, in this case,
Grouping to develop knowledge etc. of each individual by group
This is consistent with the fact that integration is not possible and consequently high-level information processing is impossible. As described above, according to the individual system of the present invention, it has been proved that the actual financial market can be predicted (simulated) with very good accuracy, and information processing with high productivity can be performed.

Next, an example regarding the prediction 2 will be described.

The data from 1982 to March 1999 are given to each agent, and A, A and
Divided into Group B, the forecast for the first week of April 1999 was made. That is, in the group A, the agents 1 to 4 individually calculated, and the result and the main knowledge and the like on which the calculation was based were mutually evaluated. At this time, two evaluation criteria were used: "one that is different from my own result" and "one that was predicted and calculated based on data that I do not own". And regarding "things that are different from one's own results", exchange knowledge related to them,
Furthermore, regarding "what was predicted and calculated based on knowledge that he does not own," an agent that did not possess that knowledge, etc. 36 types of 12 items, including differences in the type and degree of financial impact, their interpretation, and future forecasts concerning non-financial markets were derived. On the other hand, with regard to the above "predicted calculation based on knowledge etc. not owned by self", the agent originally owned also
Similarly, as knowledge development of such knowledge, the difference in the type and degree of items of economic impact related to that knowledge, their interpretation, and future forecasts concerning non-financial markets 1
A total of 36 types of 2 items were derived. After the knowledge exchange process and the knowledge development process, by repeating the individual calculation, evaluation, knowledge exchange process, and knowledge development process of each agent, the dispersion degree index of the calculation result of each agent 4 of 1999 in Group A, where is 0.31
The forecast calculation result of the financial market of the first week of the month was obtained.

On the other hand, similarly, in the group B, by repeating the processes of individual calculation, evaluation, exchange of knowledge, etc. of each agent, and knowledge training, the dispersion degree index of the calculation result of each agent becomes 0.29. I got the calculation result of the financial market of a certain B group in the first week of April 1999.

The calculation results of these A and B groups and the main knowledge and the like that became the basis for the calculation were evaluated mutually. At this time, in the same way, using two evaluation criteria, "what is different from one's own result" and "what is predicted and calculated based on knowledge that he does not own," , Exchange knowledge related to each other between groups, and, regarding “prediction calculation based on knowledge not owned by self”, the group that did not own the knowledge, etc. Each group independently conducted knowledge development, such as knowledge, of the types and extents of items of economic impact related to that knowledge, their interpretation, and future forecasts related to non-financial markets. A total of 36 types of 12 items each were derived.

After the process of exchanging knowledge and the like and the process of knowledge development, by repeating the process of calculating, evaluating, exchanging knowledge and the like of each group, and the process of knowledge development,
An overall prediction result was obtained in which the variation degree index of the calculation results of each group was 0.12. The result and the actual 1
The difference from the fluctuation of the financial market in the first week of April 999 was 0.19 as an error index.

In this way, after the second week of April, while predicting the financial market by the above-mentioned individual whole system and correcting and fostering knowledge, etc., the weekly change of the financial market 2000 while comparing with actual data
I calculated every week until March. As a result, the average miscalculation index for June 1999 was 0.11, and September was 0.0.
September and December: 0.04, February 2000: 0.0
7. It gradually improved to 0.02 in March 2000, and in the end it was possible to predict and calculate actual changes in the financial market with extremely high accuracy.

On the other hand, as comparative examples, agents 1-8
The database is set to the state after execution of the prediction 1 of the above embodiment, and the calculation results of the agents are exchanged with each other, evaluated, and related knowledge is exchanged without dividing them. Prediction 2 was performed without. That is, 1982 to 199 for each agent
Given the data up to March 1997, first, the forecast calculation for the first week of April 1999 was performed. At this time, the actual 1999 4
The error index of the agent with the smallest error from the data of the first week of the month was 0.51, and the largest was 11.
4, which was 7.3 on average. Then, the error between the calculation result of each of these agents and the actual data of the first week of April 1999 is obtained, various characteristics possessed by the agent with a small error or a large error are extracted, and the characteristics are inherited for each agent. It was adopted by the statistical algorithm and the knowledge of each agent was corrected (learned). And 1
For the second week from April, 1999 to March, 2000, the calculation was performed while correcting the knowledge and the like while comparing with the actual results as described above. As a result, the average miscalculation index for June 1999 was 5.7, September was 4.7, December was 6.3, February 2000 was 3.8, and March 2000 was 4.1. The error was large, and there was no improvement over time, and very poor results were obtained.

