JP2003196368A - Management job evaluation system regarding maintenance of facility, its method, and management job evaluation program regarding maintenance of facility to be executed on a computer - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide new technology by which management jobs such as building maintenance can automatically be evaluated. <P>SOLUTION: This management job evaluation system is provided with: a storage means for storing reference management specifications of the management jobs; a means for accepting the current management specifications, the current costs and job performance states about a prescribed management job; a quality evaluation means for evaluating quality regarding the prescribed management job according at least to the current management specifications, the reference management specifications and the job performance states and for calculating quality scores; a cost evaluation means for evaluating costs regarding the prescribed management job according at least to the current management specifications, the reference management specifications and the current costs and for calculating cost scores; and a total evaluation means for mapping the calculated quality scores and cost scores on a parameter space consisting of two axes of the quality and the costs and for deriving the total evaluation based on mapping positions. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2003,JPO

Description

Detailed Description of the Invention

[0001]

TECHNICAL FIELD The present invention relates to cleaning, facility management,
The present invention relates to an information processing technology for evaluating a management operation related to facility maintenance such as security, and particularly to an information processing technology for evaluating a management operation from two viewpoints of management quality and management cost.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art In order to manage and maintain buildings such as buildings, building maintenance work such as cleaning, equipment management,
It is necessary to continuously perform management work related to maintenance of multiple facilities such as security.

Conventionally, building maintenance work is often carried out by a company specializing in each management work upon request from the building owner or the like. When a contractor carries out management work, it defines predetermined management specifications according to the content of the management work,
A service form for performing work based on this is general.

Here, the management specification is information that defines the contents of implementation of management work. For example, in the case of cleaning work, the number of work, personnel, cleaning range, frequency, etc. are defined for each cleaning area. It is a management specification.

[0005]

Conventionally, management specifications are often determined independently by each management company based on their experience. Similarly, costs (management costs) are calculated using unique criteria. There are many cases.

However, the decision process is extremely unclear under the framework in which each management company determines management specifications and costs based on their own experience and unique standards.
In addition to being unclear, because the objectivity of the management specifications and costs is not ensured, it is judged whether the management specifications are appropriate and whether the costs are high or low for the side requesting the management work (for example, the building owner). Becomes very difficult.

[0007] For example, when trying to select a management company after comparing the estimates of a plurality of management companies, the unit price and the management specifications that are the basis for cost calculation differ from one management company to another, so management is performed only by the total cost. Choosing a vendor is not always appropriate.

The inventor of the present application considers that the above problems occur because there is no framework for evaluating management work, specifically, there is no specific standard for evaluating management work. As a result of repeated examinations of evaluation criteria, standard management specifications were set, and based on this, quality and cost were 2
I came up with the idea of a new framework for evaluating management work on the axis.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a new technique capable of automatically evaluating management work such as building maintenance based on such an idea.

[0010]

A management work evaluation system for facility maintenance according to the present invention is a storage means for storing standard management specifications of management work and a current management specification, current cost, and work implementation status for a predetermined management work. Based on at least the current management specification, the standard management specification, and the work implementation status, the quality evaluation means for evaluating the quality of the predetermined management operation and calculating the quality score, and the current management specification, the standard management specification. Based on at least the current cost, a cost evaluation unit that evaluates a cost for the predetermined management operation and calculates a cost score, and a comprehensive evaluation of the predetermined management operation based on the calculated quality score and cost score. And a comprehensive evaluation means to be obtained.

Preferably, the quality evaluation means calculates a quality score based on a comparison between the current management specification and the standard management specification by evaluating how much the current management specification satisfies the standard management specification. 1 means, the second means for calculating the quality score by evaluating how much the actual work is fulfilling the current management specifications based on the comparison between the current management specifications and the business execution status Based on the above, at least one of the third means for calculating the quality score with the work system as an evaluation target is provided.

In this case, it is preferable that the first means calculates the quality score based on the comparison of the number of operations included in the current management specification and the standard management specification. Also, the second
The means preferably calculates the quality score based on a comparison between the number of workers determined based on the current management specifications and the actual number of workers included in the work implementation status. Further, the third means is the recording status of related information, standard work setting status, measure setting status for work level improvement, work evaluation standard setting status, work result analysis status, work quality confirmation status, work status. It is desirable to calculate the quality score based on one of the setting conditions of the plan.

[0013] Preferably, the cost evaluation means is based on at least the current management specification and the current cost, and means for calculating a cost score with the validity of the current cost as an evaluation target, and based on at least the standard management specification and the current cost. ,
At least any one of means for calculating a cost score with the necessity and sufficiency of the current cost as an evaluation target is provided.

Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation means maps the calculated quality score and cost score in a parameter space having two axes of quality and cost, and obtains a comprehensive evaluation based on the mapping position.

In this case, it is desirable that the comprehensive evaluation means obtain the comprehensive evaluation based on the following rules. [Rule] Mapping position on the parameter space Overall evaluation (any, excess cost score) Cost problem (not (under quality), under cost score) Cost problem (under quality score, any) Quality problem ( Excessive quality score, not (excessive cost)) There is a problem in quality, and preferably, the comprehensive evaluation unit evaluates the improvement priority of the evaluation target based on each score to obtain a comprehensive evaluation.

The management work evaluation method for facility maintenance according to the present invention includes a step of receiving a current management specification, a standard management specification, a current cost, and a work execution status for a predetermined management work, a current management specification, a standard management specification, and a work execution. Based on at least the situation, a quality evaluation step of evaluating quality with respect to the predetermined management work and calculating a quality score, and based on at least the current management specification, the standard management specification, and the current cost, regarding the predetermined management work. Evaluate the cost,
It is characterized by comprising a cost evaluation step of calculating a cost score, and a comprehensive evaluation step of obtaining a comprehensive evaluation of the predetermined management work based on the calculated quality score and cost score.

Preferably, the quality evaluation step is a step of calculating a quality score based on a comparison between the current management specification and the standard management specification by evaluating to what extent the current management specification satisfies the standard management specification. Based on the comparison between the current management specification and the work implementation status, the process of calculating the quality score by evaluating the extent to which the work actually performed satisfies the current management specification, and the work implementation based on the work implementation status At least one of the steps of calculating a quality score with the system as an evaluation target is provided.

Preferably, the cost evaluation step is based on at least a current management specification and a current cost, and a step of calculating a cost score with the validity of the current cost as an evaluation target, and based on at least the standard management specification and the current cost. ,
At least one of the steps of calculating a cost score with the necessity of the current cost as an evaluation target is provided.

Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation step maps the calculated quality score and cost score in a parameter space consisting of two axes of quality and cost, and obtains a comprehensive evaluation based on the mapping position.

The program of the present invention is characterized in that each step of the evaluation method of the present invention is executed on a computer. The program of the present invention can be installed or loaded into a computer through various recording media such as a CD-ROM, a magnetic disk and a semiconductor memory.

[0021]

BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION (First Embodiment) An embodiment of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a management work evaluation system according to the first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in Figure 1,
The management system evaluation system 1 includes a standard specification storage unit 10,
Individual standard specification storage means 11 and standard working time storage means 1
2, standard work system storage means 13, standard unit price storage means 1
4, an evaluation rule storage unit 15, an input / output unit 16, and a control unit 17.

The evaluation system according to the present invention may be either a physically dedicated system or a general-purpose information processing device. For example, in an information processing device having a general configuration, the evaluation system of the present invention can be realized by activating software that defines each step in the management work evaluation method of the present invention.
The dedicated system or information processing apparatus may be composed of a single computer or a plurality of computers distributed on a network.

In the present invention, what is to be managed is
What kind of facility maintenance management work to evaluate can be determined according to the design, but in the following description of the present embodiment, a case where a building is a management target and a cleaning work is evaluated will be described as an example.

The standard specification storage means 10 stores area information, work contents, and standard specifications in association with each other with respect to a standard area (a division unit such as a room in which cleaning work is performed or a space). FIG. 2 shows a conceptual diagram of the data structure of the standard specification storage means 10.

The area information includes at least area identification information and area type.

The area identification information is information for identifying an area. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the name of each area provided in a general building such as an elevator hall, a hot water supply room, a toilet, a corridor, and stairs is shown. It can be used as area identification information.

The area type is information that specifies a factor that affects the specifications in each area. As such a factor, for example, the floor material may be considered, and in this case, the area type may be, for example, a hard floor, a carpet, or a high-grade carpet.

The work content is information for identifying a specific individual cleaning work, and may be, for example, housekeeping, stain removal, vacuum, sanitizing, shower shampoo, shower scrub, waxing, and polisher cleaning.

The standard specification is a standard management specification when performing cleaning work on a standard area.
Here, in the case of a management task such as a cleaning task whose quality and cost vary depending on the number of times the task has been performed, the management specification is defined to include at least the number of tasks. As the number of operations, for example, the number of operations per year, the number of operations per week, the number of operations per day, or the like can be used.
In the example shown in FIG. 2, the number of works per week ((work days / week) × (work count / day)) or the number of works per year ((work days / year) × (work count / day)) ) Specifies the specifications.

