JPH1166150A - Risk evaluation system - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a risk evaluation system capable of objectively evaluating a risk latent in a plan when a project is planned. SOLUTION: When a project plan for a project to be evaluated which is being planned is inputted, a risk evaluation scale determining means 6 determines a risk evaluation scale used to rank the extent of the risk of the project to be evaluated according to projection information 12 wherein the projection plans 10 for past projections and the project actual results 11 are made to correspond to each other, and an evaluation scale determining means 7 graduates the risk evaluation scale. A risk evaluating means 8 finds the extent of the risk when the projection plan 10 for the project to be evaluated is applied to the risk evaluation scale according to the scale.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to project management in software development work, and in particular, it is difficult to make a detailed plan due to unclear required specifications and the like, and the plan contains many uncertainties. In project management in software development work for large-scale systems that will be started as it is, based on past project plans and results,
The present invention relates to a system for objectively assessing the magnitude of the potential risk in the planning of a project to be started.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art Generally, in a software development business for a large-scale system, first, a function to be realized is designed based on a specification required by a customer. Through the process of designing.

However, the specifications required by customers are rarely determined from the beginning, and as the development proceeds,
It is often clarified and confirmed by prototyping. Therefore, in the project planning stage, at present, a rough plan is drafted based only on the development outline such as the development target and the required delivery date.

[0004] As a result, improper estimation of uncertain factors may cause imbalance in the assignment of persons and the like, and the work to be performed may not be performed accurately, causing troubles such as delay. In particular, once a trouble occurs in a large-scale project, it is difficult to recover from the trouble, and the loss at the time of confusion is greater than that of a small- or medium-sized project.

Therefore, at the project planning stage,
It is important to properly grasp the factors that tend to cause troubles such as delays and take preventive measures. That is,
At the planning stage of a project, it is important to evaluate the magnitude of the risk underlying the project plan.

For this purpose, Japanese Patent Laid-Open Publication No.
A “project planning method” described in Japanese Patent Publication No. 0 has been devised.

According to the present technology, a process plan for a target project is set based on the number of work steps of a similar project in the past, and personnel, equipment, and funds are allocated in the main process, and stored in a strategic knowledge database. It displays the data of the business strategy, tactics, and strategies, etc., which are supported by this technology for the method of evaluating the magnitude of the risk is stored in the strategic knowledge database It just displays the data. In other words, this technology does not support the problems that may occur in the future of the project and the factors that may occur in the future and list the risks, so the project manager etc. You have to judge by your own experience and intuition.

[0008] Further, as known techniques of this type, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Nos. 7-84777 and 3-77151,
A technique described in JP-A-7-105250 can be mentioned.

The technique described in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. H7-84777 is for storing, classifying, and organizing trouble results, and updating a checklist based on the cause of occurrence.
The technology described in JP-A-3-77151 is
The method estimates the number of remaining program errors at each stage of design, review, and test.
The technique described in Japanese Patent Publication No. 250 derives an optimum design value at which the objective function is maximized when a design requirement and an objective function are input, but each technique is different from the present invention.

[0010]

In the prior art in which a project manager or the like needs to evaluate the magnitude of the risk,
Since it can only be evaluated within the range that the project managers have experienced in the past (several tens of past cases),
Evaluation has omissions and limitations, and evaluation accuracy is poor. In addition, individual differences such as project managers occur.

[0011] Further, with the progress of the technology in the application field and the change of the development process and the personnel composition, it is often difficult to judge within the range of the experience of the project manager or the like so far.

[0012] Further, since the cases experienced by the project managers and the like in the past are not shared, it is difficult to evaluate until the individual gains experience.

Therefore, a method of objectively evaluating the magnitude of risk is desired from abundant past cases, and an object of the present invention is to perform project management in software development work based on plans and results of past projects. hand,
An objective of the present invention is to provide a risk assessment system that objectively evaluates the magnitude of the risk in the project planning to be started and clarifies the factors.

The risk evaluation system provided by the present invention is:
In particular, it is difficult to formulate a detailed plan because the required specifications etc. are unclear, and it is suitable for project management in software development work for large-scale systems whose implementation starts with many uncertain parts in the plan. .

[0015]

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides, as a first aspect, an overview of a plurality of types of project features and an execution plan of a project, which are input in a project development planning stage. A project plan input means for receiving a project plan representing a project plan, a project result input means for receiving a project result representing the result of the project, which is inputted after the development of the project, and
The project information consisting of the set of the project plan received by the project plan input means and the project result received by the project result input means,
A project information management means for storing the project information stored in the project information database and extracting the project information stored in the project information database; and From the combinations of at least one of the above, a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated in the development planning stage is generated. One or more risk assessment scale candidates that are highly correlated with
A risk evaluation scale determining means determined as a risk evaluation scale, and a risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determining means for each of the past project and the project to be evaluated based on the project information extracted by the project information management means. In accordance with the combination of the project characteristics that generated the project, the value of the risk evaluation scale was calculated for the project to be evaluated based on the relationship between the value of the risk evaluation scale obtained for the past project and the trouble. A risk evaluation means for estimating the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated by predicting a trouble corresponding to the value in the above, and an evaluation result display means for displaying an evaluation result of the risk evaluation means. We provide a risk assessment system.

In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides, as a second aspect, a project plan, which is inputted in a project development planning stage, and represents an outline of a plurality of types of project features and an execution plan of the project. A project plan input means for receiving a project result, which is input after the end of the development of the project and indicating a project performance, and a project plan received by the project plan input means for each of a plurality of projects. When,
Project information management means for storing project information including a set of project results received by the project result input means in a project information database, and extracting project information stored in the project information database; Based on the project information extracted by the management means, a risk assessment used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the evaluation target project in the development planning stage from a combination of one or more of the above-described plurality of types of project characteristics. A risk evaluation scale determining means for generating a scale candidate and determining, as a risk evaluation scale, one or more risk evaluation scale candidates having a high correlation with the trouble of the past project among the generated risk evaluation scale candidates; Project information tube Based on the project information extracted by the means, for each of the risk evaluation scales determined by the risk evaluation scale determining means, determine an evaluation scale that determines a scale for grading the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated. Means, and for the project to be evaluated, in accordance with a combination of the project characteristics from which the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determining means is determined, a value on the risk evaluation scale is obtained, and the obtained value is calculated by the evaluation scale A risk evaluation means for evaluating the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated by ranking using the scale determined by the determination means, and an evaluation result display means for displaying an evaluation result of the risk evaluation means are provided. We provide a risk assessment system characterized by:

In each of the first and second embodiments, the risk evaluation scale determining means assigns each of a plurality of predetermined weights (hereinafter, referred to as "weights"). A combination of weights when associating with each of the plurality of types of project features is determined as a risk evaluation scale candidate, and for each of the project information extracted by the project information management means, a project plan in the project information and By comparing with the project performance, a trouble performance value representing a trouble is obtained, and for each combination of weights obtained as risk evaluation scale candidates, a combination of the weight is added to a value representing each project feature in the project information. Of the corresponding weights are summed up for all project features. Is obtained, and further, a correlation coefficient between the obtained trouble actual value and the obtained total result is obtained, and a combination of the weights obtained as the risk evaluation scale candidates is ordered from the obtained correlation coefficient. A combination of a predetermined number of weights can be determined as a risk evaluation scale.

[0018] In the second aspect, the evaluation scale determining means may be arranged such that when a trouble of a past project is applied to each of a plurality of ranks divided in advance, according to the number of troubles belonging to each rank, The scale of the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determining means may be determined.

In any of the first and second aspects, the apparatus further includes a risk evaluation condition setting means for receiving an input of a condition for limiting project information used for risk evaluation, Can extract, from the project information stored in the project information database, project information that matches the condition received by the risk evaluation condition setting means.

In either of the first and second aspects, the apparatus further comprises a risk evaluation condition setting means for receiving an input of a condition for limiting a trouble for which risk is to be evaluated, and the risk evaluation scale determination means is provided. The risk evaluation scale can be determined from the correlation with the trouble matching the condition accepted by the risk evaluation condition setting means.

In any of the first and second embodiments, the risk evaluation scale determining means displays the generated risk evaluation scale candidate together with a correlation value indicating a correlation with a past project trouble. One of the risk evaluation scale candidate display means to be executed and the risk evaluation scale candidates displayed by the risk evaluation scale candidate display means.
There is provided a risk evaluation scale selecting means for receiving designation of one or more risk evaluation scale candidates, and the risk evaluation scale candidate received by the risk evaluation scale selecting means can be determined as a risk evaluation scale.

In each of the first embodiment and the second embodiment, the evaluation result indicates the evaluation result of the risk evaluation means and the correlation examined when determining the risk evaluation scale from which the evaluation result was obtained. The apparatus may further include a risk comprehensive evaluation means for comprehensively evaluating the risk of the project to be evaluated based on the correlation value, and the evaluation result display means may further display the evaluation result of the risk comprehensive evaluation means.

[0023]

Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings.

First, a first embodiment of the present invention will be described.

FIG. 1 is a processing block diagram of the risk evaluation system according to the first embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 1, a risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment
Project result input means 3, project information management means 4, project information database 5, risk evaluation scale determination means 6, and evaluation scale determination means 7
And a risk evaluation means 8 and an evaluation result display means 9.

The project plan input means 2 provides a user interface for inputting a project plan 10 representing an outline of a plurality of types of project characteristics and an execution plan of the project at the stage of project development planning. The plan 10 is output to the project information management means 4 and the risk evaluation means 8.

The project result input means 3 provides a user interface for inputting a project result 11 representing the result of the project after the project development is completed, and inputs the input project result 11 to the project information management means 4. Output.

The project information management means 4 includes a project plan 10 output from the project plan input means 2 and a project performance 11 output from the project performance input means 3 for each of a plurality of projects.
Is stored in the project information database 5, and the project information 12 stored in the project information database 5 is extracted. The project information management means 4 outputs the extracted project information 12 to the risk evaluation scale determination means 6 and the evaluation scale determination means 7.

The risk evaluation scale deciding means 6 is based on the project information 12 stored in the project information database 5 and has a plurality of types such as project novelty and team organization, which are set in the project characteristic item list 13 in advance. Any one of the project features
From the combinations of one or more, a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated in the development planning stage is generated, and the generated risk evaluation scale candidates are correlated with past project troubles. One or more risk evaluation scale candidates having high likelihood are determined as risk evaluation scales. Note that the risk evaluation scale determination means 6
Outputs the risk evaluation scale list 14 in which the determined risk evaluation scales are set to the evaluation scale determining means 7.

The evaluation scale determining means 7 determines, based on the project information 12 stored in the project information database 5, the risk evaluation scale set in the risk evaluation scale list 14 output from the risk evaluation scale determining means 6. For each of them, determine its scale (scale for ranking the magnitude of risk of the project to be evaluated). The evaluation scale determining means 7 outputs a scaled risk evaluation scale list 15 in which the determined scale is set to the risk evaluation scale list 14 to the risk evaluation means 8.

The risk evaluation means 8 determines, for the project to be evaluated, according to the combination of the project features that have generated the risk evaluation scale set in the scaled risk evaluation scale list 15 output from the evaluation scale determination means 7. By obtaining a value in the risk evaluation scale and ranking the obtained values using the scale of the risk evaluation scale set in the scaled risk evaluation scale list 15 output from the evaluation scale determining means 7, The magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated is evaluated, and the risk evaluation result data 16 in which the evaluation result is set is output to the evaluation result display means 9.

The evaluation result display means 9 includes the risk evaluation means 8
Based on the risk evaluation result data 16 output from
A user interface for displaying the risk evaluation result 17 for each risk evaluation scale is provided.

FIG. 19 is a hardware configuration diagram of the risk evaluation system according to the first embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 19, the risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 2
, A memory 203, and a storage device 204, a computer 201 such as a personal computer or a workstation is connected to a data input device such as a keyboard 206 and a mouse 207 and a data display device such as a CRT (display) 205. Have been.

In FIG. 1, the project plan input means 2, the project result input means 3, the project information management means 4, the risk evaluation scale determination means 6, the evaluation scale determination means 7, the risk evaluation means 8, and the evaluation result display means 9
The program stored in the storage device 204 is transferred to the CPU 2
02 is loaded into the memory 203 and executed.

The project information database 5 in FIG. 1 is a database secured on the storage device 204. Further, the project characteristic item list 13, the risk evaluation scale list 14, the scaled risk evaluation scale list 15, and the risk evaluation result data 16 in FIG. 1 are also stored in the memory 203 or the storage device 204 as necessary.

Next, the data structure of data used in the risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment will be described.

FIG. 2 is a diagram showing a data structure of the project plan 10.

As shown in FIG.
Is a project name 101, a target field 102 such as electric power or steel, a project delivery date 103, and a development budget 1
04, the total number of personnel input to the project (input personnel) 105, the estimated man-hours 106 for development, and the project characteristics 107 representing the characteristics of the project.

Further, the project feature 107 includes items such as novelty 108 of development, technical difficulty 109 indicating technical difficulty in development, and team formation 110 indicating development capability of the project team.

The novelty of development 108 can be, for example, a ratio of a reused part in a project, and the team formation 110 can be, for example, a ratio of a beginner in a project team.

FIG. 3 shows an input screen 1 of the project plan 10.
FIG.

On the input screen 18 provided by the project plan input means 2 as a user interface, the user can enter each item of the project plan 10
A value is input in the input area 20.

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a data structure of the project record 11.

As shown in FIG.
Is composed of items such as a completion date 111 when the project is actually completed and an expenditure 112 which is a cost for development.

FIG. 5 shows an input screen 1 of the project result 11.
FIG.

The input project plan 10 provided by the project result input means 3 as a user interface
In the list screen (not shown), when the user specifies the project plan 10 for inputting the results, the project results input means 3 displays the input screen 19.

On the input screen 19, the project name input by the user on the input screen 18 of the project plan 10 is displayed in the project name output area 21. Therefore, on the input screen 19, the user inputs a value to the input area 22 for each item of the project performance 11.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing a data structure of the project information 12.

As shown in FIG. 6, project information 12
Means project plan 10 and project results 11
And project features (additional items) 113.

Here, project features (additional) 11
Reference numeral 3 denotes an item newly obtained from the project plan 10 by the project plan input means 2, for example, the delivery date 103, input staff 105, and estimated man-hour 1 of the project plan 10.
06 can be given.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the data structure of the project feature item list 13.

As shown in FIG. 7, the project feature item list 13 includes a project feature number 114 indicating the number of project feature items set in advance, and a data position 11 on the project information 12 of each project feature.
5 and the data position 115
Exist for the number 114 of project features.

The data position 115 can be represented by the head address in the project information 12 and its data length.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a data structure of the risk evaluation result data 16.

As shown in FIG. 8A, the risk evaluation result data 16 is composed of items such as a header part 116 and a data part 117, and the records 118 of the data part 117 include the number of risk evaluation scales. Existing.

FIG. 8B shows the data structure of the header section 116.

As shown in FIG. 8B, the header 116
Is the project characteristic item list 13 shown in FIG.
It is composed of items such as 119 risk evaluation ranks.

Here, the risk evaluation rank number 119 is the number of ranks to be divided when evaluating the magnitude of the risk.

FIG. 8C shows the record 1 of the data section 117.
FIG. 18 is a diagram showing a data structure of No. 18.

As shown in FIG. 8C, the data section 117
Record 118 contains the project feature weights 12
0, correlation value 121, boundary value 122, and risk value 12
3 and an evaluation value 124.

Here, weighting of project features 12
0 is the project feature item list 1 in the header section 116
3 represents the weight added to the data (project feature) of the project information 12 indicated by the data position 115. It should be noted that the project feature weight 120 exists in the same way as the data position 115, for the project feature number 114.

Then, the risk evaluation scale is set to the data position 1
The value obtained by multiplying the value of the data (project feature) of the project information 12 indicated by 15 by the weight indicated by the weight 120 of the corresponding project feature is defined as the sum of all the project features, and determined in accordance therewith. Let the value be the risk value on the risk rating scale. That is, “risk value = Σ _{i = 1, n} (value of project feature i × weight of project feature i)”. Where n
Is the number of project features 114.

The correlation value 121 is a correlation coefficient between the risk value on the risk evaluation scale and the magnitude of the problem, calculated based on the project results 11 of the past projects stored in the project information database 5. .
The magnitude of the problem here is the actual value of the trouble such as the number of days delayed or the amount of loss.

The boundary value 122 is a boundary value in a risk evaluation scale used to rank the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated. When the number of risk evaluation ranks 119 is m, (m-1 ).

The risk value 123 is a risk value on the risk evaluation scale for the project to be evaluated.

Further, the evaluation value 124 is a value representing the rank of the risk magnitude, which is obtained when the risk value 123 of the evaluation target project is applied to the risk evaluation scale according to the boundary value 122. That is, rank 1 is replaced by boundary value 1
Rank 2 and rank 2 or more and less than boundary 2
Similarly, when the rank m is equal to or more than the boundary value (m-1),
If the risk value 123 belongs to the boundary value (k-1) or more and falls below the boundary value k, the evaluation value 124 becomes rank k.

In the data structure of the risk evaluation result data 16, the project characteristic item list 13 of the header part 116 and the data part 118 composed of the record 118 in which only the project characteristic weight 120 and the correlation value 121 are set. 117 is the risk assessment scale list 1
4, and the data part 117 composed of the record 118 in which the value is set to the risk evaluation rank number 119 of the header part 116 and the boundary value 122 of the record 118 of the data part 117 is a risk evaluation scale with scale. Listing 1
5

Next, the operation of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment will be described.

The operation of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment is realized by executing a project plan / actual registration process, a risk evaluation scale update process, and a risk evaluation process described below.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart of the project plan / actual registration process.

The project plan / result registration process is a process for storing the project plan 10 and the project result 11 of the project in the project information database 5, and is started by the user after the project planning stage and after the project ends. Be executed.

In FIG. 9, step 11 is a process in which the project plan input means 2 inputs the project plan 10 of the project to be evaluated.
Is a process in which the project information management means 4 stores the project plan 10 input in step 11 in the project information database 5.

At this point, the project plan 1
Since the project results 11 of the project for which 0 has been input have not been input, the project information management means 4 actually stores the input project plan 10 and the project results 11 whose values have not been set in step 12. The associated project information 12 is stored in the project information database 5.

In FIG. 9, step 13 is a process in which the project results input means 3 inputs the project results 11 of the project.
This is a process in which the project information management means 4 stores the project results 11 input in step 13 in the project information database 5.

At this point, project performance 1
Since the project plan 10 of the project to which the “1” has been input has already been input, the project information management means 4 actually sets the value of the project The value of the project result 11 input at 13 is set.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart of the risk evaluation scale update process.

The risk evaluation scale update process is a process for determining a scale for risk evaluation based on the project information 12 stored in the project information database 5, and when a new project performance 11 is input. Get up and run.

In FIG. 10, step 21 is a process in which the project result input means 3 inputs the project result 11 of the project, and corresponds to step 13 in FIG.

The project results 11 input in step 21 are stored in the project information database 5 by the project information management means 4 as described with reference to FIG.

In FIG. 10, step 22 is as follows:
The project information management means 4 extracts the project information 12 of another project stored in the project information database 5 (including the project stored in the project information database 5 by inputting the project result 11 in step 21). Yes,
Step 23 is for the risk evaluation scale determination means 6 to evaluate the magnitude of the risk based on the project performance 11 of the project information 12 extracted in step 22 and the preset project characteristic item list 13. This is a process for determining a risk evaluation scale to be used.

The details of the risk evaluation scale determination process in step 23 will be described later.

In FIG. 10, step 24 is
The evaluation scale determination means 7 determines the scale of the risk evaluation scale determined in step 23 based on the project information 12 extracted in step 22, that is, ranks the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated. Is a process of determining a scale for the image.

The details of the scale determination processing in step 24 will be described later.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart of the risk evaluation process.

The risk evaluation process is a process for evaluating a project plan prepared in the project planning stage in accordance with the above-described risk evaluation scale and displaying the result. When a new project plan 10 is input, Get up and run.

In FIG. 11, step 31 is a process in which the project plan input means 2 inputs the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project, and corresponds to step 11 in FIG.

In FIG. 11, step 32 comprises:
The risk evaluation means 8 evaluates the magnitude of the risk of the evaluation target project based on the scaled risk evaluation scale list 15, that is, obtains the risk value in the risk evaluation scale for the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project. Then, the obtained risk value is applied to a risk evaluation scale in accordance with the boundary value, thereby obtaining an evaluation value representing a rank of the magnitude of the risk.

The details of the evaluation value calculation processing in step 32 will be described later.

In FIG. 11, step 33 is
This is a process in which the evaluation result display means 9 displays the evaluation result based on the evaluation value obtained in step 32.

Next, the risk evaluation scale determination processing in step 23 in FIG. 10 and the scale determination processing in step 24 in FIG. 10 will be described.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart of the risk evaluation scale determination process.

In FIG. 12, step 41 is a process for obtaining the position of each project feature in the project information 12 based on the project feature item list 13, and step 42 is a process for setting a weight to be added to each project feature. It is.

Here, the possible values of the weights are various. For example, three types of values of −1, 0, and 1 are used, and the weights to be added to each project feature are respectively selected from these values. Can be set.

In FIG. 12, step 43 is
In this process, the risk value based on the weight set in step 42 and the actual trouble value at that time are obtained for all the project information 12.

Here, as described above, the risk value is calculated based on each project feature 107 of the project information 12 and the weight set in step 42, as follows.
Σi _{= 1, n} (value of project feature i × weight of project feature i) ”. Here, n is the number 114 of project features, and the weight {-1, 0, 1} of the project feature i.

[0098] Examples of the trouble include a delivery deadline and an over budget. In the case of a delivery delay, the size is the completion date 11 included in the project performance 11.
1 and the delivery date 103 included in the project plan 10. If the budget is exceeded, the expenditure 112
And the budget 104 included in the project plan 10.

In FIG. 12, step 44 comprises:
Based on the calculation result in step 43, a correlation coefficient between the risk value based on the weight set in step 42 and the actual value of the trouble at that time is calculated. Step 45 is performed in steps 42 to 44. Is performed for all combinations of possible values of the weight.

In FIG. 12, step 46 comprises:
The weight combinations are ordered by the correlation coefficient, and a predetermined number of weight combinations are ranked from the top with the highest correlation coefficient,
Step 4 is a process for determining a risk evaluation scale.
7 is a process of setting a combination of weights determined as risk evaluation scales and a correlation coefficient thereof in the risk evaluation scale list 14, that is, for each combination of weights determined as risk evaluation scales, This is a process for setting the record 118 of the data section 117 of FIG.

More specifically, in step 47, record 1
At 18, the combination of weights determined as the risk evaluation scale is set as the weight 120 of the project feature, and the correlation coefficient at that time is set as the correlation value 121.

For example, when there are two types of project features and three types of weights, there are only 3 × 3 = 9 combinations of weights to be multiplied by these project feature values. . Therefore, in the risk evaluation scale determination process described above, for each of these nine combinations of weights, the value obtained by multiplying the value of the project feature by the value of the corresponding weight is summed up for all project features. A risk value for each combination of weights is determined, and a combination of a predetermined number of weights is determined as a risk evaluation scale from the top with the highest correlation coefficient between the calculated risk value and the actual value of the trouble.

Therefore, according to the risk evaluation scale determination processing described above, a predetermined number of weight combinations such that the larger the calculated risk value is, the larger the actual value of the trouble is, It will be determined as a risk assessment scale.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart of the scale determination process.

The scale determination process is a process of determining a scale for ranking the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated with respect to the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determination process shown in FIG. In addition,
This processing is executed for each combination of weights determined as the risk evaluation scale.

In FIG. 13, a step 51 obtains a risk evaluation scale (combination of weights) whose scale is to be determined based on the risk evaluation scale list 14 based on the project feature weight 120 of the record 118 of the data section 117. Processing.

In FIG. 13, step 52 comprises:
This is a process for obtaining a risk value and a trouble actual value on the risk evaluation scale obtained in step 51 for all the project information 12, and is the same process as step 43 in FIG.

In FIG. 13, step 53 is
This is a process of determining the number of ranks and the range of each rank in order to divide the magnitude of the trouble for which the actual value was obtained in step 52 into several ranks.

Note that the number of ranks and the range of each rank are as follows.
The user may be able to enter keys interactively. In addition, if the number of ranks and the range of each rank that have been input once are stored, these can be presented to the user to request consent. Further, the number of ranks and the range of each rank may be incorporated in the project information 12 in advance. However, the number of ranks is assumed to be n ≧ 2.

In FIG. 13, step 54 comprises:
This is a process of determining the even number / odd number of the rank number n. In step 55, when the rank number n is an odd number, n ₀ = (n−
Step 56 is a process of setting n ₀ = n / 2 when the number of ranks n is an even number.

In FIG. 13, step 57 is
Step k58 is a process for setting the range of k-th rank from the bottom of the risk evaluation scale (rank range).

[0112] Specifically, in step 58, first, the k-th rank range from the lower of trouble, and LN _k ~HN _k, the actual value of the trouble out of the project information 12, such as is equal to or greater than HN _k, a minimum of the risk value and LR _k. Then, the k-th rank range from the bottom of the risk evaluation scale is set to a value smaller than LR _k when k = 1, and smaller than LR _k when k ≧ 2, and LR
Set the value to _(k-1) or more.

In FIG. 13, step 59 is
This is a process of setting the k-th rank range from the top of the risk evaluation scale.

More specifically, in step 59, among the project information 12 whose actual trouble value is LN _k or less, the maximum risk value is set to HR _k . Then, the k-th rank range from the top of the risk evaluation scale is
When k = 1, a value larger than HR _k is set, and k ≧
In the case of 2, it is set to a value larger than HR _k and equal to or less than HR _(k-1) .

In FIG. 13, step 60 comprises:
By adding 1 to k, this is a process for executing steps 58 and 59 for 2 ≦ k ≦ n ₀ .

In FIG. 13, step 61 comprises:
The rank range not set in steps 58 and 59, that is, the remaining range of the risk scale is
This is a process of setting as one rank range.

More specifically, in step 61, since the remaining range is a value equal to or greater than LR _n0 and equal to or less than HR _n0 , this is set as one rank range.

In FIG. 13, step 62 comprises:
This is a process of setting a boundary value of each rank range and the number of ranks in the risk evaluation scale list with scale 15.

More specifically, in step 62, LR ₁ , LR ₂ ,..., HR ₂ , HR ₁ which are the boundary values of the rank range are set to the boundary value 122 of the record 118 of the data section 117. The number of risk evaluation ranks is (2n ₀ +
1) is set as the risk evaluation rank number 119 of the header section 116.

According to the above-described scale determination processing, for example, as shown in FIG. 14, in a coordinate plane in which a horizontal axis indicates a risk evaluation scale and a vertical axis indicates a trouble actual value,
A scale for dividing the risk evaluation scale (horizontal axis) into five rank ranges of range 15 to range 19 is determined.

In the example of FIG. 14, the trouble is defined as a delay period with respect to the delivery date, and according to step 53 in FIG. 13, the size of the trouble (delay period) falls within the range 11 or 12 corresponding to the range within the delivery date without delay. A range corresponding to a range of delay within 12 weeks, 1 for 2 weeks or more
A range corresponding to a delay of less than one month13,
Range 14 corresponding to a delay of one month or more
Are classified into four ranks.

Since the risk evaluation scale determination process shown in FIG. 12 determines a combination of weights whose risk values have been obtained so as to increase the correlation coefficient with the actual value of the trouble as the risk evaluation scale, Step 5 in FIG.
When the project information 12 is plotted on a coordinate plane in accordance with the risk value obtained in Step 2 and the actual value of the trouble, FIG.
The distribution is as shown in FIG.

Therefore, in the above-described scale determination process, first, among the project information 12 belonging to the range other than the range 14, the project information 12 having the largest risk value (the project information 12 in FIG. 14).
When a value on the horizontal axis corresponding to a) is found, a range 19, which is a rank range with a value larger than the found value as a boundary value, is set. Is found, a value on the horizontal axis corresponding to the project information 12 (project information 12b in FIG. 14) is found, and a range 15 is set as a rank range with a value smaller than the found value as a boundary value.

Subsequently, of the project information 12 belonging to the range other than the range 14 and the range 13, the value on the horizontal axis corresponding to the project information 12 having the largest risk value (project information 12c in FIG. 14) is shown. If found, a range 18 which is a rank range with a value larger than the found value as a boundary value is set, and a range 11 and a range 12 are set.
Among the project information 12 belonging to other than the above, the project information 12 having the smallest risk value (FIG. 14
When a value on the horizontal axis corresponding to the project information 12d) is found, a range 16 that is a rank range with a value smaller than the found value as a boundary value is set.

Finally, range 1 which is the remaining rank range other than range 15, range 16, range 18, and range 19
7 is set.

Therefore, according to the above-described scale determination processing, the scale (boundary) for ranking the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated is determined for the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determination processing shown in FIG. Value).

Thus, in the evaluation value calculation process in step 32 of FIG. 11, the risk value of the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project is calculated using the risk evaluation scale, and the obtained risk value is calculated according to the boundary value. Can be determined as the evaluation value indicating the magnitude of the risk in which the most project information 12 is plotted in the applied rank range.

For example, assuming that the risk value obtained for the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project is applied to the range 16 on the horizontal axis of the coordinate plane shown in FIG. 14, the most project information 12 in the range 16 is plotted. It can be understood that the range on the vertical axis is the range 12, so that when the project is executed in the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project, the rank in which the delay period with respect to the delivery date is 2 weeks or more is the risk. It is determined as an evaluation value representing the size.

As described above, the risk evaluation scale update processing shown in FIG. 10 including the risk evaluation scale determination processing shown in FIG. 12 and the scale determination processing shown in FIG. Since it is started and executed when input, a risk evaluation scale reflecting the latest project performance 11 and its scale are always determined.

As described above, according to the first embodiment, it is possible to improve the accuracy of risk evaluation by making a statistical decision based on abundant performance data.

Further, since the performance data can be accumulated, it is possible to continuously improve the accuracy of the risk evaluation.

In addition, since a plurality of risk evaluation scales having a high correlation with the risk are displayed, each evaluation result is displayed. By reducing the risk value in the risk evaluation scale that has obtained an evaluation result with a high risk, Risk measures can be facilitated.

In the first embodiment, the risk evaluation means 8 uses the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determination means 6 and the scale determined by the evaluation scale determination means 7 to calculate the risk evaluation scale. Is divided into rank ranges to evaluate the magnitude of risk. However, the risk evaluation means 8 evaluates the magnitude of risk using only the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determination means 6. You can also do so.

Hereinafter, an embodiment in such a case will be described.
As the second embodiment, the differences from the first embodiment will be described.

Although not shown, the processing block diagram of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the second embodiment is obtained by removing the evaluation scale determining means 7 and the risk evaluation scale list with scale 15 in FIG.

In the second embodiment, the concept of a boundary value is eliminated, so that a data portion related to the boundary value is not required.

Further, the process of updating the risk evaluation scale in the second embodiment is the same as the process except for step 24 in FIG. That is, the scale determination processing shown in FIG. 13 is not required.

In the risk evaluation processing in the second embodiment, the evaluation value calculation processing in step 32 in FIG. 11 is as shown in the flowchart in FIG.

In FIG. 20, step 211 is a step in which the risk evaluation means 8 determines, for all the project information 12, the risk value in the risk evaluation scale determined in the risk evaluation scale update process shown in FIG. Step 212 is a process of obtaining an approximate function between the risk evaluation scale and the trouble from the relationship between all the risk values obtained in step 211 and the actual trouble value.

Here, as a method of obtaining the approximate function, for example, a method of obtaining a linear function by the least square method, or a method of equally dividing a risk evaluation scale into a plurality of ranges, and calculating the actual value of the trouble corresponding to each range, There is a method of obtaining a step function as an average value of the actual values of troubles in the range.

In FIG. 20, step 213 is executed.
Is a process of calculating a risk value on the risk evaluation scale for the project plan 10 of the evaluation target project. Step 214 is a process of calculating the actual value of the trouble corresponding to the risk value obtained in step 213 from the approximate function obtained in step 212. This is a process for obtaining a value (actually, a predicted value).

In FIG. 20, step 215
Is a process for obtaining an evaluation value indicating a rank of the magnitude of risk from the predicted value obtained in step 214.

In step 215, in detail, the magnitude of the trouble is divided into several ranks in advance, and the rank including the predicted value obtained in step 214 is set as the rank of the risk magnitude. To do.

By the way, in the first embodiment, the risk evaluation scale and the scale are determined based on all the project information 12 stored in the project information database 5; The risk evaluation scale and the scale may be determined based on the specific project information 12 of the first embodiment.

Further, in the first embodiment, the case where the delay period with respect to the delivery date is a trouble has been described as an example, but the amount may exceed the budget.

Hereinafter, an embodiment in which the project information 12 used for determining the risk evaluation scale and the scale and the item used as the trouble can be specified as a third embodiment will be described as a first embodiment. The points different from the above will be described.

FIG. 15 is a processing block diagram of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the third embodiment. As shown in FIG. 15, in the risk evaluation system 1 according to the third embodiment, as shown in FIG. The configuration is such that a risk evaluation condition setting means 31 is added to the processing block diagram.

The risk evaluation condition setting means 31 provides a user interface for inputting an evaluation case range 32 for specifying the range of the project information 12 used in determining the risk evaluation scale and scale. The range 32 is output to the project information management means 4.

The evaluation case range 32 includes, for example,
The data structure can be made up of items such as budget and planned man-hours, and the user can set conditions for range specification for each item. If no condition is set, it means that there is no limit.

For example, when the condition that the target field is “thermal power station” is set in the evaluation case range 32, the project information management means 4 sets the target field 102 of the project information 12 to “thermal power station”. Is extracted from the project information database 5 and output to the risk evaluation scale determining means 6 and the evaluation scale determining means 7.

On the other hand, the risk evaluation condition setting means 31 sets an evaluation risk item 33 for specifying an item to be used as a trouble.
Is provided, and the input evaluation risk item 33 is output to the risk evaluation scale determining means 6 and the evaluation scale determining means 7.

The evaluation risk item 33 includes, for example, a delay period with respect to a delivery date and an amount that exceeds the budget. The risk evaluation scale determining means 6 and the evaluation scale determining means 7 respectively Only determine risk measures and scales for specified items.

As described above, according to the third embodiment, in addition to the effects of the first embodiment, a risk evaluation can be performed only from projects having similar development methods and development systems. The adaptability of the evaluation method to changes in the development method and development system can be improved.

Also, since the risk evaluation can be performed only for a specific trouble, for example, when the risk evaluation is performed and the re-planned project is evaluated again, the result of the risk evaluation already performed is performed. In addition, it is possible to improve the convenience of the user, for example, by performing a risk evaluation only for a trouble having a large risk.

Furthermore, in the first embodiment, a predetermined number of combinations of weights are mechanically selected from the top having a high correlation coefficient and used as a risk evaluation scale. The user may select a combination of weights to be set. Hereinafter, an embodiment in such a case will be described as a fourth embodiment, which is different from the first embodiment.

The processing block diagram of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the fourth embodiment is different from the risk evaluation scale determining means 6 in FIG. 1 in that a risk evaluation scale candidate display means 34 and a risk evaluation scale Scale selection means 3
5 is provided.

[0157] The risk evaluation scale candidate display means 34 is provided as shown in FIG.
In the risk evaluation scale determination processing shown in FIG. 2, the processing of steps 41 to 45 described above is executed, and in step 46, the risk evaluation scale candidate correlation value list 36 in which combinations of weights are arranged in descending order of correlation coefficient. To be displayed.

The user can select a combination of weights to be used as the risk evaluation scale by looking at the correlation value list 36 for each risk evaluation scale candidate.
In the risk evaluation scale determination process shown in FIG.
In step 47, the user inputs the selection risk evaluation scale 37, which is the selection result of the user, and sets the combination of the weights, which are the input selection results, and the correlation coefficient thereof in the risk evaluation scale list 1
Set to 4.

The user who selects the selected risk evaluation scale 37 is preferably a specific user such as a project leader.

Further, in the risk evaluation system 1 according to the first embodiment, the evaluation result display means 9 converts the risk evaluation result 17 based on the risk evaluation result data 16 which is the result of evaluation for each risk evaluation scale. Although the result is displayed, the result of comprehensively evaluating the evaluation result of each risk evaluation scale may be displayed. Hereinafter, an embodiment in such a case will be referred to as a fifth embodiment. The differences from the first embodiment will be described.

FIG. 17 is a processing block diagram of the risk evaluation system 1 according to the fifth embodiment. As shown in FIG. 17, in the risk evaluation system 1 according to the fifth embodiment, the processing shown in FIG. The configuration is such that a comprehensive risk evaluation means 38 is added to the processing block diagram.

The comprehensive risk evaluation means 38 calculates the weighted sum of the evaluation results of the respective risk evaluation scales on the basis of the risk evaluation result data 16, for example, and obtains the evaluation results of the respective risk evaluation scales comprehensively. A certain overall evaluation result 39 is obtained, and the obtained overall evaluation result 39 is output to the evaluation result display means 9.

That is, for example, the evaluation result of the k-th risk evaluation scale is E _k , and the weight is A _k (k = 1,..., N
(N is the number of risk evaluation scales), the risk overall evaluation means 38 can calculate the overall evaluation result 39 by the equation “Σ _{k = 1, n} (A _k × E _k )”.

Here, the weight A _k can be set in advance, or can be set / changed by the user at the stage of evaluation.

By the way, the above-described risk evaluation system 1
Can be used to support measures to be taken when a risk is discovered, and to build a planning support system that supports the re-creation of a project plan. As a sixth embodiment,
A brief description will be given.

FIG. 18 is a processing block diagram of the planning support system according to the sixth embodiment.

As shown in FIG. 18, the planning support system 50 according to the sixth embodiment comprises the above-described risk evaluation system 1, countermeasure display means 40, and countermeasure storage means 41. .

The measure storage means 41 provides a user interface for inputting a measure 53 representing a measure taken in the project, and stores the input measure 53 in the measure database 51.

Here, the countermeasure example 53 includes items such as a project name, details of the countermeasure taken in the project, and a countermeasure result indicating whether or not the countermeasure was successful.

Therefore, the measure storing means 41 stores the measure example 5
When 3 is input, although not shown, the risk evaluation result data 16 for the project is obtained from the risk evaluation system 1, and the input countermeasure example 53 and the obtained risk evaluation result data 16 are stored in the countermeasure database 51. Store.

Here, the data structure of the countermeasure database 51 will be described.

FIG. 21 is a diagram showing the data structure of the countermeasure database 51.

The countermeasure database 51 comprises a header section shown in FIG. 21A and a countermeasure explanation file shown in FIG. 21B.

As shown in FIG. 21A, the header portion
The project name 221, the number (m) 222 of risk evaluation scales used to evaluate risk, a pointer 223 to a countermeasure description file storing the countermeasures taken in the project, the risk evaluation scale 224 and its It is composed of items such as a set of risk values 225 on the risk evaluation scale.

Here, the risk evaluation scale 224 is shown in FIG.
This is the same data structure as the project feature weight 120 of the record 118 shown in FIG.

The pointer 223 includes, for example,
The file name of the countermeasure explanation file can be used. In addition, the risk evaluation scale 224 and the risk value 225
There are as many sets as there are risk assessment scales.

As shown in FIG. 21B, the countermeasure explanation file includes a countermeasure content 226 describing the content of the countermeasure taken in the project and a countermeasure result 227 describing whether the countermeasure was successful. It is composed of such items.

Returning to FIG. 18, risk evaluation system 1
Outputs the risk evaluation result data 16 for the project plan 10 based on the input project plan 10 and outputs it to the countermeasure display means 40 as described above.

The countermeasure display means 40 displays the risk evaluation result 17 based on the risk evaluation result data 16.
At this time, at the same time, a project that obtained a risk evaluation result 17 similar to the risk evaluation result 17 in the past is searched from the countermeasure database 51, and a countermeasure explanation file (measure contents 226 and a countermeasure result 227) for the search result project is stored. It is displayed as a measure candidate 52.

Therefore, according to the sixth embodiment, the user can display the displayed risk evaluation result 117 and countermeasure candidate 5
With reference to 2 above, it is possible to determine the measures to be actually taken and re-create the project plan.

[0181]

As described above, according to the present invention,
By making statistical decisions based on a wealth of performance data,
The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved.

Further, according to the present invention, since the performance data can be accumulated, the accuracy of the risk evaluation can be continuously improved.

Further, according to the present invention, since a plurality of risk evaluation scales having a high correlation with risk are displayed, each evaluation result is displayed. By reducing the value, risk countermeasures can be facilitated.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a processing block diagram of a risk evaluation system according to a first embodiment.

FIG. 2 is an explanatory diagram showing a data structure of a project plan in the first embodiment.

FIG. 3 is an explanatory view showing a project plan input screen according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing a data structure of a project result in the first embodiment.

FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing an input screen for project results in the first embodiment.

FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram illustrating a data structure of project information according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing a data structure of a project feature item list according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram showing a data structure of risk evaluation result data in the first embodiment.

FIG. 9 is a flowchart of a project plan / actual registration process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart of a risk evaluation scale update process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart of a risk evaluation process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 12 is a flowchart of a risk evaluation scale determination process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 13 is a flowchart of a scale determination process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 14 is an explanatory diagram showing a scale determined by a scale determination process according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 15 is a processing block diagram of a risk evaluation system according to a third embodiment.

FIG. 16 is a processing block diagram of a risk evaluation system according to a fourth embodiment.

FIG. 17 is a processing block diagram of a risk evaluation system according to a fifth embodiment.

FIG. 18 is a processing block diagram of a planning support system according to a sixth embodiment.

FIG. 19 is a hardware configuration diagram of the risk evaluation system according to the first embodiment.

FIG. 20 is a flowchart of an evaluation value calculation process in a risk evaluation process according to the second embodiment.

FIG. 21 is an explanatory diagram showing a data structure of a countermeasure database according to the sixth embodiment.

[Explanation of symbols]

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Risk evaluation system, 2 ... Project plan input means, 3 ... Project result input means, 4 ... Project information management means, 5 ... Project information database, 6
... Risk evaluation scale determination means, 7 ... Evaluation scale determination means, 8 ... Risk evaluation means, 9 ... Evaluation result display means, 10
… Project plan, 11… Project results, 12…
Project information, 13: Project characteristic item list, 14: Risk evaluation scale list, 15: Risk evaluation scale list with scale, 16: Risk evaluation result data, 1
7: Risk evaluation result, 201: Computer, 202: CPU
(Central processing unit), 203: memory, 204: storage device, 205: CRT (display), 206: keyboard, 207: mouse, 101: project name, 10
2 ... target field, 203 ... delivery date, 104 ... budget, 105 ...
Input staff, 106: estimated man-hour, 107: project characteristics, 108: novelty of development, 109: technical difficulty, 11
0: Team formation, 18, 19: Input screen, 20, 22 ...
Input area, 21 ... output area, 111 ... completion date, 112 ...
Expenditure, 113 ... Project features (additional), 114
... number of project features, 115 ... data position, 116 ...
Header part, 117 ... data part, 118 ... record, 11
9: Risk evaluation rank number, 120: Project feature weighting, 121: Correlation value, 122: Boundary value, 123 ...
Risk value, 124: evaluation value, 31: risk evaluation condition setting means, 32: evaluation case range, 33: evaluation risk item, 3
4 ... Risk evaluation scale candidate display means, 35 ... Risk evaluation scale selection means, 36 ... Risk evaluation scale candidate correlation value list,
37: selected risk evaluation scale, 38: comprehensive risk evaluation means, 39: overall evaluation result, 40: countermeasure display means, 41 ...
Measure storage means, 50: Planning support system, 51: Measure database, 52: Measure candidate, 53: Measure example, 2
21: Project name, 222: Number of risk evaluation scales, 2
23: pointer to countermeasure explanation file, 224: risk evaluation scale, 225: risk value, 226: countermeasure content, 22
7: Countermeasure results.

 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────の Continuing on the front page (72) Inventor Yuki Takahashi 5-2-1 Omika-cho, Hitachi City, Ibaraki Pref.

Claims (11)

[Claims] 1. A project plan input means for receiving a project plan, which is input at a project development planning stage, and indicates a plurality of types of project characteristics and an outline of an execution plan, and a project plan input means which is input after the project development is completed. A project result input means for receiving a project result representing a project result; a project including, for each of a plurality of projects, a project plan received by the project plan input means and a project result received by the project result input means Project information management means for storing information in the project information database and extracting the project information stored in the project information database; and Based on the project information, a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the evaluation target project in the development planning stage is generated from a combination of any one or more of the plurality of types of project characteristics. And a risk evaluation scale determining means for determining, as a risk evaluation scale, one or more risk evaluation scale candidates having a high correlation with the trouble of the past project among the generated risk evaluation scale candidates; Based on the extracted project information, for each of the past project and the project to be evaluated, the value in the risk evaluation scale is determined in accordance with the combination of the project characteristics from which the risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determining means is determined. Of the past projects A risk assessment method that evaluates the magnitude of the risk of the evaluation target project by predicting the trouble corresponding to the value of the risk evaluation scale obtained for the evaluation target project from the relationship between the value on the risk evaluation scale and the trouble. A risk evaluation system comprising: an evaluation result display unit configured to display an evaluation result of the risk evaluation unit. 2. A project plan input means for receiving a project plan, which is input at the stage of project development planning and indicates a plurality of types of project characteristics and an outline of an execution plan, and said project plan input means which is input after the project development is completed. A project result input means for receiving a project result representing a project result; a project including, for each of a plurality of projects, a project plan received by the project plan input means and a project result received by the project result input means Project information management means for storing information in the project information database and extracting the project information stored in the project information database; and Based on the project information, a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the evaluation target project in the development planning stage is generated from a combination of any one or more of the plurality of types of project characteristics. And a risk evaluation scale determining means for determining, as a risk evaluation scale, one or more risk evaluation scale candidates having a high correlation with the trouble of the past project among the generated risk evaluation scale candidates; Based on the extracted project information, for each of the risk evaluation scales determined by the risk evaluation scale determination means, an evaluation scale determination means for determining a scale that is a scale for ranking the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated. The above risk assessment scale is determined for the project to be evaluated. Calculating a value of the risk evaluation scale according to the combination of the project features from which the risk evaluation scale is determined by the means, and ranking the calculated values using the scale determined by the evaluation scale determining means; A risk evaluation means for evaluating the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated, and an evaluation result display means for displaying an evaluation result of the risk evaluation means. 3. The risk evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein said risk evaluation scale determining means sets each of a plurality of predetermined values (hereinafter, referred to as “weight”) representing a plurality of types of weights. The combination of weights when associated with each of multiple types of project features is
For each of the project information retrieved by the project information management means, the project plan and the project result in the project information are compared to obtain a trouble actual value representing the trouble, and the risk evaluation value is obtained. For each combination of weights determined as scale candidates, the value obtained by multiplying the value representing each of the project features in the project information by the corresponding weight of the combination of the weights is summed up for all project features. Then, a correlation coefficient between the obtained trouble actual value and the obtained total result is obtained, and the combination of the weights obtained as the risk evaluation scale candidates is
A risk evaluation system characterized in that a combination of a predetermined number of weights from the top when ordered by the obtained correlation coefficient is determined as a risk evaluation scale. 4. The risk evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein said evaluation scale determining means is configured to determine the number of troubles belonging to each rank when applying a trouble of a past project to each of a plurality of ranks divided in advance. A risk evaluation scale determined by the risk evaluation scale determination means according to the above. 5. The risk evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising: a risk evaluation condition setting means for receiving an input of a condition for limiting project information used for risk evaluation; A risk evaluation system, wherein project information that matches a condition received by the risk evaluation condition setting means is extracted from project information stored in the project information database. 6. The risk evaluation system according to claim 1, further comprising: a risk evaluation condition setting means for receiving an input of a condition for limiting a trouble for which a risk is to be evaluated; A risk evaluation system characterized in that a risk evaluation scale is determined from a correlation with a trouble matching a condition received by a risk evaluation condition setting means. 7. The risk evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the risk evaluation scale determining means displays the generated risk evaluation scale candidate together with a correlation value indicating a correlation with a past project trouble. Evaluation scale candidate display means, and a risk evaluation scale selection means for receiving designation of any one or more risk evaluation scale candidates from among the risk evaluation scale candidates displayed by the risk evaluation scale candidate display means, A risk evaluation system, wherein the risk evaluation scale candidate accepted by the risk evaluation scale selecting means is determined as a risk evaluation scale. 8. The risk evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation result of the risk evaluation means and a correlation value representing a correlation examined when determining a risk evaluation scale that obtained the evaluation result. A risk evaluation system, further comprising: a comprehensive risk evaluation means for comprehensively evaluating the risk of the project to be evaluated based on the above, wherein the evaluation result display means further displays the evaluation result of the comprehensive risk evaluation means. 9. A risk evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 8, further comprising: receiving an input of a measure example representing a measure taken in a project; The measure storage means stores the evaluation result of the project to be evaluated in association with the evaluation result, and the measure storage means stores the evaluation result similar to the evaluation result when the risk evaluation system displays the evaluation result. A planning support system comprising: a measure display means for displaying a measure example. 10. A project plan representing a plurality of types of project characteristics and an outline of an execution plan is used for evaluating a risk of the project entered in the development planning stage. The project information database, which stores a set of a project plan input at the development planning stage and a project result representing the result of the project input after the end of development, is referred to. From one or more of these combinations, generate a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated, and correlate the generated risk evaluation scale candidates with problems in past projects One or more potential risk assessment scale candidates For each of the determined risk assessment scales, determine a scale that is a scale for ranking the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated, and generate the determined risk assessment scale for the project to be evaluated. Evaluating the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated by determining the value on the risk evaluation scale according to the combination of the project features from which it was based, and ranking the obtained values using the scale determined above. A risk evaluation method characterized by the following. 11. A recording medium for recording a program to be installed and executed in an information processing apparatus, wherein a plurality of types of project characteristics and an outline of an execution plan of the project are inputted in a project development planning stage. A first procedure for receiving a project plan representing project performance, which is input after the end of the development of the project, and a second procedure for receiving project results representing the performance of the project. Project information including a set of the received project plan and the project results received in the second step is stored in a project information database,
A third procedure for extracting the project information stored in the project information database; and a combination of one or more of the plurality of types of project features based on the project information extracted in the third procedure. , Generates a candidate for a risk evaluation scale used to evaluate the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated in the development planning stage, and generates one of the candidate risk evaluation scales that is highly correlated with past project troubles A fourth procedure for determining the above risk assessment scale candidates as risk assessment scales; and evaluating each of the risk assessment scales determined in the fourth procedure based on the project information extracted in the third procedure. Determine a scale that is a scale to rank the magnitude of risk in the target project In step 5 and the evaluation target project, in accordance with the combination of the project features that are the source of the risk evaluation scale determined in the fourth step, the value of the risk evaluation scale is obtained, and the obtained value is calculated by A sixth procedure for evaluating the magnitude of the risk of the project to be evaluated by ranking using the scale determined in the fifth procedure, a seventh procedure for displaying the evaluation result in the sixth procedure, and A recording medium characterized by recording a program in which is described.