As described above, according to the information processing method (individual whole system) of the present invention, it is understood that the actual financial market can be predicted (simulated) with very good accuracy. Implementation of the method of information processing of an organization group consisting of computers or agents of a computer of the whole system of the present invention is not limited to the prediction of the financial market as described above, but also various information processing related to economic activities, or Knowledge management Information management software, decision-making software in companies and public institutions, production optimization software, new technology development software, etc., as well as discovery in natural science or software relating to inventions, is very effective. Needless to say.

[0250]

As described above in detail, according to the method of information processing of the present invention, it is composed of a plurality of information processing means including a plurality of computers each having knowledge or the like or agents on the computers. In an organizational group,
Emergent emergence with intellectual creativity can be obtained realistically. Furthermore, in an organizational group consisting of people, the results of the level of intellectual creation that can be achieved by the group, which cannot be achieved by the individual alone, are fully utilized by making full use of the intellectual creativity of each individual who constitutes the group. It is possible to obtain information processing to obtain efficiently at low cost in time, and by using the support system and the tool of the present invention, the above-mentioned work can be obtained efficiently at low cost in a short time.

[Brief description of drawings]

FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing a relationship between works in an information processing method according to the present invention.

FIG. 2 is an overall configuration diagram in the case of having a process of dividing the entire organization in the information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a configuration of divided in-group work in the case of having a process of dividing the entire organization in the information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 4 is a block diagram showing a case in which the process of dividing the entire organization is not included in the information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram of an example of a combination of first and first operations when the information processing method of the present invention is applied to the digestive discovery method.

FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing a process in an embodiment of the information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing a configuration of information processing of a computer agent which is an embodiment of the information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram of a course set in the work model used in the experiment of one example of the present invention.

FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram of a top view used in the work model.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart illustrating an information processing method of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an embodiment of a tool used in the information processing method and the support system thereof according to the present invention.

FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram illustrating an example of a tool used in the information processing method and the support system thereof according to the present invention.

FIG. 13 is an explanatory diagram showing a procedure for grouping workers.

FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram showing a procedure of evaluating conference participants and performing grouping so that the difference between groups is maximized.

[Explanation of symbols]

1 start 2 points of the first kind Point of 3 second kind 4 goals 5a Top view

Claims (20)

