JP2018180589A - Workability evaluation system - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a workability evaluation system capable of performing appropriate evaluation when evaluating the workability of workers in multiple stages.SOLUTION: A workability evaluation system 10 comprises: a work time acquisition unit 12 for acquiring work time by a worker; a stage-wise reference storage unit 15 for storing stage-wise reference for evaluating the workability of the worker in multiple stages; an evaluation unit 16 for performing stage evaluation of the workability of the worker on the basis of the work time and the stage-wise reference; and a suitability determination unit 17 for determining suitability of the stage-wise reference on the basis of a plurality of pieces of work time information, the stage-wise reference, and a predetermined suitability determination reference.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

  The present invention relates to a work capacity evaluation system.

  Patent Document 1 uses a skill map that indicates the level of proficiency of the work for each product by each worker, and gives priority to workers with high work capacity when there is no margin in production planning, and there is a margin in production planning It is stated that workers are assigned in preference to workers with low work ability. Furthermore, the skill map is created using the minimum working time of each worker. Patent Document 2 describes that the standard work time is corrected using a function that indicates the relationship between the work time by the worker and the years of experience of the worker. In this way, standard working time is formulated according to the working ability of the actual worker.

JP, 2005-276003, A JP 2012-128736 A

  By the way, it is known to evaluate in multiple steps as an evaluation method of a worker's work capacity. In general, since the staged criteria are set by the evaluator, the evaluator's subjectivity is included. And no verification is made as to whether the staged criteria are appropriate. In the technology described in Patent Document 1, the worker's skill map is created using the worker's minimum work time. In this case, the above-described problem occurs when creating a skill map.

  Further, as described in Patent Document 2, there is a concept of using the years of experience of the worker, but the years of experience alone are not sufficient. Since the speed at which the work capacity improves varies depending on the worker, some workers acquire high work capacity in a short time, while other workers acquire high work capacity in a long time.

  An object of the present invention is to provide a work capacity evaluation system capable of performing appropriate evaluation when evaluating the work capacity of a worker in multiple stages.

  The work capacity evaluation system according to the present invention comprises a work time acquisition unit for acquiring work time by a worker, and a graded reference storage unit for storing graded criteria for evaluating the work capacity of the worker in multiple stages. An evaluation unit performing stage evaluation of the worker's work capacity based on the work time and the stage-based standard, information on a plurality of the work times, the stage-based standard, and a predetermined suitability judgment criterion And a suitability determination unit that determines the suitability of the step-by-step criterion based on the

  The propriety determination unit determines the propriety of the staged criteria based on the plurality of pieces of work time information, the staged criteria, and the predetermined propriety check criteria. That is, the evaluator or the operator can evaluate whether or not the staged criteria are appropriate by verifying the information on the plurality of measurement times in which the staged criteria are accumulated. If the staged criteria are not appropriate, it is possible to appropriately evaluate the level of the working ability of the worker by modifying the appropriate criteria.

It is an outline of application object of work capacity evaluation system 10. It is a functional block diagram showing composition of work capacity evaluation system 10 of a first embodiment. It is a figure showing a process plan. It is a figure which shows the capability database 13. FIG. It is a figure which shows the standard working time, a time coefficient, and the reference | standard time of the standard by stage. It is a figure which shows the standard achievement rate of the level-based standard in the case of promoting a level. It is a figure which shows the reference | standard achievement rate of the step-by-step basis in the case of demoting a step. It is the figure which showed the 1st example of the stage evaluation by the evaluation part 16, and plotted the several operation time. It is the figure which showed the 2nd example of the stage evaluation by the evaluation part 16, and plotted the several operation time. It is a figure which shows the frequency | count of an operation | work classified by day regarding the 1st upper side appropriateness determination by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. FIG. 7 is a diagram showing a first upper side appropriateness determination criterion by the appropriateness determination unit 17; It is a figure which shows the 1st upper side appropriateness determination result by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the frequency | count of an operation | work by day regarding the 1st lower side suitability determination by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a first lower appropriateness determination criterion by the appropriateness determination unit 17; It is a figure which shows the 1st lower side appropriateness determination result by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the frequency | count of an operation | work by day regarding the 2nd upper side appropriateness determination by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the 2nd upper side appropriateness determination standard by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the 2nd upper side appropriateness determination result by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the frequency | count of an operation | work by day regarding the 2nd lower side suitability determination by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the 2nd lower side appropriateness determination standard by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a figure which shows the 2nd lower side appropriateness determination result by the appropriateness determination part 17. FIG. It is a functional block diagram showing composition of work capacity evaluation system 100 of a second embodiment. It is a figure which shows the standard working time corrected by the correction part 18, the time coefficient, and the reference | standard time of the standard by stage.

(1. First embodiment)
(1-1. Configuration of work capacity evaluation system 10)
The work capacity evaluation system 10 will be described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 4. The work capacity evaluation system 10 targets an installation provided with a plurality of processing machines MC1-MC3 and evaluates the work capacities of a plurality of workers A-C with respect to a plurality of processing machines MC1-MC3.

  The plurality of processing machines MC <b> 1-MC <b> 3 are, for example, a production machine that produces various objects, a distribution machine that transports the objects, and the like. The processing machines MC <b> 1 to MC <b> 3 as production machines are, for example, machine tools such as a machining center, a lathe, and a grinding machine, and are arranged in a line.

  An area sensor 21 is provided to the plurality of processing machines MC <b> 1-MC <b> 3. The area sensor 21 detects whether or not the workers A-C are located in the vicinity of the corresponding processing machine MC1-MC3 (in the work area 21a (shown in FIG. 1)). The work area 21a is an area set for the worker A-C to perform work related to the processing machine MC1-MC3. The area sensor 21 acquires ID information of the communication device mounted on the portable device 22 carried by the worker A-C. That is, the area sensor 21 detects the position of the portable device 22 to detect whether the communication device is present in the corresponding work area 21a. Thus, the area sensor 21 detects whether the worker A-C carrying the portable device 22 is located in the work area 21a.

  As shown in FIG. 2, the work capacity evaluation system 10 includes a process plan storage unit 11, a work time acquisition unit 12, a capacity database 13, a standard work time storage unit 14, a graded reference storage unit 15, an evaluation unit 16, and The appropriateness determination unit 17 is provided.

  As shown in FIG. 3, the process plan storage unit 11 has a process plan in which the execution order regarding the process by the plurality of processing machines MC1-MC3 and the operation by the workers A-C for the plurality of processing machines MC1-MC3 are defined. For example, the process plan storage unit 11 stores therein process plans for one day.

  In FIG. 3, the white frame is the work by the worker A-C, and the hatching frame is the process by the processing machine MC1-MC3. FIG. 3 exemplifies the case where the setup work is performed by the workers A-C before the processing by the processing machines MC1-MC3. For example, the part a requires processing in the order of the processing machines MC1, MC2 and MC3, and the setup work by the operator A-C is performed in the previous stage of each of the processing machines MC1-MC3.

  Here, the process plan is determined in advance by the manager based on, for example, the production plan of the object. Furthermore, in the process plan, the work by the worker is set based on the above-described standard work time. That is, when each work is performed at standard work time, it will be performed according to the process plan.

  The working time acquisition unit 12 acquires the working time by the worker A-C measured based on the detection information by the area sensor 21. For example, the working time acquisition unit 12 takes from the time when the area sensor 21 detects entry of the portable device 22 to the time when the area sensor 21 detects withdrawal of the portable device 22 as working time. In addition, the measuring method of working time is not restricted above, It can also carry out using information other than the area sensor 21. FIG.

  As shown in FIG. 4, the capability database (DB) 13 indicates the height of the work capability for each work type (each process) for each worker A-C with respect to a plurality of workers A-C and a plurality of work types. The index value Lv (upper stage) and the working time (lower stage) are stored. Here, the work type is classified by parts a to d to be produced and processing machines MC1-MC3 to be used. For example, in the case of the part a, since three processing machines MC1-MC3 are used, each of the processing machines MC1-MC3 is classified as each work type (each process). For example, the process 1 is an operation type using the processing machine MC1 for the part a.

  The work time is the time required for one work of the target work type. The work time is the work time acquired by the work time acquisition unit 12. Then, in the capability database 13, the workers A-C also store work time acquired in the past.

  The index value Lv indicating the height of the work capacity is determined based on the stage evaluation by the evaluation unit 16 described later. However, at the time of initial setting, the evaluator (administrator) sets it. Here, the index value Lv exemplifies five stages of 0 to 4. Index value Lv. 0 corresponds to the work ability of an inexperienced person or a person near it. Index value Lv. 4 corresponds to the work ability of the expert. And index value Lv. 1 to Lv. 3 is Lv. The closer to 4, the higher the work capacity.

  The standard work time storage unit 14 stores the standard work time set for the work of each work type. The standard working time is, for example, an index value Lv. 3 to Lv. Average unit work time by 4 equivalent workers. For example, when the unit work time becomes equal to or less than the standard work time, the index value Lv indicating the work ability of the worker is Lv. It is assumed that 4. The standard work time is set by the evaluator (administrator) at the time of initial setting.

