JP2021124955A - Matching support system, matching support device, reliability calculation method, and reliability calculation program - Google Patents

Abstract

To provide a matching support system that can surely calculate reliability of a provider candidate suitable for a matching request of a client and calculate reliability having high credibility.SOLUTION: In a matching support system 100, a control section 11 executes reliability calculation processing (S15) in matching processing for matching a client and a provider. In the reliability calculation processing, the control section 11 calculates reliability of a provider candidate suitable for a matching request on the basis of result evaluation points and customer evaluation points.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 18

Description

The present invention relates to a matching support system, a matching support device, a reliability calculation method, and a reliability calculation program for matching a requester who requests the provision of a service with a provider who provides the service.

In recent years, support services that support mutual aid activities between registered registrants have been operated through a network. Ride sharing is known to bring each other together.

Conventionally, in the above-mentioned ride sharing, if there is a certain level of trust between the users who use the ride sharing, for example, between the driver and the carpooling requester, each user can ride with confidence. You can receive services by sharing. However, if there is no trust among the users, there is a problem that each user cannot receive the service with peace of mind.

Regarding such a problem, the reliability of the user with respect to other users (other users) was calculated based on the address information acquired in advance from the user (user) registered in advance, and a matching request was made. In this case, a reliability calculation device that presents matching candidates selected from other users based on the reliability corresponding to the requested user is disclosed (see Patent Document 1).

Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication No. 2014-215670

The conventional reliability calculation device described above generates a user map using address information (telephone number, e-mail address, etc.) registered in a communication terminal device such as a smartphone used by the user, and is used between users on the map. Calculate the reliability between users based on the path of. However, the address information registered in the communication terminal device is not necessarily the address information of another user who has high reliability for the person himself / herself, so even if the actual trust relationship is extremely low between users. In some cases, the reliability with a high numerical value may be calculated, and there is a problem that a result that greatly deviates from the actual trust relationship is calculated. Further, in the first place, if the communication terminal device is not permitted to disclose the address information, the reliability calculation device cannot acquire the address information and cannot calculate the reliability.

The above-mentioned problem regarding reliability is not limited to the above-mentioned ride sharing, but is a problem that can occur in all matching services that support matching between a requester who requests a service and a provider who provides the service.

An object of the present invention is a matching support system capable of reliably calculating the reliability of a provider candidate who meets a matching request of a client and further calculating a highly credible reliability. The purpose of the present invention is to provide a matching support device, a reliability calculation method, and a reliability calculation program.

(1) The matching support system according to one aspect of the present invention is a system that supports matching between a requester who requests the provision of a service and a provider who provides the service. The matching support system includes a reliability calculation processing unit. The reliability calculation processing unit is evaluated based on the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the provider and the relationship between the client and the provider. The reliability of the provider in the client is calculated based on the second provider evaluation value for the provider.

Since it is configured in this way, the reliability calculation processing unit can reliably calculate a highly credible reliability. As a result, the client can use the matching support system with peace of mind, and the client can select the provider based on the reliability, so that the service can be received from the provider with confidence. can.

The first provider evaluation value includes, for example, an evaluation value based on at least one of the non-implementation period from the previous implementation by the provider and the implementation evaluation from the client who received the service. The second provider evaluation value is the distance between the place of residence of the provider and the place of residence of the client, the record of exchanges between the provider and the client (number of exchanges), and the number of common visits. , Includes an evaluation value based on at least one of the requester's individual evaluations of the provider.

(2) The reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability by adding a value obtained by multiplying each of the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value by a predetermined ratio. ..

(3) In the matching support system, the ratio is changed according to the service usage record of the client.

According to this configuration, the ratio according to the service usage record of the requester is applied to the calculation of the reliability, so that the reliability with higher credibility is calculated. As a result, the client can receive the service from the requesting provider with more peace of mind.

(4) The reliability calculation processing unit changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value to the reliability becomes relatively high as the number of times the requester uses the service increases.

(5) In the reliability calculation processing unit, the longer the unused period from the previous use of the service by the requester, the lower the ratio of the second provider evaluation value to the reliability. Change the ratio.

(6) The matching support system further includes a candidate selection processing unit that selects a provider candidate that meets the request from the client. In this case, the reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability of the provider candidate selected by the candidate selection processing unit.

According to this configuration, only the reliability of the provider candidate selected by the candidate selection processing unit needs to be calculated, so that the calculation speed of the reliability calculation processing is improved and the load of the calculation processing is reduced.

(7) The matching support system further includes a transmission processing unit that transmits the highly reliable provider candidate calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit to the terminal device used by the client.

(8) In the matching support system, the service is a regional service provided to the client residing in a predetermined area by the provider residing in the same area as a mutual aid activity for the client.

(9) The matching support device according to another aspect of the present invention supports matching between a requester who requests the provision of a service and a provider who provides the service. The matching support device includes a reliability calculation processing unit. The reliability calculation processing unit is used for each of the requesters based on the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the provider and the relationship between the requester and the provider. The reliability of the provider in the client is calculated based on the second provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated in.

(10) The reliability calculation method according to another aspect of the present invention has a reliability calculation step. The reliability calculation step is based on the relationship between the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the service provider, the requester requesting the service provision, and the provider. Based on the second provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated for each requester, the reliability of the provider in the requester is calculated.

(11) The present invention may be regarded as a program for causing one or more processors to execute the steps of the reliability calculation method, or as a computer-readable recording medium in which such a program is recorded non-temporarily. can. The program is based on the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the provider providing the service, and the relationship between the requester requesting the provision of the service and the provider. To have one or more processors execute a reliability calculation step of calculating the reliability of the provider in the requester based on the second provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated for each requester. It is a reliability calculation program.

According to the present invention, it is possible to reliably calculate the reliability of a provider candidate that meets the matching request of the client, and further, it is possible to calculate the reliability with high credibility.

FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a network connection configuration of a matching support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a configuration of a server device included in the matching support system. FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a configuration of an information terminal used by a registered user. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of request information including the contents requested by the requester to the matching support system. FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of a user information management table. FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of the provider information management table. FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of the contents of the service that can be provided included in the provider registration information. FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a calculation rule of performance evaluation points based on the service implementation performance. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of performance evaluation points. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of customer evaluation points based on the relationship between the user registrant and the provider registrant. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of the calculation rule of the customer evaluation point. FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an introduction route including a common introducer for each of the user registrant and the provider registrant. FIG. 13 is an application rate distribution table showing the application rate distribution applied to ride sharing. FIG. 14 is an application rate subtraction table showing the subtraction rate according to the unused period of the requester. FIG. 15 is a flowchart showing an example of the procedure of the matching process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 16 is a flowchart showing an example of the procedure of the matching process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing an example of the procedure of the candidate selection process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 18 is a flowchart showing an example of the procedure of the reliability calculation process executed by the control unit of the server device.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings as appropriate. It should be noted that the embodiments described below are merely examples that embody the present invention, and do not limit the technical scope of the present invention.

