JP5724300B2 - Information processing device - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a cooperative workflow technology for linking information processing apparatuses.

In a network environment in which information processing apparatuses cooperate to realize functions, it is a common practice to generate a collaborative workflow in order to link information processing apparatuses.
The cooperative workflow specifies which information processing apparatus executes which function in which order.
When creating this collaborative workflow, select an information processing device that increases the overall processing speed, select an information processing device that consumes less power, or select an information processing device with a high number of function executions and a proven track record. The technology to select is already known.

  In Patent Document 1, in order to prevent leakage of confidential information in a collaborative workflow, output setting information is generated in order to generate a collaborative workflow with higher security in consideration of the security strength of each information processing apparatus. Selecting a device for processing print data according to the above, a generating unit for generating a processing route by combining devices that execute processing of each processing step, and determining the safety of the processing route according to a predetermined condition A configuration of an information processing apparatus having a safety level determination unit and a determination unit that determines a processing route for processing print data according to the security level is disclosed.

  In Patent Literature 2, a workflow management unit that holds a workflow, an authority information storage unit that stores authority information indicating whether or not each user has usage restrictions for each process defined in the workflow, and a workflow execution request from a user. Receives the workflow and authority information corresponding to the execution request, determines whether the user is restricted in usage for each process defined in the workflow based on the authority information, and only processes that are determined not to be restricted Are provided in the order of processing defined in the workflow, and a data processing unit that executes the requested processing, thereby reducing the network load and improving the responsiveness associated therewith. Techniques for improving are disclosed.

  However, the collaborative workflow so far has not been generated in consideration of the probability that an information processing device will cause an error or the probability that another information processing device will cause an error. Therefore, even when the speed is high, the power consumption is low, or the number of executions of the function is large and there is a track record, the processing of the entire cooperative workflow is stopped by using an information processing device that is prone to errors. There was a problem that the process might have to be redone.

  In Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2, the problem that an information processing apparatus that is likely to cause / is likely to cause an error is included in the cooperative workflow cannot be solved.

  The present invention has a higher success rate by not including information processing devices that often cause errors in the cooperative workflow and information processing devices that often cause errors in the cooperation partner. An object of the present invention is to provide an information processing apparatus capable of generating a cooperative workflow.

The invention according to claim 1 is an information processing apparatus that generates a collaborative workflow, and includes a control unit that executes collaborative processing according to the collaborative workflow, and an error generated by the information processing apparatus or processing of another information processing apparatus . A determination unit that determines whether an error has occurred, and a first storage unit that stores a value obtained by counting an error occurrence rate of the own device when the error determined by the determination unit is determined to have occurred by the own device; If it is determined that the error occurred due to processing by another information processing device, the error occurrence cause identifying means for causing the alternative device having the same function as the own device to execute the processing, and other specific information by the error occurrence cause identifying means when it identified as had caused the error in the processing unit, a value obtained by counting the errors induced rate in the other information processing apparatus蓄An information processing apparatus, characterized in that a second storage means for.

  According to the present invention, a collaborative workflow with a high success rate can be generated.

1 is a schematic configuration diagram of the present invention. It is a figure explaining the subject at the time of performing a cooperation workflow. It is a figure explaining the example which gives wrong input information to the information processing apparatus. This shows the behavior of the information processing apparatus E. This shows the behavior of the information processing apparatus B. It is an error judgment table. It is a flowchart figure showing the process performed within information processing apparatus. It is a functional block diagram inside an information processing apparatus. It is a figure of the example which produces | generates a cooperation workflow with a high success rate. This is a sequence for rewriting when a product with a high success rate is generated. It is a figure explaining the notification to a user. This is a sequence for notifying a user. This is a sequence that does not include an information processing apparatus that is less than the fixed number of times in the cooperative workflow. FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining notification to a cooperation source information processing apparatus when there is an alternative machine with a higher success rate. When there is an alternative machine with a higher success rate, this is a sequence for notifying the information processing apparatus as the cooperation source. When there is an alternative machine with a higher success rate, this is a sequence for rewriting the cooperative workflow.

Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.
FIG. 1 is a schematic configuration diagram of the present invention.
The present invention is applied in a configuration that realizes a function in cooperation with function α → function β → function γ. It is assumed that there are a plurality of information processing apparatuses having each function, and that a combined workflow can be generated by combining them.