[Claims] 1. Information performed by an organization group consisting of a plurality of independent information processing means each having knowledge, knowledge representation, knowledge evaluation data, knowledge evaluation function, concept, learning algorithm, etc. (hereinafter referred to as knowledge). A method of processing, which is a dividing step of dividing the plurality of information processing means into a plurality of groups, a first work step which is subsequently performed in the group and which leads to a result of information processing as a group, and a whole process after that. And a second work process for integrating the results of the information processing in the group to derive the results of the information processing for the entire organizational group, wherein the dividing process divides the plurality of groups into groups. The first work process is for each group to carry out work independently of other groups so that the results of information processing are different from each other. Said second working process, method of information processing and having a first evaluation workup each other using a common criteria to evaluate each other the results of information processing in other groups. 2. The second work process is a 2-1 work process for exchanging information processing results as the group, wherein information processing results of other groups are grouped by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 2-2 work process (first evaluation work process) that is independently evaluated within the group, 2-3 work process that displays, outputs, and notifies the evaluation result to another group, and is retained for each group 2-4 process of exchanging knowledge related to the evaluation result among groups among
Correct the knowledge held by the group based on the knowledge held by the other group that was exchanged and acquired.
Process 5; difference in information processing results for each group is within a predetermined range. Obtaining overall information processing results. 2-6
The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: 3. The second work process is a 2-1 work process for exchanging information processing results as the group, wherein information processing results of other groups are grouped by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 2-2 work process that is independently evaluated within (first evaluation work process), 2-3 work process that displays, outputs, and notifies the evaluation result to another group, which is executed by another group The second to intellectually foster information processing results
The work process of No. 7, the group that originally produced the information processing result that other people trained to perform knowledge, and the work process of No. 2-7, which is performed independently and in parallel, trains the information processing result No. 2-8 No. 2 and the result of the 2-7th work process and the result of the 2-8th work process are exchanged.
No. 9 work process, No. 2-10 work process for evaluating the result of the No. 2-7 work process and the result of the No. 2-8 work process with the same predetermined evaluation criteria, No. 2-9 work process. Display, output, and notify the process evaluation results to other groups No. 2-1
Among the work process of 1 and the knowledge possessed by each group, those related to the evaluation result are exchanged between the groups, and the group concerned is acquired based on the knowledge possessed by the other group obtained by the exchange. The second to twelfth work process for correcting the existing knowledge is characterized by having a second to thirteenth work process for obtaining an information processing result as a whole in which a difference in information processing results for each group is within a predetermined range. The information processing method according to claim 1. 4. The dividing step is characterized in that each of the plurality of information processing means is evaluated on the basis of a predetermined parameter, and division is performed so that a difference in total value of the evaluations between groups is maximized. The information processing method according to claim 1. 5. The dividing step extracts a plurality of parameters, sets a weighting coefficient to each of the plurality of parameters, and sets each of the plurality of information processing means to each of the plurality of parameters and the weighting coefficient. 5. The information processing method according to claim 4, wherein the evaluation is performed based on the above, and the evaluation is divided so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups is maximized. 6. The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first work process and the second work process are alternately repeated. 7. The first work process is a third work process in which the individual information processing means belonging to the group independently carry out the result of the information processing of each individual, and subsequently, the third work process in the group. A fourth work process that integrates the results of the individual information processes and guides the result of the information process as a group, wherein the fourth work process is such that the individual information processing means in the group mutually exchange other information. 7. The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising a second evaluation work process in which the results of the information processing of the processing means are evaluated using a common evaluation standard. 8. The fourth work process is a fourth work process of exchanging the information processing results as the individual, and the information processing results of other individual products are respectively obtained by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. No. 4-2 work process (second evaluation work process) independently evaluated, and No. 4-3 work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to another individual, and possessing each individual Of knowledge and the like, those related to the evaluation result are exchanged among individuals
-4, correcting the knowledge held by the individual based on the knowledge held by the other individual obtained through the exchange
8. The information processing according to claim 7, further comprising a fifth process, and a fourth to sixth work process for obtaining an information processing result as a whole in which a difference in information processing result for each individual is within a predetermined range. Method. 9. The fourth work process is a 4-1 work process for exchanging information processing results as the individual items, and the information processing results of other individual items are individually obtained by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 4-2 work process (second evaluation work process) that is independently evaluated by, the 4-3 work process that displays, outputs, and notifies the evaluation result to another person, information executed by another person The fourth to seventh work process of intellectually fostering the processing result, which is performed by the person who originally produced the information processing result that the other has fostered knowledge,
-7th work process, which is carried out in parallel and independently of each other, and which carries out the information processing result, the 4-8th work process, the result of the 4-7th work process, and the result of the 4-8th work process. A fourth to ninth work process for exchanging the following, a fourth to a tenth work process for evaluating the result of the fourth to seventh work process and the result of the fourth to eighth work process with a predetermined same evaluation criterion, The 4-11th work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result of the 4th-9th work process to other individuals, the knowledge possessed by the individual, and the like, are related to the evaluation result. 4-12 Work process of exchanging information between each other and modifying the knowledge held by the other person based on the knowledge held by the other person obtained by the exchange. Characterized by having a work process No. 4-13 for obtaining an information processing result as a whole within the range of The method of information processing according to Motomeko 7. 10. A method of information processing performed by an organization group comprising a plurality of information processing means, wherein each information processing means independently leads a result of individual information processing, and subsequently to the fifth work step. A sixth work process that integrates the results of the individual information processes performed by the entire organization group and leads the results of the information processing of the entire organization group, wherein the sixth work process includes individual information An information processing method, characterized in that the processing means has a third evaluation work process in which the results of the information processing of the other information processing means are mutually evaluated using a common evaluation criterion. 11. The sixth work process is a 6-1 work process for exchanging information processing results as the individual, and the other information processing results are individually processed by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. 6-2 work process (third evaluation work process) in which the evaluation results are independently evaluated by the above, and 6-3 work in which the evaluation result is displayed, output, and notified to other individuals, etc. Of
6-4 exchanging the items related to the evaluation result among the individuals
Process, the process of 6-5 of correcting the knowledge possessed by the individual based on the knowledge possessed by another individual obtained by exchange, the difference in the information processing result for each individual is within a predetermined range. 11. The information processing method according to claim 10, further comprising a sixth to sixth work process for obtaining an information processing result as a whole inside. 12. The sixth work process comprises exchanging information processing results as the individual, 6-1th work process, wherein the information processing results of other individual products are respectively obtained by using the same predetermined evaluation criteria. No. 6-2 work process (third evaluation work process) independently evaluated by, the 6-3 work process of displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result to another individual, information executed by another individual The sixth to seventh work process of intellectually fostering the processing result, performed by the person who originally produced the information processing result that the other has fostered knowledge, and performed independently in parallel with the sixth to seventh work process. 6-8th work process of nurturing information processing results, said 6-7
6-9 work process for exchanging the result of work process No. 6 and the result of work process No. 6-8, the result of work process No. 6-7 and the result of work process No. 6-8 The sixth to tenth work processes of evaluating with the same predetermined evaluation standard, and the sixth to ninth work processes
Displaying, outputting, and notifying the evaluation result of the work process of No. 6-11 in the work process of notifying, outputting, and notifying to other individuals, among the knowledge possessed by each of the above items, those related to the evaluation result are exchanged between the groups, Correcting the knowledge possessed by another person based on the knowledge possessed by the other person obtained by exchanging the information. The difference in the information processing result for each of the work steps 6-12 is within a predetermined range. 11. The information processing method according to claim 10, further comprising a sixth to thirteenth work process for obtaining an information processing result as a whole. 13. The information processing means is a computer or an agent on a computer, and the information processing includes learning performed by these and knowledge creation performed jointly, and the like. Information processing method described in Section 3. 14. The evaluation work process is inferior to a result of information processing of another group or a result of information processing of another individual information processing means by an evaluation criterion set each time. The display is performed or the superiority is displayed, and the display is performed.
The method of information processing according to any one of 1 to 13. 15. When a process of displaying that it is superior to the evaluation criteria is included, the result of information processing of another group or the result of information processing of another individual information processing means is
The method of information processing according to claim 14, characterized by having a knowledge-raising process aimed at making it better. 16. A support system for supporting the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein said division standard is displayed, said division process end is displayed, and said first group in each group. Means for inputting or detecting the end of the work process and notifying or warning the unfinished groups that they have not been finished; and means for notifying each group that the first work process has been finished in all groups. A support system comprising at least one of a means for notifying that the second work process should be proceeded and a means for clearly indicating the evaluation standard. 17. In the dividing step, each of the plurality of information processing means is evaluated based on a predetermined parameter, and the plurality of information processing means are divided so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups is maximized. The support system according to claim 16. 18. A method for extracting a plurality of parameters in the division process, setting a weighting coefficient for each of the plurality of parameters, and setting each of the plurality of information processing means based on each of the plurality of parameters and the weighting coefficient. 18. The support system according to claim 17, wherein the evaluation is performed so that the difference in the total value of the evaluations between the groups is maximized. 19. A system for supporting the information processing method according to claim 5 or 7, wherein the end of the third or fifth work process is input or detected and the end is not completed. Means for notifying or warning that, the means for notifying each of the completion of the third or fifth work process of all the individuals, and notification that the fourth or sixth work process should proceed A support system, comprising at least one of a means for performing the evaluation, and a means for clearly indicating the evaluation criteria. 20. A tool used in the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information processing means has a means for storing information for specifying the information processing means, such as a name of the information processing means, and information about characteristics of the information processing means. Storing means for storing information regarding the criteria of the division in the dividing step, and means for storing the result of information processing of the group or the individual in the first, third or fifth work step. And a means for storing information relating to the evaluation criteria in the second, fourth or sixth work steps, and a tool characterized by the above.