JP2005309674A - Evaluation system for contained chemical substance examination data - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To evaluate the preciseness and reliability of a part contained chemical substance report from a part supplier. <P>SOLUTION: Data of each part is classified for every similar part and stored in a similar part database 2, and the content of a part contained chemical substance report for a part delivered from each part supplier 15 is stored in a part contained chemical substance database 2. When a part contained chemical substance report 15 for a delivered part is provided from the part supplier 15, the similar parts of this part are retrieved in the database 2 by a reliability determination/evaluation part 4, and data for chemical substances are read for every similar part from the database 3. These data are compared (cluster-analyzed) with data for chemical substances described in the report 16, whereby the similarity of the report 16 to the report for the similar parts is determined to evaluate the reliability of the report 16. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2006,JPO&NCIPI

Description

  The present invention evaluates the content of chemical substance survey data by verifying in advance whether or not the content of a report on chemical substances contained in parts and materials submitted by a parts supplier is appropriate, and evaluating the reliability of the contents. About the system.

  In recent years, green procurement has started to be established where users consciously purchase environmentally friendly products. For this reason, manufacturers that manufacture products must make sure that the chemical substances contained in the products they sell comply with the laws and regulations of customers regarding chemical substances. In addition, there is an increasing demand for reports from suppliers (parts suppliers) that supply parts and materials regarding the contents of the regulated substances and the contents in cases where they are contained.

  As an example, a database that collects chemical substances that are likely to be included in each type of part is built, and when the chemical substance to be reported to the supplier is entered, the type of part is entered and included from that database. A method has been proposed in which a chemical substance that has a high possibility of being detected is picked up and compared with the entered chemical substance contents, and if there is no chemical substance that falls under the report, a message is sent to the reporter for reconfirmation. This gives attention to the input person when inputting (see, for example, Patent Document 1).

  As another example, a system for collecting chemical substances of collected parts has been proposed (see, for example, Patent Document 2).

  Furthermore, as another example, a function for displaying which regulation the chemical substance violates is proposed.

These proposals are to assess the contents of chemical substances contained in the product by grasping and summing the chemical substances contained in the parts that make up the product, and detecting the presence and amount of the regulated substances. It is.
JP 2003-203105 A JP 2001-117270 A JP 2003-196288 A

  However, these conventional techniques are premised on accurately reporting the chemical substances contained in the supplier. It is possible that the content of the chemical substances contained will change, such as when the supplier changes the parts or changes the manufacturing process. At that time, you may forget to report the chemical substances subject to regulation, In addition, as a result of using the material without knowing that the controlled substance is contained, it is assumed that the substance contained in the manufactured part is not reported. In such a case, the regulated substance may be contained in the final product manufactured by the manufacturer using such a part.

  To completely prevent the delivery of parts containing chemical substances not reported by the supplier, the contents of the chemical substances contained in all parts purchased by the product manufacturer are measured and checked. For certified parts, that is, for parts that are delivered with a strict contract with the supplier about the report of the material of the delivered part or audited at the factory, the contents of the supplier's report are accurate. Measures can be taken, such as establishing a system for confirming that the product contains no substances not reported.

  However, these measures cause an increase in product cost and narrow the scope of parts suppliers. The manufacturer of the product wants to expect that the chemical substances contained in the parts and the chemical substances contained in the parts that have been delivered are consistent, that is, the report is accurate. There is a possibility that some chemical substances may be regulated, and it is necessary to predict the possibility as a risk, and to take measures against the probability and influence of the risk and the cost required to prevent it.

  The manufacturer that assembles the final product must use the information on the chemical substance contained in the parts and materials to be purchased by accurately grasping it by some means and judging whether it can be used or not at the stage of mass production.

  However, it is difficult in terms of man-hours, time, and cost to inspect the chemical substances contained in all the purchase candidate parts and materials and other confirmation means at the time of product design examination and the trial production stage. Therefore, it is necessary to have a function of performing a narrowing determination by estimating to some extent the accuracy of the contents of the report from the supplier concerning the use candidate parts at the time of design examination or trial production. This will reduce the number of target parts that are actually measured and inspected for contained substances, or reduce the possibility of rework from the selection of parts that were found to be defective as a result of inspection, investigation, or confirmation. Can be made.

  The present invention has been made in view of the above points, and the object thereof is a contained chemical substance which can be determined by estimating and narrowing down the accuracy and reliability of reports from suppliers to some extent. To provide a survey data evaluation system.

  In order to achieve the above-mentioned object, the present invention searches for similar parts of purchased parts based on the contained substance report of purchased parts provided by the parts supplier together with the purchased parts, and the contents of the contained substance report of purchased parts. Is compared with the content of the content report of similar parts, and the credit quality of the content report of purchased parts is evaluated.

  In addition, for each part that has already been purchased, there is provided a first database for storing part information to which information indicating similarity between parts is added, and similarity between parts with respect to a purchased part newly provided by a parts supplier The information representing the sex is set, and the similar parts of the purchased parts newly provided from the first database are searched based on the information representing the similarity between the set parts.

  Further, a second database for storing the contents of the contained substance report of the parts already purchased is provided, and the contents of the retrieved contained substance report of the similar parts are obtained from the second database.

  For parts for which the content of the content report has been verified, add the verified information to the content of the content report and save it, and the content report newly provided by the parts supplier If the already stored verified information is similar to the added content report with a high degree of similarity, it will improve the credit rating of the newly provided content report.

  In addition, for parts that have already been compliant with the chemical substances regulated by the law described in the contained substance report, information that has already been dealt with is added to the contents of the contained substance report, stored, and newly provided by the parts supplier. If the contained substance report is similar to the already contained saved substance report with the corresponding information added, the credit rating of the newly provided contained substance report should be evaluated. It is something to increase.

  It also selects and recommends parts for which the contents are reported in the contained substance reports that have a high degree of similarity and high reliability with the contained parts reports of other parts suppliers.

  In addition, the parts with the corresponding information added to the contents of the contained substance report have similarities with the parts of other parts suppliers compared to the parts without the corresponding information added to the contents of the contained substance report. Even if it is a little lower, it will be selected and recommended as a purchase candidate.

  Further, the credibility of the contained substance report for each part supplier is obtained based on the credibility of the contained substance report for each part, and is used for evaluation of the part when purchasing the part from the parts supplier.

  According to the present invention, since the reliability of the content of the report on the chemical substances contained in the parts from the supplier can be evaluated, the candidate parts to be used before performing the back-up inspection, i.e., before applying the man-hours and costs, are high reliability parts. Can be selected.

  In addition, according to the present invention, since it is found that the report is a highly reliable part, it is found that, as a result of the back-up inspection, it contains a regulated chemical substance, and it is troublesome to re-select and design the part. The probability of occurrence of can be reduced.

  In addition, according to the present invention, by selecting a large number of component suppliers that provide similar components, the range of component selection becomes wider and the number of component suppliers increases, resulting in the effect of lowering the purchase price due to competition. It is done.

  Further, according to the present invention, by using the evaluation of a report of a plurality of parts, it is possible to determine the level of creditworthiness evaluation of the report for each supplier, and the creditworthiness is evaluated highly. It becomes possible to do. Thereby, it is possible to reduce the selection cost and procurement cost of parts, and it is possible to reduce the probability that unexpected chemical substances are mixed into the parts.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an embodiment of a contained chemical substance survey data evaluation system according to the present invention, wherein 1 is a contained chemical substance survey data evaluation system, 2 is a similar parts database, 3 is a parts contained chemical substance database, 4 Is a credit quality judgment / evaluation unit, 5 is a similar parts investigation / retrieval means, 6 is a report evaluation result, 7 is a comprehensive evaluation unit, 8 is a report credit database, 9 is a chemical substance analysis result database, and 10 is a lot defect result. Database, 11 is a comprehensive report evaluation result, 12 is a component analysis unit, 13 is a manufacturing site, 14 is a customer complaint, 15 is a supplier of parts, and 16 is a report of chemical substances containing parts.

  In the following, parts, materials, chemicals, oils and fats, chemicals used in the manufacturing process, etc., which are purchased from the outside alone, are collectively referred to as parts. .

  In this figure, when a product manufacturer who is the manufacturer of the final product purchases a part from the parts supplier 15, a parts-containing chemical substance report 16 of the purchased parts is sent from the parts supplier 15 by a recording medium such as a disk or an email. Alternatively, it will be submitted to this product manufacturer in writing. In this product maker, in the contained chemical substance survey data evaluation system 1, the reliability determination / evaluation unit 4 uses the information of the similar parts database 2 and the parts contained chemical substance database 3 to provide the provided part contained chemical substance report. The evaluation process of the document 16 is performed, and the evaluation result is displayed as a report evaluation result 6 on a screen (not shown) and stored in the report creditworthiness database 8.

  In addition, the comprehensive evaluation unit 7 uses the information in the report reliability database 8, the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9, and the rod failure result database 10 to evaluate the parts contained chemical substance report 16 in consideration of the evaluation of the parts supplier 16. The processing is performed, and the evaluation result is displayed as a report comprehensive evaluation result 11 for the component-containing chemical substance report 16 on a screen (not shown).

  The contained chemical substance survey data evaluation system 1 is, for example, a computer system such as a personal computer, and includes a CPU, a memory, an external input / output device, a storage device such as a hard disk, a display device, and the like, and is provided from a component supplier 15. The component-containing chemical substance report 16 is stored in a storage device. Each of the databases 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 is set in a storage device and managed by a database system (not shown). In addition, the reliability determination / evaluation unit 4 performs evaluation processing of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 for each component by the CPU, and displays the report evaluation result 6 on the display device. The comprehensive evaluation unit 7 also performs comprehensive evaluation processing of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 for each component supplier by the CPU, and displays the supplier-specific report evaluation 11 on the display device.

  Here, the contents of the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 relating to the parts purchased so far are stored in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3, and in this case as well, the parts-containing chemicals together with the purchased parts are sent from the parts supplier 15 to the product manufacturer. When the material report 16 is provided, the information of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 is additionally stored (registered) in the component-containing chemical substance database 3.

  FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a part of a specific example of the database structure of the component-containing chemical substance database 3.

  In the figure, the parts-containing chemical substance database 3 includes items “company name” 3a, “company code” 3b, “part name” 3c, “part number” 3d, “chemical substance name” 3e, “CAS” 3f, “ The item “company name” 3a represents the name of the manufacturer (part supplier in this case) of the parts used in the product. “Company code” 3b represents an identification number uniquely assigned to each component supplier 15 for easy retrieval. These items “company name” 3a and “company code” 3b correspond one-to-one. The item “part name” 3c is the name of the part published by the part manufacturer, and the item “part number” 3c is unique to the part corresponding to the part name published by the part manufacturer, that is, the part supplier 15. It is an identification number. Parts purchased by the product manufacturer are specified by the part name and part number. The item “Chemical substance name” 3e represents the name of the chemical substance contained in the part manufacturer's part, “CAS” 3f represents the universal identification number for identifying the chemical substance, and the item “Quantity” 3g represents the part. Represents the content of chemical substances. That is, “Chemical Substance Name” 3e, “CAS” 3f, “CAS Name” 3a, “Company Code” 3b, “Part Name” 3c, “Part Number” 3d, “Chemical Substance Name” 3e, “CAS” 3f, “Quantity” represents 3 g of information.

  The parts-containing chemical substance database 3 includes items “inspected” 3h and “corresponding” 3i as supplementary information. The item “inspected” 3h is the content of the component provided by the component supplier 15 by the product manufacturer in-house through component analysis of the chemical substance of the component and other confirmation means, and the corresponding component contained chemical substance report This indicates whether or not the content matches the contents of the document 16, and if it has been confirmed (verified), confirmed information is added to the item “inspected” 3h (this is marked with a circle) If the confirmation has not been completed, the confirmed information is not added (this is indicated by a cross). If it is marked with ○, it indicates that the contents of the report are guaranteed to be accurate in terms of operation by contract or authorized factory method.

  The item “Applied” 3i indicates whether or not a chemical substance restricted by a specific law or regulation is within the restriction, that is, whether or not the substance complies with the law or regulation. If it has been handled, the corresponding information is added to the item “corresponding” 3i (indicated by a circle), and if it has not been completed, the corresponding information is not added (indicated by an x). . When this item “corresponding” 3i is a circle, it indicates that the contents of the report are guaranteed to be accurate in terms of operation by a contract or an authorized factory method.

  When the items “inspected” 3h and “corresponding” 3i are both ◯, the contents of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 are treated as having a high level of trust.

  The parts-containing chemical substance report 16 has the same format as the parts-containing chemical substance database 3 and includes items “company name”, “company code”, “part name”, “part number”, “chemical substance name”. ”,“ CAS ”, and“ quantity ”. FIG. 2 shows the information content stored (registered) in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3 in the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 sent from the parts supplier 15 together with the purchased parts. The delivered parts supplier 15 is the company A whose “company code” 3b is 12300, and the parts provided to the product manufacturer at this time are the resistors whose “manufacturing number” 3d is A-67. This resistance includes arsenic, lead, lead monoxide, antimony, cobalt, phenol, and carbonone in the amounts indicated in the item “quantity” 3 g. When the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 sent from the parts supplier 15 has just been registered in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3, the above-mentioned inspection is not performed, so the item “inspected” 3h is also The item “Compatible” 3i is also marked with a cross.

  FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a part of a specific example of the database structure of the similar parts database 2 in FIG.

  In the figure, the similar parts database 2 stores (registers) information on similar parts. In a normal product manufacturer, a method for purchasing parts, usually called multi-purchasing, is employed. This means that parts with the same specifications are purchased from multiple parts suppliers, which can strengthen the product manufacturer's position and save purchase costs, or a specific parts supplier can supply parts for some reason. This is usually done as a guarantee in the event that it becomes impossible. When multi-purchase is performed in this way, the product manufacturer can acquire similar parts of the same type from different parts manufacturers. In the similar parts database 2, information that allows similar parts to be searched as similar parts regardless of parts manufacturers or formats using the purchase of parts by such a method. It is a registered one. There is also a system for bidding on the Internet based on the specification of a specific part that is an electronic commerce. In such a system, it is necessary to transmit the specifications of a specific part to a third party in a certain classification or a certain specification format, and such information can be acquired and registered in the similar parts database 2.

  As shown in FIG. 3, the similar parts database 2 includes items “major classification” 2a, “medium classification” 2b, “small classification” 2c, “company name” 2d, “company code” 2e, “part name” 2f, and It consists of “part number” 2g. Of these, the items “company name” 2d, “company code” 2e, “part name” 2f, and “part number” 2g are the items “company name” 3a and “company code” 3b in the part-containing chemical substance database 3 (FIG. 2). , “Part name” 3c and “part number” 3d. Accordingly, the “chemical substance name”, “CAS”, and “quantity” of the part can be referred from the part-containing chemical substance database 3 using such items as keys.

  The items “major category” 2a, “medium category” 2b, and “minor category” 2c are keys for searching for similar parts. Here, the item “major classification” 2a is a large classification of parts such as electric parts, iron materials, and resins, and the item “medium classification” 2b is an example of a detailed classification, for example, “major classification” electric parts. In this case, “medium class” is set, which is subdivided into subordinate to this “major class” electrical parts such as resistors, capacitors, coils and the like. Further, in the item “subcategory” 2c, a classification obtained by further subdividing the “medium category”, for example, the resistance of “medium category” is taken as an example. “Small classification” is set, which is a finer classification.

  Here, parts having the same three classifications of “major classification, middle classification, and minor classification” are treated as similar parts. Therefore, the contents shown in FIG. 3 of the similar parts database 2 are all similar parts for the resistors A to G shown in the figure.

  When the product manufacturer provides the parts containing chemical substance report 16 together with the purchased parts from the parts supplier 15, the information content of the company name, company code, part name and part number of the parts containing chemical substance report 16 is displayed. In addition to being registered in the similar parts database 2, the person in charge of the product manufacturer classifies the purchased parts as “major classification, medium classification, small classification”, and classifies the classification results into items “major classification” 2 a, “medium Register in "Classification" 2b and "Small classification" 2c.

  Although an example of classification is shown here, the present invention is not limited to this, and the classification may be based on specifications, for example, a resistance value or size, a mounting type, or a physical principle that causes resistance. .

  Next, the credit evaluation evaluation 4 in FIG. 1 will be described.

  Here, a product manufacturer purchased a part with a part name of resistance and a part number of A-67 from Company A (parts supplier 15), and a part containing chemical report 16 of this part has been sent. The information content of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 is the same as the content shown in FIG. 2 except that the items “inspected” 3h and “responded” 3i are not present. The information content of this parts-containing chemical substance report 16 is registered in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3, but since it has not been inspected or dealt with, the item “ In the “inspected” 3h and “corresponding” 3i, a cross is added.

  In the credit determination / evaluation unit 4, first, when the component-containing chemical substance report 16 provided from the parts supplier 15 is read, the person in charge of the product manufacturer uses the part-containing chemical substance report 16 and the like. The purchased parts are classified into large, medium, and small categories, and a search for similar parts for the purchased parts is instructed. In response to this instruction, the similar parts investigation / retrieval means 5 searches for similar parts in the similar parts database 2 using the classified major classification, middle classification, and minor classification as keys (step 4a). As a result of this search, a list of similar parts is obtained (step 4b). In addition to the above search instructions, information (major category, medium category, minor category and company name, company code, part name, part number) regarding the purchased parts (part number A-67) of this company A are also similar parts. Registered in the database 2. Here, as shown in FIG. 3, the resistance of each of the B to F companies is equal to the resistance of the A company in the large classification, middle classification, and small classification. ~ F The company name, company mode, part name, and part number of each company are read out and a similar parts list is created.

  Then, for each part in the similar parts list, the part containing chemical substance data 3 is searched using the company name, company code, part name, and part number as keys, and the matching degree creation process is performed based on the search result. Performed (step 4c). In this process, the item “chemical substance name” 3e of the part-containing chemical substance data 3 is read for each part having a part name and part number specified in the similar part list of each of A to F (ie, similar parts). A matching degree table 20 as shown in FIG. 4 is created.

  This degree of coincidence table 20 represents the degree of coincidence of the contained chemical substances between the “resistances” of the A to F companies that are similar parts, and is included in at least one of the “resistances” of the A to F companies. The chemical substances contained are seven types of substances A to G. For each of the resistances of A to F companies, a chemical substance contained therein is marked with a circle, and a chemical substance not contained is marked with a cross. For example, the resistance of company A includes substances A to C, E, and F, does not include substances D and G, and the resistance of company B includes substances A, C to E, and substance B, F, and G are not included.

  In addition, here, the chemical substances contained even a little are marked with a circle, but a prescribed amount is set for each chemical substance, and a chemical substance exceeding this prescribed amount is marked with a circle. You may do it. In this case, of course, the content of the item “amount” 3g in the component-containing chemical substance database 3 is also read for each chemical substance.

  Next, a similarity matrix process is performed based on the coincidence degree table 20 (step 4d). This shows how similar the resistance of other companies and the chemical content are for each of the resistances of A to F, and between the resistances of the two companies to be compared, The total of the number and the number of substances marked with x represents the similarity between the resistances of these two companies.

  FIG. 5 shows a similarity matrix 21 obtained by such processing. For example, between the resistances of A and B companies, the substances A, C, and E are all obtained from the coincidence table 20 shown in FIG. Since it contains (circle), and none contains the substance G (x), the similarity is “4”. In addition, between the resistances of C and D companies, from the degree of coincidence table 20 shown in FIG. 4, both contain substances A and D (circles), and neither contains substance G (x marks). ), The similarity is “3”. Thus, when there are seven types of chemical substances, the maximum value of similarity is 7 and the minimum value is 0. In this example, the resistance between A and E companies and the resistance of B and D companies Among them, the similarity is 6 which is the maximum, and the similarity between the resistances of the F company and the companies A, B and E is 1 which is the minimum.

  Next, based on the similarity matrix 21, a tree diagram 22 as shown in FIG. 6 is created as an example of the evaluation of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 (step 4e). In the case of the similarity matrix 21 shown in FIG. 5, the resistances of the A and E companies are most similar to the similarity 6, and similarly, the resistances of the B and D companies are most similar to 6. , Company A and Company E, Company B and Company D are directly associated with each other. Next, since the resistance of the C company is similar to the resistances of these A, B, D, and E companies, the C company is related to these A, B, D, and E companies, and finally the F company is connected to these A to E. Associate with each company. Evaluation based on the degree of similarity is performed with this tree diagram 22 (step 4f), and the evaluation result is displayed on the screen as the evaluation 6 of the component-containing chemical substance report, and is registered in the report reliability database 8.

  The above method is called cluster analysis. In this method, various elements (indicators) to be used for comparison, similar evaluation methods and calculation methods have been proposed, and hundreds of derivative analysis methods have been proposed. Exists. In the present invention, such a mathematical analysis method is not characteristic, but the similarity is obtained by the above method. Of course, as long as similar similarity can be compared by an analysis method different from the above, that method may be used.

  Also, based on the similarity matrix 21 as shown in FIG. 5, similar parts are grouped into one group (cluster group), and the analysis results are divided into several similar groups as shown in FIG. Can be obtained and evaluated based on this. FIG. 7 shows a case where parts are grouped into a cluster A group and a cluster B group. Although the number of samples is small, the similarity matrix 21 shown in FIG. 5 will be described with reference to the dendrogram 22 shown in FIG. 6. Company A and Company E are combined into the same cluster A group, Company B and Company D Are also grouped into the same cluster B group. Company C and Company F form separate cluster groups. In the similarity matrix 21 shown in FIG. 5, samples having the highest similarity are grouped into the same cluster group, and a cluster A group and a cluster B group are generated. In this case, since the cluster A group and the cluster B group are formed based on the maximum similarity 6, the cluster groups A and B are groups with high similarity. If a similarity lower than this (for example, similarity 5) is used, the resulting cluster group will be a large group including Company A, Company B, Company D, and Company E, but will be a group with weak similarity.

The distance between the most distant samples in the same cluster group is called the farthest distance, and indicates the strength of the cluster group. The sample with the smallest farthest distance has a higher similarity in the cluster group. The distance between the nearest samples between the different cluster A group and cluster B group is called the nearest distance, and indicates the separation strength between the cluster groups. As described above, when two or more cluster groups are divided, even if the specifications are the same, it is considered that there are two or more types having different performance achievement means or different manufacturing methods. Here, in the case of being divided into two such cluster groups, the evaluation can be performed by selecting and evaluating a cluster group closer to the part to be evaluated. The distance here is
Distance = 7 (item)-(degree of coincidence)
It also represents the degree of disagreement.

  FIG. 8 schematically shows the result of this degree of similarity. The white circles represent the evaluation target parts purchased with the parts-containing chemical report 16, and the black circles represent similar parts of the evaluation target parts. ing.

  Here, in the case of the evaluation point 5 in which the high similarity group and the low similarity group are divided according to the similarity, and the white circle (evaluation target part) is included in the high similarity group. The parts-containing chemical substance report 16 is “trustworthy”. In the case of the evaluation point 4 included in the group with a white circle having a low degree of similarity, “same as general” is set. When the white circle is out of the group with a low degree of similarity, a criterion for evaluating as “3 somewhat difficult”, 2 “difficult”, 2 “difficult” is set according to the distance.

  In the case of the analysis shown in FIGS. 6 and 7, similar evaluation points can be provided according to a predetermined standard.

  Expressed by the dendrogram 22 shown in FIG. 6, the component-containing chemical substance reports 16 of Company A, Company E, Company B, and Company D are score points 4 “similar in general” included in the group of weak similarity. The part C chemical report 16 of company C evaluates to “slightly difficult”, and the part 16 chemical report 16 of company F evaluates to “highly difficult”.

  As described above, by evaluating based on the similarity of similar parts, a group of parts having similar components and a large number (dense part) are highly evaluated. That is, generally, the reliability of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 is highly evaluated for the parts of the group having the similar components. In other words, there are a large number of suppliers in the parts for which the component-containing chemical substance report 16 has received a high evaluation. As a result, even if some restricted substances are included, it is easy to select other substitute parts, and it is possible to save the trouble of re-selecting parts and re-designing.

  In the case of part F of company F (resistor), there are two types of chemical substances registered in the part-containing chemical substance report 16 in FIG. There is only one kind of substance F to do. Therefore, according to the above evaluation, the evaluation score 1 is “strong difficulty”. As described above, when the types of chemical substances reported by the component-containing chemical substance report 16 are small, the degree of similarity of articles decreases, and thus the evaluation becomes low. This is consistent even from a general sense.

  In addition, for example, regarding the company B, the item “inspected” 3h of the part-containing chemical substance database 3 (FIG. 2) is marked with a circle, that is, as a result of component analysis conducted by the product manufacturer in-house, Assuming that the content of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 relating to this part of Company B has been confirmed, as shown in the similarity matrix 21 in FIG. 5 and the dendrogram 22 in FIG. It can be judged that the content of the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 of the part D of the company D that is most similar to the part of FIG. In this way, there is data verified in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3, that is, the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 relating to parts having a high degree of similarity with respect to the parts marked with ○ in the item “inspected” 3h. If the evaluation is an evaluation score of 4 “same as general”, the evaluation rank is raised to an evaluation score of 5 “trustworthy”. Therefore, in the above case, the component-containing chemical substance report 16 for the similar parts of company D can be determined as the evaluation score 5 “trustworthy”. In view of the similarity matrix 21 shown in FIG. 5, the parts containing chemical substances report 16 of parts E and parts A and C, which have the highest degree of similarity to company B next to parts of company D, are also shown. Try to improve the evaluation. This is because the component analysis of samples of some manufacturers of similar parts is performed in a sample manner, and the item “inspected” 3h in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3 can be marked as “large”. By preparing for each type of “classification, medium classification, and small classification”, it is possible to enhance the reliability evaluation of the chemical report 16 containing parts. In this way, when the item “inspected” 3h of the part-containing chemical substance database 3 is marked with a ○ mark with respect to the contents of the already-reported part-containing chemical substance report 16, a part for a similar part of this part The contained chemical substance report 16 also enhances the evaluation of its reliability.

  Further, as shown in FIG. 9, when a group of high similarity composed of parts with high similarity is selected in the similarity matrix 21 as shown in FIG. 5, that is, precise component analysis and other confirmation means are performed. When selecting a part and confirming it as a purchased part, by selecting one part from the group with a high degree of similarity and confirming it, parts from other companies within the group with the same degree of similarity are selected. The component-containing chemical substance report 16 of the present invention is also highly reliable, and has the effect of expanding the selection range of component suppliers when selecting components. It can be inferred that the principle of achieving the function of the component is generally established and the manufacturing method is also established. It is also inferred that there is a stability of the component of the lot unit of this part. In addition, when a part manufacturer's part cannot be obtained for some reason, the opportunity to find a substitute part easily becomes wide, which has the effect of reducing cost risk. The use of such parts is beneficial for product manufacturers. In this way, it can also be used to select parts to be inspected.

  As described above, if you select a highly evaluated part, you will naturally select a group of parts with a high degree of similarity, and the above effect will be obtained, thus, the degree of similarity is high with other parts, It is possible to realize a function of selecting and recommending a supplier part having a high reliability in the content of the part-containing chemical substance report 16 as a purchase candidate.

  In addition, even if the parts of the supplier are a little away from such a group of strong similarity, if the corresponding item “corresponding” 3i in the parts-containing chemical substance database 3 (FIG. 2) is marked with ○ For example, the target part in FIG. 4 is a rust-proof steel sheet, the substance E is hexavalent chromium, and only the parts of company C are rust-proof steel sheets not containing this hexavalent chromium, and other parts. If the manufacturer's parts are all rust-proof steel sheets containing hexavalent chromium, the evaluation of similarity in the report on chemical substances contained in parts 16 of Company C will be reduced, but it will respond to the environment without containing hexavalent chromium. Then, the probability of adopting the parts of company C increases.

  Thus, when the item “corresponding” 3i in the part-containing chemical substance database 3 is marked with a circle, the item “corresponding” 3i is slightly distant from the group of parts marked with a “x”. One reason can be guessed. At the same time, the item “inspected” 3h in the component-containing chemical substance database 3 is marked with a circle, and in the case of a component that does not contain hexavalent chromium, it can be determined as an appropriate component. In this way, when there is a certainty that there is a regulated substance in the type of chemical substance of the part to be evaluated and it is not included, the item “Complied” 3i of the part-containing chemical substance database 3 in FIG. Marked. In this case, for such a component, even if it does not match the number of matching chemical substances in the matching degree table 20 shown in FIG. 4, the similarity matrix 21 shown in FIG. For example, each similarity is intentionally increased by one. Thereby, it is possible to increase the probability of recommending a supported part that does not contain a substance such as a legally regulated object. In this way, parts that have been compliant with laws and regulations can be selected and recommended as purchase candidates even if they have a slightly lower degree of similarity than parts of other companies that have not. .

  Further, for example, when there are many kinds of target substances in the coincidence degree table 20 as shown in FIG. 4 and the degree of coincidence of parts of each company is low on average, the kinds of substances are dispersed, When the reliability determination / evaluation unit 4 cannot be used and the analysis shown in FIGS. 7 and 8 is performed, there is no cluster group of similar parts or a high similarity or a low similarity. In such a case, the evaluation score of 0 is “undecidable”. Also, if there is no part-containing chemical substance report 16 for the purchased part and there is no data for this part in the part-containing chemical substance database 3, the evaluation score 0 is “undeterminable”. In such a case, it can be determined that the similar component is a type of component in which the premise that a similar chemical substance is included is broken. Therefore, the evaluation of evaluation point 0 “determination impossible” is valid.

  The above-mentioned evaluation points are added to the company name, company code, part name, and part number of the parts supplier 15 to form a report evaluation result 6 for the part containing chemical substance report 16. The screen is displayed and registered in the report credit database 8.

  In addition, although the main point is different from this embodiment, if it is clear from the supplier's component-containing chemical substance report 16 (FIG. 1) that the purchased part contains a regulated substance, disadvantageous information It is assumed that the reliability of this component-containing chemical substance report 16 is high. If this substance exceeds the quantitative criteria for regulation, it cannot be selected as a part to be purchased, but if it has fallen, it may be selected. Careful management is required when the value is close to the criterion, that is, the threshold. Such factors can also affect the ranking of evaluations. In addition, because it contains restricted substances as it is, it cannot be selected as a purchase target part, but it is also possible to request the parts supplier to remove the target substance and respond to it. If the parts supplier renews the contents of the chemical substances contained in the parts in response to this request, the parts contained chemical substances report 16 for the parts whose substances have been dealt with on the supplier side in this way Is marked with a circle in the item “corresponding” 3i in the component-containing chemical substance database 2 (FIG. 2). Further, when the product manufacturer confirms the content of the component-containing chemical substance report 16, the item “inspected” 3h is also marked with a circle. As a result, the evaluation of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 becomes very high.

  Here, the above evaluation was for the content of the component-containing chemical substance report 16, but as an extension, the comprehensive evaluation unit 7 (FIG. 1) for evaluating including the results of the component supplier, the price of the component, etc. You can also do it. Hereinafter, the comprehensive evaluation unit 7 will be described.

  When the business maker purchases a plurality of types of parts from the same parts supplier and the business relationship is close, the parts supplier submits a part-containing chemical substance report 16 of the plurality of parts. The product manufacturer performs the above-mentioned evaluation for each of the plurality of component-containing chemical substance reports 16, and grasps the average creditworthiness of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 from the component supplier. can do.

  FIG. 10 shows one specific example of the list 23 of the report evaluation results 6 (FIG. 1) obtained by the creditworthiness judgment / evaluation unit 4 in FIG. 1. The evaluation score 23a shown here is It is an evaluation point which shows the reliability of the component containing chemical substance report 16 demonstrated in (1).

  As described above, when the credit judgment evaluation unit 4 evaluates the component-containing chemical substance report 16 from the component supplier 15 and determines the evaluation point 23a, the company name and company code of the component supplier 15, The evaluation point 23a is added to the part name and part number of the purchased part, and the report evaluation result 6 is created and displayed on the screen, and is registered in the report creditworthiness database 8. The report evaluation result 6 for the part-containing chemical substance report 16 of parts purchased from each part supplier is registered. FIG. 10 shows a list 23 of a part of the report evaluation result 6 of each component-containing chemical substance report 16 registered in the report credit database 8. Here, only the parts of company A are shown. ing. The report evaluation result 6 registered in the report creditworthiness database 8 is explained earlier. As shown in FIG. 10, the company name, company code, part name of the part, It consists of a part number and an evaluation point 23a.

  Further, based on the report evaluation result 6, the average value of the evaluation points 23a is obtained for each component supplier, and as shown in FIG. 11, from the company name, the company code, and the average value (supplier evaluation point) 24a of this evaluation. A supplier-specific report evaluation 24 is created. In this example, the supplier evaluation point 24a for the component-containing chemical substance report 16 of company C is the highest. The supplier evaluation point 24a is obtained by dividing the sum of the evaluation points 23a of all parts in the part-specific report evaluation 23 (FIG. 10) by the number of parts for each company. For example, the characteristics are similar. With regard to the components, for example, when looking at the resistance, for a plurality of resistors having very close resistance values, one of them is used for the calculation of the supplier evaluation point 24a as a representative, thereby reducing the number of components used for the calculation. You may do it. This supplier-specific report evaluation 24 is also registered in the report reliability database 8 together with the report evaluation result 6 shown in FIG.

  The selection of the parts to be purchased is selected while referring to the reliability of the parts based on the evaluation score 23a (FIG. 10) in the report evaluation result 6 and the evaluation score 24a of the parts supplier in the report evaluation 24 according to the supplier. By doing so, parts with lower risks can be selected.

  In addition, in order to confirm the contents of the parts contained chemical substance report 16 submitted by the parts supplier, the component analysis unit 12 (FIG. 1) analyzes and inspects the chemical substances contained in the parts, and displays the inspection results for each part. Stored in the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9.

  FIG. 12 schematically shows a part of a list of one specific example of the data 25 of the inspection result for each part, and here, the inspection result of each part of company A is shown.

  In the figure, the data 25 of the inspection result for each part includes the company name and company code of the part supplier 15 that provided the part, the part name and part number of the part, and the inspection result 25a. Here, if the difference between the amount of the substance based on the analysis result and the amount of this substance reported in the parts-containing chemical substance report 16 is within an allowable range and is satisfactory, the test result 25a is set to “◯”. If there is a slight difference but it is within the regulation values such as various regulations and no problem occurs, the test result 25a is set to “Δ”, and if there is a difference and is not acceptable, the test result 25a In this example, the comparison result between the analysis result and the report content of the component-containing chemical substance report 16 is managed.

  For parts whose inspection result 25a is “◯”, a mark “◯” is added to the item “inspected” 3h in the part-containing chemical substance database 3 (FIG. 2) (in the comprehensive evaluation section 7 in FIG. 1). Step 7a).

  Using this component-specific inspection result data 25, the inspection result for each component supplier 15 is obtained. FIG. 13 shows a specific example of the data 26 of the inspection result for each supplier, and here, the comprehensive inspection results of the companies A to G are shown.

  The supplier-specific inspection result data 26 includes the company name and company code of the component supplier 15, and an evaluation point 26a based on the inspection result 25a of the component-specific inspection result data 25 (FIG. 12). For example, the inspection result 25a of “◯” in the data 25 of the inspection result for each part is evaluated as an evaluation point +5, the inspection result 25a of “Δ” is an evaluation point +4, and the inspection result 25a of “×” is an evaluation point − Each is converted into 5, and the evaluation points over all parts are averaged for each company.

  The data 25 of the inspection results by parts and the data 26 of the inspection results by supplier are the results of the report evaluation result 6 shown in FIG. 10 and the report evaluation 24 by supplier shown in FIG. Since it is based on the result of actual component analysis, it accurately reflects the ability of the component supplier 15 to manage and grasp chemical substances. This is also useful for selecting the parts supplier 15.

  This supplier-specific inspection result data 26 is also stored and stored in the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9 together with the component-specific inspection result data 25 shown in FIG. 12, and is used for the comprehensive evaluation unit 7 (FIG. 1).

  Furthermore, for parts of parts suppliers 15 who have been delivered, data such as quality inspections at the time of purchase, defects at the time of production, defects after product shipment, and field complaints 14 are collected from the production site 13 (FIG. 1). Is possible. The contents of chemical substances can be included in this, and evaluation combined with performance and reliability may be used. Based on such data, it is possible to obtain the defect detection result data 27 for each part lot as shown in FIG. Here, the number of failures (number of rejections) 27b in which a lot unit defect of parts purchased from Company A has occurred and the number of failures (acceptance numbers) 27a in which no problem has occurred are shown. The content of the lot unit is not a problem here, and may be expressed by the actual number of parts instead of the lot. For a part with no purchase record, the column of the number of acceptances 27a and the column of the number of rejections 27b are represented by “-”, indicating that they are blank.

The contents of the defect detection result data 27 for each lot for each part are collected for each part supplier 15 to obtain defect detection result data 28 for each supplier lot as shown in FIG. The defect detection result data 28 for each lot by supplier includes the company name, company code, and evaluation point 28a of the parts supplier 15. This evaluation point 28a has a maximum score of 5, and based on the number of passes and failures in the defect detection result data 27 (FIG. 14) for each part lot,
Evaluation point 28 = 5 × number of passes / (number of passes + number of failures)
Sought by.

  The evaluation point 28a of the defect detection result data 28 for each lot by supplier represents an evaluation based on actual results, and is used for component quality control, chemical substance management, and grasping at the part manufacturing site of the component supplier. It accurately reflects the ability. Again, for the parts supplier 15 with no purchase record, the column of the evaluation score 28 is represented by “-”, indicating that it is blank. This is also useful for selecting the parts supplier 15.

  The defect detection result data 27 (FIG. 14) for each part lot and the defect detection result data 28 for each supplier lot (FIG. 15) are accumulated and stored in the lot defect result database 10 (FIG. 1). Used as a reference for part 7 (FIG. 1).

  In addition, as shown in FIG. 16, it is also possible to determine the inspection standard and cost 29 for the defect detection of the product manufacturer with respect to the evaluation point 28a of the defect detection result data 28 for each lot shown in FIG. is there. Here, for example, for a component supplier with an evaluation score 28a of less than 2.5, the “inspection level” is 100% inspection, and all the purchased parts are inspected. And When the evaluation point 28a is 2.5 or more and 3.5 or less, the “inspection level” is set to lot inspection, and the purchased parts are inspected for each lot, and the “inspection cost” at this time is set to 50. When the evaluation score exceeds 3.5 and is 4.5 or less, the “inspection level” is taken as a sampling inspection, and the “inspection cost” at this time is set to 20. When the evaluation score exceeds 4.5, the “inspection level” is set to no inspection, the inspection of purchased parts is not required, and the “inspection cost” at this time is set to zero. In this way, it is possible to set the inspection standard of the product manufacturer and collect the data for calculating the cost for this inspection.

  The results of daily operations between the component supplier and the manufacturer can be used as a reference for component selection. Of course, the strict adherence rate of delivery date, the defect rate of parts, the financial constitution of parts suppliers, etc., which have been performed from the past, can be added to the defect detection result data 28 for each lot by supplier to affect the evaluation point 28a. It is.

  1 uses the data stored in the report reliability database 8, the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9, and the lot defect result database 10 described above, the part contained chemical substance report for each part supplier. Perform a comprehensive evaluation of For this comprehensive evaluation, as described above, for each component supplier, data based on the analysis result of the component by the component analysis unit 12 is stored in the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9, and for each component supplier, Data about the parts from the production site 13 and field claims 14 are stored in the lot defect result database 10.

  When the delivered parts are not inspected (step 7a) and not taken countermeasures (step 7b), the inspection and countermeasures are performed as described above, and the result is the contained chemical substance analysis result database 9 and the lot defect result. Stored in the database 10. When the evaluation of the component-containing chemical substance report taking into account the evaluation of the component supplier, that is, the report comprehensive evaluation result 11 is required, the comprehensive evaluation unit 7 performs a comprehensive evaluation process based on the evaluation formula (step 7c). . This process will be described with reference to FIG.

In the figure, as described above, the report reliability database 8 stores the report evaluation result 6 of each part shown in FIG. 10 and the supplier-specific report evaluation 24 shown in FIG. The analysis result database 9 stores the part-by-part inspection result data 25 shown in FIG. 12 and the supplier-by-supplier inspection result data 26 shown in FIG. 13, and the lot defect result database 10 stores the part-by-part lot shown in FIG. The defect detection result data 27 for each unit and the defect detection result data 28 for each lot shown in FIG. 15 are stored. Using appropriate data stored in the databases 8 to 10, the evaluation index is obtained by the following equation 1.

here,
Inspection cost: Inspection cost for the evaluation point in FIG. 15 based on FIG. 16 Purchase cost: Cost of the part required by the parts supplier Report evaluation point: Evaluation point 24a of the report for the purchased part shown in FIG.
Report evaluation: Evaluation point 24a of the report for the supplier shown in FIG.
Inspection result evaluation: Evaluation result evaluation point 26a for the supplier shown in FIG.
Defect detection result: Evaluation point 28a of defect detection for the supplier shown in FIG.
It is.

  The result obtained by this arithmetic processing is the report comprehensive evaluation result 11 shown in the figure. This report comprehensive evaluation result 11 includes items “company name”, “company code”, “part name”, “part number”, “report evaluation point” related to parts similar to the part-by-part report evaluation 23 shown in FIG. (Evaluation point) ”,“ Report evaluation ”,“ Inspection result evaluation ”,“ Defect detection result ”,“ Inspection cost ”, and“ Comprehensive evaluation ”based on the evaluation index obtained by the above equation 1 It is made up of.

Here, in the comprehensive evaluation result 11 of the report, the parts purchased from the company A (the resistance of the part number “A-67”) as the parts supplier 15 (FIG. 1) at this time and the similar parts shown in FIG. It shows about the resistance of each BG company which is. In the case of the resistance of company A (part number A-67), report evaluation score = 5 (FIG. 10), report evaluation = 4.2 (FIG. 11), inspection result evaluation = 2.5 (FIG. 13), defective Detection result evaluation = 3.5 (FIG. 15), inspection cost = 50 (FIGS. 15 and 16), and if the purchase cost of this resistor is 110, the evaluation index is 10.5. Similarly, when the evaluation index is obtained for the resistances of the B to G companies with respect to the evaluation points shown in the drawing,
Company B = 7.6 Company C = 6.0 Company D = 6.6 Company E = 24.8
Company F = 48 Company G = 72
It becomes. However, the evaluation score was set to 0 for a part indicating “−” in the column of the defect detection result.

  The ranking is obtained in ascending order of the evaluation index obtained as described above, and this ranking is used as a comprehensive evaluation. According to the above evaluation index, 1st place is C company, 2nd place is D company, 3rd place is B company, ... 6th place is G company, 7th place is F company, A parts (resistor) of A company and its The report comprehensive evaluation result 11 of the report of chemical substances containing components taking into account the evaluation of each company with similar parts is obtained.

  In this report comprehensive evaluation result 11, the component having the highest overall evaluation is the most recommended component, and the component-containing chemical substance report has the highest reliability in a comprehensive manner. In this case, the parts of Company C were ranked first in the overall evaluation, although the similarity of the report on chemical substances contained in parts was low and the price was high, but “report evaluation”, “test result evaluation”, “bad” This is because the “detection result” is highly evaluated, and as a result, the overall cost is considered to be suppressed. Even a simple evaluation formula shown in Equation 3 can make a sensory effective selection.

  This evaluation formula changes depending on the component characteristics, the manufacturer's strategy, and the like. If the part has a high risk of containing a regulated substance, it is necessary to increase the weight of “inspection result evaluation” and “defect detection result” rather than “report evaluation”. In such a case, a constant that weights items related to the evaluation formula may be added. Moreover, you may change the form of an evaluation formula. On the other hand, for parts with low risk of containing regulated substances, an evaluation formula that makes use of the difference in “purchase costs”, that is, to reduce the weight of each evaluation result, A constant that lowers the weight may be used. Thus, the evaluation formula can be set in an appropriate form according to individual circumstances.

  And, to achieve the function of accumulating the evaluation results and accuracy when confirming the contents of the contained substances, the results after delivery, etc., obtaining the reliability of each component supplier, and adding it to the evaluation at the time of selecting individual components Can do. It is also preferable for product manufacturers to deal with parts suppliers with high creditworthiness over a long period of time. This also has the effect of reducing the risk that the purchased parts contain regulated substances not listed in the parts-containing chemical substance report.

  In the comprehensive evaluation process (step 7c), other data may be added to the data in the databases 8, 9, and 10 as data used for the comprehensive evaluation. There are no particular restrictions on the data that can be added, but accurate data that can be used for evaluation may be selected in accordance with the management strategy of each manufacturer.

It is a block diagram which shows one Embodiment of the contained chemical substance investigation data evaluation system by this invention. It is a figure which shows typically a part of one specific example of the components containing chemical substance database in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a part of one specific example of the similar components database in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically one specific example of the coincidence degree table obtained by the process of step 4c in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the similarity matrix obtained by the process of step 4c in FIG. It is a figure which shows the tree diagram obtained from the similarity matrix shown in FIG. 5 by the process of step 4c in FIG. It is a schematic diagram for demonstrating the similarity of the report based on the data of the similarity matrix shown in FIG. It is a schematic diagram for demonstrating evaluation of the reliability of the report based on the data of the similarity matrix shown in FIG. It is a schematic diagram for demonstrating the selection method of components based on the data of the similarity matrix shown in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the report evaluation in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the report evaluation according to supplier based on the report evaluation shown in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the inspection result data according to parts preserve | saved with the contained chemical substance analysis result database in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the inspection result data classified by supplier based on the inspection result data classified by parts shown in FIG. 12 preserve | saved by the contained chemical substance analysis result database in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the defect detection result data of the lot unit according to parts preserve | saved in the lot defect result database in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the defect detection result data of the lot unit classified by supplier based on the defect detection result data of the lot unit classified by parts shown in FIG. 14 preserve | saved in the lot defect result database in FIG. It is a figure which shows the test | inspection standard and cost with respect to the evaluation point of defect detection result data output of the lot unit according to supplier shown in FIG. It is a figure which shows typically a specific example of the process of step 7c in FIG. 1, and the report comprehensive evaluation by this.

Explanation of symbols

1 Contained Chemical Substances Survey Data Evaluation System 2 Similar Parts Database 3 Parts Contained Chemicals Database 4 Credit Rating Judgment / Evaluation Department 5 Similar Parts Survey / Search Means 6 Report Evaluation Results 7 Comprehensive Evaluation Department 7c Comprehensive Evaluation Using Evaluation Formulas 8 Report Credit Rating Database 9 Contained Chemical Substance Analysis Result Database 10 Lot Defect Result Database 11 Report Comprehensive Evaluation Result 12 Component Analysis Department 13 Production Site 14 Field Claim 15 Parts Supplier 16 Parts Contained Chemical Substance Report 20 Consistency Table 21 Similarity Matrix 22 Tree Shape Figure 23 List of Report Evaluation Results Report Evaluation by Supplier 25 Inspection Result Data by Part 26 Inspection Result Data by Supplier 27 Defect Detection Result Data by Lot by Part 28 Failure Detection Result Data by Lot by Supplier 29 Inspection for Defect Detection Standards and costs

Claims (8)

  Search for similar parts of the purchased part based on the contained substance report of the purchased part provided by the parts supplier together with the purchased part, and the content of the contained substance report of the purchased part and the contained substance report of the similar part The content chemical substance survey data evaluation system is characterized in that the similarity with the contents of the purchased parts is compared to evaluate the reliability of the contained substance report of the purchased parts. In claim 1,
A first database for storing part information to which information representing similarity between parts is added for each part already purchased;
Information indicating the similarity between the parts is set for the purchased part newly provided by the parts supplier, and the information indicating the similarity between the parts is set based on the set information indicating the similarity between the parts. A content chemical substance survey data evaluation system which searches for similar parts of the newly provided purchased parts. In claim 1 or 2,
It has a second database that stores the contents of the contained substance reports of parts already purchased,
The content chemical substance survey data evaluation system, wherein the content of the content report of the similar parts retrieved is obtained from the second database. In claim 1, 2 or 3,
For parts for which the content of the content report has been verified, add the verified information to the content of the content report and save it,
If the content report newly provided by the parts supplier is similar to the content report to which the verified information already stored is added with a high degree of similarity, the new report is provided. Chemical content survey data evaluation system, characterized by enhancing the credibility evaluation of the report on contained chemical substances. In claim 1, 2, 3 or 4,
For the parts that have already been compliant with the legally regulated chemical substances described in the said contained substance report, add the information that has already been dealt with to the contents of the contained substance report, and store it.
If the content report newly provided by the parts supplier is similar to the content report to which the already stored correspondence information has been added with a high degree of similarity, the newly provided content report is provided. Chemical content survey data evaluation system, characterized by enhancing the credibility evaluation of the report on contained chemical substances. In claim 4 or 5,
Survey data on contained chemical substances, characterized by selecting and recommending parts for purchase whose content is reported in the contained substance reports that have a high degree of similarity and high confidence in the contained substance reports of other parts suppliers Evaluation system. In claim 5,
The parts in which the corresponding information is added to the content of the contained substance report are similar to the parts of other parts suppliers compared to the parts in which the handled information is not added to the contents of the contained substance report Chemical content survey data evaluation system, characterized by being selected and recommended as a purchase candidate even if the degree is low. In claims 1-7,
Obtaining the credibility of the contained substance report for each part supplier based on the credibility of the contained substance report for each part, and using it for evaluation of the part when purchasing the part from the parts supplier, Contained chemical substance survey data evaluation system.

Images