Assume that an error occurs in the information processing apparatus E when the cooperative workflow is executed in the order of the information processing apparatus A → the information processing apparatus B → the information processing apparatus E as shown in FIG.
In general, an error that has occurred is counted by the information processing apparatus in which the error has occurred. There is a possibility that the information processing apparatus B in charge of the function β and the information processing apparatus A in charge of the function α have performed erroneous processing, giving input information that cannot be processed normally by the information processing apparatus E. If an information processing device that inputs such incorrect information to another information processing device is in the collaborative workflow, the probability that an error will occur increases, and there is a case where the processing must be restarted from the beginning. The problem is that

FIG. 3 is an example in which incorrect input information is given to another information processing apparatus.
It is assumed that there is a cooperative workflow in which the information processing apparatus A executes a scan, passes the result to the information processing apparatus B, performs OCR processing, and passes the result to the information processing apparatus E to register information. When a registration error occurs in the information processing apparatus E when this cooperative workflow is executed, the processing of the information processing apparatus E is not necessarily wrong, and the accuracy of the OCR processing performed by the information processing apparatus B is poor. There is a possibility that the character data of the read information passed to the information processing apparatus E is invalid.
Further, there is a possibility that the OCR processing cannot be normally performed by the information processing apparatus B because the accuracy of the scan performed by the information processing apparatus A is poor.

FIG. 4 illustrates the behavior of the information processing apparatus E when an error occurs in the information processing apparatus E that performs information registration when the cooperative workflow of Example 1 is executed. The information processing apparatus in the cooperative workflow has an error determination table, which will be described later, and determines whether an error that has occurred is self-responsibility or other responsibility based on the error determination table.
1) Judgment of self-responsibility or other responsibility based on error judgment table 2) In case of self-responsibility, it counts to its own error occurrence rate 3) In case of other responsibility, it is considered that there is no problem in the information registration process. A request is sent to the information processing apparatus B to check whether or not there is an abnormality in the processing. 4) When the determination is impossible from the error determination table, an information processing apparatus (alternative machine) that can execute the information registration process is searched. ) Execute information registration processing for discovered information processing device D (2) 'and check whether an error occurs 6) If no error occurred, processing of information processing device E was incorrect 7) When an error occurs, the same confirmation is performed if there is another alternative machine, and there is a possibility that there is no problem in the information registration process if there is no alternative machine. There is OCR Put out a request to the information processing apparatus B in order to examine whether there has been no abnormal sense

FIG. 5 shows the behavior of the information processing apparatus B that may have caused the information processing apparatus E to generate an error.
8) The information processing apparatus B determines whether the cause of the error is its own responsibility or other responsibility using its own error determination table. 9) In the case of own responsibility, the error induction rate of the information processing apparatus B is counted as an error. 10) In the case of other responsibilities, the information processing apparatus A makes the same determination. 11) When the determination is impossible from the error determination table, search for an information processing apparatus (alternative machine) that can execute the OCR process. 12) Information found The OCR processing is executed for the processing device C (1) ′, and it is confirmed whether an error occurs. 13) The information processing device C is an information processing device D (2) ″ that can be executed as a cooperative workflow, information processing 14) Execute the linkage process with each of the devices E (2) ′ ″. 14) When the processing is successful in (2) ″, it is understood that the processing of the information processing device B is incorrect. Count the error induction rate 15) (2) '' If the process fails, execute (2) '''16) If the process succeeds in (2)''', you know that the processes of information processing apparatus B and information processing apparatus D were incorrect Then, the error induction rate of the information processing device B is counted, and further the error occurrence rate of the information processing device D is counted. 17) When the processing fails in (2) ''', the information processing device A performs the same determination. I do

  FIG. 6 is an example of an error determination table for determining whether an error generated by the information processing apparatus is own responsibility or other responsibility.

The error determination table may be the same for each function, or may be different for each information processing apparatus. In the example of FIG. 6, it is assumed that each function has the same error determination table.
Assume that an error occurs in the information processing apparatus E by executing a cooperative workflow of information processing apparatus A (scan) → information processing apparatus B (OCR) → information processing apparatus E (information registration).
When the error occurring in the information processing apparatus E is “Mem_Full (insufficient capacity)”, it can be determined as a self-responsibility error of the information processing apparatus E, and thus is counted as an error occurrence rate of the information processing apparatus E. If the error that has occurred is “Unknown_Storage_Err (unknown storage destination)”, the processing shifts to the information processing apparatus B and the determination is made in the error determination table of the information processing apparatus B because of other responsibility. In the error determination table of the information processing apparatus B, “Unknown_Storage_Err (storage destination unknown)” is counted as the error induction rate of the information processing apparatus B because of self-responsibility. It is not necessary for the error determination table to determine the responsibility / other responsibility for all errors that may occur, and only errors that can be reliably determined need be included in the error determination table.
Note that errors not described in the error determination table may be confirmed with an alternative machine as shown in FIGS.

  FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing processing performed in the information processing apparatus with respect to FIGS. 4, 5, and 6.

  Referring to FIG. 7, in step 801, error information is acquired. The error information is specifically the error code of the error that has occurred and the result of the cooperative workflow executed by replacing the substitute machine. If an error has occurred by itself, it is obtained from its own error source, and the error information includes only the error code. If no error has occurred by itself, the error information is acquired in the form of receiving a determination request 807 from the information processing apparatus immediately after the cooperative workflow itself, and the error information is added to the substitute machine in addition to the error code. The result of the cooperative workflow executed after replacement is also included.

  In step 802, the error code acquired in step 801 is compared with the error determination table held by itself to determine whether self responsibility / other responsibility can be determined.

  In step 803, self responsibility / other responsibility is determined based on the determination in step 802. If self-responsibility, go to step 804. If it is other responsibility, it is determined that the cause is before the linked workflow itself, and the process proceeds to step 806.

  In step 804, when it is determined that it is self-responsibility, its own error occurrence rate or error induction rate is counted. If an error has occurred by itself, the error rate of its own is counted, and if no error has occurred by itself, its error induction rate is counted.

  In step 805, information such as what kind of error has occurred and which information processing apparatus has caused the error is notified to the user.

  In step 806, it is confirmed whether the information processing apparatus exists immediately before the cooperative workflow itself. If it exists, the process proceeds to step 807. If it does not exist, it is determined that the cause information processing apparatus cannot be identified, and the process proceeds to step 805.

  In step 807, the information processing apparatus immediately before the cooperative workflow itself is requested to make a determination. At this time, the error information acquired in step 801 is attached. When the cooperative workflow is executed in step 809, the result of the cooperative workflow is also added to the error information. The determination process in this information processing apparatus ends, and the process moves to the information processing apparatus immediately before itself.

  In step 808, it is confirmed whether there is an alternative machine having the same function as itself.

  In step 809, a collaborative workflow in which the substitute machine confirmed in step 808 is exchanged is generated and executed. If there are multiple alternative machines, perform as many as the number of alternative machines.

  In step 810, it is confirmed whether there is a cooperative workflow that has succeeded in the result in step 809. If there is, it is determined that the cause has been identified, and the process proceeds to step 811. If not, it is determined that the cause cannot be identified yet, and the process proceeds to Step 806.

  In step 811, the successful cooperative workflow in step 810 is compared with the failed cooperative workflow (including the result of the cooperative workflow acquired in 801). Specifically, an information processing device that is included in the failed cooperative workflow and is not included in the successful cooperative workflow is searched. It is determined that these information processing apparatuses cause the cooperation workflow to fail. Then, it requests the error occurrence rate or the error induction rate from other than the information processing apparatus itself. In step 804, the error occurrence rate or error induction rate is counted.

  FIG. 8 is a functional block diagram inside the information processing apparatus according to the present invention. Table 1 shows an overview of each functional block.

  Table 2 is an example of an error occurrence rate / induction rate accumulation table held in each information processing apparatus.

  The error occurrence rate is counted for each error code of the function executed by the device, and the error induction rate is counted by the combination of the function executed by the device and the processing requested to the next information processing apparatus in the cooperative workflow. This is because the probability that an error will occur varies depending on the processing requested.

  Table 3 and FIG. 9 are examples in which a collaborative workflow with a high success rate is generated using the counted error occurrence rate / induction rate and the processing order in the collaborative workflow as an evaluation criterion.

The reason for considering the processing order in the cooperative workflow is that it is not necessary to consider the error induction rate of the information processing apparatus located at the end of the cooperative workflow. It is only necessary to consider the error induction rate in the information processing apparatus that requests the next processing.
When the success rate of each cooperative workflow is multiplied, it can be seen that the combination of information processing device 1 → information processing device 4 → information processing device 5 has the highest success rate.

In the information processing apparatus according to the present invention, the collaborative workflow generation unit generates a collaborative workflow at an arbitrary timing, and rewrites it when a product having a higher success rate than the existing collaborative workflow can be generated. Figure 10 is a implementation form 1.
1) The collaborative workflow generation unit collects the error occurrence rate / induction rate from another information processing apparatus at an arbitrary timing. 2) The collaborative workflow generation unit generates a collaborative workflow based on the collected information. 3) The processing success rate. The success rate of the cooperative workflow is calculated by the calculation unit. 4) The processing success rate calculation unit obtains the error occurrence rate / induction rate from the error storage unit and calculates the success rate of the cooperative workflow. Acquire the success rate of the linked workflow and compare it with the success rate of the generated linked workflow. 6) Rewrite if the generated workflow has a higher success rate than the existing linked workflow.