  The staged criteria storage unit 15 stores staged criteria for evaluating the working ability of the workers A-C in multiple stages (Lv. 0 to Lv. 4). The staged criteria are the criteria when the worker A-C in each stage is promoted to the next higher stage and the criteria when the worker A-C in each stage is demoted to the next lower stage. is there.

  The evaluation unit 16 performs stage evaluation of the working ability of the workers A-C based on the working time and the staged criteria. In other words, for each worker A-C and for each work type, the evaluation unit 16 determines whether the current stage of the work capacity is appropriate, should be promoted to a higher stage, or be demoted to a lower stage? Evaluate The evaluation unit 16 sets an evaluation period or the number of evaluations for each work type. For example, the evaluation period is set by the number of days, the number of months, and the like. And the evaluation part 16 performs the stage evaluation regarding the said work classification, when the evaluation period or the frequency | count of evaluation reaches from the time of having performed the previous stage evaluation.

  The propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the staged criteria based on the information on the plurality of work times, the staged criteria, and the predetermined propriety check criteria. That is, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the current or higher graded criteria using the multiple work hours stored in the capability database 13 and the predetermined suitability determination criteria. Here, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the standard working time as a result by determining the propriety of the current or upper stage-specific criteria. In the present embodiment, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the current or upper stage-specific criteria and the propriety of the standard working time, and alerts the evaluator or worker A-C if it is unsuitable. I do.

(1-2. Standard working time and criteria by stage)
The standard working time and the staged criteria will be described with reference to FIGS. As shown in the upper column of FIG. 5, for example, the standard working times of step 1, step 2 and step 3 are set to 20 minutes, 40 minutes and 200 minutes, respectively. The standard working time is Lv. 3 to Lv. In consideration of the working time of the workers A to C, the evaluation is made in advance by the evaluator (administrator).

  The staged criteria are based on the reference time shown in the lower part of FIG. 5 and the reference achievement rates shown in FIGS. 6 and 7. The reference time of the staged reference is an index to be compared with the working time of the workers A-C at each stage. The criterion achievement rate of the staged criterion is an index for comparing with the ratio of the number of times that the operator A-C performs is less than or equal to the criterion time of the staged criterion.

  The reference time of the staged reference is set to a different time for each stage. The reference time of the staged reference is set using the standard working time shown in the upper column of FIG. 5 and the time factor shown in the middle column of FIG. That is, the reference time of the stage-based standard is the time obtained by multiplying the standard working time by the time coefficient. For example, step Lv. The reference time of the staged standard for 3 is 24.2 minutes which is 20 minutes of standard working time multiplied by a time factor of 1.21.

  The achievement rates of the staged standards are set to different values for each stage. Furthermore, the reference achievement rates of some stage-based standards are set to different values when the stages shown in FIG. 6 are promoted and when the stages shown in FIG. 7 are demoted. At the time of stage promotion, the reference time of the upper stage and the reference achievement rate of the upper stage are used. On the other hand, at the time of stage relegation, the current reference time and the current reference achievement rate are used.

  In detail, stage Lv. 0 to Lv. As for No. 3, the reference achievement rate in the case where the stage shown in FIG. 7 is demoted is set to a value smaller than the reference achievement rate in the case where the stage shown in FIG. 6 is promoted. This prevents the stage from being demoted immediately once the stage has been promoted. In other words, it is suppressing the change of the stage of work ability. In addition, stage Lv. As for No. 4, the reference achievement rate in the case of demolishing the step shown in FIG. 7 and the reference achievement rate in the case of promoting the step shown in FIG. 6 are set to the same value. Stage Lv. Since 4 is the highest stage, both criteria achievement rates are made the same value in order to evaluate strictly on demotion. However, stage Lv. As to 4 as well, the reference achievement rate in the case of demolishing the step shown in FIG. 7 may be set to a value smaller than the reference achievement rate in the case of promoting the step shown in FIG.

(1-3. Stage evaluation by the evaluation unit 16)
Stage evaluation by the evaluation unit 16 will be described with reference to FIGS. 8 and 9. The evaluation unit 16 performs stage evaluation of work capacity for each of the workers A-C and for each work type. Here, FIGS. 8 and 9 are diagrams in which the working time for the process 1 of the worker A is plotted. A white circle indicates a case where the working time is equal to or less than the standard reference time of the upper stage of the worker A, and a black circle indicates a case where the working time is longer than the standard time.

  FIG. 8 exemplifies the case where the evaluation period is three days, and the interval from when the previous stage evaluation is performed to when the current stage evaluation is performed is three days which is the evaluation period. That is, in three days which is an evaluation period, the number of times the working time of the process 1 by the worker A is equal to or less than the reference time of the upper stage phase standard becomes 5 times, and the work time exceeds the reference time The number of times is three. In addition, in three days which is an evaluation period, the number of times the working time of the process 1 by the worker A is equal to or less than the standard time of the stage by stage at the current stage is six times, and the operation time exceeds the standard time The number of times is two.

  The current stage in step 1 of operator A is Lv. If it is 1, the upper level Lv. The achievement rate of the two staged criteria is 70%, as shown in FIG. In the above example, the achievement rate is 62.5% because five out of eight times achieve the upper level reference time or less. Then, the worker A does not promote to the upper stage because the upper stage reference achievement rate is not achieved in the current stage evaluation. If the upper stage criteria achievement rate has been achieved, the stage relating to the process 1 of the worker A is promoted to the upper stage. Then, the information of the ability database 13 is updated.

  The current stage in step 1 of operator A is Lv. If it is 1, the current stage Lv. As shown in FIG. 7, the standard achievement rate of the staged standard of 1 is 55%. In the above example, the achievement rate is 75% because six out of eight achievements have reached the current stage reference time or less. Then, worker A does not relegate to the lower stage in the current stage evaluation because it has achieved the current stage reference achievement rate. If it has not achieved the current level of achievement of the standard, then the stage related to the process 1 of the operator A is demoted to the lower stage. Then, the information of the ability database 13 is updated.

  Although FIG. 8 shows an example in which the interval from the previous stage evaluation to the current stage evaluation is set as the number of days as the evaluation period, as shown in FIG. The number of operations may be set as In FIG. 9, when the number of operations reaches 10 from the previous stage evaluation, the current stage evaluation is performed.

(Process by 1-4. Suitability determination unit 17)
Detailed processing by the suitability determination unit 17 will be described with reference to FIGS. As described above, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the current or upper stage-specific criteria using the multiple work hours stored in the capability database 13 and the predetermined suitability criteria.

  The propriety determination unit 17 first determines the propriety of the staged criteria at the current stage based on a predetermined propriety check criterion. The determination of the suitability of the staged criteria at the current stage is mainly used to determine the suitability of the staged criteria set initially. More specifically, the suitability determination unit 17 determines whether or not the staged criteria at the current stage are higher than the appropriate value by determining whether the first upper side suitability determination criteria are satisfied. Furthermore, the suitability determination unit 17 determines whether or not the stage-specific reference at the current stage is lower than the appropriate value by determining whether the first lower appropriateness determination criteria are satisfied.

  With reference to FIGS. 10 to 12, the propriety determination using the first upper side suitability determination criterion by the suitability determination unit 17 will be described. The propriety determination unit 17 uses information of the measurement time in several days retroactively from the time of performing this stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 10, the acquired measurement time is tabulated as the daily work frequency for each work type (each process). That is, the working times for the same work type are aggregated. Here, rather than being specified to the same worker A, the working hours of all the target workers A-C are counted, and furthermore, they are not specified to the same working capacity stage, The working times of the workers A-C at all stages are to be counted.

  For example, it is assumed that the number of operations of step 1 is 16 times, 30 times, 5 times, and 23 times from April 1 to April 4, respectively. At this time, the number of times the working time of each worker A-C is equal to or less than the reference time of the step-by-step standard at the current step of each worker AC (in FIG. , 0 times, 0 times, 0 times.

  In the first upper side suitability judgment criteria by the propriety judgment unit 17, as shown in FIG. 11, it is assumed that the minimum number of operations for the propriety judgment is 50 times for the process 1, and the first lower limit, ie the current stage The percentage below the standard time of another standard is 2%. That is, the first upper-side appropriateness criterion is the criterion of the stage-specific criterion at the current stage of each worker A-C among the number of operations by the plurality of workers A-C. The ratio of the number of times less than or equal to the time is less than or equal to the first lower limit value.

  Then, in the case shown in FIG. 10, the target period a and the target period b are targeted as the target periods that can be summed up before the current stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 12, in the target period a, the number of operations is 58, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is 0, and the achievement rate is 0%. On the other hand, in the target period b, the number of operations is 51 times, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is 2 times, and the achievement rate is 4%.