FIG. 1 is a network diagram showing a configuration of a matching support system 100 including a server device 10 according to an embodiment of the present invention. In the present embodiment, the matching support system 100 of the present invention is specifically realized by the server device 10 and the information terminals 2 and 3 constituting the matching support system 100.

The matching support system 100 is introduced, for example, into a local government having jurisdiction over a predetermined area, and is a system that can be used by a plurality of registered users who have been registered in advance. The matching support system 100 can provide the regional service with a requester (an example of a client of the present invention) who requests to receive the provision of various regional services among the plurality of registered users. It is a system capable of matching with a provided registrant (an example of a provider of the present invention) and supporting the smooth mutual assistance activity between the client and the provided registrant.

Here, the plurality of user registrants (requester and provider registrant) are persons who are permitted to use the matching support system 100, that is, persons who have an account for using the matching support system 100. be.

In addition, the regional service is a service provided to residents in a predetermined area under the jurisdiction of the local government. The local services are generally existing transportation services such as railroads, route buses and taxis, medical services such as hospitals, nursing care services, disability welfare services, childcare services such as daycare, school education, administrative services and entertainment services. It includes not only services but also life-related services that are closely related to the lives of residents and social services in which mutual exchange (two-way communication) between registered users plays a central role in the services. The life-related services include, for example, so-called ride sharing, shopping agency, garden cleaning, mowing, snow scraping, pet walking, housework agency, housework guidance, house cleaning, temporary pet custody, temporary custody of children, children. Sports instruction etc. The ride sharing is a non-profit transportation service using a service provider's vehicle or the like.

In addition, the provision registrant is a person who satisfies a predetermined provider condition in providing the regional service. For example, when the regional service is the ride sharing, the provider conditions relating to the ride sharing include requirements such as the number of years of obtaining a driver's license for a vehicle, the annual mileage of the vehicle, and the current age. When each of these requirements clears the criteria set by the local government or the manager, it is considered that the provider condition is satisfied, and the user is registered in the matching support system 100 as the provider registrant. For example, one example of the provider condition is that the driver's license of a car is obtained for 5 years or more, the annual mileage of the car is 10,000 km or more, and the age is less than 60 years old. A person who meets these criteria is registered in the matching support system 100 as the provider registrant who can provide the ride sharing.

In the following, when the requester receives the provision of the regional service such as the ride sharing, a processing example of matching between the requester and the provision registrant is illustrated, and the present embodiment is described. The matching support system 100 and the server device 10 will be described. In the following, the regional service may be simply referred to as a service.

[Configuration of matching support system 100]
As shown in FIG. 1, the matching support system 100 includes a server device 10 (an example of the matching support device of the present invention) and one or more information terminals 2 used by the client (an example of the terminal device of the present invention). And one or more information terminals 3 used by the provider registrant, and these are connected to each other so as to be communicable with each other by a network N1 such as a dedicated line or a public line. Further, the server device 10 is communicably connected to the management terminal 20 by a network N2 such as a LAN.

The server device 10 is an information processing device managed by a local government having jurisdiction over an autonomous area such as a municipality, and is, for example, a server computer or a cloud server. The server device 10 is not limited to one computer, and may be a computer system in which a plurality of computers operate in cooperation with each other, or a cloud computing system. Further, various processes executed by the server device 10 may be distributed and executed by one or a plurality of processors.

The management terminal 20 is an information terminal device used by the administrator of the matching support system 100, and is, for example, a notebook personal computer or a desktop personal computer. The administrator accesses the matching support system 100 from the management terminal 20 and edits or updates various data such as data registered in the system 100.

The information terminal 2 is a communication terminal device used by the client, and the information terminal 3 is a communication terminal device used by the provider registrant. Information terminals 2 and 3 are, for example, mobile terminals such as smartphones and tablet terminals that can be carried around.

Applications necessary for using the matching support system 100 are installed in the information terminals 2 and 3. The requester and the provision registrant activate the application on the information terminals 2 and 3 and use the matching support system 100 through the application. When a request request for the provision of a specific regional service (for example, ride sharing) is input to the server device 10 from the information terminal 2, the matching support system 100 is a candidate for one or a plurality of providers who meet the request request. (Required conformer) is selected from multiple registrants. Then, the server device 10 transmits the selected provider candidate to the information terminal 2 which is the transmission source of the request request. Then, when a specific provider candidate is selected by the requester in the information terminal 2, the service provider who provides the requested service (hereinafter referred to as "request service") is determined, and the requester and the service are determined. The matching process with the provider is completed.

When the request service is actually executed by the service provider, the requester transmits an evaluation for the service provider to the server device 10 through the application running on the information terminal 2. Further, the service provider evaluates the requester who received the request service, together with the report information (implementation completion information) indicating that the request service has been completed, through the application running on the information terminal 3. Send to 10.

By the way, in realizing regional services such as ride sharing through mutual aid activities among residents, the service provider who provides the regional services is a reliable person for the client who desires to provide the regional services. Whether or not it is important. In particular, when receiving the life-related service or the social service, it is extremely important whether or not there is a relationship of trust with the service provider due to the nature of the service. If there is no trust in the service provider, the client cannot safely request the service provider to provide the regional service, and even if he / she requests it, he / she cannot receive the service with confidence.

On the other hand, in the present embodiment, the matching support system 100 accurately and surely calculates the reliability of the provider candidate in response to the request request of the client, and calculates the reliability of the provider candidate together with the reliability. It is configured to be presented to the client. As a result, the client can safely select the service provider to actually provide the service from the provider candidates, and can receive the service from the service provider with confidence.

Hereinafter, the server device 10, the information terminals 2, 3 and the like constituting the matching support system 100 will be described.

[Server device 10]
FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the configuration of the server device 10. The server device 10 is for realizing the matching support system 100. That is, the server device 10 realizes, as the matching support device of the present invention, a system that supports matching between the requester and the provision registrant with respect to a specific regional service.

When the server device 10 acquires the request request and the request information sent from the application running on the information terminal 2 via the network N1, the requester information (requester ID, etc.) included in the request information and the request information, etc. It is configured to select the provider candidate that matches the request information and transmit it to the information terminal 2 by referring to the request content, additional conditions for the service provider, and the like.

As shown in FIG. 2, the server device 10 includes a control unit 11, a storage unit 12, a database 13, and a communication unit 14.

The communication unit 14 is a communication interface for connecting the server device 10 to the networks N1 and N2 and executing data communication with a plurality of information terminals 2 and 3 and the management terminal 20 according to a predetermined communication protocol. ..

The storage unit 12 is a non-volatile storage medium or storage device including an HDD or SSD that stores various types of information. The storage unit 12 is executed by a program for causing the control unit 11 to execute various processes (see FIGS. 15 to 18) such as a matching process, a candidate selection process, and a reliability calculation process, which will be described later, and a server device 10. Data and information used for each of the above processes are stored. Further, in the present embodiment, the application rate distribution table 121 (see FIG. 13) and the application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) used in the reliability calculation process are stored in the storage unit 12.