Implementation form 2
This corresponds to step 805 in FIG.

Implementation form 3
In the information processing apparatus according to the present invention, when the information processing apparatus that has caused the error cannot be identified, the information is notified to the user. At that time, check whether the user's input information was correct, and if it is entered as incorrect, it is the user's responsibility, so nothing is done, but if it is entered as incorrect, all in the collaboration workflow The error occurrence rate / induction rate of the information processing apparatus is counted.
11 and 12 are embodiments thereof.
Referring to FIG. 11, a screen is displayed on the information processing apparatus A that is the cooperation source, and the user selects “with error” / “no error”. When “no error” is selected, the information processing apparatus A , B, and C count the error induction rate of the execution function, and the information processing devices D and E count the error occurrence rate of the execution function.

FIG. 12 is a detailed sequence of the third embodiment .
1) The user inputs that the input information is correct on the input screen. 2) The input screen notifies the error occurrence cause identifying unit that the user input information is not incorrect. 3) The error occurrence cause identifying unit stores the error. 4) The error occurrence cause identifying unit issues a command to cause the information processing device in the cooperative workflow to count the error occurrence rate / induced rate. 5) The communication unit transmits a count command. 6) The cooperative workflow Information processing device counts error occurrence rate / induction rate

Implementation form 4
In the information processing apparatus according to the present invention, when the cooperative workflow generation unit generates the cooperative workflow, the information processing apparatus collects the number of function executions of each information processing apparatus and does not include the information processing apparatus that is less than the predetermined number in the cooperative workflow.
FIG. 13 shows an embodiment thereof .
1) The collaborative workflow generation unit collects the error occurrence rate / induction rate from another information processing apparatus at an arbitrary timing. 2) The collaborative workflow generation unit collects the function execution count from the other information processing apparatus. 4) The collaborative workflow generator generates a collaborative workflow based on the collected information. 4) Is the number of executions of the functions of the information processing device to be included in the collaborative workflow more than a fixed number (any value can be set in advance) 5) If the number of times is equal to or greater than a certain number of times, the processing success rate calculation unit calculates the success rate of the workflow. 6) The processing success rate calculation unit acquires the error occurrence rate / induction rate from the error storage unit, and the cooperative workflow 7) The collaboration workflow generation unit acquires the success rate of the existing collaboration workflow and the generated collaboration workflow succeeds. Rewritten if 8) higher success rate cooperation workflow generated from existing collaboration workflows to compare

Implementation form 5
In the information processing apparatus according to the present invention, each information processing apparatus compares its own error occurrence rate / induction rate with the error occurrence rate / induction rate of the alternative machine, and if there is an alternative machine with a higher success rate, Notify the information processing apparatus to that effect.
14 and 15 is its embodiment.

  Referring to FIG. 14, when the error occurrence rate / induction rate exceeds a certain value when an error occurs in the information processing device C, the information processing device C has an error occurrence rate / induction rate of the information processing device B as an alternative machine. Confirm (1). At this time, if the error rate / trigger rate is lower than itself, the fact is notified to the information processing apparatus A that is the cooperation source (2).

FIG. 15 shows a detailed sequence.
1) The error accumulating unit detects that the error occurrence rate / induction rate exceeds a certain value (any value can be set in advance). 2) The error accumulating unit generates an error of the alternative device in the error occurrence cause identifying unit. Request the collection of the rate / trigger rate 3) The error cause identifying unit requests the communication unit to collect the error rate / trigger rate of the alternative device 4) The error storage unit collects the error rate / trigger rate and the self 5) If there is an alternative machine with a higher success rate than itself, request a notification from the error cause identification unit to notify the information processing apparatus of the cooperation source to that effect. The notification includes device information such as the success rate of the alternative device and the IP address. 6) The error cause identifying unit requests the communication unit to notify the error rate / trigger rate of the alternative device.

Implementation form 6
In the information processing apparatus according to the present invention, the cooperation workflow is rewritten upon receiving a notification from the information processing apparatus in the cooperation workflow that there is an alternative device having a higher success rate.

