JP2020004403A - Device, method and program for evaluating facility - Google Patents

Abstract

To provide a facility evaluation device, a facility evaluation method, and a facility evaluation program, with which determination of a priority order relating to facility renewal can be performed objectively.SOLUTION: A facility evaluation device 1 calculates a facility risk index value for each facility at a prescribed reference date, and normalizes each of the calculated facility risk index values. Further, the facility evaluation device 1 calculates a facility cost index value for each facility at the prescribed reference date, and normalizes each of the calculated facility cost index values. Then, the facility evaluation device 1 substitutes the normalized facility risk index values and the normalized facility cost index values for corresponding variables respectively in a prescribed evaluation function, and thereby calculates a facility evaluation value for each facility.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

  The present invention relates to an equipment evaluation device, an equipment evaluation method, and an equipment evaluation program.

  2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, technology for supporting the planning of maintenance plans for equipment and the like has been developed. As a technique for supporting the planning of the maintenance plan, for example, a technique of drafting a rational maintenance plan while considering a trade-off between a failure risk of components constituting a maintenance target device and a maintenance cost has been proposed. (For example, see Patent Document 1).

JP 2009-217718 A

  However, according to the above-described conventional technology, for example, maintenance plans created for each of a plurality of maintenance target devices overlap each other, and the maintenance work of each maintenance target device cannot be performed in parallel. In this case, the maintenance plan is changed for a maintenance target device having a low maintenance work priority. However, since the determination of the priority is performed by the user, an objective determination cannot be made. There is.

  SUMMARY An advantage of some aspects of the invention is to provide an equipment evaluation device, an equipment evaluation method, and an equipment evaluation program that can objectively determine a priority order for equipment update.

In order to solve the above problems, the equipment evaluation device of the present invention is:
A facility evaluation device that evaluates the status of each facility on a predetermined reference date,
First calculating means for calculating a value of a risk index of equipment for each of the equipment,
First normalizing means for normalizing each of the risk index values of the equipment calculated by the first calculating means,
Second calculating means for calculating the value of the cost index of the equipment for each of the equipment,
Second normalizing means for normalizing the value of the cost index of the equipment calculated by the second calculating means, respectively;
The value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the first normalization means and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the second normalization means are respectively assigned to corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function. A third calculating means for substituting and calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each of the equipment,
It is characterized by having.

  According to this configuration, since the evaluation value of the equipment is calculated for each equipment, it is possible to objectively determine the priority order regarding the equipment update, and to formulate an optimum equipment update plan without human experience or intuition. Will be able to

Here, preferably, the variable of the predetermined evaluation function is provided with a weightable coefficient,
It is preferable to include a first setting unit that can set the value of the coefficient based on a user operation. According to this configuration, since the coefficient can be appropriately set based on the user operation, the evaluation value of the facility can be accurately calculated according to the environment in which each facility is managed.

Preferably, the first calculating means calculates a risk index value of the main component for each main component constituting each of the facilities, and sums the risk index values of the main component. It is preferable that a value of a risk index of the facility is calculated for each of the facilities based on the value.
According to this configuration, the value of the risk index of each facility can be finely calculated, so that the evaluation value of the facility can be calculated more accurately by using the value of the risk index of the facility.

Further, preferably, at least based on the survival curve derived for each of the main components constituting each equipment using past failure information and repair performance information of each equipment, the equipment at the predetermined reference date By calculating a failure rate for each of the main components, and multiplying the failure rate by a risk coefficient set for each of the main components, the failure rate of the main component for each of the main components constituting each facility is calculated. It may be configured to calculate the value of a risk index.
According to this configuration, the value of the risk index of the main component is calculated for each of the main components constituting each of the facilities by analyzing past failure information and repair performance information of the respective facilities. Thus, the value of the risk index of each main component can be accurately calculated. Also, when calculating the risk index value of each main component, the risk coefficient set for each main component is taken into account, so that the risk index value of each main component is more accurately calculated. be able to.

Preferably, the first calculating means calculates a risk index value of the main component for each main component constituting each of the facilities, and sums the risk index values of the main component. Preferably, the value is multiplied by the importance factor of the corresponding facility to calculate the value of the risk index of the facility for each of the facilities.
According to this configuration, when calculating the risk index value of each facility, the importance of each facility can be reflected, so that the evaluation value of each facility can be calculated more accurately.

Preferably, the second calculating means calculates the value of the cost index of the main component for each of the main components constituting each of the facilities, and totals the values of the cost indicators of the main component. It may be configured to calculate a value of a facility cost index for each of the facilities based on the value.
According to this configuration, the value of the cost index of each facility can be finely calculated, so that the evaluation value of the facility can be more accurately calculated by using the value of the cost index of the facility.

Preferably, the apparatus further includes a second setting unit configured to set a desired survival rate based on a user operation for each main component configuring each of the facilities,
The second calculation unit is configured to execute the second setting unit based on a survival curve derived for each major component configuring each of the facilities using at least past failure information and repair performance information of each of the facilities. The replacement cycle of the main component that satisfies the survival rate set by is calculated, based on the replacement cycle of the main component, the predetermined reference date, and the last replacement date of the main component, The value of the unamortized cost of the main component on the reference date may be calculated, and the value of the unamortized cost may be used as the value of the cost index of the main component.
According to this configuration, by analyzing past failure information and repair performance information of each facility, the replacement cycle of the main component is calculated for each of the major components constituting the facility, and then the replacement cycle is calculated. Calculate the unamortized cost value of the main component based on the replacement cycle of the main component, the predetermined base date, and the final replacement date of the main component, and calculate the value of the unamortized cost. Since the value of the cost index of the main component is used, the value of the cost index of each main component can be accurately calculated.

Preferably, the apparatus further comprises first display control means for displaying, on a display means, a priority order for replacement of each of the equipments based on the evaluation value of the equipment calculated by the third calculation means. It is good to be done.
According to this configuration, it is possible to easily grasp the priority order regarding replacement of each facility.

Preferably, the apparatus further includes a first determination unit that determines whether each of the facilities has exceeded a depreciation period on the predetermined reference date,
The first display control means may cause the display means to display a priority order for replacement of each of the equipments only for the equipment determined to be beyond the depreciation period by the first determination means. It is good to be composed.
According to this configuration, the priority order regarding the replacement of each facility can be grasped accurately and easily.

In addition, preferably, at least a fourth calculating unit that calculates an evaluation value of each main component, with respect to the equipment determined to have not exceeded the depreciation period by the first determining unit,
Second display control means for displaying, on a display means, a priority order for replacement of each main component of each facility based on the evaluation value of the main component calculated by the fourth calculation means. It may be configured to provide.
According to this configuration, it is possible to accurately and easily grasp the priority order regarding replacement of each main component of each facility.

Further, preferably, a fifth calculating means for calculating an evaluation value of each main component of each of the facilities with a specific day in each of a predetermined year or a plurality of years as the predetermined reference date. When,
Evaluation of the main component of the facility in each of the one year or the plurality of years based on the evaluation value of the main component of the facility calculated by the fifth calculating unit. The objective function is defined as the sum of the values, and the constraint is that the sum of the repair costs of each major component of each facility is not more than the budget amount of the corresponding year. A sixth calculating means for performing an optimization calculation for obtaining each of the main components as a solution;
It is good to be constituted so that it may be provided.
According to this configuration, in each year of one year or a plurality of years, by performing the above-described optimization calculation, it is possible to objectively perform a repair plan for each main component of each facility. A repair plan without omissions or omissions can be easily performed.

Preferably, the sixth calculation means is configured to perform the optimization calculation by further adding a constraint condition that the number of times of repairing each of the main components of each of the facilities is one. Good.
According to this configuration, each main component of each facility can be uniformly selected as a target of the repair plan.

Preferably, the apparatus further comprises a designation unit that designates, based on a user operation, a main component to be excluded from a target of the repair among the main components of the facilities,
The sixth calculation means may be configured to perform the optimization calculation by excluding the main component specified by the specification means from repair targets.
According to this configuration, the main component specified based on the user operation is excluded from the target of the repair and the optimization calculation is performed, so that, for example, a flexible repair plan that takes into account the construction ability and the actual situation of the site related to the repair. It can be performed.

Further, preferably, among the main components of each of the facilities obtained as the solution by the optimization calculation by the sixth calculation unit, the main components having an alternative part are targeted for the main components. It is preferable to include a second determination unit that determines whether or not the replacement part should be replaced based on a predetermined reference.
According to this configuration, it is determined whether or not to replace the main component with the replacement part for the main component having the replacement part among the respective main components of each facility which is the target of the repair plan. Since the determination is made based on the criteria, a more flexible repair plan can be performed.

Preferably, a seventh calculation means for performing the optimization calculation in consideration of an additional budget is provided,
The seventh calculating means is a main component of each of the repaired main components of each of the main components of each of the facilities obtained as the solution by the initial optimization calculation by the sixth calculating means. It is preferable that the optimization calculation is performed by excluding a part from a repair target and subtracting a repair cost of each main component of each facility from a budget amount of a corresponding year.
According to this configuration, the repair plan can be performed again in consideration of the additional budget, so that a more flexible repair plan can be performed.

Further, preferably, a third setting means capable of setting a plurality of different budget amounts based on a user operation,
Eighth calculation means for applying each budget amount set by the third setting means to the budget amount of the constraint condition and performing the optimization calculation in accordance with the budget amount, respectively;
The main component parts of the respective facilities obtained as the solutions in a predetermined year by the respective optimization calculations according to the budget amount by the eighth calculating means are determined on a predetermined date in the predetermined year. Ninth calculating means for calculating the average value of the risk index values of the respective facilities for each of the budget amounts, assuming that the predetermined reference date is the last day of the predetermined year,
It is good to be constituted so that it may be provided.
According to this configuration, the average value of the risk index value of each facility when the repair is performed as planned in the predetermined year is calculated for each budget amount, so that the relationship between the average value and the budget amount is calculated. This makes it easy to select an appropriate budget.

Preferably, the apparatus further comprises a designation unit that designates, based on a user operation, a main component to be excluded from a target of the repair among the main components of the facilities,
The eighth calculation means may be configured to perform the optimization calculation while excluding the main component specified by the specification means from repair targets.
According to this configuration, the main component specified based on the user operation is excluded from the target of the repair and the optimization calculation is performed, so that, for example, a flexible repair plan that takes into account the construction ability and the actual situation of the site related to the repair. It can be performed.

Further, in order to solve the above problems, the equipment evaluation method of the present invention,
A facility evaluation method for evaluating the status of each facility on a predetermined reference date,
A first step of calculating a value of a facility risk index for each of the facilities;
A second step of normalizing each of the risk index values of the equipment calculated in the first step;
A third step of calculating a value of a facility cost index for each of the facilities;
A fourth step of normalizing each of the cost index values of the equipment calculated in the third step;
Substituting the value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the second step and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the fourth step into corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function, A fifth step of calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each equipment;
It is characterized by including.

  According to this equipment evaluation method, since the equipment evaluation value is calculated for each equipment, it is possible to objectively determine the priority of equipment update, and to determine the optimum equipment update plan regardless of human experience or intuition. Will be able to plan.

Further, in order to solve the above problems, the equipment evaluation program of the present invention,
On the computer,
A first process of calculating a value of a risk index of a facility for each facility on a predetermined reference date;
A second process for normalizing the value of the risk index of the facility calculated by the first process,
A third process of calculating a value of the cost index of the facility for each of the facilities,
A fourth process for normalizing the value of the cost index of the equipment calculated by the third process,
Substituting the value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the second process and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the fourth process into corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function, A fifth process of calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each equipment;
Is executed.

  According to this equipment evaluation program, the equipment evaluation value is calculated for each equipment, so that the priority of equipment update can be determined objectively, and the optimum equipment update plan can be determined regardless of human experience or intuition. Will be able to plan.

