WO2025013271A1 - 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法 - Google Patents

電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法 Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2025013271A1
WO2025013271A1 PCT/JP2023/025831 JP2023025831W WO2025013271A1 WO 2025013271 A1 WO2025013271 A1 WO 2025013271A1 JP 2023025831 W JP2023025831 W JP 2023025831W WO 2025013271 A1 WO2025013271 A1 WO 2025013271A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
electronic component
items
evaluation
comparison
component selection
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Pending
Application number
PCT/JP2023/025831
Other languages
English (en)
French (fr)
Japanese (ja)
Inventor
善信 深野
真吾 小原
勝洋 星野
康夫 勝
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Astemo Ltd
Original Assignee
Hitachi Astemo Ltd
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Hitachi Astemo Ltd filed Critical Hitachi Astemo Ltd
Priority to PCT/JP2023/025831 priority Critical patent/WO2025013271A1/ja
Priority to JP2025532341A priority patent/JPWO2025013271A1/ja
Publication of WO2025013271A1 publication Critical patent/WO2025013271A1/ja
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Pending legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
    • G06Q50/04—Manufacturing

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to an electronic component selection system and an electronic component selection method.
  • ECUs Electronic Control Units
  • the core component of an in-vehicle electronic control system is an electronic component (semiconductor component) called an MCU (Micro Controller Unit) or SoC (System on Chip).
  • MCU Micro Controller Unit
  • SoC System on Chip
  • Patent Document 1 discloses a technology that "analyzes customer requests, quantifies the similarity of design items, performs simulations using an analytical model to create product configuration proposals, and learns the relationships between the created configuration proposals and the design items.”
  • the present invention was made in consideration of this situation, and aims to provide an electronic component selection system and method that can select electronic components based on certain criteria, without relying on the thinking of the designer.
  • the electronic component selection system of the present invention for solving the above problem is an electronic component selection system that selects electronic components that satisfy customer required specifications from multiple electronic component candidates, and includes a comparison item extraction processing unit that outputs specification comparison items for judgment by comparing the customer required specifications with an electronic component catalog in which multiple electronic component candidates are described, a decision analysis table generation unit that creates a decision analysis table for selecting electronic component candidates based on the specification comparison items for judgment, and a selection result output unit that outputs electronic component selection results based on the decision analysis table.
  • the electronic component selection method of the present invention for solving the above problem is an electronic component selection method for selecting electronic components that satisfy customer required specifications from multiple electronic component candidates, and executes the following steps: outputting specification comparison items for judgment by comparing the customer required specifications with an electronic component catalog listing multiple electronic component candidates; creating a decision analysis table for selecting electronic component candidates based on the specification comparison items for judgment; and outputting electronic component selection results based on the decision analysis table.
  • DA table decision analysis table
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an example of a system configuration of an electronic component selection system according to an embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an example of the configuration of a SoC catalog in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the stored contents of a database unit in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a schematic flow of a SoC selection process in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • 10 is a flowchart showing an example of a processing flow for determining evaluation point criteria in a comparison item extraction processing unit in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a process for determining an evaluation point criterion in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. 11 is a block diagram for specifically explaining the internal processing of a decision analysis table generating unit in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a procedure for determining an evaluation point for an evaluation point criterion in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing a specific example of a DA table in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • 4 is a block diagram for specifically explaining the internal processing of a selection result output unit in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • FIG. FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a schematic flow of a SoC selection process in the electronic component selection system according to the present embodiment.
  • the present invention relates to an electronic component selection system that automatically selects electronic components, for example, a system that automatically selects electronic components that meet customer required specifications from among multiple electronic component candidates as electronic components to be used in electronic circuits in electronic control devices for automobiles.
  • the electronic component selection system of the present invention is, for example, an electronic component selection system that selects an on-board electronic component that satisfies customer required specifications from a plurality of on-board electronic component candidates as an on-board electronic component to be adopted in an electronic circuit in an electronic control device of an automobile.
  • the present invention is not limited to application to systems that select on-board electronic components to be used in electronic circuits in automobile electronic control devices.
  • area such as autonomous driving systems, electric systems, and powertrains
  • System configuration example 1 is a block diagram showing an example of the system configuration of an electronic component selection system according to an embodiment of the present invention.
  • a system for selecting electronic components particularly in-vehicle electronic components, such as a SoC (System on Chip) will be described as an example.
  • SoC System on Chip
  • the electronic component selection system 10 uses, as input data, customer requirement specifications 20 provided by a customer and an SoC catalog 30 provided by a semiconductor component manufacturer.
  • the customer requirement specifications 20 and the SoC catalog 30 are provided in electronic file format.
  • the SoC catalog 30 is an electronic component catalog that uses electronic files 31_1 to 31_n in the same number as the candidates to be selected.
  • the SoC catalog 30 lists specification items related to the performance and quality of multiple electronic component candidates.
  • the electronic component selection system 10 has the following functional parts: a comparison item extraction processing unit 11, a decision analysis table generation unit 12, and a selection result output unit 13.
  • the electronic component selection system 10 can be operated, for example, by being installed as an application on a computer.
  • the comparison item extraction processing unit 11 is composed of the functional units of a requirement specification analysis unit 111, a specification item extraction unit 112, and a comparison processing unit 113.
  • the requirement specification analysis unit 111 analyzes the customer requirement specifications 20 of the input data.
  • the specification item extraction unit 112 extracts specification items from the SoC catalog 30 of the input data.
  • the comparison processing unit 113 compares the customer requirement specifications analyzed by the requirement specification analysis unit 111 with the specification items extracted by the specification item extraction unit 112, selects matching specification items as comparison items, and outputs them as a file as specification comparison items 40 for judgment.
  • the decision analysis table generator 12 has the functional parts of a weight/evaluation point judgment DA table creator 121 and a database unit 122, and creates a DA table 50 for selecting SoC candidates based on the judgment specification comparison items 40.
  • the weight/evaluation point determination DA table creation unit 121 performs weighting for each comparison item on the DA table 50 and performs the evaluation point determination process.
  • the database unit 122 stores the past DA table 50a used in the evaluation point determination.
  • the database unit 122 further stores the post-analysis customer requirement specifications 20a analyzed by the requirement specification analysis unit 111 and the post-analysis SoC catalog 30a analyzed by the specification item extraction unit 112.
  • the selection result output unit 13 has a selection judgment unit 131 as a functional unit, and compares the evaluation results of the SoC candidates based on the DA table 50, determines the SoC that is most suitable for the customer requirement specifications 20, and outputs it as a SoC selection report 60.
  • the electronic component selection system 10 which is composed of the functional units of the comparison item extraction processing unit 11, decision analysis table generation unit 12, and selection result output unit 13, can automatically create a decision analysis table (DA table) for the electronic component selection process.
  • DA table decision analysis table
  • comparison item extraction processing unit 11 by configuring the comparison item extraction processing unit 11 with the functional units of the requirement specification analysis unit 111, the specification item extraction unit 112, and the comparison processing unit 113, it is possible to output a file of specification comparison items for judgment based on the comparison result between the analysis result of the customer requirement specifications and the extraction result of the specification items.
  • the SoC selection report 60 created by the electronic component selection system 10 is provided to the designer of the in-vehicle electronic control system. The designer will use the SoC selection report 60 created by the electronic component selection system 10 to design an in-vehicle electronic control system such as an ECU (Electronic Control Unit).
  • ECU Electronic Control Unit
  • FIG. 4 is a block diagram for specifically explaining the internal processing of the comparison item extraction processing unit 11 in the electronic component selection system 10 according to this embodiment.
  • the requirement specification analysis unit 111 analyzes the customer requirement specifications 20 provided by the customer in electronic file format, and extracts requirements related to the SoC from the electronic file.
  • the specification item extraction unit 112 extracts SoC specification items and data from the SoC catalog 30 provided by the semiconductor component manufacturer in electronic file format.
  • the comparison processing unit 113 compares the SoC-related requirements extracted by the requirement specification analysis unit 111 with the specification items extracted by the specification item extraction unit 112, selects matching specification items as comparison items, and outputs them as a file as specification comparison items for judgment 40.
  • the specification comparison items for judgment 40 store SoC comparison judgment specification items 40a and evaluation point judgment criteria 40b.
  • FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing an example of a processing flow for determining the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b within the comparison item extraction processing unit 11.
  • the comparison processing unit 113 first reads out a comparison item from the comparison result between the SoC-related requirements extracted by the requirement specification analysis unit 111 and the specification items extracted by the specification item extraction unit 112 (step S11), then refers to the specification data of the comparison item (step S12), and then determines whether the specification data (specification item) is an item containing numerical values (step S13).
  • the comparison processing unit 113 determines that the specification data is an item containing numerical values (Yes in S13), it expresses the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b as a formula (step S14), and then stores it in an internal memory (not shown) as data for determining the evaluation point (step S15), thereby completing the series of processes for determining the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b.
  • the comparison processing unit 113 determines that the specification data is not a numerically-stated item, i.e., that it is an item that is difficult to quantify (No in S13), it creates a table of the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b (step S16), then proceeds to step S15 and stores it in the built-in memory as data for determining the evaluation point, and then ends the series of processes for determining the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b.
  • evaluation points are determined for each item using different evaluation methods (Yes/No in S13). These evaluation points are then combined on the DA table 50 to quantify the degree to which the candidate electronic components satisfy customer requirements. This allows for quantitative comparison and judgment when selecting an SoC.
  • the numerical value specified in the customer requirement specification 20 is set as the evaluation point judgment criterion 40b.
  • the processing speed specified in the customer requirement specification 20 is set as the evaluation point judgment criterion 40b and is the midpoint of the evaluation point.
  • the CPU processing speed referred to here is the processing speed of the controller (CPU) being designed.
  • the processing speed of the SoC candidate is faster than the evaluation point judgment criterion 40b, it is set to the midpoint or higher, and if it is slower than the evaluation point judgment criterion 40b, it is set to a lower evaluation point than the midpoint.
  • the content of the specification items related to the SoC extracted by the comparison process in the comparison processing unit 113 is not written in numerical form such as in text format, the description of the customer requirement specifications 20 is set to, for example, the midpoint of a five-point evaluation.
  • ASIL Automatic Integrity Level
  • Figure 6B As an example of an item that is difficult to quantify, let us take the safety level in the functional safety standard ASIL (Automotive Integrity Level) shown in Figure 6B as an example. For example, if ASIL-C or higher is specified in the customer requirement specification 20, an evaluation score of 1 or more is assigned if it complies with ASIL-C and ASIL-D. If it does not comply with ASIL-A or ASIL-B, i.e., the functional safety standard, the evaluation score is set to 0. These determined evaluation scores are registered in the specification comparison item for judgment 40 as table data shown in Figure 6B.
  • ASIL-C or higher is specified in the customer requirement specification 20
  • ASIL-D If it does not comply with ASIL-A or ASIL-B, i.e., the functional safety standard, the evaluation score is set to 0.
  • FIG. 7 is a block diagram for specifically explaining the internal processing of the decision analysis table generating unit 12 in the electronic component selection system 10 according to this embodiment.
  • the weight/evaluation point determination DA table creation unit 121 first refers to the past DA table 50a registered in the database unit 122, and registers the weighting data written in the past DA table 50a as the weighting of the DA table 50 to be generated. Next, the weight/evaluation point determination DA table creation unit 121 determines the evaluation points for the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b in the procedure shown in Figure 8A or Figure 8B.
  • FIG. 8A shows the procedure for determining an evaluation score for a specification item described as a numerical value.
  • the weight/evaluation score determination DA table creation unit 121 determines an evaluation score using the data of the evaluation score determination criteria 40b described in the specification comparison item 40 for determination.
  • an evaluation score for the specification value of the SoC candidate is defined, for example, in the form of a linear graph, with the evaluation score determination criteria 40b as the midpoint. The evaluation score of the SoC candidate is determined based on this graph.
  • the evaluation score is determined based on the table data in the judgment specification comparison item 40, as shown in FIG. 8B. For example, in FIG. 8B, taking a specification that complies with a functional safety standard as an example, an evaluation score of 1 or more is set for an SoC candidate that meets or exceeds the safety standard specified in the customer requirement specification 20. An evaluation score of 0 is set for an SoC candidate that does not meet the safety standard specified in the customer requirement specification 20.
  • DA Table 50 By assigning evaluation scores at multiple levels to specifications that are not given numerical values, it is possible to apply the method to quantitative evaluation in DA Table 50.
  • the above-mentioned process is carried out for all comparison items of the SoC candidates to determine the score column of DA Table 50 shown in FIG. 9.
  • DA Table 50 an item score is calculated for each specification item by multiplying the weighting by the evaluation score, and the sum of the item scores of the SoC candidates is the overall score.
  • FIG. 10 is a block diagram for specifically explaining the internal processing of the selection result output unit 13 in the electronic component selection system 10 according to this embodiment.
  • the selection determination unit 131 compares the total scores of the DA tables 50 generated by the decision analysis table generation unit 12, and selects the SoC candidate with the highest total score as the SoC most suitable for the customer requirement specifications 20. Then, this selection result is output as an SoC selection report 60.
  • the DA table 50 and SoC selection report 60 are registered in the database unit 122 as actual results, and will be used in the next selection process.
  • the evaluation point determination data based on the evaluation point judgment criteria 40b can be added to the past evaluation point judgment criteria, thereby updating the electronic component selection system 10 to the most recent customer requirement situation.
  • the evaluation score is determined by referring to data on past evaluation scores registered in database unit 122, the regression analysis results of past specification values and evaluation scores are registered in database unit 122, and the evaluation score on a regression analysis graph is output from the current specification values.
  • the current regression analysis results are then added to the regression analysis data and re-run in a regression analysis to be used as reference data for the next selection process.
  • a table of past evaluation points registered in the database unit 122 is referenced, and the evaluation points assigned in that table are output.
  • FIG. 11 is a diagram showing a schematic flow of the SoC selection process in the electronic component selection system 10 according to the present embodiment.
  • the customer requirement specifications 20 are electronic files provided by the customer.
  • the SoC catalog 30 is an electronic file provided by the semiconductor manufacturer.
  • the analyzed customer requirement specifications 20a analyzed by the requirement specification analysis unit 111 and the analyzed SoC catalog 30a analyzed by the specification item extraction unit 112 are registered in the database unit 122 in the electronic component selection system 10 (step S21).
  • the comparison item extraction processing unit 11 performs a comparison item extraction process (step S22).
  • the customer judgment criteria 71 are adopted and used for the selection process, and if the judgment criteria are not described in the customer requirement specifications 20 (No in S23), the company's judgment criteria 72 are adopted and used for the selection process.
  • the decision analysis table generation unit 12 performs the weight/evaluation point determination processing (step S24), then the DA table creation processing (step S25), and then the selection result output unit 13 performs the SoC candidate processing (step S26).
  • the SoC candidates are determined by sequentially executing the comparison item extraction process by the comparison item extraction processing unit 11, the weight/evaluation point determination process by the decision analysis table generation unit 12, the DA table creation process, and the SoC candidate process by the selection result output unit 13.
  • the DA table for electronic component selection can be automatically created, so that electronic components can be selected based on certain criteria, without relying on the thinking of the designer.
  • an in-vehicle electronic component is used as an example of an electronic component to be selected from multiple electronic component candidates, but the electronic component is not limited to an in-vehicle electronic component, and the technology of the present invention can be applied to electronic components in general used in electronic devices in technical fields that handle electronic components.
  • the electronic component selection system can select on-board electronic components according to the requirements specific to the domain of the on-board product.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Manufacturing & Machinery (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
PCT/JP2023/025831 2023-07-13 2023-07-13 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法 Pending WO2025013271A1 (ja)