The database 13 contains information about the user registrants registered in the matching support system 100 (hereinafter referred to as "user registration information") and information about the provider registrants registered in the matching support system 100 (hereinafter "provided"). It is a storage device such as an HDD or SSD that manageably stores such as "person registration information") as a database. The database 13 is not limited to the storage device provided in the server device 10, and may be configured as an external device such as another server device or storage device capable of data communication with the server device 10 via the Internet or the like.

The database 13 is provided with storage areas such as a request information storage unit 131, a user information storage unit 132, a provider information storage unit 133, a matching record storage unit 134, and a customer evaluation storage unit 135. The information stored in each of the storage units 131 to 135 is used for a matching process, a candidate selection process, a reliability calculation process (see FIGS. 15 to 18), which will be described later.

The request information storage unit 131 stores request information including the request contents requested by the requester. When the application is started on the requester's information terminal 2, a predetermined request content is input to the request input screen displayed on the display unit 23A (see FIG. 3) by the application, and then an execution instruction is input. The request information is transmitted from the information terminal 2 to the server device 10 together with the request request. When the control unit 11 of the server device 10 receives the request request and the request information, the control unit 11 associates the request information with the requester's ID and temporarily stores the request information in the request information storage unit 131 for use in the matching process. do.

The request information includes requester information, request contents, additional conditions for a service provider, and the like. The requester information includes an ID (person identification information) for identifying the requester. The requester information may include the requester's name, place of residence (address), affiliation information of the community to which the requester belongs, and the like. The community will be described later.

The content of the request includes the name of the service requested by the requester (service name), the specific content of the service (detailed matters), the desired date and time of implementation, and the like.

The additional conditions are individually set by the requester at the time of request, and are conditions imposed on the service provider in addition to the provider conditions determined at the time of registration of the provider registrant. The additional conditions include, for example, gender, age, degree of skill (skill, ability, qualification, etc.) related to the requested service. In the present embodiment, an example in which the additional condition is set at the time of request by the requester will be described, but the additional condition may be a default value individually set in advance for each requester. Further, the additional condition may be a default value set in advance according to the content of the request service.

FIG. 4 shows an example of the request information when the requester (user registrant A1) requests the matching support system 100 to perform "ride sharing" as a specific regional service. In the example of FIG. 4, the request content includes the service name "ride sharing" desired to be implemented, the specific service content "pick-up and drop-off by car", and the specific time for pick-up and drop-off (desired implementation). Date and time) and specific pick-up routes are included. In addition, the additional conditions include a condition that the age is less than 55 years old and a condition that the number of years of obtaining a driver's license is 10 years or more.

When the matching by the matching process described later is established and the request service is executed by the service provider, the executed request information is registered in the matching record data of the matching record storage unit 134 described later, and the request is made. The requested information that has already been executed is deleted from the information storage unit 131.

The user information storage unit 132 stores a plurality of user registration information regarding each of the plurality of registered users who use the matching support system 100. Specifically, the user information management table 132A (see FIG. 5) including the plurality of user registration information is stored in the user information storage unit 132.

FIG. 5 shows an example of the user information management table 132A. As shown in FIG. 5, a plurality of the user registration information is registered in the user information management table 132A for each ID (user ID) indicating the user registration user. The user registration information includes, for example, the user ID, the name of the user registrant (A1, A2, ...), the community to which the user registrant belongs (C1, C2, ...), And the user registrant. It includes the introduced introducer, the number of times the matching support system 100 has been used, individual evaluation points given by the service provider, and the like. Although not shown in FIG. 5, the user registration information may include the user's gender, age, address, contact information (telephone number, e-mail address), and the like.

The user registration information is newly registered in the user information management table 132A when the usage registration application of the matching support system 100 is approved. A person (applicant) who wishes to use the matching support system 100 applies for the usage registration to the matching support system 100 via the application, and when the application is approved, the user ID is given to the applicant. A new account will be issued, including. Then, the user information including the personal information of the applicant and the community information to which the user belongs, which is input together with the usage registration application, is registered in the user information management table 132A. If the name and user ID of another user registration applicant who has already used the matching support system 100 is input as an introducer at the time of the registration application, the information of the introducer is also entered in the user information management table 132A. To be registered in.

Here, the number of times of use (see FIG. 5) is, for example, the cumulative number of times a specific service (for example, ride sharing) is provided via the matching support system 100 during a specific period. The specific period is an arbitrarily determined period, for example, the latest one year (one year before the last use). In the present embodiment, the number of times of use is counted separately for each service handled by the matching support system 100. In the user information management table 132A of FIG. 5, the number of times of use is not shown separately for each service, but the number of times of use of the matching support system 100 is shown. For example, when the server device 10 receives the report information (implementation completion information) indicating that the requested service has been completed from the service provider, the control unit 11 counts up the number of times of use corresponding to the service. Update the relevant user registration information. The number of times of use is not limited to the one counted separately for each service, and may be, for example, the number of times the matching support system 100 is used regardless of the service used. The number of times of use is used in the reliability calculation process described later.

Further, the individual evaluation points are the average value of the evaluation points individually given to the requester by the service provider each time the service is implemented. For example, when the server device 10 receives the evaluation point for the requester when receiving the report information (implementation completion information) indicating that the requested service has been completed from the service provider, the control unit 11 of the server device 10 receives the evaluation point. The individual evaluation points are updated.

The provider information storage unit 133 stores a plurality of provider registration information regarding the provider registrant registered as a person who can provide the service in the matching support system 100. Specifically, the provider information management table 133A (see FIG. 6) including the plurality of provider registration information is stored in the provider information storage unit 133.

FIG. 6 shows an example of the provider information management table 133A. As shown in FIG. 6, in the provider information management table 133A, a plurality of the provider registration information is registered for each ID indicating the provider registrant. The provider registration information includes, for example, an ID indicating the provider registrant, the name of the provider registrant (B1, B2, ...), And the community to which the provider registrant belongs (C1, C2, ...). , The number of times the service is executed by the matching support system 100, the types of services that can be provided, the performance evaluation points calculated based on the past service implementation results (an example of the first provider evaluation value of the present invention), and the like are included. Although not shown in FIG. 6, the provider registration information may include the gender, age, address, contact information (telephone number, e-mail address), etc. of the provider registration information.

The provider registration information is newly registered in the provider information management table 133A when the registration application of the provider registrant is approved by the matching support system 100. When a person (applicant) who wishes to register the provided registrant in the matching support system 100 makes the registration application and the application is approved, an ID is issued to the applicant. Then, the provider registration information including the personal information of the applicant, the community information to which the applicant belongs, the types of services that can be provided, and the like entered together with the registration application are registered in the provider information management table 133A of the provider information storage unit 133. Will be done.

FIG. 7 shows an example of the contents of the service that can be provided that is registered as the provider registration information. As shown in FIG. 7, the provider registration information also includes specific contents of services that can be provided. For example, in the example of the provider registrant B1 shown in FIG. 7, the service contents include the service name "ride sharing" that can be provided and the specific service content "pick-up and drop-off by car". It includes the specific time available (date and time available) and the range available. The provider registration information may include requester conditions imposed on the requester by the provider registrant. The requester conditions include, for example, requirements for limiting the service provision target (user registrant who receives the service) to the user registrant who lives in the same residential area as the provider registrant, age limit, gender, and the like. Conceivable.

Here, the number of times of implementation (see FIG. 6) is, for example, the cumulative number of times a specific service (for example, ride sharing) is performed to the client via the matching support system 100 during a specific period. The specific period is an arbitrarily determined period, for example, the latest one year (one year before the last provision). The number of implementations is counted separately for each service handled by the matching support system 100. For example, when the server device 10 receives the report information (execution completion information) indicating that the requested service has been completed from the service provider, the control unit 11 counts up the number of executions corresponding to the service. Update the relevant provider registration information. This number of executions is used in the reliability calculation process described later.

Further, the performance evaluation points are evaluated based on the service implementation results by the service provider, and are evaluation values given to each service provider.

FIG. 8 shows an example of the calculation rule of the performance evaluation point based on the performance when the service provider performs ride sharing, which is an example of the regional service, to the client. In the example of FIG. 8, five evaluation items used for evaluation of the performance evaluation points are defined, and the distribution of evaluation points (point distribution) according to the performance of the service provider is defined for each evaluation item. ing. The performance evaluation points are the total points assigned to each evaluation item. In each evaluation item, the maximum score is 1 point and the minimum score is 0 point. Therefore, the maximum score of the performance evaluation point is 5 points and the minimum score is 0 point.

Specifically, the evaluation item "accident history" in FIG. 8 is evaluated as 1 point when the service provider has never caused a traffic accident in a specific period (for example, the latest one year). , When the service provider causes a traffic accident once, it is evaluated as 0.5 points, and when the service provider causes a traffic accident twice or more, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "cumulative evaluation" is a so-called customer evaluation, and is an evaluation individually given to the service provider by the requester who received the service each time the request service is performed. It is the average value of points. The evaluation points given by the client are divided into 5 stages from 1 to 5, and when the average value is 4.5 or more and less than 5, it is judged as "excellent", and in this case, it is evaluated as 1 point. .. When the average value is 3.5 or more and less than 4.5, it is judged as "good", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.75 points. When the average value is 2.5 or more and less than 3.5, it is judged as "OK", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.5 points. When the average value is 1.5 or more and less than 2.5, it is judged as "dissatisfied", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.25 points. Further, when the average value is 1 or more and less than 1.5, it is determined as "impossible", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0 point.

The evaluation item "number of implementations" is the cumulative number of times the service provider has implemented the requested service during a specific period (for example, the latest one year). The number of times of implementation is 10 or more is evaluated as 1 point, 7 to 9 times is evaluated as 0.75 points, 4 to 6 times is evaluated as 0.5 points, 2 to 3 times is evaluated as 0.25 points, and 0 times is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "non-implementation period" is the elapsed time from the time when the service was last implemented for the client. If the non-execution period is less than 1 week, it is evaluated as 1 point, if it is 1 week or more and less than 2 weeks, it is evaluated as 0.75 points, and if it is 2 weeks or more and less than 3 weeks, it is evaluated as 0.5 points. If it is 3 weeks or more and less than 4 weeks, it is evaluated as 0.25 points, and if it is 4 weeks or more, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "community attribute" is an evaluation item related to the community to which the service provider belongs. Here, specifically, the community is a so-called local community organized by the inhabitants in an area where a plurality of inhabitants live (for example, a municipality). The local community is also called a local community. In the area, multiple local communities are formed according to the purpose. In the area where the inhabitants who are members of the community live, such a local community can provide education and welfare of the inhabitants in the area, crime prevention, cleaning of roads and waterways in the area, care for the elderly, securing of public transportation, and information. We carry out a wide range of activities according to various purposes, such as dissemination, community exchange, and so-called town revitalization. For example, as an example of a local community in Japan, education organized by residents' associations and neighborhood associations organized by districts such as municipalities, and by school officials (mainly parents and teachers of students) located in the area. Consists of related organizations (eg PTA: Parent-Teacher Association), a shopping district organization (eg, a shopping district promotion association) that is a collection of store operators located in the area, and residents of the area for a common purpose. These include sports clubs, voluntary disaster prevention organizations (for example, fire brigades), children's associations, child-rearing circles, welfare volunteers, senior citizens' clubs, boy scouts, and girl scouts.

In general, the members who belong to such a community are those who are actively engaged in activities to achieve the purpose set by the community to which they belong, while carrying out cooperative activities and mutual aid activities among the members. Yes, it has a relatively high degree of trust compared to independents. In particular, the representatives (administrators or leaders) of the community have earned the deep trust of each member. The representative of the community is, for example, the chairman of the self-governing body when the community is the neighborhood association, the chairman of the town in the case of the neighborhood association, the chairman of the PTA in the case of the PTA, the union leader in the case of the shopping district promotion association, and the above. In the case of a sports club, a leader such as a director, in the case of the fire brigade, the leader, and in the case of the children's association, the chairman.

Therefore, regarding the evaluation item "community attribute", when the service provider is a representative of a predetermined community, it is evaluated as 1 point, and when it is a mere member, it is evaluated as 0.5 point. If you are not affiliated with, you will be evaluated as 0 points.

Of the five evaluation items shown in FIG. 8, regarding the information related to "cumulative evaluation", "number of implementations", and "non-implementation period", the server device 10 provides information on the service provider after the execution of the requested service. It can be calculated or determined based on the report information sent from the terminal 3 and the evaluation points sent from the requester's information terminal 2. Further, the server device 10 can acquire the information related to the "accident history" and the "community attribute" from the information input by the provider registration information at the time of periodical update of the provider registration information.

FIG. 9 shows an example of the performance evaluation points of the provider registrant B1 shown in FIG. According to the example of FIG. 9, the accident history of the provider B1 is "0 times", the cumulative evaluation is "good", and the number of times of implementation is "9 times (see FIG. 6)". Since the non-implementation period is "15 days" and the community attribute is a member belonging to a predetermined community, the performance evaluation point of the provider registrant B1 is "3 points" when calculated based on the above calculation rule. ".

The customer evaluation storage unit 135 stores customer evaluation points (an example of the second provider evaluation value of the present invention) relating to the provision registrant evaluated based on the relationship between the usage registrant and the provision registrant. Has been done. The customer evaluation points are evaluated for each of the provided registrants. In the present embodiment, the customer evaluation points of each of the plurality of provision registrants for each user registrant are stored in the customer evaluation storage unit 135 as a database.

FIG. 10 shows a list of the customer evaluation points of the user registrant A1 shown in FIG. In FIG. 10, the customer evaluation points for each of the provider registrants B1, B2, ... The user registrant A1 has received the service in the past are shown. According to the example of FIG. 10, the customer evaluation point of the provider registrant B1 is evaluated as 3.15 points, the customer evaluation point of the provider registrant B2 is evaluated as 2.75 points, and the customer evaluation point of the provider registrant B3 is evaluated as 2.75 points. The customer evaluation point is evaluated as 3 points. The customer evaluation points are the total points of evaluation points evaluated based on each of the five evaluation items described later, which indicate the relationship between the user registrant A1 and each provider registrant. In each evaluation item, the maximum score is 1 point and the minimum score is 0 point. Therefore, the maximum score of the customer evaluation point is 5 points and the minimum score is 0 point.

FIG. 11 shows an example of the calculation rule of the customer evaluation point. In the example of FIG. 11, five evaluation items used for evaluation of the customer evaluation points are defined, and distribution of evaluation points (point distribution) to the service provider is defined for each evaluation item. The customer evaluation points are the total points assigned to each evaluation item. In each evaluation item, the maximum score is 1 point and the minimum score is 0 point. Therefore, the maximum score of the customer evaluation point is 5 points and the minimum score is 0 point.

Specifically, the evaluation item "location distance" in FIG. 11 is an example of the relationship, and the location of the provider registrant (for example, the address) and the location of the user registrant (for example, the address). The distance. In the evaluation of the location distance, the closer the location of the provider registrant is to the address of the user registrant, the higher the score is given, and the farther the location is, the lower the score is given. In other words, it is determined that the closer the location distance between the two is, the higher the mutual reliability is, and the farther the location is, the lower the reliability is. In this embodiment, the provision registrant is evaluated as 1 point when he / she lives in the same address area (for example, in the town) as the user registrant, and when he / she lives in the same local government (in the municipality). It is evaluated as 0.5 points, and if you live in a different local government, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "number of referral passes" is an example of the relationship, and when the user registrant and the provider registrant have the introducer, the common referrer of each of the user registrant and the offer registrant is assigned. The number of referrals on the referral route including. For example, as shown in FIG. 12, the introducer of the user registrant A1 and the introduction route R1 when the introducer is traced back, the introducer of the provider registrant B1 and the introduction when the introducer is further traced back. When the common introducer is on the route R2, the number of referral paths is the number of referrals (five in the example of FIG. 12) of all the referral routes (R1 + R2). The number of referral passes can be obtained based on the referrer information included in the user registration information stored in the database 13.

In the evaluation of the number of referral passes, a higher score is given as the number of referral passes is smaller, and a lower score is given as the number of referral passes is larger. In other words, it is determined that the smaller the number of referral passes, the higher the reliability between the two, and the larger the number, the lower the reliability. In the present embodiment, the number of referral passes is one, that is, when the referrer of the user registrant is the provider registrant, it is evaluated as one point. Further, when the number of referral passes is 2, it is evaluated as 0.8 points, when it is 3, it is evaluated as 0.6 points, and when it is 4, it is evaluated as 0.4 points. If there is one, it is evaluated as 0.2 points, and if there are six or more, it is evaluated as 0.1 points. In addition, when there is no common introducer (when there is no connection to the referral route), the score is evaluated as 0.

The evaluation item “number of exchanges” is an example of the relationship, and is the cumulative number of times the user registrant and the provider registrant actually interacted with each other during a specific period (for example, the latest one year). This number of times can be calculated based on the GPS position information received by the server device 10 from the information terminal 2 of the user registrant and the information terminal 3 of the provider registrant. For example, when the location information of both shows within the range that can be judged to be substantially the same at the same time, the information terminals 2 and 3 of both are close to each other, and the user registrant and the provision registration are provided. It can be judged that the person is actually interacting (meeting). The control unit 11 of the server device 10 counts the number of times of this alternating current and stores it in the storage unit 12.

In the evaluation of the number of exchanges, a higher point is given as the number of exchanges is larger, and a lower point is given as the number of exchanges is smaller. In other words, it is determined that the higher the number of exchanges, the higher the reliability between the two, and the smaller the number of exchanges, the lower the reliability. In the present embodiment, when the number of exchanges is 5 or more, it is evaluated as 1 point. Further, when the number of exchanges is 3 to 4, it is evaluated as 0.75 points, when it is 2 times, it is evaluated as 0.5 points, and when it is 1 time, it is evaluated as 0.25 points. If it is 0 times, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "number of common visits" is an example of the relationship, and is a common place (common visits) visited by the user registrant and the provider registrant during a specific period (for example, the latest one year). It is a number. That is, it is the number of common places visited by both parties during the specific period. The common place is, for example, an athletic facility, a tourist spot, a classroom or school for exercise or language, a restaurant, or the like. Rather than never visiting a common place, people who have visited a common place even if they visited at different dates and times have a better idea of the hobbies and things of the user registrant and the provider registrant. It can be inferred that the sensibilities such as how to feel are close, and by extension, it can be judged that the reliability of both is high. Therefore, it is considered that the more common places there are, the closer the sensibilities are, and the higher the reliability of both.

The number of common visits can be calculated based on the movement route information based on the GPS position information received by the server device 10 from the information terminal 2 of the user registrant and the information terminal 3 of the provider registrant. For example, when the common location is included in the movement route information of both parties and the time spent at the location is a predetermined time (for example, 30 minutes or more), the control unit 11 of the server device 10 may perform both. Can determine that the place has been visited, counts the number of common visit destinations, and stores the number in the storage unit 12.

In the evaluation of the number of common visits, a higher score is given as the number of common visits is larger, and a lower score is given as the number of common visits is smaller. In other words, it is determined that the larger the number of common visits, the higher the reliability between the two, and the smaller the number, the lower the reliability. In the present embodiment, when the number of common visits is 5 or more, it is evaluated as 1 point. Further, when the number of common visits is 3 to 4, it is evaluated as 0.75 points, when it is 2 places, it is evaluated as 0.5 points, and when it is 1 place, it is evaluated as 0.25 points. If there are 0 points, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "individual evaluation" is a so-called customer evaluation, and each time the request service is performed, the requester who receives the service gives an individual evaluation to the service provider. It is a point. The evaluation points given by the client are divided into 5 stages from 1 to 5, and when the evaluation points are 4.5 or more and less than 5, it is judged as "excellent", and in this case, it is evaluated as 1 point. .. When the evaluation point is 3.5 or more and less than 4.5, it is judged as "good", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.75 point. When the evaluation point is 2.5 or more and less than 3.5, it is judged as "OK", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.5 point. When the evaluation point is 1.5 or more and less than 2.5, it is judged as "dissatisfied", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.25 point. Further, when the evaluation point is 1 or more and less than 1.5, it is determined as "impossible", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0 point.

The control unit 11 controls the operation of each unit of the server device 10. The control unit 11 has control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. The ROM is a non-volatile storage medium in which control programs such as a BIOS and an OS for causing the CPU to execute various arithmetic processes are stored in advance. The RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage medium that stores various types of information, and is used as a temporary storage memory (work area) for various arithmetic processes executed by the CPU. Then, the control unit 11 controls the server device 10 by the CPU executing various control programs stored in advance in the ROM or the storage unit 12.

As shown in FIG. 2, the control unit 11 includes a candidate selection processing unit 111 (an example of a candidate selection processing unit of the present invention), a reliability calculation processing unit 112 (an example of a reliability calculation processing unit of the present invention), and a transmission process. It includes various processing units such as unit 113. The control unit 11 functions as the various processing units when the CPU executes various arithmetic processes according to the control program. The control unit 11 or the CPU is an example of a processor or a computer that executes the control program. A part or all of the processing units included in the control unit 11 may be composed of electronic circuits. Further, the control program may be a program for causing a plurality of processors to function as the various processing units.

The candidate selection processing unit 111 performs a process (candidate selection process) of selecting a provider candidate that meets the request from the client. Specifically, when the candidate selection processing unit 111 receives the request request from the information terminal 2 owned by the client through the network N1, the request is made from the provider information management table 133A in the provider information storage unit 133. Select the provider candidate that meets the requirements.

The reliability calculation processing unit 112 requests the request based on the performance evaluation points for each provision registrant included in the provider information management table 133A and the customer evaluation points of the requester for the provision registrant. The reliability of the provision requester in the person is calculated. In the present embodiment, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 calculates the reliability of one or more of the provider candidates selected by the candidate selection processing unit 111.

Specifically, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 multiplies the performance evaluation points and the customer evaluation points by a predetermined application rate (an example of the ratio of the present invention) to obtain a comprehensive evaluation point (the present invention). An example of the evaluation value of) is calculated as the reliability. The total evaluation point is calculated by adding a value obtained by multiplying each of the performance evaluation point and the customer evaluation point by the evaluation rate. In the present embodiment, the performance evaluation point is P ₁ , the application rate determined for the performance evaluation point P _{1 is S 1} (%), the customer evaluation point is P 2, and the _{customer evaluation point P 2 is} Assuming that the determined application rate is S ₂ (%), the comprehensive evaluation point P, that is, the reliability P can be expressed by the following equation (1). It should be noted that there is a relationship of _{S 1} = 100-S ₂ between the application rate S ₁ and the application rate S _2.

_{P = S 1 P 1/100} + S 2 P 2/100 ··· (1)

That is, the reliability P is the _{number of points obtained by multiplying the performance evaluation point P 1} by the application rate S ₁ and the number of points obtained by multiplying the customer evaluation point P ₂ by the application rate S _2. It is an addition.

The application rates S ₁ and S ₂ may be fixed, but in the present embodiment, the application rate is the number of times of use (service use of the present invention) included in the user registration information of the client. It will be changed based on the number of times and an example of service usage record).

Specifically, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 causes the ratio of the _{customer evaluation point P 2 to} the reliability P (comprehensive evaluation point P) to be relatively high as the number of times of use by the client increases. , The application rate is changed. The reason for this is that, if the number of times of use is small, the accuracy of than the customer evaluation point P ₂ is better to focus on the performance evaluation point P ₁ the reliability P is in order to up, on the contrary, the number of times of use This is because when there are many cases, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by emphasizing the customer evaluation point P _{2 rather than the performance evaluation point P 1.}

In the present embodiment, the application rate distribution table 121 (see FIG. 13) is stored in the storage unit 12, and the reliability calculation processing unit 112 is based on the application rate distribution table 121 and the number of times the requester has used it. The application rate is changed. Here, the application rate distribution table 121 is an distribution table in which the application rate S ₁ and the application rate S ₂ are determined according to the number of times of use.

For example, it is assumed that the application rate distribution table 121 shown in FIG. 13 shows the application rate distribution applied to ride sharing. In this case, if the number of times the client uses ride sharing (number of times of use) is 0, the application rate S ₁ is set to 80%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 20%. If the number of times of use is 1 to 2, the application rate S ₁ is set to 70%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 30%. If the number of times of use is 3 to 5, the application rate S ₁ is set to 60%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 40%. If the number of times of use is 6 to 8, the application rate S ₁ is set to 50%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 50%. If the number of times of use is 9 to 15, the application rate S ₁ is set to 40%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 60%. If the number of times of use is 16 to 20, the application rate S ₁ is set to 30%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 70%. If the number of times of use is 21 or more, the application rate S ₁ is set to 20% and the application rate S ₂ is set to 80%.

Further, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 has the application rate so that the longer the unused period from the previous use of the requester, the _{lower the ratio of the customer evaluation point P 2 to the reliability P.} To change. The reason for this is that if the unused period is long, there is a high possibility that a lowering factor that lowers the accuracy of the _{customer evaluation point P 2 will occur during the unused period.} In other words, the case unutilized period is long, is because the accuracy of than the customer evaluation point P ₂ is better to focus on the performance evaluation point P ₁ the reliability P is up, on the contrary, the non-use period When is short, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by emphasizing the customer evaluation point P _{2 rather than the performance evaluation point P 1.} It should be noted that the factors for the decrease include, for example, an increase in the number of the provision registrants to whom the requester has not given evaluation points due to an increase in the number of new registrations of the provision registrants, and the provision registrants with the passage of time. It is conceivable that the qualities of the

Here, the unused period is calculated by the control unit 11. Specifically, when the control unit 11 receives the request request from the information terminal 2 through the network N1, the control unit 11 refers to the matching record data of the matching record storage unit 134 and confirms the past usage record of the requester. To calculate the unused period.

In the present embodiment, the application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) is stored in the storage unit 12, and the reliability calculation processing unit 112 uses the above equation (1) based on the application rate subtraction table 122. The applied rate S ₁ and the applied rate S ₂ are changed. Here, the application rate subtraction table 122 is a table in which the subtraction rate Sr according to the unused period is defined.

For example, as shown in FIG. 14, if the unused period of the requester is less than one month, the subtraction rate Sr is ± 0%. In this case, the application rate S ₁ and the application rate S ₂ are Neither is changed (subtracted). If the unused period is from January to less than June, the application rate S ₁ is increased by 5% and the application rate S ₂ is decreased by 5%. If the unused period is from June to less than December, the application rate S ₁ is increased by 10% and the application rate S ₂ is decreased by 10%. If the unused period is one year or more, the application rate S ₁ is increased by 15% and the application rate S ₂ is decreased by 15%.

The transmission processing unit 113 makes the request request for the provider candidate selected by the candidate selection processing unit 111 and the reliability calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit 112 through the network N1. Performs a process (transmission process) of transmitting to the information terminal 2 used by.

[Information terminal 2]
Hereinafter, a specific configuration of the information terminal 2 will be described with reference to FIG. Here, FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the configuration of the information terminal 2.

As shown in FIG. 3, the information terminal 2 includes a control unit 21, a storage unit 22, an operation display unit 23, a GPS receiving unit 25, a communication unit 26, and the like.

The communication unit 26 is a communication interface for connecting the information terminal 2 to the network N1 by wire or wirelessly and executing data communication with the server device 10 through the network N1 according to a predetermined communication protocol.

The storage unit 22 is a non-volatile storage medium such as a flash memory for storing various types of information. The storage unit 22 stores a control program for causing the control unit 21 to execute various arithmetic processes, an application necessary for using the matching support system 100, data used for various arithmetic operations, and the like.

The operation display unit 23 is a user interface including a display unit 23A such as a liquid crystal display or an organic EL display that displays various information, and an operation unit (not shown) such as a mouse, keyboard, or touch panel that accepts user operations. Is.

The GPS receiving unit 25 acquires the current position information of the information terminal 2. The GPS receiving unit 25 detects a position on the earth by receiving a signal from a GPS satellite and further performing a predetermined arithmetic process.

The control unit 21 controls the operation of each unit of the information terminal 2. The control unit 11 has control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. The ROM is a non-volatile storage medium in which control programs such as a BIOS and an OS for causing the CPU to execute various arithmetic processes are stored in advance. The RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage medium that stores various types of information, and is used as a temporary storage memory (work area) for various arithmetic processes executed by the CPU. Then, the control unit 21 controls the information terminal 2 by executing various control programs stored in advance in the ROM or the storage unit 22 on the CPU.

When the control unit 21 receives the provider candidate and the reliability transmitted by the transmission processing unit 113, the control unit 21 displays the provider candidate on the display unit 23A in descending order of reliability.

[Matching process]
Hereinafter, using the flowcharts of FIGS. 15 to 18, an example of the procedure of the matching process (including the candidate selection process and the reliability calculation process) for matching the requester and the provider registrant will be described, and the reliability of the present invention will be described. The degree calculation method will be described. It is assumed that the requester starts the application on his / her own information terminal 2 and logs in to the matching support system 100 from the information terminal 2 by this application.

As shown in FIG. 15, in step S11, the control unit 11 determines whether or not a login request for login authentication has been received from the requester's information terminal 2. The control unit 11 receives the login request, authenticates the requester's ID and password, and then permits the requester to log in from the information terminal 2.

When the login is completed, the requester operates the information terminal 2 to input the request information including the request request and the specific request contents on the request input screen, and then executes the transmission process of the request request. ..

In the next step S73, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the request request has been received from the information terminal 2. When it is determined that the request request has been received, the control unit 11 executes a candidate selection process for setting a provider candidate (candidate) that matches the request request in the next step S13. Step S13, which performs the candidate selection process, is an example of the candidate selection step.

As shown in FIG. 17, the candidate selection process is executed by the control unit 11 according to the procedure of steps S131 to S134.

First, in step S131, the control unit 11 includes a plurality of provider registration information registered in the provider information management table 133A (see FIG. 6) and the request contents included in the request information received in step S12. (See FIG. 4) is collated, and a conforming person who matches the request content is extracted from the plurality of the provision registrants registered in the provider information management table 133A.

Subsequently, the control unit 11 further extracts the conforming person who meets the additional condition (see FIG. 4) included in the request information from the conforming person extracted in step S131 (S132). After that, the control unit 11 creates a candidate list including the conforming person extracted in step S132 (S133). This completes the candidate selection process.

If it is determined in steps S131 and S132 that there is no conforming person, the process proceeds to step S134, flag information indicating that the provider candidate has not been searched is set, and then a series of processes is completed. ..

As shown in FIG. 15, when the candidate selection process (S13) is completed, the control unit 11 determines in step S14 whether or not the provider candidate has been selected. That is, the control unit 11 determines that there is a conforming person who meets the request request by the candidate selection process, and if the candidate list is created, it determines that there is a provider candidate. On the other hand, when the flag information indicating that there is no provider candidate is set in step S134, the control unit 11 determines that there is no provider candidate.

When the provider candidate is not selected (No in S14), the control unit 11 transmits a notification indicating that the provider candidate was not found to the requester's information terminal 2 (S14A), and then the matching is not established. As it is, a series of matching processes is completed.

On the other hand, when a provider candidate is selected in step S14, the control unit 11 performs a reliability calculation process for calculating the reliability of all the provider candidates included in the candidate list in the next step S15. Run. The step S15 for performing the reliability calculation process is an example of the reliability calculation step of the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 18, the reliability calculation process is executed by the control unit 11 according to the procedure of steps S151 to S157.

First, in step S151, the control unit 11 selects one provider candidate from the candidate list in the order of ID numbers, and sets the performance evaluation points corresponding to the selected provider candidates in the provider information management table 133A ( Obtained from (see FIG. 6).

Subsequently, in step S152, the control unit 11 refers to the client database in the customer evaluation storage unit 135 to determine whether or not there is a customer evaluation point (see FIG. 10) corresponding to the selected provider candidate. judge. Here, if it is determined that the customer evaluation points are present, the customer evaluation points are acquired from the customer evaluation storage unit 135 (S153). On the other hand, when it is determined that there is no customer evaluation point, a predetermined standard value is acquired from the storage unit 12 as the customer evaluation point (S154). The standard value is, for example, a predetermined fixed value or an average value of the customer evaluation points of all the provision registrants already given by the requester, and is stored in the storage unit 12 in advance. There is.

_{After that, the control unit 11 acquires the application rates S 1} and S ₂ corresponding to the number of times the requester has been used from the application rate distribution table 121 (see FIG. 13) (S155), and further, during the unused period of the requester. The corresponding subtraction rate Sr is obtained from the application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) (S156).

All information used to calculate the reliability, that is, the performance evaluation point, the customer evaluation point, the application rate S _1, S _2, when the subtraction factor Sr is obtained, the control unit 11, in step S157 , The application rates S ₁ and S ₂ are subtracted by the subtraction rate Sr, and then the application rates S ₁ and S ₂ after the subtraction, the performance evaluation points, and the customer evaluation points are expressed in the above-mentioned equation (1). ) To calculate the reliability. The calculated reliability is recorded in the candidate list (S158).

Next, in step S159, the control unit 11 repeats the processes after step S151 when there is another provider candidate whose reliability is to be calculated. On the other hand, if there are no other provider candidates, the reliability calculation process ends.

As shown in FIG. 15, when the reliability calculation process (S15) is completed, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the number of candidates for the provider candidate in the candidate list is a plurality (S16). Here, if there is only one candidate, the process proceeds to step S20.

If it is determined in step S16 that the number of candidates is plural, in the next step S17, the control unit 11 executes a sort process of sorting the plurality of provider candidates in descending order of reliability (S17). That is, the control unit 11 updates the candidate list and rearranges the plurality of provider candidates in descending order of reliability.

In the next step S18, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the number of candidates is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value. Such a determination is made to determine whether or not the number of candidate providers is too large. If it is determined in step S18 that the number of candidates is less than the threshold value, the control unit 11 proceeds to step S20 and displays the candidate list to the requester in order to present the candidate list to the requester. It is transmitted to the information terminal 2 of. At this time, a message prompting the selection of the provider who wants to provide the service from the candidate list is also transmitted.

When the information terminal 2 receives the candidate list, the control unit 21 displays the candidate list on the display unit 23A (see FIG. 3) of the information terminal 2 and presents the candidate list to the requester. To encourage the selection of the desired provider from the candidate list.

As shown in FIG. 16, in the next step S21, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the candidate has been selected based on the information received from the information terminal 2.

If it is determined in step S21 that the candidate has not been selected, the control unit 11 determines in step S21A whether or not the request cancellation has been received from the information terminal 2. In step S21A, when the request cancellation is received from the information terminal 2 (Yes in S21A), a series of matching processes are completed with the matching not established.

On the other hand, if it is determined in step S21 that the candidate has been selected (Yes in S21), a request acceptance request is transmitted to the information terminal 3 of the selected candidate together with the request content (S22). This request acceptance request is transmitted, for example, to the candidate's information terminal 3 by a notification means such as an e-mail.

In the next step S23, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the request acceptance notification has been received from the candidate information terminal 3. Upon receiving the notification of acceptance of the request, the control unit 11 transmits a notification indicating that the matching has been established to both the requester and the candidate provider (acceptor) who has accepted the request (S24), and then sends a notification indicating that the matching has been established (S24). , The matching content is registered in the matching record data of the matching record storage unit 134 (S25).

On the other hand, if the notification of acceptance of the request is not received and the notification of refusal of acceptance is received, the control unit 11 transmits a notification indicating that the matching has not been established to the requester's information terminal 2 (S23A). ). After that, a series of matching processes is completed.

As described above, in the present embodiment, the reliability calculation process is executed by the control unit 11 in the matching process described above. Then, in the reliability calculation process, the reliability is calculated based on the actual evaluation points and the customer evaluation points. Therefore, the reliability with high credibility is surely calculated. As a result, the client can use the matching support system 100 with peace of mind, and the client can select a provider candidate based on the calculated reliability, so that the service can be provided by the provider with confidence. Can receive.

Further, in the above-described embodiment, since the application rates S ₁ and S ₂ used for calculating the reliability are changed based on the number of times of use included in the user registration information of the requester, the requester said. The reliability is calculated according to the number of times of use. As a result, a more credible reliability can be calculated. As a result, the client can receive the service from the requesting provider with more peace of mind.

Further, the control unit 11 calculates the reliability of the selected provider candidate after selecting the provider candidate that meets the request from the client. Therefore, the control unit 11 need only calculate the reliability of the selected provider candidate. As a result, the processing speed of the reliability calculation process is improved and the load of the calculation process is reduced as compared with the case where the reliability of all the provider registrants is calculated in advance and then the provider candidate is selected.

In the above-described embodiment, the process of calculating the reliability of the selected provider candidate after the provider candidate is selected has been illustrated, but the present invention is not limited to this process example. For example, before the provider candidate is selected, the reliability of all the provider registrants may be calculated in advance, and then the provider candidate may be selected.

_{Further, in the above-described embodiment, an example of changing each of the application rate S 1} and the application rate S ₂ based on the number of times of use by the client has been described, but the present invention is not limited to such a change example. .. _{For example, when the application rate S 1} is constant (fixed value) regardless of the number of times of use, the _{application rate S 2} may be changed in proportion to the number of times of use. That is, the application rate S ₂ may be increased as the number of times of use is increased, and the application rate S ₂ may be decreased as the number of times of use is decreased. _{Alternatively, when the application rate S 2} is constant (fixed value) regardless of the number of times of use, the _{application rate S 1} may be changed in inverse proportion to the number of times of use. That is, the application rate S ₁ may be decreased as the number of times of use is increased, and the application rate S ₁ may be increased as the number of times of use is decreased.

Further, in the above-described embodiment, the example applied to the regional service has been described, but the matching support system 100 described above is not limited to the one applied to the regional difference service, regardless of whether it is paid or free of charge. It can also be applied to a system that matches the requester with the provider registrant in all services such as food and drink catering services, luggage and person transportation services, WEB design, illustrations, videos, program production services, etc. ..

Further, in the above-described embodiment, the matching support system 100 realized by executing each of the above-described processes in the server device 10 has been illustrated, but the server device 10 capable of executing each of the above processes is the matching support device of the present invention. It can also be regarded as one embodiment.

2, 3: Information terminal 10: Server device 11: Control unit 12: Storage unit 13: Database 100: Matching support system 111: Candidate selection processing unit 112: Reliability calculation processing unit 113: Transmission processing unit 121: Application rate distribution table 122: Application rate subtraction table 131: Request information storage unit 132: User information storage unit 132A: User information management table 133: Provider information storage unit 133A: Provider information management table 134: Matching performance storage unit 135: Customer evaluation Storage

Claims (11)

It is a matching support system that supports matching between the requester who requests the provision of the service and the provider who provides the service.
The first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the provider and the second provider evaluation for the provider evaluated based on the relationship between the client and the provider. A matching support system including a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the requester based on the value. The reliability calculation processing unit
The matching support system according to claim 1, wherein the reliability is calculated by adding a value obtained by multiplying each of the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value by a predetermined ratio. The matching support system according to claim 2, wherein the ratio is changed according to the service usage record of the client. The reliability calculation processing unit
The matching support system according to claim 3, wherein the ratio is changed so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value to the reliability becomes relatively higher as the number of times the requester uses the service increases. The reliability calculation processing unit
Claim 3 or 4 changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value to the reliability becomes relatively lower as the unused period of the requester from the previous use of the service is longer. Matching support system described in. It is further equipped with a candidate selection processing unit that selects provider candidates that meet the request from the client.
The matching support system according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein the reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability of the provider candidate selected by the candidate selection processing unit. The matching support system according to claim 6, further comprising a transmission processing unit that transmits the highly reliable provider candidate calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit to the terminal device used by the client. The service is
The matching support system according to any one of claims 1 to 7, which is a regional service provided to the client residing in a predetermined area by the provider residing in the same area as a mutual aid activity for the client. It is a matching support device that supports matching between the requester who requests the provision of the service and the provider who provides the service.
The first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the provider, and the provider evaluated for each requester based on the relationship between the requester and the provider. A matching support device including a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the requester based on the second provider evaluation value. For each of the requesters based on the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the service provider and the relationship between the requester requesting the service provision and the provider. A reliability calculation method in which one or more processors execute a reliability calculation step for calculating the reliability of the provider in the requester based on the second provider evaluation value for the evaluated provider. For each of the requesters based on the first provider evaluation value for the provider evaluated based on the service implementation performance by the service provider and the relationship between the requester requesting the service provision and the provider. A reliability calculation program for causing one or more processors to execute a reliability calculation step for calculating the reliability of the provider in the requester based on the second provider evaluation value for the evaluated provider. ..

Images