JPH04217445A - Evaluation method and device for easiness in working article - Google Patents

Abstract

PURPOSE:To provide an evaluation method and the automatic device therefor capable of carrying out quantitative evaluation without a special skill which provides an easily understandable estimation on a work cost, time and whether a disign structure is good or not. CONSTITUTION:A surface to be worked is classified into several tens of basic elements to which respective coefficients influenced by difficulties at the time of working are given. Shapes of parts are represented by combination of the basic elements. The coefficients given to the basic elements are used for the calculation of parts working characteristic evaluation points associated so that increase in working time and cost at, every parts may correspond to decrease in the evaluation points. Then, by the use of the working characteristic evaluation points on all parts the overall working characteristic evaluation points are obtained. Furthermore, by the use of the working characteristic evaluation points of existing products similar to products to be evaluated and the number of parts the working time and cost of the products to be evaluated are estimated.

Description

[Detailed description of the invention]

0001

[Industrial Application Field] The present invention provides a method for quantitatively evaluating whether or not a structure is easy to work with, and a method for automatically executing the evaluation, in order to improve the productivity or reduce costs of an article. It is related to the device.

0002

2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, there have been three main methods for evaluating whether an article has a structure that is easy to work with.

[0003] The first method is called a design review, in which a person skilled in each task such as design, manufacturing, and inspection judges the workability of the product from the design drawings based on experience. This is to point out areas for improvement.

[0004] In the second method, the production engineering department etc. performs process planning based on the blueprints, calculates the estimated cost and time of each work, and uses these values to help designers, production engineers, etc. This is a method of determining whether something is bad or not.

The third method is a method implemented as an assemblability evaluation method or a workability evaluation method when assembly and processing are treated as work types.

[0006] In other words, engineers' intuitive judgments are made regarding evaluation items (for example, check items, work types, movements, and shapes) for assemblability (ease of assembly work) and workability (ease of processing work). For example, a score out of 100 points, an index, etc. are determined based on the determined score distribution, scores determined based on economic efficiency, and evaluation criteria such as deductions, and these determined values are used by designers, production engineers, etc. to determine the quality of the structure. This is a method of determining whether something is bad or not. In addition,
Regarding this type of evaluation method, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 61-5
No. 9900 and Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 177598/1983.

[0007]

[Problem to be Solved by the Invention] The method (design review) according to the first known technique is qualitative, and examines how good or bad the structure of the product to be evaluated is, or how effective it will be if it is improved. The disadvantage is that it is difficult to express objectively and quantitatively. Another drawback is that it can only be carried out by people with sufficient experience in design and work.

[0008] The method according to the second known technique (based on the estimated work cost and time) even if it is possible to estimate the work cost and time for the entire article, each part, or a part of the parts, it is possible to estimate the work cost and time only from the values. Therefore, it is difficult to judge whether the design structure is good or bad, and whether improvements are needed. Furthermore, evaluation requires experience, knowledge, and a considerable amount of calculation time, and is not easy to perform. Furthermore, since it is difficult to evaluate the product until the design is completed, even if it is determined that design improvements are necessary, once the design is completed, it takes a lot of time to make changes, so as shown in Figure 14, In many cases, poorly designed products were put into production without any design improvements, and productivity improvements and cost reductions were not achieved.

[0009] In addition, the method according to the third known technique (based on scores, indexes, etc.) allows evaluation even without much experience, and the evaluation time is short; (e.g., indexes, etc.) are based on scores determined by engineers' intuitive judgments, so the relationship to work costs and time is unclear, or the relationship between evaluation ratings and work costs and time is unclear. Although there is a summary of the standards, the specific calculation method is not specified, so there is a problem that it is difficult to understand the method and effectiveness.

[0010] To summarize the above problems, the prior art has (
1) The evaluation is qualitative, not quantitative.

(2) Evaluation can only be made by an experienced person.

(3) It is difficult to judge the quality of a design based on work costs and time alone.

(4) Evaluation takes time and effort.

(5) Evaluation cannot be made until the design is completed or near the end, making it difficult to improve the design after the determination.

(6) The relationship between evaluation indicators and work costs and time is unclear.

(7) The calculation method of evaluation index is unclear.

[0017]

The purpose of the present invention is to provide an evaluation technique that does not have these problems, namely: (1) quantitative evaluation, (2) does not require extensive experience, and (3) requires only work costs and time. (4) It is easy to evaluate the quality of the design structure.

[0019] (5) Can be easily performed at an early stage of design and development.

(6) The relationship between evaluation indicators, work costs and time is clear, and (
7) The method for calculating evaluation indicators is clear.

[0021]An object of the present invention is to provide such an evaluation method and a device that automatically performs the evaluation.

[0022]

[Means for Solving the Problems] In order to achieve the above object, the workability evaluation method of the present invention classifies the state of the article or part to be evaluated, which corresponds to the type of work, into various basic elements, and A predetermined condition that serves as a standard for each of the above basic elements is defined and used as a standard element, and a basic index that represents the difficulty of work for each basic element is defined as ``the work cost and/or required time of each basic element, and the standard element. Comparison of work cost and/or work time required under the same production environment conditions (same production quantity, same production means, same worker ability, etc.), and a functional formula that does not change the comparative value even if the production environment conditions change. Furthermore, an article or part having a predetermined condition that is used as a standard for an evaluation article or part is used as an article standard or a part standard for the article or part, and each basic element or part representing the condition of the evaluation article or part is , From the basic index, the total value of the work cost and/or work time required for the basic element determined by the above functional formula or function is the work cost and/or work time required for the article or part under the same production environment conditions as the evaluated product. If the work cost and/or work time required for the goods or parts increases, the workability index for the goods or parts, which indicates the difficulty of work on the goods or parts, will be changed from the predetermined value to a comparison under the same production environment conditions. , a functional formula or table that decreases or increases values that have little change in comparison values even when production environment conditions change.

[0023] In order to evaluate the workability of an article that is a collection of parts, the above-mentioned part workability index is calculated for each of the plurality of parts constituting the evaluation article. If the total value of the work cost and/or work time required for a part determined from multiple part workability indicators increases from the total value of work cost and/or work time required for each part based on the same production environment conditions as the evaluated product, the evaluation is The product workability index, which expresses the difficulty of work on the product as a whole, is
The workability index of the evaluated article can be calculated from a predetermined value using a functional formula or function that compares under the same production environment conditions and decreases or increases the value that shows little change in the comparison value even if the production environment conditions change. desirable.

[0024]Furthermore, regarding the various conditions of the evaluated article or parts, in addition to the basic elements mentioned above, factors that affect the cost of work on the article or part and/or the required time for work are extracted and used as correction elements, and each correction element is used as a standard. A predetermined state is defined and used as a correction standard.

For each correction element, the state is classified into one or more, and a correction index representing the degree of influence on the difficulty of work for each classification is calculated based on the work cost and/or work time required for each classified state. The correction standard is compared with the work cost and/or work time required under the same production environment conditions, and is determined based on a functional formula or table that shows little change in the comparison value even if the production environment conditions change, and the above correction index is used to determine the Correcting the basic indicators allows for more precise evaluation.

[0026] Regarding the workability evaluation of the article,
Based on a functional formula or function that calculates the above-mentioned parts workability index for a plurality of parts constituting the article to be evaluated, and calculates the average value of the calculated parts workability index. By calculating the article workability index described above, evaluation can be performed quickly and easily.

[0027] Then, the work cost and/or work time required for the article or part to be evaluated is calculated based on the actual values of the work cost and/or work time required for existing goods or existing parts similar to the above-mentioned goods or parts; The practicality of the evaluation results is further increased by using a functional formula or table that compares the workability index of the article or part to be evaluated with the workability index of similar existing articles or parts.

The workability evaluation device of the present invention configured to carry out the above method of the invention includes an input device, a storage device, an arithmetic device, and a display device, and the above input device is an object to be evaluated. The storage device is provided with a function of inputting data of articles, parts, and parts, and the storage device stores basic indexes and correction indexes of basic elements indicating the classification of the work type of articles or parts, and function formulas. or a function program, other articles and parts data, and the function of storing evaluation calculation results, and the arithmetic unit is configured to store the articles and parts to be evaluated based on the data read from the storage device. The display device has a function of calculating the difficulty level of the task, and the display device displays the difficulty level of the task calculated by the arithmetic device.

[0029]

[Operation] According to the evaluation method according to the above-mentioned invention, the ease of work for the type of work or multiple types of work of an article or part is evaluated based on the basic index based on the work cost or required time. Expressed as a sex index.