Priority Applications (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2023/025831 WO2025013271A1 (ja) 2023-07-13 2023-07-13 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法
JP2025532341A JPWO2025013271A1 (https=) 2023-07-13 2023-07-13

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2023/025831 WO2025013271A1 (ja) 2023-07-13 2023-07-13 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2025013271A1 true WO2025013271A1 (ja) 2025-01-16

Family

ID=94215250

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/JP2023/025831 Pending WO2025013271A1 (ja) 2023-07-13 2023-07-13 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法

Country Status (2)

Country Link
JP (1) JPWO2025013271A1 (https=)
WO (1) WO2025013271A1 (https=)

Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH10240794A (ja) * 1997-02-28 1998-09-11 Toshiba Corp 仕様書作成装置及び仕様書作成方法
JP2004287951A (ja) * 2003-03-24 2004-10-14 Fujitsu Ltd 製品評価システム
JP2006155601A (ja) * 2004-11-05 2006-06-15 Hitachi Ltd 製品構成設計支援システム
JP2008159023A (ja) * 2006-11-30 2008-07-10 Hitachi Ltd 部品の採用決定支援システム、部品の採用決定支援方法、および部品の採用決定支援プログラム
JP2013175050A (ja) * 2012-02-24 2013-09-05 Hitachi Ltd 受注見積り案作成支援システム
JP2015118593A (ja) * 2013-12-19 2015-06-25 トヨタ自動車株式会社 設計方針導出装置および設計方針導出方法
JP2018005436A (ja) * 2016-06-30 2018-01-11 株式会社日立製作所 回路設計装置及びそれを用いた回路設計方法

Patent Citations (7)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JPH10240794A (ja) * 1997-02-28 1998-09-11 Toshiba Corp 仕様書作成装置及び仕様書作成方法
JP2004287951A (ja) * 2003-03-24 2004-10-14 Fujitsu Ltd 製品評価システム
JP2006155601A (ja) * 2004-11-05 2006-06-15 Hitachi Ltd 製品構成設計支援システム
JP2008159023A (ja) * 2006-11-30 2008-07-10 Hitachi Ltd 部品の採用決定支援システム、部品の採用決定支援方法、および部品の採用決定支援プログラム
JP2013175050A (ja) * 2012-02-24 2013-09-05 Hitachi Ltd 受注見積り案作成支援システム
JP2015118593A (ja) * 2013-12-19 2015-06-25 トヨタ自動車株式会社 設計方針導出装置および設計方針導出方法
JP2018005436A (ja) * 2016-06-30 2018-01-11 株式会社日立製作所 回路設計装置及びそれを用いた回路設計方法

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
JPWO2025013271A1 (https=) 2025-01-16

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Mohammed et al. Genetic case-based reasoning for improved mobile phone faults diagnosis
Alagöz et al. Rescheduling of identical parallel machines under machine eligibility constraints
JP5049223B2 (ja) Ｗｅｂクエリに対する検索要求属性を自動推定する検索装置、検索方法及びプログラム
JP7062766B2 (ja) マッチングスコア算出装置
US20240303262A1 (en) Semantic Search Architecture for Information Retrieval with Natural Language Queries
US11373022B2 (en) Designing a structural product
Rogers Tools and techniques for decomposing and managing complex design projects
Birmingham et al. MICON: a knowledge based single board computer designer
Lindemann et al. Methodical data-driven integration of perceived quality into the product development process
WO2025013271A1 (ja) 電子部品選定システム及び電子部品選定方法
Wang et al. Research on the reliability allocation method for a production system based on availability
CN112364169B (zh) 基于nlp的wifi识别方法、电子设备和介质
US20140129494A1 (en) Searching text via function learning
CN119180389A (zh) 基于多源数据与注意力机制的汽车维保项目预测方法
Peng et al. A hybrid approach for the dynamic flexible job shop scheduling problem considering machine failures
WO2025163792A1 (ja) 応答装置及びプログラム
US20220284148A1 (en) System and method of managing a design lifecycle of a structural part
Stanton Reliability analysis for power system applications
Zhu et al. Analysis and Optimization of Aircraft Electrical Systems using Partial Modeling Techniques
US20250225308A1 (en) Predicting compute job resources and compute time for computation jobs of design of semiconductor devices using machine learning models
Erkkinen Model style guidelines for production code generation
US12124821B2 (en) Method and software tool for making executable specifications in the system development or the system validation of complex functional systems
Renu et al. Computationally Assisted Retrieval and Reuse of 3D Solid Models and Assembly Work Instructions
Becker et al. Bounded Model Checking and Inductive Verification of Hybrid Discrete-continuous Systems.
Kortler et al. Validation of product properties considering a high variety of complex products

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 23945144

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

ENP Entry into the national phase

Ref document number: 2025532341

Country of ref document: JP

Kind code of ref document: A

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE