JP4834474B2 - Function evaluation method for information processing equipment in different execution environments - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a function evaluation method for evaluating functions of an information processing device such as a mobile personal computer or a mobile phone in different execution environments such as execution conditions, execution statuses, and activation states.

  In recent years, there are various uses and types of information processing devices such as personal computers, mobile phones, servers, home appliances, game devices, smart cards, smart card issuing devices, IC chips, information transmission devices, and network devices. The number of information and functions to be used is increasing, and it is increasingly being used outside of certain environments and circumstances.

  For example, in the case of a mobile personal computer, unlike a desktop personal computer, a place where it is used is not specified, and it is also used during movement. The same applies to mobile phones.

Therefore, these information processing devices use parts that are preferentially manufactured to be small and lightweight so as to be suitable for use during movement. In addition, since a battery is used as a power source, a power-saving design is required for parts and application programs so that power consumption is reduced.
JP 2000-56591 A

  However, such conventional information processing devices have the following problems.

  These information processing devices are shipped after a performance evaluation test is performed on the manufacturer side at the time of shipment and it is confirmed that they meet the quality standards, and the results of performance evaluation are described in the instruction manual. Is done. However, this performance evaluation test is usually performed under the conditions where the maximum performance is assumed to be obtained.

  Therefore, in the case of information processing equipment that is used in different environments, such as mobile PCs and mobile phones, or when the usage environment or usage status is changing while moving, depending on the usage environment and usage status, In some cases, sufficient effects cannot be exhibited.

  In other words, among the functions implemented in such information processing equipment, a certain function can be expected to have a sufficient effect in a certain environment or situation, but is expected to be a function in another place or situation. There is a risk that the effect will not be sufficiently obtained. In this case, there is a problem that it causes inconvenience to the user.

  If it is possible to evaluate not only the conditions under which the maximum performance can be obtained, but also how the performance of the function will be affected according to changes in the conditions, the user will be able to process information from the conditions to be used. The performance of the device can be grasped in advance, and it is possible to avoid unexpected inconvenience.

  For example, as in Patent Document 1, although there is a quality evaluation technique for software, for hardware such as this type of information processing equipment, at present, taking into account changes in the conditions used There is no tool that allows users to evaluate the performance of information processing devices themselves.

  The present invention has been made in view of such circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide a method capable of evaluating the functions of an information processing device in different execution environments.

  In order to achieve the above object, the present invention takes the following measures.

  That is, the invention of claim 1 is a method for evaluating functions of an information processing device in different execution environments, and the usage scene and situation in which the information processing device is used for the function to be evaluated among the functions, In addition, the dependence on each activation state of the information processing device is calculated using a predetermined first evaluation index stored in the storage device. Next, the degree of influence of the usage scene and situation and the activation state on the execution of each function to be evaluated is calculated using a predetermined second evaluation index stored in the storage device. Then, each dependency degree calculated for the same function to be evaluated is compared with each influence degree. Furthermore, based on the comparison result, it is determined whether or not the execution of the function to be evaluated is not impaired from the usage scene and situation and the activated state.

  According to a second aspect of the present invention, execution of a function to be evaluated includes at least one of function installation, initial setting, start-up, process execution, interruption, stop, restart, setting change, and uninstallation. This is a function evaluation method of the invention.

  The invention of claim 3 is that the usage scene and situation, and the activation state are the environment in which the information processing device is used, the condition of the building in which the information processing device is used, the characteristics of the worker working with the information processing device, Whether there is a management department that manages information processing devices, if there is a management department, its management ability, the contents of the work performed by the worker using the information processing equipment, and if there is a management department, depends on the management department If there is management content or a management department, the content of the management policy, whether there is an unrelated person in the vicinity of the information processing device, or there is a device unrelated to the information processing device in the vicinity of the information processing device Whether the information processing device is physically moved, the state of the network used by the information processing device, the state of other devices connected to the network, the information processing device is fully activated or partially activated Whether or fully functional evaluation method of the invention of claim 1 of each item of whether or stopped state including at least one.

  According to the invention of claim 4, in the step of comparing, when comparing one dependency degree and a plurality of influence degrees among the calculated dependency degrees and each influence degree, a plurality of influence degrees are compared. The function evaluation method according to the invention of claim 3, wherein a weighting coefficient is determined in advance, and a total value of a plurality of influences multiplied by the corresponding weighting coefficients is compared with one dependency degree.

  According to the fifth aspect of the present invention, in the determining step, the execution of the function to be evaluated is used by comparing the comparison result made in the comparing step with a predetermined criterion condition stored in the storage device. The function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein it is determined whether or not the scene and the situation and the activated state are not damaged.

  ADVANTAGE OF THE INVENTION According to this invention, the method which can evaluate the function of the information processing apparatus in a different execution environment is realizable.

  The best mode for carrying out the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings.

(First embodiment)
FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram showing a configuration example of a function evaluation system to which the function evaluation method according to the first embodiment of the present invention is applied.

  That is, the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment can be used in different execution environments, for example, a mobile personal computer, a mobile phone, a server, a home appliance, a game device, a smart card, a smart card issuing device, an IC chip, an information transmission device, and a network. A system that implements a method for evaluating the function of an information processing device such as a device, and includes an evaluation unit 10 and a database unit 20. The evaluation unit 10 includes an influence calculation unit 11, a dependency calculation unit 12, a function effectiveness calculation unit 13, and an input / output unit 16. The function effectiveness calculation unit 13 further includes a comparison unit 14 and a determination unit 15. The database unit 20 is made of hardware such as a hard disk, and includes an influence evaluation index database 21, a dependency evaluation index database 22, a weighting database 23, and a comparison / determination condition database 24.

  The input / output unit 16 includes, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a display, and the like, and a screen for prompting a user who wants to evaluate the function of the information processing device using the function evaluation system to input necessary information This is a part for displaying and receiving an input from the user. Further, the result made by the function effectiveness calculation unit 13 is displayed. Furthermore, when information is input from the user, the input / output unit 16 provides the input information to the influence calculation unit 11 and the dependency calculation unit 12. The user, for example, not only the user himself / herself who uses the information processing apparatus, but also the person in charge of the management department of the organization to which the user belongs, the person in charge of the management department that manages the information processing apparatus, The requester of the used business, the developer of the information processing device, and the like are applicable.

  The degree of influence calculation unit 11 determines the degree of influence that the usage scene and situation in which the information processing device is used and the activation state have on the execution of each function to be evaluated among various functions provided in the information processing device. Calculation is performed using a predetermined impact evaluation index stored in the impact evaluation index database 21. Then, the calculated results are output to the comparison unit 14.

  The dependency degree calculation unit 12 uses the information processing device, the usage scene and the situation in which the information processing device is used, and the function of the information processing device. The dependence on each activation state is calculated using a predetermined dependence evaluation index stored in the dependence evaluation index database 22. Then, the calculated results are output to the comparison unit 14.

  Here, execution of the function to be evaluated includes function installation, initial setting, activation, interruption, stop, setting change, uninstallation, and the like. In addition, the usage scene and situation, and the activation state are the environment in which the information processing device is used, the condition of the building in which the information processing device is used, the characteristics of the user, the presence or absence of a management department that manages the information processing device, the management If there is a department, its management ability, the contents of the work performed by the user using the information processing device, the management contents by the management department if there is a management department, the contents of the management policy if there is a management department Whether there is a person unrelated to the user in the vicinity of the information processing device, whether there is a device unrelated to the information processing device in the vicinity of the information processing device, physical movement of the information processing device, information processing Items include the status of the network used by the device, the status of other devices connected to the network, whether or not the information processing device is fully activated, and the like.

  The comparison unit 14 compares each calculation result of the influence degree output from the influence degree calculation unit 11 with each calculation result of the dependency degree output from the dependency degree calculation unit 12, and outputs the comparison result to the determination unit 15. To do. In addition, when comparing one dependency degree and a plurality of influence degrees among each calculated dependency degree and each influence degree, a weighting coefficient is determined in advance for each of the plurality of influence degrees, The total value of each degree of influence multiplied by the corresponding weighting coefficient is compared with one dependency degree. The weighting coefficient is stored in the weighting database 23, and at the time of calculation, the comparison unit 14 acquires the weighting coefficient from the weighting database 23 and uses it for the calculation.

  Based on the comparison result output from the comparison unit 14, the determination unit 15 determines whether the execution of the function to be evaluated is not impaired from the usage scene, the situation, and the activated state. As an example, the determination unit 15 compares the comparison result with the determination criterion condition set in advance in the comparison / determination condition database 24, thereby impairing the execution of the function to be evaluated from the use scene, the situation, and the activation state. It is determined whether it is not.

  Next, a function evaluation method applied to the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment configured as described above will be described.

  As shown in the example of FIG. 2, an information processing device J such as a mobile personal computer or a mobile phone in which a function to be evaluated is implemented and / or is intended to be implemented has different characteristics depending on usage scenes and situations. For example, the usage environment differs depending on whether it is used indoors or outdoors A. Even within the same indoor environment, the usage environment varies depending on the building conditions, for example, whether the security guard B is resident or whether the information processing device J can be taken out. Therefore, in order to specify the use environment, in addition to these, for example, user characteristics such as the skill, experience and responsibility of the user G (whether the administrator becomes the user G?), And the system administrator C Presence / absence of a management department managing the information processing device J, management ability and management content of the management department, content of work performed by the user G using the information processing device J, content of the management policy D, vicinity of the information processing device J Whether there is a person H unrelated to the user G (an unspecified number of people), whether there is a device unrelated to the information processing device J in the vicinity of the information processing device J, The network E used by the information processing device J (whether or not an outsider can connect to it), the status of other devices F connected to the network E, and the like need to be considered. .

  On the other hand, paying attention to the activation state of the information processing device J, there are various cases such as a case where the information processing device J is always operating, a case where frequent restarts are performed, and a case where the power is almost off. When calculating the degree of influence of the usage scene and situation in which the information processing device is used and the activation state on the execution of the function to be evaluated among the various functions of the information processing device These must be considered separately as different usage environments.

  Hereinafter, the flow of influence degree calculation processing using the influence degree calculation unit 11 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

  FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of the influence calculation input screen 30 displayed from the input / output unit 16 based on the selected usage scene and activation state (S11). Data that is the basis of such an influence degree calculation input screen 30, that is, items 30a, options 30b, and evaluation raw points 30c to be considered for calculating the influence degree are determined in advance for each reference number 30n. It is stored in the influence evaluation index database 21. Thereby, when necessary, the input / output unit 16 accesses the influence evaluation index database 21 to construct and display the influence calculation input screen 30 as shown in FIG. 4 (S12).

  Note that the contents of the item 30a, the option 30b, and the evaluation raw point 30c may be changed as appropriate according to a change in a situation where a target function assumed in the future is used or a change in the purpose of the evaluation target function. . For example, this is also the case when a function that is currently considered “manually and manually executed by human beings” is changed to “normally automated”. To do.

  FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram showing an example of user input performed on such an influence degree calculation input screen 30. User input is performed by putting a circle in the selection field 30d. In the example illustrated in FIG. 5, when the item 30 a is “administrator”, “always exist” is selected as the option 30 b, and when the item 30 a is “skill level”, there is “no problem with the skill level” as the option 30 b. Is selected. The input / output unit 16 outputs the user input made in this way to the influence calculation unit 11. Then, the influence calculation unit 11 calculates the evaluation raw score 30c of the option 30b made (S13), and outputs the calculation result to the input / output unit 16 and the comparison unit 14 (S14). The input / output unit 16 displays the calculation result as a score 30e.

  In the example shown in FIG. 6, when the item 30a is “administrator”, “always on” is selected as the option 30b, so the score 30e is 0, and when the item 30a is “skill level”, as the option 30b Since “no problem in skill level etc.” is selected, the score 30e is 0, and when the item 30a is “management department”, “not available” is selected as the option 30b, so the score 30e When the item 30a is “Ability”, “always work by the administrator” is selected as the option 30b, indicating that the score 30e is 0.

  In addition, the functions of the information processing device J are not limited to the active state, but other than the original function execution, such as installation, setting, update, interruption, and uninstallation may impede execution or affect execution. May have a processing function. Furthermore, with regard to installation, can installation be done only with administrator privileges, or can it be done by other people, settings, whether settings can be changed via the network, and whether updates are made periodically? Or, if it is regular, what is the frequency, whether it is interrupted, whether the suspension process requires administrator authority, whether uninstalling is possible for anyone The usage scene and situation where the information processing device is used and the information processing related to the function to be evaluated by the function evaluation system among the various functions provided in the information processing device. When calculating the dependency on the startup status of the device, these must also be considered separately as different usage environments.

  Hereinafter, the flow of the dependency calculation process using the dependency calculator 12 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

  FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of the dependency calculation input screen 60 displayed from the input / output unit 16 based on the selected evaluation target function (S21). Data that is the basis of the dependency calculation input screen 60, that is, items 60a, options 60b, evaluation raw points 60c, and processing functions 60d to be considered for calculating the dependency are determined in advance for each evaluation index 60n. It is stored in the dependency degree evaluation index database 22. Thereby, when necessary, the input / output unit 16 accesses the dependency degree evaluation index database 22 to construct and display a dependency degree calculation input screen 60 as shown in FIG. 8 (S22).

  The contents of the item 60a, the option 60b, the evaluation raw score 60c, and the processing function 60d are appropriately changed according to a change in a situation in which a target function assumed in the future is used or a change in the purpose of the evaluation target function. May be. For example, a function that is currently considered to be "executed once a month" generally changes when common sense changes such as "should be executed every day". .

  FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of user input performed on the dependency degree calculation input screen 60. The user input is performed by adding a circle to the corresponding part of the processing function 60d. As an example, a case where the item 30a is “has this function” will be described. When the processing function 60d is “install”, “having” is selected as the option 60b, and when the processing function 60d is “process execution”, When “having” is selected as the option 60b and the processing function 60d is “** function”, it indicates that “having” is selected as the option 60b. The input / output unit 16 outputs the user input made in this way to the dependency degree calculation unit 12. Then, the dependency calculation unit 12 calculates an evaluation raw score 60c for each processing function 60d according to the option 60b made (S23), and outputs the calculation result to the comparison unit 14 (S24).

  FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining an example of comparison processing performed by the comparison unit 14. FIG. 10 illustrates a comparative example in which a certain usage scene and activation state are performed for an installation function among the functions to be evaluated. First, the comparison unit 14 extracts related comparison items set in advance for the calculation result from the influence calculation unit 11 and the calculation result from the dependency calculation unit 12. These preset items are stored in the weighting database 23 in advance, and are read out and used by the comparison unit 14. Note that the correspondence between the related items may be changed as appropriate in accordance with a change in a situation in which the evaluation target function that may occur in the future or a change in the purpose of the evaluation target function.

  In FIG. 10, a comparison item 81 is one of the items included in the calculation result from the dependency degree calculation unit 12, and is an example when the processing function 60d shown in FIG. The contents of the evaluation index 81n, the item 81a, the option 81b, the evaluation raw point 81c, and the selection result 81d are respectively shown in the evaluation index 60n, the item 60a, the option 60b, the evaluation raw point 60c, and the selected processing function 60d in FIG. It corresponds. The score 81d is a calculation result calculated by the dependency calculation unit 12.

  On the other hand, in FIG. 10, the comparison item 82 shows an example of an item related to the comparison item 81 among the items included in the calculation result from the influence calculation unit 11. Like the comparison item 82, the number of items related to the comparison item 81 is not limited to a single item, and there may be a plurality of items. The contents of the reference number 81n, item 82a, option 82b, evaluation raw point 82c, and selection column 82d correspond to the reference number 30n, item 30a, option 30b, evaluation raw point 30c, and selection column 30d in FIG. Yes. In addition, the weighting factor 82e affects the comparison item 81 so that the comparison item 81 can be compared with the comparison item 82 when a plurality of items exist in the comparison item 82 with respect to one comparison item 81. Is a constant set in advance so as to increase. The score 82f is a value obtained by multiplying the evaluation raw point 82c corresponding to the selected selection field 82d by the weighting coefficient 82e.

  The weighting coefficient e is also stored in the weighting database 23 in advance, and is read out and used by the comparison unit 14. As the value of the weighting factor, the value of item a may be used as shown in FIG. 10, or a different value may be used for each option 82b even for the same item.

  In the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the sum of values (0 × 0.3 + 0 × 0) obtained by multiplying each calculation result from the influence calculation unit 11 by 1 from the calculation result from the dependency calculation unit 12 and the weight coefficient. .3 + −1 × 0.1 + 0 × 0.3 = −0.1) to obtain a comparison result of 0.9. The comparison unit 14 outputs such a comparison result to the determination unit 15.

  Hereinafter, the flow of determination processing performed by the determination unit 15 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG.

  The determination unit 15 reads the calculation result when the processing function 60d is “install” from the dependency degree calculation unit 12 (S31), and next, calculates the calculation result for a certain use scene / activation state among the evaluation target functions. Read from the influence calculation unit 11 (S32).

  Then, using the calculation result from the influence calculation unit 11, a determination processing table 90 as shown in FIG. 12 is created and displayed from the input / output unit 16.

  In the determination processing table 90 shown in FIG. 12, the item 90a corresponds to the item 82a in FIG. 10, the evaluation index 90b corresponds to the evaluation index 81n in FIG. 10, and the comparison result 90c is the calculation result output from the comparison unit 14. Show. The total score 90d is the result of summing the comparison results 90c in the same item 90a, and the average 90e is the result of averaging the comparison results 90c in the same item 90a. The determination unit 15 calculates the total score 90d and the average 90e.

  Further, the determination unit 15 uses the determination processing table 90 to determine the effectiveness of each item 90a. The criteria for determining whether or not it is effective is not limited, but various conditions can be considered as shown below, for example.

  For example, the item 90a in which the values of the comparison result 90c are all 0 (zero) or more is determined to be acceptable. Alternatively, if the total score 90d or the average 90e is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, it is determined to be acceptable. Further, the comparison result 90c, the total score 90d, and the average 90e may be considered in consideration of all elements, or only necessary elements may be considered. Furthermore, when considering a plurality of elements, appropriate weighting may be performed so as to increase the influence of important elements. Such a criterion condition may be appropriately changed according to a change in a situation in which the evaluation target function is used, a change in the purpose of the evaluation target function, or the like. And when the determination part 15 determines with the pass, it attaches "(circle)" to the effectiveness determination column 90f, and when it determines with disqualification, it attaches "x".

  Furthermore, the determination part 15 performs comprehensive determination from the result of pass / fail. Various judgment criteria conditions for comprehensive judgment are also conceivable. For example, if the number determined to be acceptable is greater than the number determined to be unacceptable, that is, if the number of “◯” in the validity determination column 90f is greater than the number of “x”, It is determined that the determination is passed, that is, the function (for example, installation) that is the evaluation target satisfies the desired performance. In the example shown in FIG. 12, since the number of “◯” in the validity determination column 90f is not larger than the number of “x”, the comprehensive determination is rejected, that is, the function (for example, installation) It is determined that the performance is not satisfied (S33), and the determination result is output from the input / output unit 16 (S34).

  The determination criterion condition for the effectiveness for each item and the determination criterion condition for the comprehensive determination are stored in the comparison / determination condition database 24 after being determined in advance, and the determination unit 15 determines the effectiveness for each item. At the time of determination, and at the time of comprehensive determination, determination criterion conditions are acquired from the comparison / determination condition database 24 and used for determination.

  As described above, in the function evaluation method using the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment, the information processing apparatus has sufficient functions for the actual usage scene and situation due to the above-described action. You can judge whether or not.

  In addition, by changing the evaluation conditions for the usage scene and situation itself according to the environment in which the information processing device is used, it is more practical to evaluate whether a certain function is always effective in each usage scene and situation. The effectiveness of a specific function can be determined.

  In addition, regarding the function, it is possible to determine whether the effect of the function is sufficient under the conditions imposed by the user of the installed information processing device and / or the requester of the work using the information processing device. Become.

  Furthermore, since all items and criteria used for evaluation are stored in any database in the database unit 20, the items and criteria used for evaluation will be reviewed in the future due to changes in the usage scene and situation itself. If necessary, it can be handled by changing the information in the database, so that the function can be easily re-evaluated and compared with past evaluation results.

  As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible not only to objectively evaluate the functions of information processing devices in different execution environments, but also to flexibly cope with changes in evaluation conditions. .

(Second Embodiment)
A function evaluation system to which the function evaluation method according to the second embodiment of the present invention is applied will be described.

  Since the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment is a modification of the function evaluation system according to the first embodiment, here, the same portions are denoted by the same reference numerals to avoid redundant description and different points. explain.

  That is, in the function evaluation system according to the first embodiment, the comparison unit 14 compares the calculation result by the influence degree calculation unit 11 and the calculation result by the dependency degree calculation unit 12, thereby evaluating the effectiveness of the function. However, in the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment, only the influence calculation unit 11 is used without using the dependency calculation unit 12.

  Then, the degree of influence calculation unit 11 is used to calculate the degree of influence for each of two or more different evaluation target functions having the same effect, and the calculation result is output to the comparison unit 14. The degree of influence made on the function to be evaluated is compared, and the determination unit 15 determines which function is superior based on the determination result made by the comparison unit 14. Here, as long as the evaluation target functions to be compared are functions of the same purpose, the means for realizing the purpose itself may be different.

  Hereinafter, the flow of influence degree calculation processing using the influence degree calculation unit 11 will be described with reference to the flowchart of FIG. Here, a case where two functions are compared will be described as an example.

  First, an influence calculation input screen 30 (for example, FIG. 4) corresponding to a function to be compared (hereinafter referred to as “function 1”) is displayed from the input / output unit 16, and then, as shown in FIG. The user input is performed by putting a circle in the selection field 30d. The input / output unit 16 outputs the user input made in this way to the influence calculation unit 11. Then, the influence degree calculation unit 11 calculates the evaluation raw score 30c of the made option 30b, and outputs the calculation result to the input / output unit 16 and the comparison unit 14. As shown in FIG. 6, the input / output unit 16 displays the calculation result as a score 30e. The flow of this process is as described in the first embodiment.

  Then, the comparison unit 14 creates a determination processing table 141 for function 1 as shown in FIG. 14 based on the items included in the calculation result from the influence degree calculation unit 11. Since this determination processing table 141 is the same as the configuration in which the validity determination column 90f is omitted from the determination processing table 90 shown in FIG. 12, further description is omitted. Thus, the reading of the determination result of function 1 is completed (S41).

  Similar processing is performed for another function to be compared (hereinafter referred to as “function 2”), thereby creating a determination processing table 142 for function 2 as shown in FIG. 14 (S42).

  Next, the comparison unit 14 performs a comparison process between the determination process table 141 for function 1 and the determination process table 142 for function 2. This comparison process can be performed for each of the same item 90a (for example) “execution”, “management”, “influence”,...), And the total points 90d and average 90e can be compared. However, the present invention is not limited to these, and other values that can be calculated may be compared. Further, it is not always necessary to compare all the items 90a, and in particular, the comparison may be limited to only the item 90a of interest.

  In this way, comparison definition information defining which items are to be compared and how they are compared is determined and stored in the comparison / determination condition database 24 in advance, and the comparison unit 14 performs comparison / determination condition database 24 during comparison. The comparison definition information is acquired from the data and used for comparison.

  The comparison result table 143 is an example obtained as a result of the comparison unit 14 comparing the determination processing table 141 and the determination processing table 142 according to the comparison definition information. In this case, for each item 90a, the total score 90d is compared with the average 90e, and the item according to the comparison definition information that is defined so as to extract the function where both the total score 90d and the average 90e are 0 (zero) or more. A comparison result table 143 including a function 143d of 143a, a total score 143b, an average 143c, and all 0 (zero) or more is created. The comparison unit 14 outputs such a comparison result table 143 to the determination unit 15.

  Based on the comparison result table 143 output from the comparison unit 14, the determination unit 15 determines whether the function 1 and function 2 are superior or inferior (S43). FIG. 15A shows an example of superiority or inferiority judgment between function 1 and function 2 when the processing function is an installation function, and FIG. 15B shows function 1 and function when the processing function is an uninstall function. FIG. 15C shows an example of superiority / inferiority determination between the function 1 and the function 2 when the processing function is a stop function.

  In the comparison result table 151 shown in FIG. 15A, since there are many items in which the function 2 is superior to the function 1, it is determined that the function 2 is superior. In the comparison result table 152 shown in FIG. 15B, since there are many items in which the function 1 is superior to the function 2, it is determined that the function 1 is superior. In the comparison result table 153 shown in FIG. 15C, since there are many items in which the function 1 is superior to the function 2, it is determined that the function 1 is superior.

  From these results, the function 2 is better for the install function, the function 1 is better for the uninstall function, and the function 1 is better for the stop function. Although superiority or inferiority can be determined for each function, comprehensive superiority or inferiority can also be determined in consideration of all these functions. For example, in the example shown in FIG. 15, since there are many items for which function 1 is determined to be superior, it can be generally determined that function 1 is superior to function 2.

  Whether to perform such comprehensive determination or individual determination is defined in advance as determination definition information and stored in the determination / comparison / determination condition database 24, and the determination unit 15 determines this determination definition information at the time of determination. This can be appropriately carried out by using

  As described above, the function evaluation method using the function evaluation system according to the present embodiment has the same purpose in addition to the functions and effects achieved in the first embodiment due to the operations described above. A plurality of functions can be evaluated objectively with respect to another function. This makes it easy to make a decision to select an excellent function for each usage by comparing functions that are considered to have similar effects in a specific usage scene and situation. it can.

  The best mode for carrying out the present invention has been described above with reference to the accompanying drawings, but the present invention is not limited to such a configuration. Within the scope of the invented technical idea of the scope of claims, a person skilled in the art can conceive of various changes and modifications. The technical scope of the present invention is also applicable to these changes and modifications. It is understood that it belongs to.

The functional block diagram which shows the structural example of the function evaluation system to which the function evaluation method which concerns on the 1st Embodiment of this invention is applied. The conceptual diagram for demonstrating the various environment where information processing apparatus is used. The flowchart which shows the flow of a process of influence degree calculation. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the input screen for influence calculation. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the user input performed with respect to the input screen for influence calculation. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the influence degree calculated with respect to the user input with respect to the input screen for influence degree calculation. The flowchart which shows the flow of a dependence calculation process. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the input screen for dependence calculation. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the user input made with respect to the input screen for dependence calculation. The figure for demonstrating an example of a comparison process. The flowchart which shows the flow of the determination process which a determination part performs. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the determination process table. The flowchart which shows the flow of a process of influence degree calculation. The schematic diagram which shows an example of the determination process table. The figure for demonstrating an example of the comprehensive evaluation made using a comparison result table.

Explanation of symbols

  A ... Outdoor, B ... Security, C ... System administrator, D ... Management policy, E ... Network, F ... Other equipment, G ... User, H ... Unrelated person, J ... Information processing equipment, 10 ... Evaluation , 11 ... Influence degree calculation part, 12 ... Dependency degree calculation part, 13 ... Function effectiveness degree calculation part, 14 ... Comparison part, 15 ... Determination part, 16 ... Input / output part, 20 ... Database part, 21 ... Influence degree evaluation Index database, 22... Dependency evaluation index database, 23... Weighting database, 24. 142 ... determination processing table, 143, 151, 152, 153 ... comparison result table

Claims (5)

A method for evaluating the functions of an information processing device in different execution environments,
Among the functions, for a function to be evaluated, a usage scene and a situation in which the information processing device is used, and a dependency on each activation state of the information processing device are stored in a first predetermined memory. Calculating each using the evaluation index of,
Calculating the use scene and the situation, and the degree of influence of the activation state on the execution of each function to be evaluated using a predetermined second evaluation index stored in a storage device;
A step of comparing each dependency degree and each influence degree calculated for the same function to be evaluated;
A function evaluation method comprising: determining whether execution of the function to be evaluated is not impaired from the usage scene and situation and the activated state based on the comparison result.   The function evaluation according to claim 1, wherein execution of the function to be evaluated includes at least one of installation, initial setting, activation, process execution, interruption, stop, restart, setting change, and uninstallation of the function. Method. The usage scene and situation, and the activation state are:
The environment in which the information processing device is used, the conditions of the building in which the information processing device is used, the characteristics of the worker who works using the information processing device, the presence or absence of a management department that manages the information processing device, If the management department exists, its management ability, the content of work performed by the worker using the information processing device, if the management department exists, the management content by the management department, the management department exists The management policy, whether there is a person unrelated to the worker in the vicinity of the information processing device, and whether there is a device unrelated to the information processing device in the vicinity of the information processing device. Or the physical movement of the information processing device, the state of the network used by the information processing device, the state of other devices connected to the network, and the information processing device Function evaluation method according to claim 1 comprising at least one of but state whether each item was stopped state whether or fully activated.   In the comparing step, when comparing one dependency degree and a plurality of influence degrees among the calculated dependency degrees and each influence degree, a weighting coefficient is set for each of the plurality of influence degrees. The function evaluation method according to claim 3, wherein the function evaluation method is determined in advance and the total value of the plurality of influence levels multiplied by the corresponding weighting coefficients is compared with the one dependency degree.   In the determining step, the comparison result made in the comparing step is compared with a predetermined determination criterion condition stored in a storage device, so that the function to be evaluated is executed in the usage scene and situation. Further, the function evaluation method according to claim 1, wherein it is determined whether or not the activation state is impaired.

Images