Figure 16 is its embodiment.
1) The communication unit receives a notification that there is an alternative device with a higher success rate from the information processing device in the cooperative workflow, but the notification includes device information such as the success rate of the alternative device and the IP address 2) The communication unit notifies the cooperative workflow generation unit to that effect. 3) The cooperative workflow generation unit generates a cooperative workflow based on the notified information. 4) The processing success rate calculation unit calculates the success rate of the cooperative workflow. ) The processing success rate calculation unit obtains the error occurrence rate / induction rate from the error storage unit, and calculates the success rate of the cooperative workflow. 6) The cooperative workflow generation unit acquires the success rate of the existing cooperative workflow and generates the generated cooperation. Compare with the workflow success rate 7) If the success rate of the generated collaboration workflow is higher than the existing collaboration workflow, rewrite it

Hereinafter, the operation and effect of each embodiment will be described.
Embodiment 2: A collaborative workflow with a high success rate can be generated.
Embodiment 3: A workflow with a high success rate can be automatically used without the user being aware of it.
Embodiment 4: The user can know details of an error.
Embodiment 5: The error occurrence rate / error induction rate can be counted in consideration of user input mistakes.
Embodiment 6: Reliability of a collaborative workflow generated by excluding information processing apparatuses with no record is improved.
Embodiment 7: By notifying that an error is likely to occur, it is possible to automatically recombine with a cooperative workflow with a higher success rate.
Embodiment 8: By notifying that an error is likely to occur, it is possible to automatically recombine with a cooperative workflow with a higher success rate.

  The above-described embodiment is a preferred embodiment of the present invention, and various modifications can be made without departing from the gist of the present invention.

JP 2007-164422 A JP 2010-140089 A

Claims (8)

An information processing apparatus that generates a collaborative workflow,
A control means for executing linkage processing according to the linkage workflow;
Determination means for determining errors caused by error handling or other information processing apparatus generated by the information processing apparatus,
A first accumulating unit for accumulating a value obtained by counting an error occurrence rate of the own device when it is determined that the error determined by the determining unit has occurred by the own device;
If it is determined by the processing of another information processing apparatus by the determination means, an error occurrence cause identifying means for causing an alternative machine having the same function as the own apparatus to execute the process,
Second accumulating means for accumulating a value obtained by counting an error induction rate of the other information processing apparatus when it is identified by the error occurrence cause identifying means that an error has occurred in the other specific information processing apparatus. An information processing apparatus characterized by comprising: The accumulating unit accumulates the error occurrence number / information registration process execution number as an error occurrence rate when the determination unit determines to be self-responsibility,
A calculation means for calculating a processing success rate excluding the error occurrence rate and the error induction rate from the probability of all events of the information processing apparatus from the error occurrence rate, the error induction rate, and the processing order in the cooperative workflow;
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a generation unit that generates a collaborative workflow having a high success rate from the result of the calculation unit. An information processing apparatus that generates a collaborative workflow,
A control means for executing linkage processing according to the linkage workflow;
Determining means for determining whether an error has occurred based on an error in its own processing / data when an error has occurred in the information processing apparatus or an error induced on the basis of an error in processing / data of another information processing apparatus;
First accumulation means for accumulating the number of error occurrences / the number of information registration processing executions when an error occurs by self-responsibility as an error occurrence rate;
An alternative machine that has the same function as itself in order to identify the information processing device that created the cause of the error by judging from its own error judgment table in the case of other responsibility that could not be judged as own responsibility Error cause cause identifying means to cause the process to execute,
A second accumulating unit for accumulating the number of error occurrences / the number of information registration processing executions as an error induction rate when it is identified by the error occurrence cause identifying unit that an error has occurred in another specific information processing apparatus; An information processing apparatus having
If capable of producing high coordination workflow with more success rate, information processing apparatus you wherein automatically rewrites it to a high success rate coordination workflow.   The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein error information is notified to a user when processing fails even when all alternative machines are used.   Notifying that the user's input may have been incorrect, letting the user enter whether it was incorrect, and if the user's input is entered correctly, in all information processing devices in the collaboration workflow The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the error occurrence rate / the induction rate is accumulated.   The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an information processing apparatus whose number of function executions is less than a predetermined number is not included in the cooperative workflow.   In the process within the linked workflow that includes itself, when the error occurrence rate / induction rate of the own device exceeds a certain value, the error occurrence rate / induction rate is compared with the error occurrence rate / induction rate of the alternative machine. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when there is an alternative machine with a low rate, the fact is notified to the cooperation source.   8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein upon receiving the notification, the cooperative workflow is rewritten to an alternative machine having a low error rate / trigger rate.

Images