The individual standard specification storage means 11 stores area information, work content, and individual standard specifications in association with each area of the building to be evaluated, in association with each building. The data structure of the individual standard specification storage means 11 can be the same as that of the standard specification storage means 10 (see FIG. 3).

Area information and work contents of each area of the building to be evaluated can be determined based on, for example, design information of the building to be evaluated and current management specifications.

The individual standard specification is a standard management specification when performing cleaning work for each area of the building to be evaluated. The individual standard specifications can be obtained by applying the standard specifications to each area of the building to be evaluated, as described later.

The standard work time storage means 12 stores the work contents,
Area type and standard work time are stored in association with each other. FIG. 4 shows a conceptual diagram of the data structure of the standard work time storage means 12.

The standard work time means the work time per unit area when the owner of the standard skill performs the cleaning work on the condition of each work content and area type. It is considered that the standard work time is determined by, for example, actually performing a cleaning work, measuring the work time, and based on the measured work time (time and motion study).

The standard work system storage means 13 stores work systems (related information recording status, standard work setting status, policy setting status for work level improvement, work evaluation standard setting status, work result analysis status, work status). Standard values are stored for quality confirmation status, work plan setting status, etc.).

The recording status of the related information indicates whether or not predetermined information (related information) related to the cleaning work is recorded and managed. As such related information, for example, an organization chart, an employment record, current specifications, various contracts, work plans, work procedures, work daily reports, etc. can be considered. In this embodiment, it is configured to judge whether or not the related information is recorded and managed, for example, based on whether or not there is a business document corresponding to the related information. In this case, as a standard value for the recording status of related information,
The number of business documents corresponding to the related information that should be prepared as standard is stored.

The standard work setting status indicates whether or not the standard work is set for each work content of the cleaning work. For example, in the case of housekeeping (hard floor),
Full-scale stripping, shower scrubbing, spray buffing, automatic washing machine, and stain removal are considered as standard work. In the present embodiment, as the standard value of the setting status of the standard work, for example, the number of works for which the standard work should be set is stored.

The status of policy setting for improving the work level is
Indicates whether or not training and incentives for qualification are set for each work content of cleaning work. In the present embodiment, for example, the number of work for which training is set is stored as the standard value of the policy setting status for improving the work level.

The setting condition of the work evaluation standard indicates whether or not the evaluation standard for judging the work quality is set for each work content of the cleaning work. In the present embodiment, as the standard value of the setting status of the work evaluation standard, for example, the number of works for which the work quality evaluation standard should be set is stored.

The work result analysis status indicates whether or not the work result is analyzed for each work content of the cleaning work. In the present embodiment, as the standard value of the analysis status of the work result, for example, the number of works for which the work result is to be analyzed is stored.

The work quality confirmation status indicates whether or not the work quality is regularly confirmed for each work content of the cleaning work. In the present embodiment, as the standard value of the confirmation status of the work quality, for example, the number of works for which the work quality should be confirmed is stored.

The setting status of the work plan indicates whether or not the work plan is set / reviewed in units of a predetermined period (day, week, month, year) for each work content of the cleaning work. In the present embodiment, as the standard value of the setting status of the work plan, for example, the number of works for which the work plan is set / reviewed is stored.

The standard unit price storage means 14 stores the unit time cost (standard unit price) per worker on the assumption that the owner has a standard skill. In this embodiment, the cost per day per worker is stored as the standard unit price.

A plurality of types of standard unit prices may be stored according to the region and skill level. For example,
The difference in standard unit price depending on the region can be determined by referring to "Estimated Estimate of Building Maintenance" issued by Nihon Building Shimbun.

The evaluation rule storage means 15 stores the comprehensive evaluation information in association with the area of the parameter space consisting of the two axes of the quality score and the cost score. In this embodiment, the comprehensive evaluation information is configured to include the rating for the management work and the location (presence / absence) of the problem in each axis (quality axis, score axis).

Ratings are, for example, A (highest) to E (lowest)
Can be expressed as As a rating assigning policy, for example, when the parameter space is divided into regions as shown in FIG. 5A, since the central region is appropriate in terms of quality and cost, the rating is set to A, and other regions are set to cost. It can be considered that the higher the performance (quality score / cost score), the higher the rating.

The location of the problem is analyzed and set a rule from the viewpoint of what should be fixed if it is improved.
For example, in this embodiment, the following rules are adopted. [Rule] Mapping position (area) on the parameter space Overall evaluation (location of problem) (any, excess cost score) Cost problem (not (under quality), under cost score) Cost problem (under quality score) , Any) There is a problem in quality (excessive quality score, not (excess cost)) There is a problem in quality FIG. 5B shows the data structure of the evaluation rule storage means 15 in this embodiment. As shown in FIG. 6, the severity of the problem may be determined according to the rating, or the comprehensive evaluation information may include the evaluation comment.

Conventional data base technology such as a relational data base can be used for data management and retrieval in each storage means.

The input / output unit 16 may be configured to accept input from the user of the evaluation system 1 and output information to the user. For example, input from a keyboard or mouse. It can be configured by means and output means such as a display and a printer.

The control means 17 controls the operation of the entire evaluation system 1 and executes individual standard specification setting processing, quality evaluation processing, cost evaluation processing, comprehensive evaluation processing and the like. In FIG. 1, the above-described respective processes executed by the control unit 17 are shown as functional units.

Hereinafter, with reference to the flow charts shown in FIGS. 7, 9, 10 and 11, individual standard specification setting processing (individual standard specification setting means), quality evaluation processing (quality evaluation means),
The cost evaluation processing (cost evaluation means) and the comprehensive evaluation processing (total evaluation means) will be described. It should be noted that each step can be executed by arbitrarily changing the order as long as the processing content does not conflict.

(Individual standard specification setting process: FIG. 7) The individual standard specification setting process is the current specification of the building to be evaluated.
This is a process of accepting the current cost and the business implementation status and setting individual standard specifications for the building.

The control means 17 receives the current specifications, the current cost, and the work implementation status from the user via the input / output means 16 (S100).

The current specifications refer to the management specifications currently adopted for the building to be evaluated. In S100, for each area of the building to be evaluated, in association with the area information of the area, the area scale of the area, and the work content,
It is configured to accept the current specifications (see FIG. 8). The area scale is information that specifies the size, size, etc. of each area, and for example, the floor area of each area can be used as the area scale. Furthermore, if there are facilities that are indispensable to be installed in the area, such as a sink in the hot water supply room or a toilet bowl in a toilet, the number of such facilities may be included in the area scale.

The current cost refers to the cost actually incurred to carry out the cleaning work on the building to be evaluated. Specifically, the actual cost paid to the cleaning company corresponds to the current cost.

The work implementation status refers to the building to be evaluated,
This refers to the status of cleaning work that is actually being carried out. Specifically, the number of workers actually working (or the number of contractors), the actual work system, and the like correspond to the work implementation status. In S100, the work implementation status is received for each area of the building to be evaluated.

Next, the control means 17 selects, for each area of the building to be evaluated, the standard specifications that are the closest to the area information and work contents from the standard specifications stored in the standard specification storage means 10 ( S101).

Then, the control means 17 determines the individual standard specification of each area of the building to be evaluated based on (the number of operations of the individual standard specifications) = (the number of operations of the selected standard specifications). , Is stored in the individual standard specification storage means 11 (S102) (see FIG. 3).

Here, for example, a parameter that determines the quality level of the individual standard specification may be received from the user, and the individual standard specification may be adjusted based on the parameter. For example, the parameter α (α = 1 to 3; the larger the α, the more excessive quality) is accepted, and (the number of work of the individual standard specifications) = (1 + β × (α−2)) × (the number of work of the selected standard specifications) ) To determine the individual standard specifications. β may be determined in accordance with the period for which the number of operations is defined, the content of work, etc. For example, when the number of operations is defined per week, β may be set to 0.2.

The user may directly input and decide the individual standard specifications according to the design.

(Quality evaluation process: FIG. 9) The quality evaluation process is a process of evaluating the quality of the cleaning work based on at least the current specifications, the individual standard specifications, and the work implementation status, and calculating the quality score. In the present embodiment, as described below, the quality score is calculated as a linear sum of the first quality score, the second quality score, and the third quality score.

The control means 17 is the individual standard specification storage means 1
1, the first quality score is calculated based on the number of operations included in each of the current specifications and the individual standard specifications (S
200). Specifically, the first quality score is calculated based on the first quality score = E {number of work of current specification / number of work of individual standard specification} × 100. Here, E {} means obtaining an average value for all areas for which individual standard specifications are determined.

Areas in which (the number of work of the current specification / the number of work of the individual standard specification) is 1, an area exceeding 1,
The first quality score may be obtained from the weighted average value by dividing the case into three cases of areas smaller than 1, changing the weight in each case. As the weight, for example, it is conceivable to set a larger weight (for example, twice as much weight) for one area as for other areas.

The first quality score represents how much the current specification satisfies the individual standard specifications by the ratio of the number of operations of the current specifications and the number of operations of the individual standard specifications. The first quality score is 100 when the current specifications and the individual standard specifications match in all areas where the individual standard specifications are determined, while it is 1 when the current specifications have an excess or deficiency.
The value will be 00 or less, or 100 or more.

The control means 17 is the standard working time storage means 1
Referring to 2, based on the comparison between the number of workers determined based on the current specifications and the actual number of workers included in the work implementation status,
A second quality score is calculated (S201). In particular,
Second quality score = E {actual number of workers per day / number of workers required when performing according to current specifications} × 100
= E {actual number of workers per day / (area floor area [m
² ] × standard working time [hour / m ² ] × current number of working days per day / average working time per person per day [hour / day / person])} × 100 Ask. The average working time per person per day may be set according to the design, and may be set to, for example, 8 hours (or 4 hours). When the number of workers changes depending on the day, each value in the formula may be calculated not as per day but as per week, per month, or per year.

The second quality score expresses how much the work actually performed satisfies the current specification by the ratio of the actual number of workers and the number of workers according to the current specifications. . The second quality score is 100 when the number of workers urged by the current specifications in all areas where the individual standard specifications are determined is 100, while 100 or less when the actual number of workers is insufficient, Or, it will take a value of 100 or more.

Further, according to the design, a score based on the subjective evaluation of the person in charge of evaluation and / or the building owner or the like is obtained as to how much the work actually being performed satisfies the current specifications, and the second quality score is obtained. May be configured to be considered in the calculation of

The control means 17 is the standard work system storage means 1
3, the third quality score is calculated based on the actual work system and the standard work system (S202). Specifically, the third quality score A = {a1 × (actual number of business documents /
Standard value of the recording status of related information) + a2 x (the number of work actually setting standard work / standard value of the setting status of standard work) + a3 x (number of work actually setting training / work level improvement Standard value of policy setting status for
a4 x (number of work actually setting work evaluation standard / standard value of setting condition of work evaluation standard) + a5 x (number of work actually analyzing work result / standard value of analysis result of work result) } × 100, third quality score B = {a6 × (number of works actually confirming work quality / standard value of work quality confirmation status) + a7 × (actual work plan is set / reviewed) Number of works / standard value of work plan settings)} × 10
Based on 0, two types of third quality scores A and B are obtained.
In the above formula, a1 to a5 and a6 to a7 are each a
It is a weighting parameter set so as to satisfy 1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 = 1 and a6 + a7 = 1.

The third quality score A represents whether or not the work system is properly managed, and the third quality score B is an evaluation of the planning property in the work system. Each third quality score takes 100 when the actual work system matches the standard work system, and takes 100 or less or 100 or more when the actual work system has an excess or deficiency.

Finally, the control means 17 makes a linear sum of the first quality score, the second quality score, the third quality score A and the third quality score B, that is, quality score = p _quality ×
Based on the first quality score + q _quality × second quality score + r _quality × third quality score A + s _quality × third quality score B,
The quality score X is calculated (S203). In the above equation, p _quality , q _quality , r _quality , and s _quality are p _quality + q
It is a weighting parameter set so that _quality + r _quality + s _quality = 1. Although each value of the weight parameter can be set according to the design, for example, p _quality = 0.3
5, q _quality = 0.35, r _quality = 0.20, s _quality =
It is possible to set it as 0.10.

The third quality score is calculated without being divided into A and B, and the quality score = p _quality × first quality score +
The quality score X may be calculated based on q _quality × second quality score + r _quality × third quality score.

(Cost Evaluation Process: FIG. 10) The cost evaluation process is a process of evaluating the cost for the cleaning work based on the current specification, the current cost, the individual standard specification, and the standard unit price, and calculating the cost score. In the present embodiment, as described below, the cost score is calculated as a linear sum of the first cost score and the second cost score.

The control means 17 refers to the standard unit price storage means 14, and based on the current specification, the current cost and the standard unit price,
A first cost score is calculated (S300). Specifically, the first cost score = (current cost / (SUM {(area floor area [m ² ] × standard working time [hour / m ² ] × current number of work per day / one person per day) The first cost score is obtained based on the average work time [hours / day / person]) × standard unit price per person per day [yen / day / person]} × annual work days)) × 100. Where SUM {}
Means obtaining the total value for all areas for which the individual standard specifications are determined.

Next, the control means 17 refers to the individual standard specification storage means 11 and the standard unit price storage means 14, and calculates the second cost score based on the individual standard specifications, the current cost, and the standard unit price (S301). . Specifically, the second cost score = (current cost / (SUM {(area floor area [m ² ] × standard work time [hour / m ² ] × number of work per day of individual standard specifications / 1 per person The second cost score is calculated based on the average work time per day [hour / day / person]) × standard unit price per day per person [yen / day / person]} × annual work days)) × 100.

The first cost score represents the validity of the current cost by the ratio of the current cost and the cost estimated by the standard unit price based on the current specifications.
On the other hand, the second cost score represents the necessity / sufficiency of the current cost by the ratio of the current cost and the cost estimated by the standard unit price based on the individual standard specifications.

Finally, the control means 17 calculates the cost score Y as a linear sum of the first cost score and the second cost score, that is, based on the cost score = p _cost × first cost score + q _cost × second cost score. Is calculated (S302). In the above equation, p _cost , q
_{The cost} is a weighting parameter set so that p _cost + q _cost = 1. Although each value of the weight parameter can be set according to the design, for example, p _cost
= 0.50, q _cost = 0.50.

(Comprehensive Evaluation Process: FIG. 11) The comprehensive evaluation process is a process for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation of the cleaning work based on the quality score and the cost score. In this embodiment, as a comprehensive evaluation, a quality score and a cost score are mapped in a parameter space composed of two axes of quality and cost, a rating is given to a management task based on the mapping position, and problems in each axis (quality axis, score axis) Seek the whereabouts (presence or absence) of.

The control means 17 first maps the set (X, Y) of the calculated quality score X and cost score Y in the parameter space consisting of the quality score axis and the cost score axis,
It is determined which divided area on the parameter space is located (S400).

In the present embodiment, based on the following rules, the parameter space is divided into nine areas, namely (under-quality, under-cost), (under-quality, appropriate cost), (under-quality, excessive cost), (appropriate quality). Quality, under-cost), (appropriate quality, fair cost), (proper quality, excess cost),
It is divided into (excess quality, under-cost), (excess quality, appropriate cost), and (excess quality, excess cost) (FIG. 5).
(See (b)). [Rule] 0 ≦ X or Y <90: Insufficient 90 ≦ X or Y ≦ 110: Appropriate 110 <X or Y: Excess Next, control means The reference numeral 17 refers to the evaluation rule storage means 15 and extracts the comprehensive evaluation information corresponding to the area where (X, Y) is located (S401).

For example, in the case of (X, Y) = (70, 130), the area becomes (insufficient quality, insufficient cost) when judged based on the above rule. When the evaluation rule as shown in FIG. 5 (b) is applied to this, comprehensive evaluation information of "rating E" and "there is a problem in quality and cost" is obtained.

Each quality score obtained in this way,
Each cost score, comprehensive evaluation information, and the like can be output as text, a graph, voice, or the like via the input / output unit 16. FIG. 12 shows an output example.

In the present embodiment, a management specification which is a standard for management work (cleaning work) is defined, and based on this, evaluation is performed from two aspects of quality and score, and based on both, the rating and the location of the problem are comprehensively evaluated. Since it is configured to obtain it as information, it is possible to evaluate the management specifications and costs independently determined by the management company while ensuring the objectivity, and whether the management specifications are appropriate and the cost is high. It is possible to properly judge whether it is cheap or not, considering the balance between the two.

In particular, as a concrete quality evaluation standard, it is appropriate with respect to how much the current specification satisfies the individual standard specification, how much work actually being performed satisfies the current specification, and the work system. By using the validity of the current cost and the necessity and sufficientness of the current cost as a concrete evaluation standard for the cost, it is possible to use This makes it possible to evaluate quality and cost more accurately.

Further, by using the evaluation system of the present embodiment, the building owner or the like can obtain the rating and the location of the problem as the comprehensive evaluation information, and at what level the management work of the own building or the like is. Therefore, it becomes possible to easily understand where to improve.

(Modification) Next, a modification of the first embodiment will be described. This modified example has the same configuration as that of the first embodiment in principle, but is different in that a step related to the degree of influence is added in each of the quality evaluation processing, the cost evaluation processing, and the comprehensive evaluation processing. Hereinafter, parts different from the first embodiment will be described.

(Quality evaluation processing) The control means 17 calculates the degree of influence of the first quality score based on the following equation. Similarly, the degree of influence is also obtained for each of the second, third A, and third B quality scores (S204). In the following equation, ABS {} means a function that gives an absolute value.

Impact of first quality score = p_quality× ABS
{1st quality score-100} / (p _quality× ABS {first
Quality score −100} + q_quality× ABS {second quality score
A-100} + r_quality× ABS {third quality score A-1
00} + s_qualityX ABS {3rd quality score B-10
0)) (Cost evaluation process) The control means 17 is based on the following formula.
Then, the degree of influence of the first cost score is calculated. Also in the same way
Then, the degree of influence is also calculated for the second cost score (S3
03).