  In both of the target periods a and b, since the number of operations is equal to or more than the minimum number of operations 50 as the first upper side appropriateness determination criterion, it is an object of the appropriateness determination. And the achievement rate in object period a is 0%. That is, the achievement rate is equal to or less than the first lower limit value as the first upper side appropriateness determination criterion, and the first upper side appropriateness determination criterion is satisfied. Therefore, based on the information of the target period a, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged criteria at the current stage of the process 1 are unsuitable. Specifically, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged reference at the current stage of the process 1 is higher than the appropriate value. Then, the propriety determination unit 17 notifies the evaluator or the worker A-C that the staged criteria are the target of the alert.

  Here, the staged criteria are determined based on standard working times and time factors, as shown in FIG. That is, that the staged criteria are inadequate means that the standard working time or time factor is inadequate.

  Then, in the initial setting, the standard working time, the time coefficient, and the graded criteria are set by the evaluator (administrator). Therefore, the standard work time, the time coefficient, and the staged reference set initially are not necessarily set to appropriate values. Therefore, as described above, the suitability determination unit 17 performs the suitability determination to determine whether the initially set standard working time, time coefficient, and stage-specific reference are appropriate values. Then, the evaluator (administrator) confirms the content of the alert, and corrects at least one of the standard operation time, the time coefficient, and the staged criteria.

  Next, with reference to FIG. 13 to FIG. 15, the propriety determination using the first lower side suitability determination criterion by the suitability determination unit 17 will be described. The propriety determination unit 17 uses information of the measurement time in several days retroactively from the time of performing this stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 13, the acquired measurement time is aggregated as the daily work frequency for each work type (each process), as in FIG. 10.

  For example, it is assumed that the number of operations in step 3 is three times, five times, three times, and five times from April 15 to April 18. At this time, the number of times the working time of each worker A-C is equal to or less than the reference time of the step-by-step standard at the current step of each worker AC (in FIG. , 4 times, 3 times, 2 times.

  In the first lower appropriateness determination criteria by the appropriateness determination unit 17, as shown in FIG. 14, in step 3, the minimum number of operations for the appropriateness determination is 10 times, and the first upper limit value, ie, the current stage The percentage above the reference time of the staged standard shall be 80%. That is, among the number of times of work by a plurality of workers A-C, the first lower-side appropriateness determination criterion is a stage-specific criterion in the current stage of each worker A-C among the work times of a plurality of workers A-C. The ratio of the number of times equal to or more than the reference time is equal to or more than the first upper limit value.

  Then, in the case shown in FIG. 13, the target period a and the target period b are targeted as the target periods that can be summed up before the current stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 15, in the target period c, the number of operations is 13 times, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is 9, and the achievement rate is 70%. On the other hand, in the target period d, the number of times of work is 11, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is 9, and the achievement rate is 82%.

  In both of the target periods c and d, since the number of operations is equal to or more than the minimum number of operations 10 as the first lower appropriateness determination criterion, it is a target of the appropriateness determination. The achievement rate in the target period d is 82%. That is, the achievement rate is equal to or higher than the first upper limit value as the first lower appropriateness determination criterion, and the first lower appropriateness determination criterion is satisfied. Therefore, based on the information of the target period d, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged criteria at the current stage of the process 3 are unsuitable. Specifically, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged reference at the current stage of the process 3 is lower than the appropriate value. Then, the propriety determination unit 17 notifies the evaluator or the worker A-C that the staged criteria are the target of the alert. Again, that the staging criteria are inadequate means that the standard working time or time factor is inadequate. Then, the evaluator (administrator) confirms the content of the alert, and corrects at least one of the standard operation time, the time coefficient, and the staged criteria.

  As described above, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the staged criteria at the current stage. The propriety determination unit 17 further determines the propriety of the staged criteria in the upper stage based on predetermined propriety determination criteria. The determination of the suitability of the staged criteria in the upper stage is used for the determination of the suitability of the staged criteria set in the initial stage and the determination of the suitability of the staged criteria after correction. More specifically, the suitability determination unit 17 determines whether or not the staged criteria in the upper stage are higher than the appropriate value by determining whether the second upper side suitability determination criteria are satisfied. Furthermore, the suitability determination unit 17 determines whether or not the stage-specific reference in the upper stage is lower than the appropriate value by determining whether the second lower appropriateness determination criterion is satisfied.

  With reference to FIGS. 16 to 18, the propriety determination using the second upper side suitability determination criterion by the suitability determination unit 17 will be described. The propriety determination unit 17 uses information of the measurement time in several days retroactively from the time of performing this stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 16, the acquired measurement time is aggregated as the daily work frequency for each work type (each process), as in FIG. 10.