The above basic elements can be easily extracted from the contents of design drawings, articles, and parts without requiring special skill, investigation, or experimentation.

[0031] Then, the workability of the part to be evaluated can be expressed as an index by summing up the above-mentioned basic indexes by simple calculation (for example, subtraction method or addition method) or by finding an average value.

[0032] When the basic index mentioned above is corrected with a correction index,
More precise evaluation becomes possible.

The above evaluation method can also be applied to an article that is an assembly of parts to evaluate the workability of the article as a whole.

Furthermore, according to the apparatus according to the invention, article and component data (basic elements, correction elements, etc.) can be inputted using the input device, and the above-mentioned indexes can be stored using the storage device. It is possible to memorize functional formulas, etc., and to calculate the difficulty of work for the parts using a calculation device, and to calculate the work difficulty of the article as a whole based on the work difficulty of the parts. is possible,
Since the calculation results can be displayed on the display device, it is suitable for implementing the method of the invention.

[0035]

[Example] Hereinafter, as an example of the present invention, an article including a product,
In order to explain the processability evaluation method in which machining work is applied to the type of work and machining surface is applied to the state, an explanation will be given based on FIG. 1 using an example of a computer system equipped with the evaluation method program. The hardware configuration of this computer system is common. That is, the computer system includes an arithmetic device 1 that performs calculation operations, a storage device 2 that stores programs, basic data, input data, and arithmetic results;
It is comprised of a display device 3 for displaying input data and calculation results, a printer 5, a data input device 4 such as a keyboard, a mouse, and others.

The configuration of the software installed in this hardware is as follows. First, as the basic data to be stored in the storage device, the basic element X is explained using FIG.
and the basic deduction point εX as a basic index, the name, symbol, numerical value, etc. given to it, as well as the correction elements x, xn and the correction coefficient α as a correction index, which will be explained using FIG.
, and the names, symbols, numerical values, etc. given to these, and each process of the evaluation process explained using FIG.
etc., input processing, basic deduction points εXij corresponding to input data
Calculate part deduction points ei by correcting with correction coefficient αnij, Calculate part workability score Ei = 100 - ei as part workability index using component deduction points ei, Product processing using all parts workability scores Ei Product processability rating E as a performance index
Calculation of product processing cost C or processing time T, etc.
This is a program that displays the results on the display unit and outputs the results using a printer.

The third column in FIG. 2 shows an example of the contents of basic elements X that classify machining surfaces. The first example 10 is a plane, and the second
Example 11 is a cylindrical surface, and the third example 12 is a round hole surface. Although the following is omitted, these basic elements Processing methods such as cutting, cutting, and casting are the basic elements
It is also possible to use it as the basic element X, or to use a combination of both.

The first column in FIG. 2 lists the name of the basic element X. The number of basic elements X can be large. The more basic elements there are, the more accurate the evaluation will be, but the more difficult it will be to use. Conversely, the smaller the number, the easier the evaluation process will be, but the less accurate it will be. In reality, around 20 is most suitable not only for processing but also for assembly.

In the second column of the figure, symbols corresponding to each basic element X are listed. Here, the symbol is expressed as, for example, a plane (Plan
e) "P" or "C" for cylindrical surface (Cylinder)
”. In the fourth column of FIG. 2, examples of values of basic deduction points εX assigned to each basic element X are listed. In this example, the plane P that is easiest to process is the "reference element X0".
For this, the standard deduction point ε as the standard index A given to this is
X0 (value when X of basic deduction point εX is set to X0) is set to 0, and other basic elements For example, as the processing cost CX for each basic element X becomes larger than the processing cost CX0 for the standard element Functional relationship such that deduction point εX is greater than 0

[0040]

[Math 1]

It is predetermined as [0041]. However, a1, a2
is a constant and has the relationship a2=a1CX0.

[0042] As an embodiment different from this embodiment, processing time TX and these indexes IX can be used instead of the processing cost CX.
You can also take

Furthermore, the formula for the basic deduction point εX includes the following formula, which has a different tendency for increase or decrease in εX with respect to an increase in CX.

[0044]

[Math 2]

[0045]

[Math 3]

[0046]

[Math 4]

Furthermore, instead of the basic deduction εX, the basic coefficient εX may be taken, and the following equation or the like which is larger or smaller than a predetermined value (eg 1) may be used.

[0048]

[Math 5]

[0049]

[Math 6]

[0050] However, a3, b2, b3, c1, c2, d
1, d2, α, and β are constants.

By appropriately selecting these constants, it is possible to change the tendency of the basic index to increase or decrease in response to an increase in the cost or required time of the basic elements.

FIG. 3 shows an example of the correction element x. Examples of the correction factors x include the material m, size l, finishing accuracy a of the component, and many others.

For each of these correction elements (m, l, a...), relatively simple ones are selected and correction standards (
m0, l0, a0...) and set the state of each correction element to 1.
These can be extracted and specified from the information, products, and parts shown in the drawings.
These are items other than basic elements that affect the ease of processing parts. A correction coefficient is written in advance as a correction index representing the degree of influence. This correction factor (x) is the processing cost (
A functional relationship αn=(CXxn/
CXx0)X mean...Average for various X =
It is determined as (CXxn/CX)X mean.

In this embodiment, CXx0=CX, but
Other CXxn=CX or [CXxn]xn mean=
CX, or instead of machining costs CXxn, CXx0, machining times TXxn, TXx0 and their index IXx
It is also possible to take n, IXx0.

[0055] In this way, the part workability score Ei, which represents the workability of the part, is finally determined, and the details thereof will be described below.

First, the component reference b for the part i is such that the basic element representing the machined surface of the part i is one reference element X0, the correction element has a predetermined size lb, and the production environment conditions are the same as those for the part i. do. The processing cost Cbi is determined from FIG.

Next, the basic element X for each processing order j of part i
Processing cost CXxni corresponding to ij and correction element xnij
Find j from FIG.

Hereinafter, CXxnij will be abbreviated as Cij.

Here, ΣCij, which is obtained by adding Cij in the order of j, becomes the part processing cost Ci.

That is, Ci=ΣCij If this part processing cost Ci increases more than the part-based processing cost Cbi,
The part workability rating Ei of the part is calculated using a functional formula that decreases or increases from a predetermined value (100).

[0061] However, ei=g1(Ci) is C
This is a component deduction that increases as i increases more than Cbi. Here, the formula for ei is determined first. However, CXxn/CX≒(CXxn/CX)X mean=α
n, and f1￣1 is the inverse function of f1.

As a result, Ei=100±g2(αni
j, εXij), and using this formula, the basic deduction points εXij corresponding to the basic element Xij and the correction element xnij
Ei can be calculated using the correction coefficient αnij.

Furthermore, Ei=100±g2(αnij, ε
Ci is obtained by substituting Ei obtained from Xij) into Ei of Ei=f2(Ci).

This is convenient because Ei and Ci can be calculated using a simple diagram without data such as CX and CXxn shown in FIGS. 2 and 3.

Instead of the above processing costs Cbi and CXxnij, processing times Tbi and TXxnij and their index Ib
i, IXxnij. Furthermore, the component coefficient ei' is taken instead of the component deduction point ei, and the component processability rating E
It is also possible to set i to Ei=100ei'. However, e
i'=g2'(Ci) is a component coefficient that increases or decreases when Ci increases more than Cbi.

Now, in this way, the parts workability score Ei and the processing cost Ci are determined for all the parts, and then C and E of the product are determined from these values.

That is, when C=ΣCi increases more than ΣCbi, the product processability rating E is calculated by the functional formula E=100±e=100±g3(C)=f3(C), which decreases or increases the product processability score from a predetermined value of 100. .

[0068] However, e=g3(C) is C=Σ
This is a product deduction that increases as Ci increases more than ΣCbi.

[0069] Here, in the equation of E, Ei=f2(
Ci), E=f3(C)=f3(ΣCi) =f3{Σ[f2￣1(Ei)]}=f4(Ei). However, f2￣1 is an inverse function of f2.

Instead of the above processing costs C, Ci, Cbi, processing times T, Ti, Tbi and their indices I, Ii, I
You can also take bi. Furthermore, it is also possible to take the product coefficient e' instead of the product deduction e and set E=100e'. However, e'=g3'(C) is a product coefficient that increases or decreases when C increases more than ΣCbi.

[0071] In this way, whereas Ei was an index showing how easy part i was to process, the product workability rating E became an index showing how easy to process the entire product.

Here, the approximate formula for f4(Ei) is (ΣEi)
/N (the derivation method is omitted), so

[0073]

[Math 7]

An approximate value may be obtained as follows. However, N
is the number of processed parts.

[0075] When calculating the machining costs C, Ci and required machining times T, Ti of the products and parts to be evaluated, the machining costs C', When the actual values of Ci' and required machining time T', Ti' are known, the workability ratings E, Ei of the product or part to be evaluated and the workability ratings E', Ei of similar existing products or parts. The relational expression between ', C, Ci, C', and Ci' is transformed as follows.

[0076]

[Math. 8]

The four formulas for calculating Ci and C above are the following functional formulas, which are used to calculate the processing costs CX, CXxn, f2￣1, f3￣1 in Figures 2 and 3 in various production environments. This is very convenient because it does not require a large amount of data such as constant values.

Ci=ΣCij...Cij=CXxnij is obtained from FIG.

Instead of the above processing costs C, Ci, C', Ci', processing times T, Ti, T', Ti' and their indices I, Ii
, I', Ii' can also be taken.

FIG. 4 shows the operation by the computer system.

In step 1, "the part to be evaluated is represented by symbols of basic elements and correction elements". If there is no symbol that perfectly matches the symbol, select the symbol of the most similar basic element.

In step 2 of the figure, the symbols of basic elements and correction elements for each part are input into the computer.

[0083] When the above operations are performed for all parts that make up the product, the computer automatically calculates all or part of the workability score, processing time, and processing cost for each part and product, and displays the results on the display. In addition to displaying the results, if necessary, output the results to a printer.

Basic elements and correction elements are input for each component as input data, and as a method of inputting, symbols of basic elements and correction elements are assigned to each key on the keyboard. Examples of keyboards are shown in FIGS. 5(a) and 5(b). In this case, it would be convenient if the symbols shown in Figure 2 and the letters of the assigned keys have a relationship that is easy to associate with each other, and basic elements that use letters of the alphabet can be simply assigned to the corresponding keys on the keyboard. Yes, basic elements that use symbols other than the alphabet can be easily operated by assigning function keys. Lay out a sheet called an overlay sheet on the keyboard, write the corresponding symbol on the sheet near each key,
It is also convenient to display the element symbol that the key represents.

In this example, the basic element "P" is
The keys were assigned to keys in group Pb shown in FIG. 5(a), and symbols other than the alphabet were assigned to group Fn of function keys. There are various other methods that can be considered, such as creating a list of element symbols on both sides of the display without using the keyboard, moving the cursor to select the desired element symbol, and inputting it. It doesn't matter. It is recommended that numerical data be entered using the numeric keypad on the keyboard.

FIG. 6 is an example of output obtained by processing input data by the computer system of FIG. 4.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the results of evaluating the workability of various parts according to this example. Further, the error of the product processability evaluation value from the actual value was within ±10%. In the embodiments described above, the reference points were set at 100 points, and the processability score was calculated by the point deduction method, but various variations are possible. For example, a method in which the reference point is 0 points and the workability score is calculated by the subtraction method, a method in which the reference point is 0 points and the workability score is calculated by the addition point method, a method in which the reference point is 0 points and the workability score is calculated by the addition method,
One possible method is to calculate the workability score by adding points, but this is essentially the same as the method explained at the beginning.

Next, an example evaluated and improved using the processability evaluation method of the present invention is shown in FIG.

The above is an example of evaluating workability (ease of processing work) as a workability evaluation method in which the article is the product, the type of work is the processing operation, and the condition is the processing surface. However, assemblability (ease of assembly work) can be evaluated using an assemblability evaluation method that takes assembly work as the type of work and assembly action as the state. Basic elements etc. in this case are shown in FIGS. 9 to 13.

The present invention can be applied to manufacturing work, inspection work, transportation work, sales work, installation work, use, maintenance work, etc. as work types, and improves manufacturability, testability, transportability, saleability, installationability, and use. Performance (usability, operability), maintainability, etc. can be effectively evaluated by following the same procedure as in this example.

[0091]

[Effects of the Invention] As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to easily work on articles or parts (a) at an early stage of design and development, (b) without requiring extensive experience, and ( c.
) Not only work costs and time, but also the quality of the design structure can be quantitatively evaluated in a way that is easy for anyone to understand. Therefore, the designer himself/herself can evaluate and improve his/her own design at an early stage of design development, and can obtain a high-quality design from the viewpoint of workability in a short time.

[Brief explanation of the drawing]

FIG. 1 is an explanatory diagram showing the configuration of a computer system using an embodiment of the evaluation method according to the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of basic elements and their contents in processing work.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of correction elements and their contents in processing work.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing the contents of a workability evaluation process.

FIG. 5 is a plan view showing an example of the shape of a keyboard of a computer system.

FIG. 6 is a plan view showing an example of output of workability evaluation results.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the accuracy verification results of machining time calculation using the machinability evaluation method.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of design improvement using a processability evaluation method.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of basic elements and their contents in assembly work.

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of correction elements and their contents in assembly work.

FIG. 11 is a plan view showing an example of output of assemblability evaluation results.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing the accuracy verification results of assembly cost calculation using the assemblability evaluation method.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of design improvement using an assemblability evaluation method.

FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing the flow of conventional design, evaluation of manufacturability, and design improvement.

[Explanation of symbols]

1. computing device, 2. Storage device, 3. display device, 4. keyboard, 5. printer, 10. Examples of basic elements: plane, 11. Examples of basic elements: cylindrical surface, 12. Example of basic element: round hole surface.

Claims (6)

[Claims] Claim 1: Classifying the state of the article or part to be evaluated, which corresponds to the type of work, into various basic elements, and defining a predetermined state as a reference for the various basic elements as a reference element;
The basic index expressing the difficulty of work for each basic element is
The evaluation item or An article or part having a predetermined condition as a part standard is used as the article standard or part standard of the article or part, and is determined by the above functional formula or function from each basic element or basic index representing the condition of the evaluated article or part. If the work cost and/or work time required for the article or part or these indices increase compared to the work cost and/or work time required for the article or part or these indices, the difficulty of work on the goods or part will be increased. 1. A method for evaluating workability of an article or parts for a work type or multiple work types, the method comprising calculating the workability index of an article or part using a "functional formula or function that decreases or increases from a predetermined value." [Claim 2] For various conditions of the article or part to be evaluated, in addition to the basic elements, factors that affect the work cost and/or required time of the article or part are extracted as correction elements, and each correction element is Define a predetermined state as a reference, use this as a correction standard, classify the state into one or more for each correction element, and express the degree of influence of each of the above classified states on the difficulty of the work. The correction index is based on "a functional formula or function that compares the work cost and/or work time required for each classified state and these indices with the work cost and/or work time required and these indices of the correction standard" 2. The workability evaluation method for an article according to claim 1, wherein the basic index is corrected using the correction index. 3. Calculate the part workability index for each of the plurality of parts constituting the article to be evaluated, and calculate the part work cost and the part workability index determined from the plurality of part workability indices calculated. Or, if the total value of work time or the index of deflection increases from the total value of work cost and/or work time required for each part or their index, the workability of the product indicates the difficulty of work for the evaluation product as a whole. 3. The method for evaluating workability of an article according to claim 1 or claim 2, characterized in that the workability rating of the evaluation article is calculated using a "functional formula or function that decreases or increases the index from a predetermined value." 4. A functional formula that calculates the part workability index for a plurality of parts constituting the article to be evaluated, and calculates the average value of the calculated part workability index. Claim 1 or Claim 2, characterized in that the article workability index is calculated based on a function.
A method for evaluating the workability of the article described in . Claim 5: Calculation of the work cost and/or work time required for the article or part to be evaluated, or their index, shall be based on the work cost and/or work time required for existing goods or existing parts similar to the above-mentioned goods or parts. A claim characterized in that it is carried out by a functional formula or function that compares the actual values and their indices with the workability index of the article or part to be evaluated and the workability index of similar existing goods or parts. A method for evaluating workability of an article according to claim 1, claim 2, claim 3, or claim 4. 6. An input device, a storage device, an arithmetic device, and a display device, the input device having a function of inputting data of articles and parts to be evaluated;
The storage device has a function of storing basic indexes, correction indices, functional formulas or functions, and the article and parts data and evaluation calculation results, and the arithmetic device has a function of storing basic indexes, correction indices, functional formulas or functions, and the above-mentioned article and parts data and evaluation calculation results. The display device has a function of calculating the difficulty level of the work of the article or part to be evaluated based on the data read from the device, and the display device has the function of displaying the work difficulty level calculated by the arithmetic device. An apparatus for evaluating workability of an article, characterized in that: