JP2007279939A - Quality information management system - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a quality information management system which saves on hardware resources by enabling addition or change of an evaluation item or evaluation reference for quality determination without addition or change of an evaluation determination program. <P>SOLUTION: The system comprises: a server device 2 having a quality evaluation reference description master 23; and a client device 3 having a quality evaluation determination engine 37 for executing quality evaluation determination, based on information of the quality evaluation reference description master 23. The master 23 is provided with a quality evaluation reference table regulating, in addition to process-based evaluation items for quality evaluation for each quality, each evaluation reference for arithmetic operation result or logic operation result of each evaluation item, based on a predetermined alignment rule, and the quality evaluation engine 37 executes the quality evaluation determination, based on each evaluation item and each evaluation reference of the quality evaluation reference table and the alignment rule of the table. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2008,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a quality information management system that manages quality measurement data and performs quality evaluation when producing a plurality of varieties of industrial products via various processes.

  In general, multiple types of industrial products are produced through various processes. When producing such industrial products, whether each product meets the required quality for each process on the production line. It is necessary to check whether or not a quality defect occurs and take appropriate measures immediately.

  Therefore, conventionally, evaluation items and evaluation criteria for quality evaluation are set in advance for each product type and process, and measurement data for each evaluation item is sampled at predetermined intervals for products in each process, and these measurement data are evaluated. A quality information management system has been proposed that can automatically determine whether or not a standard is satisfied.

  In other words, in the conventional quality information management system, one or more evaluation judgment programs for judging the quality evaluation for each product type and its process are made into tools, and those required for each product type and process from among these evaluation judgment programs. There has been proposed a method in which it is possible to determine whether or not measurement data satisfies an evaluation criterion by selecting and combining (see, for example, Patent Document 1).

  In another conventional technology, a process condition designating unit for designating a process condition in a table in a table format centering on a product type and a process, a use device designating unit for designating a use apparatus for each process condition, When control conditions in which individual control items and control values are registered and control condition standard condition specifying means for specifying standard conditions in which individual inspection items and standard values are registered are provided, and the type, process, and apparatus are determined There have been proposed products in which manufacturing conditions, inspection standards, etc. are uniquely defined according to these tables (for example, Patent Document 2).

JP 2000-56823 A JP 2000-233345 A

  By the way, the evaluation items and evaluation criteria set for each process of each product type in the production of industrial products are not invariant, and are often added or changed due to changes in required quality of products or required characteristics. In particular, in recent years, evaluation items and evaluation criteria are often added or changed due to factors such as new product development and shortening of the life cycle.

  Thus, when adding or changing an evaluation item or an evaluation standard according to a change in required quality or required characteristics of a product, a conventional quality information management system as described in Patent Documents 1 and 2 above In this case, as each evaluation item or evaluation standard is added or changed, it is necessary to create, change, or review an evaluation determination program for performing quality determination, and the burden is increased.

  That is, in the prior art described in Patent Document 1, an evaluation determination program for determining quality evaluation for each product type and its process is made into a tool. However, the evaluation items and evaluation criteria are changed depending on the required quality of the product and changes in required characteristics. When adding or changing, the evaluation judgment program needs to be created, changed, or reviewed, and the burden increases.

  In the prior art described in Patent Document 2, the types and process conditions, the devices used for each process condition, the inspection items and standard values for each device used are tabulated in advance, and these tables are associated with each other. The evaluation judgment program that determines whether each product satisfies the required quality based on the program and product type, process, and equipment is created, changed, reviewed, etc. as the number of product types and processes increases. As in the case of Patent Document 1, the burden associated with the change increases.

  In particular, since the source code of the evaluation judgment program and the like has already been described in the program language, it is not possible to leave it to the quality manager in creating, changing, and reviewing such a program. It must be delegated to a program creation specialist, which takes time and effort.

  The present invention has been made to solve the above problems, and even when evaluation items and evaluation criteria for quality evaluation are added or changed in accordance with required quality of products or changes in required characteristics, etc. To provide a quality information management system capable of reducing the conventional burden and saving hardware resources for holding an evaluation determination program without adding or changing an evaluation determination program for performing quality determination. Objective.

  In order to achieve the above object, a quality information management system according to the present invention includes a server apparatus having a quality evaluation standard description master that defines evaluation items and evaluation standards for quality evaluation, and the server apparatus via a network. And a client apparatus having a quality evaluation determination engine that takes in the information of the quality evaluation reference description master and executes quality evaluation determination. The quality evaluation standard description master is a quality that defines, in a table format, the evaluation criteria for each evaluation item and the logical operation results for each evaluation item in accordance with a predetermined arrangement rule for each product type and process. An evaluation standard table is provided, and the quality evaluation determination engine executes quality evaluation determination based on each evaluation item and evaluation standard in the quality evaluation standard table of the quality evaluation standard description master and an arrangement rule of the table. It is characterized by that.

  According to the present invention, a quality evaluation criterion description master that defines evaluation items and evaluation criteria for quality evaluation is provided in the server device, and a quality evaluation determination is performed on the client device based on information of the quality evaluation criterion description master. The quality evaluation judgment engine to be distributed is distributed and the quality evaluation judgment engine does not need to be changed even if some contents of the quality evaluation standard description master are changed or added, thus saving hardware resources. Is possible. In particular, when there are a plurality of client apparatuses that perform quality evaluation determination, the client apparatus can be provided with only the minimum necessary quality evaluation function. Therefore, the quality evaluation standard description master of the server apparatus can be shared. This is more effective for saving hardware resources.

  In addition, when adding or changing evaluation items and evaluation criteria, there is no need to add or change an evaluation judgment program as in the past, and evaluation items and evaluation criteria that are necessary for the quality evaluation criteria table according to a predetermined arrangement rule. Since it is only necessary to add or change, it is very easy to change the quality evaluation standard description master. Therefore, it becomes easy to cope with a change in the quality evaluation standard and the work efficiency is improved. In other words, the quality evaluation standard description master change work can be left to the quality manager, and as before, the effort and time required to delegate the creation, change, and review of the evaluation judgment program to the program creation specialist. Can be omitted.

Embodiment 1 FIG.
FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram showing the entire quality information management system according to Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

  The quality information management system 1 according to the first embodiment includes a server device 2 and a client device 3. The server device 2 includes a server computer 21 and an HD unit 22, and a quality evaluation standard description master 23 described later is registered as a database on the recording medium of the HD unit 22. On the other hand, the client device 3 is a general-purpose computer including a client computer 31, an input device 32 such as a keyboard and a mouse, a display device 33 such as a display, an HD unit 34, an FD driver 35, and a CD-ROM driver 36. A quality evaluation determination engine 37 (to be described later) is installed on the recording medium of the HD unit 34.

  The computers 21 and 31 of both devices 2 and 3 are connected to each other via the network 4 to construct a client server system. Therefore, the client computer 31 executes the quality evaluation determination engine 37 so that the information of the quality evaluation reference description master 23 registered as a database in the HD unit 22 of the server device 2 can be taken in via the network 4. It has become.

  FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing a specific example of the quality evaluation standard description master 23 registered in the recording medium of the HD unit 22 of the server device 2.

  The quality evaluation standard description master 23 defines the evaluation items and the evaluation standard for each process of each product type. As shown in FIG. 2A, a quality evaluation standard table is provided for each process of each product type. It has been. For example, in the process m of the product type A, the quality is evaluated based on the quality evaluation standard Am. Therefore, as shown in FIG. 2B, a quality evaluation standard table TAm expressing the quality evaluation standard Am is individually associated with each other. ing.

  Taking the quality evaluation criteria table TAm shown in FIG. 2B as an example, the evaluation items for quality evaluation, the evaluation criteria, and the arrangement rules for configuring this table TAm will be described.

  In FIG. 2B, symbols A to G represent evaluation items, and a1, a2,..., F2 represent evaluation criteria for the respective evaluation items. For example, the first line of the table TAm represents an evaluation criterion whether the value of the evaluation item A is in the range of a1 or more and a2 or less. Similarly, the first to third columns of the second row indicate whether the value of the evaluation item B is in the range from b1 to b2, and the fourth to sixth columns indicate whether the value of the evaluation item C is in the range from c1 to c2. Represents evaluation criteria. The third line represents an evaluation criterion as to whether the result of the four arithmetic operations with the evaluation items D and E as variables is in the range of d1 or more and d2 or less. Similarly, the fourth line represents an evaluation criterion as to whether the result of the four arithmetic operations using the evaluation items F and G as variables is in the range of f1 to f2.

  Further, focusing on the second row of this table TAm, there are two evaluation criteria in the first to third columns and the fourth to sixth columns. In this way, by arranging and registering them in the horizontal axis direction, a logical sum is obtained. Represents. That is, it represents an evaluation criterion whether the value of the evaluation item B is in the range from b1 to b2 or the value of the evaluation item C is in the range from c1 to c2. In addition, there are four evaluation criteria in the vertical axis direction as in the first to fourth lines, and the logical product is represented by registering them in such a vertical arrangement. That is, it represents an evaluation criterion whether all the evaluation criteria in the first to fourth lines are satisfied.

  As described above, each quality evaluation criterion table TAa,... TAm,... Is evaluated not only for individual evaluation items for quality evaluation, but also for each of the four arithmetic operation results of each evaluation item and the logical operation results of each evaluation item. The reference is defined based on a predetermined arrangement rule (here, the horizontal axis direction is logical sum and the vertical axis direction is logical product). The same applies to the other quality evaluation standard tables constituting the quality evaluation standard description master 23. The relationship between the logical sum and the logical product may be reversed on the vertical axis and the horizontal axis.

  FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing a quality evaluation determination processing operation based on the quality evaluation determination engine 37 of the client device 3. In addition, the code | symbol S means each process step.

  Based on the quality evaluation determination engine 37, the client computer 31 first obtains information on the type to be subjected to quality evaluation and the process of the type (S1), and reads the measurement data on the process of each type (S2). ). The measurement data in this case corresponds to each evaluation item defined in the quality evaluation reference table TAa,..., TAm,.

  In addition, for example, measurement data can be imported by inputting product type and process information from the input device 32 of the client computer 31, and in response to this, from the database registered in advance in the HD unit 22 of the server device 2. Search and read the measurement data corresponding to the product type and process, or read the product type and its process information and the measurement data for each process of each product type from the FD driver 35 or CD-ROM driver 36 attached to the client device 3. Can be drunk.

  Next, the client computer 31 searches the quality evaluation standard table corresponding to the product type and process from the quality evaluation standard description master 23 registered in advance in the HD unit 22 of the server device 2 based on the quality evaluation determination engine 37 ( S3), the quality evaluation standard table is read (S4). For example, the table TAm is read for the process m of the product type A. Then, based on the quality evaluation standard table, a quality evaluation determination is performed as to whether the measurement data for each evaluation item conforms to the evaluation standard (S5).

  That is, in the quality evaluation determination engine 37, a processing routine for reading and interpreting the evaluation items of the quality evaluation criterion table and the arrangement rules of the evaluation criterion is installed in advance as a determination program, so that each evaluation item, its evaluation criterion, and the table A quality evaluation determination can be performed based on the arrangement rule. Therefore, it is not necessary to change the determination program constituting the quality evaluation determination engine 37 unless the arrangement rule of the quality evaluation criterion table of the quality evaluation criterion description master 23 is changed.

  The determination result is output and displayed on the display device 33, and the result is sent to the server device 2 and registered as a database in the recording medium of the HD unit 22 (step S6).

  As described above, according to the first embodiment, the quality evaluation standard description master 23 is distributed on the server apparatus 2 side, and the quality evaluation determination engines 37 are distributed on the client apparatus 33 side, thereby saving hardware resources. It becomes possible. In particular, when there are a plurality of client apparatuses 3 that perform quality evaluation determination, the client apparatus 3 can be provided with only a minimum quality evaluation function, and the quality evaluation standard description master 23 of the server apparatus 2 can be Since it can be shared, it is more effective in saving hardware resources.

Embodiment 2. FIG.
In the second embodiment, when it is necessary to add or change the evaluation items and evaluation criteria of the quality evaluation criteria table constituting the quality evaluation criteria description master 23 in accordance with the required quality of the product, changes in required characteristics, etc. Will be described.

  As an example, FIG. 4A shows the quality evaluation standard table TAm before the change provided for evaluating the quality of the process m of the product A, and FIG. 4B shows the quality evaluation standard table TAm ′ after the change. Respectively.

  When the evaluation standard for the evaluation item A is changed as in the first line, it can be dealt with by changing the standard value of the evaluation standard from a1, a2 to a3, a4. Further, when the evaluation item (D + E) on the third line becomes unnecessary, the evaluation item on the third line can also be dealt with by deleting the evaluation criteria. Further, when newly adding an evaluation item and an evaluation criterion, it can be dealt with by newly adding an evaluation item X and evaluation criteria x1 and x2 as in the fourth row.

  As described above, when it is necessary to add or change an evaluation item or evaluation standard due to changes in the required quality or required characteristics of a product, there is no need to add or change an evaluation judgment program as in the past, and quality evaluation Since it is only necessary to add or change necessary evaluation items and evaluation criteria to the quality evaluation criteria table of the reference description master 23 in accordance with a predetermined arrangement rule, it is very easy to change the quality evaluation criteria description master 23. Therefore, it becomes easy to cope with a change in the standard of quality evaluation and the work efficiency is improved.

  Moreover, the quality evaluation standard description master 23 can be easily changed in accordance with the quality change standard change, etc. so that it can be left to the quality manager, and the evaluation judgment program can be created, changed, and reviewed as before. It is possible to save the time and effort of entrusting the above to a program creation specialist.

Embodiment 3 FIG.
In the first and second embodiments described above, the case where the quality evaluation standard description master 23 is provided with the quality evaluation standard table that defines the evaluation items and the evaluation standard for each process of each product type has been described. Then, the quality of the product lot can be determined by defining the quantity that each product included in each product lot should satisfy the quality evaluation criteria. This will be specifically described below.

  FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the relationship between the quantity determination table and the quality evaluation reference table in the quality evaluation reference description master 23.

  In the quality evaluation standard description master 23, as shown in FIG. 5A, a lot evaluation standard table TR in which evaluation items and quantity evaluation standards for the product lot are defined in a tabular form, and as shown in FIG. 5B. As described above, two quality evaluation criteria tables having the same defined contents as those described in the first and second embodiments are provided.

  Here, the lot evaluation standard table TR is individually provided for each process of each product type, and the quantity evaluation standard (here, the minimum value and the maximum value of the product quantity) is defined for each evaluation item. ing. Furthermore, each evaluation item of the lot evaluation reference table TR is associated with the quality evaluation reference table using this as a key.

  That is, in the lot evaluation criterion table TR described above, for example, the evaluation item TAm in the third row is associated with the quality evaluation criterion table TAm using this as a key. Therefore, this evaluation item TAm represents a quantity evaluation criterion that indicates whether the number of products satisfying the evaluation criterion defined in the quality evaluation criterion table TAm is in the range of m41 to m42. Further, when focusing on the third row of this table RA, there are two quantity evaluation criteria in the first to third columns and the fourth to sixth columns. In this way, the logical sum can be obtained by registering them side by side in the horizontal axis direction. Represents. That is, the logic of whether the number of products satisfying the quality evaluation criteria for the evaluation item TAc is in the range of m31 to m32 or the number of products satisfying the quality evaluation criteria for the evaluation item TAm is in the range of m41 to m42. Represents the sum. Moreover, although there are three quantity evaluation criteria in the vertical axis direction as in the first to third lines, the logical product is represented by arranging them vertically. In other words, it represents a quantity evaluation standard for whether or not all the standards in the first to third lines are satisfied.

  As described above, since the evaluation items and the quantity evaluation criteria are arranged in a tabular format based on a predetermined rule in the lot evaluation criteria table TR as well as the quality evaluation criteria table, the quality evaluation determination engine of the client device 3 is used. 37, as in the first and second embodiments, executes the quality judgment for each process of each product type and the quality judgment of the product lot based on the evaluation items of both tables and the evaluation criteria, and the arrangement rules of these tables. can do.

  As described above, in the third embodiment, in the quality evaluation standard description master 23, the lot evaluation standard table TR is provided corresponding to each process of each product type, and the evaluation items of this lot evaluation standard table TR are set as the key. As a configuration in which the quality evaluation reference table is associated, the present system can be applied even when the number of non-defective products in the product lot is used as a guide for quality evaluation.

  The present invention is not limited to the configurations and specific examples of the first to third embodiments described above, and various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the present invention.

It is a block diagram which shows the whole quality information management system in Embodiment 1 of this invention. In Embodiment 1 of this invention, it is explanatory drawing which shows an example of the quality evaluation criteria description master registered into the recording medium of HD unit of a server apparatus. In Embodiment 1 of this invention, it is a flowchart which shows the flow of a process of the quality evaluation determination engine of a client apparatus. It is explanatory drawing which shows an example of the state before a change of the quality evaluation criteria description master in Embodiment 2 of this invention, and after a change. It is explanatory drawing which shows an example of the relationship between the quantity evaluation table of the quality evaluation reference description master in Embodiment 3 of this invention, and a quality evaluation reference table.

Explanation of symbols

1 quality information management system, 2 server device, 3 client device,
4 networks, 21 server computers, 22 HD units,
23 quality evaluation standard description master, 31 client computer,
34 HD units, 37 quality assessment engine,
TAa, ..., TAm Quality evaluation standard table, TR lot evaluation standard table.

Claims (3)

A server apparatus having a quality evaluation standard description master that defines evaluation items and evaluation standards for quality evaluation, and the quality evaluation determination is executed by fetching the information of the quality evaluation standard description master from the server apparatus via the network. The quality evaluation criterion description master has a predetermined arrangement of the four arithmetic operation results for each evaluation item and the logical operation results for each evaluation item for each product type and process. The quality evaluation criteria table defined in a table format based on the rules is provided, and the quality evaluation determination engine includes each evaluation item and its evaluation criteria in the quality evaluation criteria table of the quality evaluation criteria description master, and the arrangement rules of the table. A quality information management system characterized in that a quality evaluation determination is performed based on the quality information management system. The quality evaluation criteria table is arranged based on a rule in which one axis direction is logical sum and the other axis direction orthogonal to the logical axis is logical product as an evaluation criterion for logical operation of each evaluation item. The quality information management system according to claim 1. The quality evaluation standard description master has a lot evaluation standard table in which evaluation items and quantity evaluation standards for each product lot are defined in a tabular format, and the lot evaluation standard table uses the evaluation items as keys to perform the quality evaluation. The quality information management system according to claim 2, wherein the quality information management system is associated with a reference table.

Images