  For example, it is assumed that the number of operations in step 4 is 22, 20, 8, 27 times from May 1 to May 4, respectively. At this time, the number of times the working time of each worker A-C is equal to or less than the reference time of the step-by-step standard at the current step of each worker AC (in FIG. , 0 times, 0 times, 1 time.

  In the second upper appropriateness determination criteria by the appropriateness determination unit 17, as shown in FIG. 17, the minimum number of operations for the appropriateness determination for the process 4 is 50 times, and the second lower limit, ie, the upper stage The percentage below the standard time of another standard is 4%. That is, the second upper-side appropriateness criterion is the criterion of the stage-specific criterion at the current stage of each worker A-C among the number of operations by the plurality of workers A-C. The ratio of the number of times equal to or less than the time is equal to or less than the second lower limit value.

  Then, in the case shown in FIG. 16, the target period e and the target period f are targeted as the target periods that can be summed up before the current stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 18, in the target period e, the number of operations is 55, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is one, and the achievement rate is 1.8%. On the other hand, in the target period f, the number of operations is 50, the number of achievements of the stage by stage at the current stage is 4, and the achievement rate is 8%.

  In both of the target periods e and f, since the number of operations is equal to or more than the minimum number of operations 50 as the second upper side appropriateness determination criterion, it becomes an object of the appropriateness determination. The achievement rate in the target period e is 1.8%. That is, the achievement rate is equal to or less than a second lower limit value as a second upper side suitability determination criterion, and the second upper side suitability determination criterion is satisfied. Therefore, based on the information of the target period e, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged criteria in the upper stage of the process 3 are unsuitable. Specifically, the propriety determination unit 17 determines that the stage-specific reference of the upper stage of the process 1 is higher than the appropriate value. Then, the propriety determination unit 17 notifies the evaluator or the worker A-C that the staged criteria are the target of the alert.

  Here, the staged criteria are determined based on standard working times and time factors, as shown in FIG. That is, that the staged criteria are inadequate means that the standard working time or time factor is inadequate.

  Then, in the initial setting, the standard working time, the time coefficient, and the graded criteria are set by the evaluator (administrator). Therefore, the standard work time, the time coefficient, and the staged reference set initially are not necessarily set to appropriate values. If the upper level staged criteria are too high, the level of workers A-C's working capacity is not easily promoted. Therefore, as described above, the suitability determination unit 17 performs the suitability determination to determine whether the initially set standard working time, time coefficient, and stage-specific reference are appropriate values. Then, the evaluator (administrator) confirms the content of the alert, and corrects at least one of the standard operation time, the time coefficient, and the staged criteria.

  Next, with reference to FIG. 19 to FIG. 21, the suitability determination using the second lower appropriateness determination criterion by the suitability determination unit 17 will be described. The propriety determination unit 17 uses information of the measurement time in several days retroactively from the time of performing this stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 19, the acquired measurement time is tabulated as the number of daily tasks for each work type (each process), as in FIG.

  For example, it is assumed that the number of operations of step 2 is 23, 20, 13, and 22 times from April 15 to April 18, respectively. At this time, the number of times the working time of each worker A-C is equal to or less than the reference time of the step-by-step standard at the current step of each worker AC (in FIG. 18 times 10 times 19 times.

  In the second lower appropriateness determination criterion by the appropriateness determination unit 17, as shown in FIG. 20, in step 2, the minimum number of operations for the appropriateness determination is 50 times, and the second upper limit value, that is, the upper stage The percentage above the reference time of the staged standard shall be 80%. That is, the second lower appropriateness determination criterion is the stage-specific criteria in the upper stages of the respective workers A-C among the work times of the plurality of workers A-C among the number of works by the plurality of workers A-C. The ratio of the number of times which is the reference time or more is equal to or more than the second upper limit value.

  Then, in the case shown in FIG. 19, the target period g and the target period h are targeted as the target periods that can be summed up before the current stage evaluation. As shown in FIG. 21, in the target period g, the number of operations is 55 times, the number of times of achievement of the upper level staged criteria is 47 times, and the achievement rate is 85%. On the other hand, in the target period h, the number of operations is 56 times, the number of times of achievement of the stage by stage at the current stage is 35 times, and the achievement rate is 62%.

  In both the target periods g and h, since the number of operations is equal to or more than the minimum number of operations 50 as the second lower appropriateness determination criterion, it is the target of the appropriateness determination. The achievement rate in the target period g is 85%. That is, the achievement rate is equal to or higher than the second upper limit value as the second lower appropriateness determination criterion, and the second lower appropriateness determination criterion is satisfied. Therefore, based on the information of the target period g, the suitability determination unit 17 determines that the staged criteria at the upper stage of the process 2 are unsuitable. Specifically, the propriety determination unit 17 determines that the stage-specific reference of the upper stage of the process 2 is lower than the appropriate value. Then, the propriety determination unit 17 notifies the evaluator or the worker A-C that the staged criteria are the target of the alert. Again, that the staging criteria are inadequate means that the standard working time or time factor is inadequate. Then, if the upper level staged criteria are too low, the level of working ability of workers A-C is frequently promoted. Therefore, as described above, the suitability determination unit 17 performs the suitability determination to determine whether the initially set standard working time, time coefficient, and stage-specific reference are appropriate values. Then, the evaluator (administrator) confirms the content of the alert, and corrects at least one of the standard operation time, the time coefficient, and the staged criteria.

(1-5. Effect)
As described above, the propriety determination unit 17 determines the propriety of the staged criteria based on the plurality of pieces of work time information, the staged criteria, and the predetermined propriety check criteria. That is, the evaluator or the operator can evaluate whether or not the staged criteria are appropriate by verifying the information on the plurality of measurement times in which the staged criteria are accumulated. If the staged criteria are not appropriate, it is possible to appropriately evaluate the level of the working ability of the worker by modifying the appropriate criteria.

(2. Second embodiment)
The work capacity evaluation system 100 according to the second embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. As shown in FIG. 22, the work capacity evaluation system 100 includes a process plan storage unit 11, a work time acquisition unit 12, a capacity database 13, a standard work time storage unit 14, a graded reference storage unit 15, an evaluation unit 16, and adequacy judgment A unit 17 and a correction unit 18 are provided. In the work capacity evaluation system 100, the same components as those of the work capacity evaluation system 10 of the first embodiment are denoted by the same reference numerals and the description thereof will be omitted.

  The correction unit 18 corrects the staged criteria when it is determined that the staged criteria are not suitable. Specifically, when it is determined that the staged criteria are not suitable, the correction unit 18 can correct the reference time of the staged criteria by correcting the standard working time or the time coefficient, and further, Also, it is possible to correct the standard achievement rate. The correction unit 18 may correct both the reference time and the reference achievement rate of the staged reference.

  Furthermore, the correction unit 18 corrects the standard operation time, the time coefficient, and the reference achievement rate in accordance with the content of the alert. For example, when it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 that the first upper side suitability determination criterion is satisfied, the modification unit 18 modifies the stage-wise criteria to be lower. For example, the standard operation time may be shortened or the time coefficient may be reduced to shorten the reference time of the staged basis or reduce the achievement rate of the staged basis. The same applies to the case where it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 that the second upper side suitability determination criterion is satisfied.

  On the other hand, when it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 that the first lower suitability determination criterion or the second lower suitability determination criterion is satisfied, the correction unit 18 modifies the stage-specific criteria to be higher. For example, the standard operation time is increased or the time coefficient is increased, or the standard reference time of the staged standard is increased, or the standard achievement rate of the staged standard is increased. For example, the standard working time, the time coefficient, and the reference time of the stage-by-step basis become as shown in FIG. 23, for example.

  The correction unit 18 performs the above-mentioned correction processing by a preset program. That is, when it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 that the content is inappropriate, a program corresponding to the content of the alert is executed, and the stage-specific criteria are corrected. For example, the correction unit 18 includes an adjustment factor for the standard work time, an adjustment factor for the time factor, and an adjustment factor for the reference achievement rate, and changes the proportion according to each adjustment factor.

  After the correction unit 18 corrects the staged criteria, if it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 to be unsuitable again, the correction unit 18 corrects the staged criteria again. By repeating this process, the step-wise standard approaches the appropriate value automatically.

  In addition to the method of correcting the staged reference using the adjustment factor as described above, the correction unit 18 can also be performed as follows. The stage-specific reference storage unit 15 stores a plurality of types as stage-based references of each stage. Then, when it is determined by the suitability determination unit 17 that the staged criteria are not suitable, the correction unit 18 sets the stageed criteria to be applied to the different staged criteria stored in the staged criteria storage unit 15. change. Also in this case, the stage-wise standard automatically approaches the appropriate value as described above.

  Therefore, by acquiring information on the working time of a large number of workers, it is possible to correct the staged criteria to appropriate criteria, and as a result, it is possible to appropriately evaluate the stage of the workers' working ability.

10, 100: work capacity evaluation system, 11: process plan storage unit, 12: work time acquisition unit, 13: capacity database, 14: standard work time storage unit, 15: stage-based reference storage unit, 16: evaluation unit, 17 : Conformity judgment part, 18: Correction part, 21: Area sensor, 21a: Working area, 22: Portable device, AC: Worker, MC1-MC3: Processing machine

Claims (13)

A work time acquisition unit for acquiring work time by a worker;
A graded criteria storage unit storing graded criteria for evaluating the working ability of the worker in multiple stages;
An evaluation unit that performs stage evaluation of the work ability of the worker based on the work time and the stage-specific criteria;
An appropriateness determination unit that determines the suitability of the staged criteria based on a plurality of pieces of work time information, the staged criteria, and a predetermined suitability decision criterion;
Work capacity evaluation system equipped with The staged criteria are based on a reference time and a reference achievement rate,
The predetermined suitability determination criterion is a number of times, of the number of times of work by the plurality of workers, that the working time of the plurality of workers is equal to or less than the reference time of the staged criteria at the current stage of each worker Determined based on the percentage of
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the suitability determination unit determines the suitability of the staged criteria at the current stage based on the predetermined suitability criteria. The predetermined suitability determination criterion is, among the number of times of work by the plurality of workers, the working time of the plurality of the workers or less of the reference time of the stage-by-stage standard at the current stage of each of the workers The ratio of the number of times is equal to or less than the first lower limit value,
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the suitability determination unit determines that the staged criteria at the current stage is higher than an appropriate value by satisfying the predetermined suitability determination criteria. The predetermined suitability determination criterion is, among the number of times of work by the plurality of workers, the working time of the plurality of the workers or less of the reference time of the stage-by-stage standard at the current stage of each of the workers The ratio of the number of times is equal to or greater than the first upper limit,
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 2 or 3, wherein the suitability determination unit determines that the staged criteria at the current stage is lower than an appropriate value by satisfying the predetermined suitability determination criteria. The staged criteria are based on a reference time and a reference achievement rate,
The predetermined suitability determination criterion is a number of times that the working time of the plurality of workers is equal to or less than the reference time of the step-by-stage standard in each upper stage of the workers among the number of times of work by the plurality of workers Determined based on the percentage of
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the suitability determination unit determines the suitability of the staged criteria in the upper stage based on the predetermined suitability criteria. The predetermined suitability determination criterion is, among the number of times of work by the plurality of workers, the working time of the plurality of the workers or less of the reference time of the stage-based standard in the upper stages of the respective workers. The ratio of the number of times is equal to or less than the second lower limit value,
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 5, wherein the suitability determination unit determines that the staged criteria in the upper stage are higher than appropriate values by satisfying the predetermined suitability determination criteria. The predetermined suitability determination criterion is, among the number of times of work by the plurality of workers, the working time of the plurality of the workers or less of the reference time of the stage-based standard in the upper stages of the respective workers. The ratio of the number of times is equal to or higher than the second upper limit value,
The work ability evaluation system according to claim 5 or 6, wherein the suitability determination unit determines that the staged criteria in the upper stage are lower than the appropriate value by satisfying the predetermined suitability determination criteria.   The work ability according to any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the work ability evaluation system further comprises a correction unit that corrects the step-wise criterion when it is determined that the step-wise criterion is not suitable. Evaluation system. The work capacity evaluation system further includes a standard work time storage unit that stores a standard work time,
The staged criteria include a reference time obtained by multiplying the standard working time by a predetermined time coefficient, and a reference achievement rate as elements.
The work capacity evaluation system according to claim 8, wherein the correction unit corrects at least one of the standard work time, the predetermined time coefficient, and the reference achievement rate. The stage-based reference storage unit stores a plurality of types as the stage-based reference of each stage,
The correction unit changes the step-by-step criterion to be applied to another step-by-step criterion stored in the step-by-step criterion storage unit, when it is determined that the step-by-step criterion is not suitable. The work capacity evaluation system according to 8 or 9.   The work ability evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the staged criteria include a reference time that is different for each of the stages, and a reference achievement rate that is different for each of the stages.   The work ability evaluation system according to claim 11, wherein the reference achievement rate in the case of demoting a stage is set to a value smaller than the reference achievement rate in the case of promoting the stage. The evaluation unit
With an evaluation period or number of evaluations set for each work type,
The work ability evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 12, wherein the step evaluation on the work type is performed when the evaluation period or the number of evaluations has been reached since the previous step evaluation was performed.

Images