  According to the present invention, since the evaluation value of the equipment is calculated for each equipment, it is possible to objectively determine the priority of the equipment update, and to formulate an optimum equipment update plan regardless of human experience and intuition. Will be able to

It is a block diagram showing a schematic structure of an equipment evaluation system. It is a flowchart which shows an example of a repair order determination process. It is a figure which shows an example of a display of the priority of aging replacement equipment. It is a figure showing an example of a display of a parts exchange order. It is a flowchart which shows an example of a risk index calculation process. It is a flow chart which shows an example of cost index calculation processing. (A) is a diagram showing a process of calculating a failure rate of each main component, and (b) is a diagram showing a process of calculating a replacement cycle of each main component. (A) is a figure showing an example of a calculation result of a risk index, and (b) is a figure showing an example of a calculation result of a cost index. It is a flowchart which shows an example of a repair plan drafting process. (A) is a diagram showing an example of a repair plan creation screen, and (b) is a diagram showing an example of the repair plan creation screen when the repair plan creation screen shown in (a) is scrolled down. It is a figure showing an example of a repair plan list. It is a flowchart which shows an example of a repair plan update process. It is a flowchart which shows an example of a simulation process. It is a figure showing an example of a simulation result.

  An embodiment for carrying out the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. However, the embodiments described below are provided with various technically preferable limits for carrying out the present invention, but the scope of the invention is not limited to the following embodiments and illustrated examples.

<Configuration of equipment evaluation system 100>
First, the configuration of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of a facility evaluation system 100 of the present embodiment.

  As shown in FIG. 1, the equipment evaluation system 100 includes an equipment evaluation device 1, a storage device 2, and a plurality of user terminals 3, and each device is communicatively connected via a communication network N. .

  The equipment evaluation device 1 is a cloud server having each user terminal 3 as a client. The equipment evaluation apparatus 1 is an apparatus that acquires information on a desired equipment from an equipment management database (not shown) of the storage device 2 and evaluates the equipment.

  The equipment evaluation device 1 is specifically configured to include, for example, a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, a communication unit 13, and the like.

  Control unit 11 (first calculating means, first normalizing means, second calculating means, second normalizing means, third calculating means, first setting means, second setting means, first Display control means, first determination means, fourth calculation means, second display control means, fifth calculation means, sixth calculation means, designation means, second determination means, seventh calculation means , A third setting unit, an eighth calculating unit, a ninth calculating unit) include a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like. 1 to control the entire system.

The storage unit 12 is configured by an HDD (Hard Disk Drive) having a magnetic recording medium or the like.
The communication unit 13 communicates with an external device (for example, the storage device 2 or the user terminal 3) on the communication network N to perform data transmission and reception.

The storage device 2 is a device that stores a facility management database (not shown).
In the equipment management database, for example, the installation date of each equipment to be managed, the aging replacement estimated date (for example, 25 years from the installation date), the importance factor (described later), past failure information, and past repairs The performance information, the last replacement date for each major component of each facility, a risk coefficient (described later), component prices, repair costs, and the like are stored.

  The user terminal 3 is a terminal device possessed by the client user. Examples of the user terminal 3 include a smartphone, a tablet PC (Personal Computer), a notebook PC, a desktop PC, and the like. The user terminal 3 receives a user's operation input via a browser or the like, transmits the input to the facility evaluation apparatus 1, receives the information transmitted from the facility evaluation apparatus 1, and displays the information on a display unit (not shown) as a display unit. .

<Operation of the equipment evaluation device 1>
[Repair order judgment processing]
A repair order determination process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the repair order determination process. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a display of replacement priority of aging replacement equipment. FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the display of the component replacement order.
In the following description, the facility evaluation device 1 is installed at the A station designated based on a predetermined operation of the user terminal 3 among the facilities stored in the facility management database of the storage device 2. A description will be given of a case where evaluation is performed for a total of six facilities, one facility (Units 1 and 2) and four facilities (Units 1 to 4) installed at Station B. It is assumed that the facilities installed at the stations A and B are the same kind of facilities (for example, escalators). Each facility is assumed to be composed of 10 types of main components (parts A to J).

  As shown in FIG. 2, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation device 1 performs a risk index calculation process (Step S1). The details of the risk index calculation process will be described later.

Next, the control unit 11 normalizes the risk index Rs of each facility calculated in step S1 based on the following equation (step S2).
Normalized equipment risk index Rss = ((equipment risk index Rs) − (mean equipment risk index Rs average value Rsave.)) / Standard deviation of equipment risk index Rs

  Next, the control unit 11 performs a cost index calculation process (Step S3). The details of the cost index calculation process will be described later.

Next, the control unit 11 normalizes the cost index Cs of each facility calculated in step S3 based on the following equation (step S4).
Normalized facility cost index Css = ((facility cost index Cs) − (average value of facility cost index Cs Csave.)) / Standard deviation of facility cost index Cs

Next, the control unit 11 calculates the evaluation value Es of each equipment from the equipment risk index Rss and the equipment cost index Css normalized based on the following equation (predetermined evaluation function) (step S5).
Equipment evaluation value Es = α (normalized equipment risk index Rss) − (1−α) (normalized equipment cost index Css)
Here, α (0 ≦ α ≦ 1) is a weight coefficient. The weighting factor can be set by the control unit 11 receiving the operation information on the setting of the weighting factor transmitted from the user terminal 3 via the communication network N.

  Next, the control unit 11 determines whether the aging of the facility has exceeded the depreciation period (step S6). Specifically, the control unit 11 sets a date (hereinafter referred to as a reference date (hereinafter referred to as a predetermined reference) which is set as a reference for determining a repair order (an aging replacement order and a main component replacement order) from the installation date of the equipment. ) Is calculated, and it is determined whether or not the period exceeds the depreciation period. Here, the reference (reference date) for determining the repair order can be set by the control unit 11 receiving the operation information on the setting of the reference date transmitted from the user terminal 3 via the communication network N. ing.

In step S6, when it is determined that the aging of the facility has exceeded the depreciation period (step S6; YES), the control unit 11 extracts the facility as a facility that has exceeded the depreciation period (step S7). .
On the other hand, when it is determined in step S6 that the aging of the facility has not exceeded the depreciation period (step S6; NO), the control unit 11 extracts the facility as a facility that has not exceeded the depreciation period (step S6). S8).

  Next, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the determination process of step S6 has been performed for all the facilities (step S9).

In step S9, when it is determined that the determination process of step S6 has not been performed for all the facilities (step S9; NO), the control unit 11 returns to step S6 and repeats the subsequent processes.
On the other hand, in step S9, when it is determined that the determination process of step S6 has been performed for all the facilities (step S9; YES), the control unit 11 targets the facilities that have exceeded the depreciation period to replace the aging replacement facilities. The order (replacement priority) is derived (step S10).

FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of a display of replacement priority of aging replacement equipment.
As shown in FIG. 3, when the replacement priority of the aging replacement equipment is derived, the replacement priority of the aging replacement equipment is displayed on a display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3 or the like. . Specifically, the facilities determined to be aging replacement facilities are displayed in descending order of the evaluation value Es of the facilities, and the replacement priority of each facility is indicated. In the example of FIG. 3, the result indicates that it is desirable to replace the equipment in the order of the third station at B station → the first station at A station →... → the second station at B station. When the replacement priority of the aging replacement equipment is displayed, as shown in FIG. 3, the “station cost index Cs”, “the equipment cost index Cs”, Data of each item of the normalized facility cost index Css, the facility risk index Rs, the normalized facility risk index Rss, and the facility evaluation value Es may be displayed. The data of each of these items may not be displayed.

  Next, the control unit 11 derives the order of the component replacement equipment at least for equipment not exceeding the depreciation period (step S11). Here, for example, as a result of deriving the order of the above-mentioned aging replacement facilities, if there is any facility that has been excluded from the subject of the aging replacement facilities based on a predetermined operation by the user terminal 3, this facility is also included. The order of the parts replacement equipment will be derived.

Next, the control unit 11 calculates an evaluation value Ep of each main component for each component replacement facility based on the following equation (step S12).
Evaluation value Ep of the main component = (Risk index Rps of the main component normalized) − (Normalized cost index Cps of the main component)

The method of calculating the normalized risk index Rps of each major component and the normalized cost index Cps of each major component is based on the above-described method of calculating the risk index Rs of each facility and the cost index Cs of each facility. It is performed based on the following equation.
Normalized risk index Rps of main component parts = ((Risk index Rp of main component parts) − (average value Rpave. Of risk indexes Rp of main component parts)) / standard deviation of risk index Rp of main component parts Cost index Cps of the converted main component = ((cost index Cp of main component) − (average value Cpave. Of cost index Cp of main component)) / standard deviation of cost index Cp of main component

  Next, the control unit 11 derives a component replacement order based on the evaluation value Ep of each main component of each component replacement facility calculated in step S12 (step S13), and ends the repair order determination process.

FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of the display of the component replacement order.
As shown in FIG. 4, when the component replacement order is derived, the component replacement order is displayed on a display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3 or the like. In the example of FIG. 4, all the facilities of the two facilities (Units 1 to 2) installed at Station A and the four facilities (Units 1 to 4) installed at Station B are to be ranked. A part of B station No. 1 and B station No. 2 A → a part of B station No. 3 H → a part of B station No. 3 and a part of B station No. 4 A →… ⇒⇒ B station No. 3 and B station No. 4 The result shows that it is desirable to replace parts in the order of part D → part B of station B station 1 and part D of station B station 2. When displaying the component replacement order, as shown in FIG. 4, the “cost index Cp of the main component” is associated with the data of the “station name”, “machine number”, and “part name”. , “Normalized main component cost index Cps”, “Major component risk index Rp”, “Normalized main component risk index Rps”, and “Major component evaluation value Ep” The data of the item may be displayed, or the data of each of these items may not be displayed.

[Risk index calculation process]
Next, a risk index calculation process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the risk index calculation process.

  As shown in FIG. 5, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation apparatus 1 acquires past failure information and repair result information of each equipment from an equipment management database (not shown) stored in the storage device 2. (Step S21).

  Next, the control unit 11 uses, for example, the cumulative hazard method to calculate a survival curve (see FIG. 7A ) Is derived (step S22).

  Next, the control unit 11 calculates the failure rate of each main component of each facility using each survival curve derived in Step S22 (Step S23). Specifically, as shown in FIG. 7 (a), the control unit 11 obtains the number of days elapsed from the last replacement date to the reference date for each major component of each facility, and determines the number of days elapsed from the corresponding survival curve. The failure rate (1-survival rate) corresponding to the number of days is calculated. Here, the last replacement date means the actual replacement date when the corresponding main component was last replaced. However, if there is no record of replacement, it means the installation date of the equipment using the main component.

  Next, the control unit 11 multiplies the failure rate of each major component by the risk coefficient of the major component to calculate a risk index Rp (see FIG. 8A) of each major component (step S24). . Here, the risk coefficient is a coefficient set for each component in consideration of the degree of influence when a corresponding main component fails and the possibility of an accident.

  Next, the control unit 11 calculates the risk index Rs (see FIG. 8A) of each equipment by taking the sum of the risk indexes Rp of the respective main components for each equipment and multiplying the sum by the importance factor. (Step S25), the risk index calculation process ends. Here, the importance coefficient is a coefficient set for each equipment in consideration of the installation environment and the degree of influence (importance) when the equipment fails.

[Cost index calculation process]
Next, the cost index calculation process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the cost index calculation process.

  As shown in FIG. 6, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation apparatus 1 acquires past failure information and repair result information of each equipment from an equipment management database (not shown) stored in the storage device 2. (Step S31).

  Next, the control unit 11 uses, for example, the cumulative hazard method to calculate the survival curve (see FIG. 7 (b)) for each major component of each facility based on the past failure information and repair performance information of each facility acquired in step S31. ) Is derived (step S32).

  Next, the control unit 11 calculates a period (replacement cycle of the main component) for each main component of each facility until the desired survival rate is achieved (step S33). Specifically, as shown in FIG. 7B, the control unit 11 obtains, for each main component of each facility, the number of days elapsed until the desired survival rate is obtained from the corresponding survival curve, and calculates the number of elapsed days. Is calculated as the replacement cycle of the corresponding main component. Here, the desired survival rate can be set by the control unit 11 receiving the operation information relating to the setting of the survival rate transmitted from the user terminal 3 via the communication network N.

  Next, the control unit 11 calculates a period from the last replacement date to the reference date for each main component of each facility (Step S34).

  Next, the control unit 11 determines whether the period calculated in step S34 is longer than the replacement cycle of the main component for each main component of each facility (step S35).

For the main component determined to be longer than the replacement cycle of the main component in step S35 (step S35; YES), the control unit 11 calculates a cost calculation period based on the following equation (step S36).
Cost calculation period = (replacement cycle of main component)-(remainder of period from base date to expected replacement date of aging divided by replacement cycle of main component)

On the other hand, for the main component that is determined not to be longer than the replacement cycle of the main component in step S35 (step S35; NO), the control unit 11 calculates a cost calculation period based on the following equation (step S37). ).
Cost calculation period = (replacement cycle of main component)-(remainder of the period from the last replacement date to the anticipated date of aging replacement divided by the replacement cycle of the main component)

Next, the control unit 11 calculates the cost index Cp (see FIG. 8B) of each main component based on the following equation (step S38).
Main component cost index Cp = Part price × (Cost calculation period / Main component replacement cycle)

  Next, the control unit 11 calculates the cost index Cs (see FIG. 8B) of each facility by summing the cost indexes Cp of the main components for each facility (step S39), and calculates the cost index. The process ends.

[Repair planning process]
Next, a repair plan drafting process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. 9 and 10. FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the repair plan drafting process. FIG. 10A is a diagram illustrating an example of a repair plan creation screen, and FIG. 10B is a diagram illustrating an example of the repair plan creation screen when the repair plan creation screen illustrated in FIG. It is.

  As shown in FIG. 9, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation device 1 displays a repair plan creation screen 41 shown in FIG. 10A on the display unit of the user terminal 3, and displays each repair plan target year. Is received (step S41).

  On the repair plan creation screen 41, text boxes A1 to A5 for inputting respective budgets from the first year to the fifth year are displayed. On the repair plan creation screen 41, a repair plan for five years can be created. The repair plan creation screen 41 displays a select box A6 for inputting a budget unit, a plan creation button B1, a plan display button B2, and the like. The plan creation button B1 is a button that is pressed when instructing creation of a repair plan. The plan display button B2 is a button that is pressed to display the created repair plan.

  Next, the control unit 11 receives an input of a main component to be excluded from the target of the repair plan on the repair plan creation screen 42 illustrated in FIG. 10B (Step S42).

  The repair plan creation screen 42 displays a list L1 from which a main component to be excluded from the target of the repair plan can be designated and input. The list L1 includes items of “exclusion”, “station name”, “machine number”, and “part name”. If there is a main component to be excluded, the list corresponds to the main component. Check the "Exclusion" column. For example, when it is desired to exclude the part F of the first unit at the station A, the user checks the box of the item of “exclusion” corresponding to the part F of the first unit at the station A. Further, on the repair plan creation screen 42, an all select button B3, an all cancel button B4, an exclusion setting button B5, and the like are displayed. The all-selection button B3 is a button that is pressed to check all the columns of the “exclusion” item at once. On the other hand, the all release button B4 is a button that is pressed to release the check of all the columns of the “exclusion” item at once. The exclusion setting button B5 is a button that is pressed to determine a main component to be excluded.

  Next, the control unit 11 sets the first day (specific day) of each year (for example, 2020 to 2024) as a target of the repair plan based on the pressing operation of the above-described plan creation button B1. The evaluation value Ep of each main component of each facility on the day is calculated (step S43). Note that the evaluation value Ep is calculated by the calculation formula shown in paragraph 0051.

Next, the control unit 11 sets an objective function and a constraint condition (Step S44).
Specifically, the control unit 11 sets the objective function Σ (Vij * Sij) for each year. Here, “i” represents each major component of each facility, and “j” represents a year. “Vij” represents an evaluation value Ep of a main component, and “Sij” represents a repair flag. In the case of repair, the repair flag Sij is set to “1”, and in the case of not repairing, the repair flag Sij is set to “0”. Further, the control unit 11 sets a constraint condition (Σ (Cij * Sij) ≦ CPj) that the total (sum) of the repair costs in each fiscal year is kept below the budget for the corresponding fiscal year. Here, “Cij” represents a repair cost of a main component, and “CPj” represents a budget. Further, the control unit 11 sets a constraint condition (Σ (Sij) ≦ 1) that the number of times of repairing each main component is set to one each.

  Next, based on the objective function and the constraint set in step S44, the control unit 11 performs an optimization calculation to obtain a solution for each main component of each facility that maximizes the objective function (step S45). .

  Next, the control unit 11 outputs a repair plan for each year based on the solution obtained by the optimization calculation in step S45 (step S46). Specifically, the control unit 11 causes the display unit of the user terminal 3 to display, for example, a repair plan list L2 illustrated in FIG. Here, the circles attached to the columns of “first year” to “fifth year” in the repair plan list L2 indicate the main components of each facility which are the solutions obtained by the above-described optimization calculation. It represents a component, and represents each major component of each facility that has been targeted for the repair plan. For example, the parts B to D and the parts I of the first machine at the station A are to be repaired in the first year. Then, the control unit 11 ends the repair planning process.

[Repair plan update processing]
Next, a repair plan updating process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the repair plan updating process. Here, the repair plan updating process is, for example, a process that is executed when an additional budget is distributed after the above-described repair plan drafting process is executed.

  As shown in FIG. 12, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation device 1 causes the repair plan creation screen 41 shown in FIG. 10A to be displayed on the display unit of the user terminal 3, and additional budgets are displayed in the text boxes A1 to A5. In addition to the input of the budget to which the repair has been added, if there is a repaired part (main component), the input of the actual result of the part is received in a predetermined text box (not shown) (step S51). Note that, apart from the text boxes A1 to A5, a text box for inputting an additional budget for each year may be provided on the repair plan creation screen 41 so that the additional budget can be input to the text box.

  Next, the control unit 11 receives an input of a main component to be excluded from the target of the repair plan on the repair plan creation screen 42 illustrated in FIG. 10B (step S52).

  Next, the control unit 11 triggers the operation of pressing the plan creation button B1 as an opportunity, and sets each of the facilities with the first day of each year (for example, 2020 to 2024) as a reference date for the repair plan. The evaluation values Ep of the main components are calculated (step S53).

  Next, the control unit 11 sets the objective function and the constraint condition in the same manner as in the execution of the repair plan drafting process (Step S54). However, the control unit 11 distributes an additional budget when setting a constraint condition (Σ (Cij * Sij) ≦ CPj) that the total (sum) of the repair costs in each year is not more than the budget of the corresponding year. The additional budget is added to the initial budget of the fiscal year, and if there is a repaired part, the repair cost of the part is subtracted from the initial budget of the corresponding fiscal year to set the constraint condition.

  Next, based on the objective function and the constraint set in step S54, the control unit 11 performs an optimization calculation to obtain a solution for each main component of each facility that maximizes the objective function (step S55). .

  Next, the control unit 11 outputs a repair plan for each year based on the solution obtained by the optimization calculation performed in step S55 (step S56), and ends the repair plan update process.

[Simulation processing]
Next, a simulation process performed by the equipment evaluation device 1 of the present embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 13 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the simulation process. FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example of a simulation result.

  As shown in FIG. 13, first, the control unit 11 of the equipment evaluation apparatus 1 sets a range of the budget amount to be simulated (for example, 10 million yen to 200 million yen) based on a user operation on a predetermined setting screen (not shown). (Yen) and each budget amount (for example, an amount increased in units of one million yen) are set for each fiscal year (first to fifth years) (step S61).

  Next, the control unit 11 receives an input of a main component to be excluded from a simulation target on the above-described predetermined setting screen (Step S62).

  Next, the control unit 11 performs an optimization calculation for each budget amount set in step S61 (step S63). Note that the optimization calculation performed in step S63 is similar to the optimization calculation performed in step S45 of the repair plan drafting process (see FIG. 9), and a description of the optimization calculation will be omitted.

  Next, for the repair plan for the first year (the first year) calculated by the optimization calculation in step S63, the control unit 11 calculates a repair average risk value for each budget amount when the repair plan is implemented. (Step S64). Specifically, it is assumed that the control unit 11 has repaired all the target parts of the repair plan for the first year calculated by the optimization calculation in step S63 on October 1 of the first year. Then, the control unit 11 calculates the value of the risk index Rp of the main component for each of the main components constituting each facility with the last day of the first year as a reference date, and calculates the value of the risk index Rp of the main component. The value of the risk index Rs of the equipment is calculated for each equipment by multiplying the sum of the values by the importance coefficient of the corresponding equipment. And the control part 11 calculates the repair average risk value which is the average value of the value of the risk index Rs of each facility. The control unit 11 performs the above series of processing for calculating the repair average risk value for each budget amount set in step S61, and as shown in FIG. 14, as a simulation result, the budget amount and the repair average risk value Is output, and the simulation process ends.

  As described above, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1 of the present embodiment, the evaluation value Es of the equipment is calculated for each equipment, so that it is possible to objectively determine the priority order regarding the equipment update, and it is possible to perform the human experience. This makes it possible to formulate an optimal equipment renewal plan regardless of intuition.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, since the coefficient α can be appropriately set based on a user operation when calculating the equipment evaluation value Es, the equipment evaluation value Es according to the environment in which each equipment is managed. Can be accurately calculated.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, the value of the risk index Rp of the main component is calculated for each of the main components constituting each equipment, and the value of the risk index Rp of the main component is summed to the total value. Since the value of the risk index Rs of each facility is calculated based on each facility, the value of the risk index Rs of each facility can be calculated finely. Therefore, by using the value of the risk index Rs of the facility, the evaluation value Es of the facility can be calculated more accurately.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, the failure rate on the reference date is calculated based on the corresponding survival curve for each main component constituting each equipment, and the failure rate is set for each major component. By multiplying the risk coefficient, the value of the risk index Rp of the main component for each main component constituting each facility is calculated, so that the value of the risk index Rp of each main component can be accurately calculated. . Further, when calculating the value of the risk index Rp of each major component, the risk coefficient set for each major component is taken into account, so that the value of the risk index Rp of each major component can be calculated more accurately. Can be calculated.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, the value of the risk index Rp of the main component is calculated for each of the main components constituting each equipment, and the value of the risk index Rp of the main component is summed to the total value. Since the value of the risk index Rs of the equipment is calculated for each equipment by multiplying by the importance coefficient of the corresponding equipment, the importance of each equipment can be reflected, and the evaluation value Es of each equipment can be further improved. It can be calculated accurately.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, the value of the cost index Cp of the main component is calculated for each of the main components constituting each facility, and the value of the cost index Cp of the main component is added to the total value. Since the value of the facility cost index Cs is calculated for each facility, the value of the cost index Cs of each facility can be calculated finely. Therefore, by using the value of the cost index Cs of the facility, the evaluation value Es of the facility can be calculated more accurately.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, for each main component constituting each equipment, a replacement cycle of the main component that satisfies a desired survival rate is calculated based on the corresponding survival curve, and the replacement cycle of the main component is calculated. Based on the replacement cycle, the base date, and the last replacement date of the main component, the value of the unamortized cost of the main component on the base date is calculated, and the value of the unamortized cost is calculated Since the value of the cost index Cp of each component is used, the value of the cost index Cp of each main component can be accurately calculated.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, the priority order regarding the replacement of each equipment is displayed on the display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3 based on the calculated evaluation value Es of the equipment. It is possible to make it easier to grasp the priorities regarding.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, it is determined whether or not each equipment has exceeded the depreciation period on the base date, and only the equipment determined to have exceeded the depreciation period is taken as a target. Since the priorities related to the replacement are displayed on the display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3, the priorities related to the replacement of each facility can be grasped accurately and easily.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, the evaluation value Ep of each main component is calculated for the equipment determined not to have exceeded the depreciation period at least, and the calculated evaluation value Ep of the main component is calculated. Based on the display, the display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3 displays the priority of the replacement of each major component of each facility, so that the priority of the replacement of each major component of each facility can be accurately and easily grasped. can do.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, the evaluation value Ep of each main component of each equipment is calculated using the first day of the year in each year from the first year to the fifth year as a reference date, and the calculated value of each equipment is calculated. Based on the evaluation value Ep of the main component, the sum of the evaluation value Ep of the main component of each facility in each fiscal year is used as an objective function, and the sum of the repair costs of the main component of the facility is calculated. By performing an optimization calculation to obtain a solution for each major component of each facility that maximizes the objective function, with the constraint that the target function is less than or equal to the budget amount for the corresponding year, Since the repair plan for each of the main components can be objectively performed, the repair plan without omissions or omissions can be easily performed.

  In addition, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, the optimization calculation is performed by further adding a constraint condition that the number of times of repairing each main component of each equipment is one, so that each major component of each equipment is subject to the repair plan. The components can be selected evenly.

  In addition, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, since the main component specified based on the user operation can be excluded from the target of the repair and the optimization calculation can be performed, for example, the construction capability related to the repair and the on-site A flexible repair plan that considers the actual situation can be performed.

  Moreover, according to the equipment evaluation apparatus 1, since the repair plan can be performed again in consideration of the additional budget, a more flexible repair plan can be performed. In addition, when re-calculating the optimization calculation taking into account the additional budget, repair of each major component of each facility that has been repaired among the major components of each facility obtained as a solution by the initial optimization calculation In addition to the above, the repair cost of each major component of each facility is subtracted from the budget amount of the corresponding year, and the optimization calculation is performed, so that the repair plan can be appropriately performed.

  Further, according to the equipment evaluation device 1, each budget amount set based on the user operation is applied to the budget amount of the constraint condition, and the optimization calculation corresponding to the budget amount is performed, and the optimization calculation corresponding to the budget amount is performed. Assuming that each major component of each facility obtained as a solution for the first year (first year) by each of the above was repaired on a predetermined date (October 1) of the first year, a predetermined reference date Is calculated as the last day of the first year, the average value of the risk index Rs of each facility (repair average risk value) is calculated for each of the budget amounts, so that an appropriate budget amount is determined from the relationship between the average value and the budget amount. Selection can be facilitated.

  As described above, the present invention has been specifically described based on the embodiment. However, the present invention is not limited to the above embodiment, and can be changed without departing from the gist of the invention.

  In the above embodiment, when displaying the priorities of the aging replacement facilities, for example, for the facilities that have been ranked, the value of the risk index Rss of the normalized facilities and the normalized The balance between risk and cost may be visualized by displaying a graph in which the value of the cost index Css is two-dimensionally plotted on a display unit (not shown) of the user terminal 3.

  Further, in the above embodiment, the case where the repair plan for five years is performed has been described as an example. However, the span of the repair plan may be one year, or may be six years or more. . In addition, in step S43 of the repair planning process (see FIG. 9), the evaluation value Ep of each major component of each facility is calculated using the first day of each year as a reference date. May be a day other than the first day.

  Further, in the above embodiment, when performing the simulation processing (see FIG. 13), it is assumed that each major component of each equipment to be repaired was repaired on October 1 in the first year of the plan, and a predetermined standard With the day as the last day of the plan's first year, the average value of the risk index Rs of each facility (repair average risk value) was calculated for each budget amount. The date on which the main component is assumed to be repaired may be a day other than October 1. Further, the reference date for calculating the average repair risk value is the last day of the first year of the plan, but may be a day other than the last day of the first year of the plan.

  Further, in the above-described embodiment, a replacement is performed on a main component having a replacement part (for example, a replacement part having a higher performance than the original main component) among the respective main components of the repaired equipment. A virtual evaluation value is calculated from the specification of the part, and a repair plan based on the virtual evaluation value of the replacement part and a repair plan based on the evaluation value of the original main component (specifically, by comparing the repair plan) Whether or not the main component should be replaced with a substitute component may be determined based on a predetermined criterion.

  Further, in the above-described embodiment, an example is described in which a hard disk or the like is used as a computer-readable medium of the program according to the present invention, but the present invention is not limited to this example. As another computer-readable medium, a portable recording medium such as a CD-ROM can be applied. In addition, a carrier wave is also used as a medium for providing the program data according to the present invention via a communication line.

1 Equipment evaluation device 11 control unit (first calculating means, first normalizing means, second calculating means, second normalizing means, third calculating means, first setting means, second setting Means, first display control means, first determination means, fourth calculation means, second display control means, fifth calculation means, sixth calculation means, designation means, second determination means, 7, calculating means, third setting means, eighth calculating means, ninth calculating means)
2 storage device 3 user terminal N communication network

Claims (19)

A facility evaluation device that evaluates the status of each facility on a predetermined reference date,
First calculating means for calculating a value of a risk index of equipment for each of the equipment,
First normalizing means for normalizing each of the risk index values of the equipment calculated by the first calculating means,
Second calculating means for calculating the value of the cost index of the equipment for each of the equipment,
Second normalizing means for normalizing the value of the cost index of the equipment calculated by the second calculating means, respectively;
The value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the first normalization means and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the second normalization means are respectively assigned to corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function. A third calculating means for substituting and calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each of the equipment,
An equipment evaluation device comprising: The variable of the predetermined evaluation function is provided with a weightable coefficient,
The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a first setting unit configured to set the value of the coefficient based on a user operation.   The first calculating means calculates the value of the risk index of the main component for each of the main components constituting each of the facilities, and, based on the value obtained by summing the values of the risk indexes of the main components, The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a value of a risk index of the equipment is calculated for each equipment.   The first calculating means is based on a survival curve derived for each main component constituting each facility using at least past failure information and repair performance information of each facility, based on the predetermined reference date. By calculating a failure rate for each of the main components of each of the facilities and multiplying the failure rate by a risk coefficient set for each of the main components, the failure rate is calculated for each of the main components constituting each of the facilities. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a value of a risk index of the component is calculated.   The first calculating means calculates a value of a risk index of the main component for each of the main components constituting each of the facilities, and corresponds to a value obtained by summing the values of the risk indexes of the main components. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a value of a risk index of the equipment is calculated for each of the equipment by multiplying the importance coefficient of the equipment.   The second calculating means calculates a value of a cost index of the main component for each main component constituting each of the facilities, and, based on a value obtained by summing the values of the cost indicators of the main component, respectively, The equipment evaluation apparatus according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein a value of a cost index of the equipment is calculated for each equipment. A second setting unit that sets a desired survival rate based on a user operation for each main component configuring each of the facilities;
The second calculation unit is configured to execute the second setting unit based on a survival curve derived for each major component configuring each of the facilities using at least past failure information and repair performance information of each of the facilities. The replacement cycle of the main component that satisfies the survival rate set by is calculated, based on the replacement cycle of the main component, the predetermined reference date, and the last replacement date of the main component, The equipment evaluation according to claim 6, wherein the value of the unamortized cost of the main component on the base date is calculated, and the value of the unamortized cost is used as the value of the cost index of the main component. apparatus. 2. The apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: first display control means for displaying, on a display means, a priority order for replacement of each of the equipment based on the evaluation value of the equipment calculated by the third calculation means. The equipment evaluation device according to any one of claims 7 to 7. The apparatus further includes a first determination unit configured to determine whether each of the facilities has exceeded a depreciation period on the predetermined reference date,
The first display control means may cause the display means to display a priority order relating to replacement of each of the facilities only for the facilities determined to have exceeded the depreciation period by the first determination means. The equipment evaluation device according to claim 8, wherein A fourth calculating unit that calculates an evaluation value of each main component for at least the equipment determined to have not exceeded the depreciation period by the first determining unit;
Second display control means for displaying, on a display means, a priority order for replacement of each main component of each facility based on the evaluation value of the main component calculated by the fourth calculation means. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising: Fifth calculating means for calculating an evaluation value of each main component of each of the facilities as a specific day in each of a predetermined year or a plurality of years as the predetermined reference date,
Evaluation of the main component of the facility in each of the one year or the plurality of years based on the evaluation value of the main component of the facility calculated by the fifth calculating unit. The objective function is defined as the sum of the values, and the constraint is that the sum of the repair costs of each major component of each facility is not more than the budget amount of the corresponding year. A sixth calculating means for performing an optimization calculation for obtaining each of the main components as a solution;
The equipment evaluation device according to any one of claims 1 to 10, further comprising:   12. The apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the sixth calculation unit performs the optimization calculation by further adding a constraint condition that the number of times of repairing each of the main component parts of each of the facilities is one. Equipment evaluation equipment. Designating means for designating, based on a user operation, a main component to be excluded from the target of repair among the main components of the facilities,
13. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the sixth calculating unit performs the optimization calculation while excluding the main component specified by the specifying unit from repair targets.   The main component is replaced with a replacement part for a main component having an alternative part among the main components of the equipment obtained as the solution by the optimization calculation by the sixth calculation means. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to any one of claims 11 to 13, further comprising a second determination unit configured to determine whether or not to be performed based on a predetermined criterion. A seventh calculation unit that performs the optimization calculation in consideration of the additional budget,
The seventh calculating means is a main component of each of the repaired main components of each of the main components of each of the facilities obtained as the solution by the initial optimization calculation by the sixth calculating means. 15. The optimization calculation according to claim 11, wherein the parts are excluded from the object of the repair, and the optimization calculation is performed by subtracting a repair cost of each of the main components of each of the facilities from a budget amount of a corresponding year. An equipment evaluation device according to any one of the preceding claims. A third setting unit that can set a plurality of different budget amounts based on a user operation;
Eighth calculation means for applying each budget amount set by the third setting means to the budget amount of the constraint condition and performing the optimization calculation in accordance with the budget amount, respectively;
The main component parts of the respective facilities obtained as the solutions in a predetermined year by the respective optimization calculations according to the budget amount by the eighth calculating means are determined on a predetermined date in the predetermined year. Ninth calculating means for calculating the average value of the risk index values of the respective facilities for each of the budget amounts, assuming that the predetermined reference date is the last day of the predetermined year,
The equipment evaluation apparatus according to any one of claims 11 to 15, further comprising: Designating means for designating, based on a user operation, a main component to be excluded from the target of repair among the main components of the facilities,
17. The equipment evaluation apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the eighth calculating unit performs the optimization calculation while excluding the main components specified by the specifying unit from repair targets. A facility evaluation method for evaluating the status of each facility on a predetermined reference date,
A first step of calculating a value of a facility risk index for each of the facilities;
A second step of normalizing each of the risk index values of the equipment calculated in the first step;
A third step of calculating a value of a facility cost index for each of the facilities;
A fourth step of normalizing each of the cost index values of the equipment calculated in the third step;
Substituting the value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the second step and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the fourth step into corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function, A fifth step of calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each equipment;
A facility evaluation method comprising: On the computer,
A first process of calculating a value of a risk index of a facility for each facility on a predetermined reference date;
A second process for normalizing the value of the risk index of the facility calculated by the first process,
A third process of calculating a value of the cost index of the facility for each of the facilities,
A fourth process for normalizing the value of the cost index of the equipment calculated by the third process,
Substituting the value of the risk index of the equipment normalized by the second process and the value of the cost index of the equipment normalized by the fourth process into corresponding variables of a predetermined evaluation function, A fifth process of calculating an evaluation value of the equipment for each equipment;
Equipment evaluation program for executing

Images