Impact degree of first cost score = p _cost × A
BS {first cost score-100} / (p _cost x AB
S {first cost score −100} + q _cost × ABS
{2nd cost score-100}) (Comprehensive evaluation process) When the comprehensive evaluation information obtained in S401 is "there is a problem in quality", the first, second, third A, For each of the 3B quality scores, sorting is performed in descending order of the degree of influence, and a predetermined number of higher ranks are evaluated as having higher improvement priority and included in the comprehensive evaluation information (S402).

Further, when the comprehensive evaluation information obtained in S401 is "There is a problem with the cost", the first and second cost scores are sorted in descending order of the degree of influence, and the upper predetermined number is set. It is evaluated that the improvement priority is high and included in the comprehensive evaluation information (S403).

In this modified example, the degree of influence is further calculated for each score, and the improvement priority is evaluated based on the calculated degree of influence. Therefore, the user of the present evaluation system 1 is based on the comprehensive evaluation information. Where is the problem in management,
Then, it becomes possible to easily judge what to improve.

(Second Embodiment) Next, a second embodiment of the present invention will be described. The second embodiment includes a recording medium recording an evaluation program. As this recording medium, a CD-ROM, a magnetic disk, a semiconductor memory or other recording medium can be used.

The evaluation program is read from the recording medium to the data processing device and controls the operation of the data processing device.
The data processing device is controlled by the evaluation program, and the standard specification storage means 1 of the evaluation system 1 in the first embodiment is used.
0, individual standard specification storage means 11, standard work time storage means 12, standard work system storage means 13, standard unit price storage means 1
4. The same processing as the processing by the evaluation rule storage unit 15, the IF unit 16, and the control unit 17 is executed.

(Others) The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, but can be modified in various ways and applied.

For example, in the above-mentioned embodiment, the cleaning work for the building has been described as an example, but the present invention can be applied to other evaluation objects (eg school, hospital, etc.) and other management works (eg equipment management, security, etc.). It can also be applied to.
For example, in the case of equipment management, each specification is associated with equipment information instead of area information, and equipment information includes equipment identification information (for example, equipment names such as air-cooled heat pump, outdoor unit, and substation equipment), work content (for example, appearance). Inspection, functional inspection, patrol inspection, meter reading, etc.) etc.

Also, different evaluation criteria may be used depending on the evaluation target. For example, in the standard specification storage means, a plurality of standard specifications are stored according to the type of facility (for example, commercial facility, medical facility, educational facility, etc.) or facility scale, and the facility to be evaluated in the individual standard setting process. It is conceivable that the individual standard specifications are set based on the standard specifications corresponding to the types.

Further, in the above embodiment, each specification is described as including the number of times of work, but each means and each process may be configured such that each specification includes other information, for example, work time.

Further, in the above-described embodiment, the configuration for calculating the second quality score based on the ratio of the actual number of workers to the number of workers according to the current specification has been described. The second quality score may be obtained based on the ratio of the number of operations performed and the number of operations according to the current specifications.

In the above embodiment, the parameter space is divided into nine areas, and the comprehensive evaluation information is associated with each area. However, the method of dividing the parameter space into areas is not limited to this, and for example, FIG. A division method as shown in FIG. In this case, the data structure of the evaluation rule storage means may be as shown in FIG.

[0099]

According to the present invention, the standard management specification is set and the management operation is evaluated on the basis of the two axes of quality and cost based on the standard management specification. It is possible to secure and automatically evaluate.

[Brief description of drawings]

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of an evaluation system that is a first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a diagram for explaining a data structure in a standard specification storage unit 10.

FIG. 3 is a diagram for explaining a data structure in an individual standard specification storage unit 11.

FIG. 4 is a diagram for explaining a data structure in a standard work time storage unit 12.

5 is a diagram for explaining a data structure in the evaluation rule storage means 15. FIG.

FIG. 6 is a diagram for explaining another example of the data structure in the evaluation rule storage means 15.

FIG. 7 is a flowchart for explaining the flow of individual reference setting processing.

FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining a data structure of a current specification received from a user.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart for explaining the flow of quality evaluation processing.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart for explaining the flow of cost evaluation processing.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart for explaining the flow of comprehensive evaluation processing.

FIG. 12 is a diagram for explaining an output example of evaluation results.

FIG. 13 is a diagram for explaining another example of the data structure in the evaluation rule storage unit 15.

[Explanation of symbols]

1 Evaluation system 10 Standard specification storage means 11 Individual standard specification storage means 12 Standard working time storage means 13 Standard work system storage means 14 Standard unit price storage means 15 Evaluation Rule Storage Means 16 Input / output means 17 Control means

Claims (14)

[Claims] 1. Storage means for storing standard management specifications of management operations; current management specifications, current costs, for predetermined management operations;
A means for receiving the work implementation status, a quality evaluation means for evaluating the quality of the predetermined management work based on at least the current management specifications, the standard management specifications, and the work implementation status, and a quality evaluation means for calculating the quality score, and the current management specifications, Based on at least the standard management specification and the current cost, the cost is evaluated with respect to the predetermined management work, and a cost evaluation unit that calculates a cost score, and based on the calculated quality score and cost score,
An evaluation system for facility management related to facility maintenance, comprising: a comprehensive evaluation means for requesting a comprehensive evaluation of the predetermined management operation. 2. The first means for calculating the quality score, wherein the quality evaluation means evaluates how much the current management specification satisfies the standard management specification based on a comparison between the current management specification and the standard management specification. Based on the comparison between the current management specifications and the work implementation status, the second means for calculating the quality score by evaluating the extent to which the actual work performed satisfies the current management specifications, based on the business implementation status The management operation evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one of a third means for calculating a quality score with a work system as an evaluation target. 3. The evaluation system for management work according to claim 2, wherein the first means calculates the quality score based on a comparison of the number of works included in the current management specification and the standard management specification. 4. The quality score is calculated based on a comparison between the number of workers determined based on the current management specifications and the actual number of workers included in the work implementation status. Evaluation system for management work described in 2 or 3. 5. The third means is a recording status of related information,
Standard work setting status, work level improvement measure setting status, work evaluation standard setting status, work result analysis status,
5. The management work evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the quality score is calculated based on one of a work quality confirmation status and a work plan setting status. 6. The cost evaluation means is a means for calculating a cost score based on at least the current management specification and the current cost with the adequacy of the current cost as an evaluation target, and a current management method based on at least the standard management specification and the current cost. The management operation evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 5, further comprising: at least one of a unit that calculates a cost score with the necessity of cost as an evaluation target. 7. The comprehensive evaluation means is a combination of quality and cost.
7. The management work evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the calculated quality score and cost score are mapped in a parameter space made up of axes, and a comprehensive evaluation is obtained based on the mapping position. . 8. The management operation evaluation system according to claim 7, wherein the comprehensive evaluation means obtains a comprehensive evaluation based on the following rules. [Rule] Mapping position on the parameter space Overall evaluation (any, excess cost score) Cost problem (not (under quality), under cost score) Cost problem (under quality score, any) Quality problem ( Excess quality score, not (excess cost)) There is a problem with quality 9. The management operation according to claim 1, wherein the comprehensive evaluation unit evaluates the improvement priority of the evaluation target based on each score to obtain a comprehensive evaluation. Rating system. 10. The predetermined management based on at least the process of receiving the current management specification, the standard management specification, the current cost, and the business execution status, and the current management specification, the standard management specification, and the business execution status for the predetermined management business. Based on at least the quality evaluation step of evaluating the quality of the work and calculating the quality score and the current management specification, the standard management specification, and the current cost, the cost is evaluated and the cost score is calculated for the predetermined management work. Based on the cost evaluation step and the calculated quality score and cost score,
A comprehensive evaluation step of requesting a comprehensive evaluation for the predetermined management operation, the method for evaluating the management operation relating to facility maintenance. 11. The quality evaluation step is a step of calculating a quality score by evaluating how much the current management specification satisfies the standard management specification based on a comparison between the current management specification and the standard management specification. Based on the comparison between the management specifications and the work implementation status, the process of calculating the quality score for the extent to which the actual work being performed satisfies the current management specifications, and the work structure based on the work implementation status The method according to claim 10, further comprising at least one of a step of calculating a quality score as an evaluation target. 12. The cost evaluation step is a step of calculating a cost score based on at least the current management specification and the current cost, with the adequacy of the current cost as an evaluation target, and based on at least the standard management specification and the current cost. 12. The method for evaluating management work according to claim 10, further comprising at least one of a step of calculating a cost score with the necessity of costs as an evaluation target. 13. The comprehensive evaluation step is characterized in that the calculated quality score and cost score are mapped to a parameter space having two axes of quality and cost, and a comprehensive evaluation is obtained based on the mapping position. 10
13. The management operation evaluation method according to any one of 1 to 12. 14. A program for causing a computer to execute the evaluation method according to any one of claims 10 to 13.