JP4896379B2 - Equipment evaluation apparatus and program - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention relates to a technique for evaluating the necessity of repairing a plurality of devices installed in various facilities.

The equipment installed in various facilities such as theaters and halls is extremely diverse and numerous. For this reason, if the manager of the facility individually determines the necessity of refurbishing each device, the work burden on the manager is extremely excessive. In order to solve this problem, a technique for evaluating the necessity of repair of equipment installed in a facility has been proposed (see Patent Document 1).
JP 10-46832 (paragraphs 0009 to 0013)

  By the way, the type and quantity of devices to be installed in a facility generally differ depending on the use of the facility. For example, the type and quantity of equipment to be installed in a facility such as a hall vary depending on whether the facility is used for playing classical music or for lectures. However, under the conventional technology described above, it is currently impossible to evaluate the necessity of repairing each device based on the use of each facility.

  This invention is made in view of such a situation, and provides the apparatus evaluation apparatus and program which can perform evaluation according to the use of the said facility about each of the some apparatus installed in a facility It is an object.

In order to solve the above problems, the present invention provides a device for evaluating the need for renovation for a plurality of equipment installed in the facility, the serial and number corresponding to the parameters corresponding to the type and usage of the device憶In addition, according to a signal output from a storage unit that stores a weight value corresponding to each of a plurality of uses related to the facility for the type of each device , and an input device that outputs a signal corresponding to an operation by a user , A usage specifying means for specifying the usage related to the facility selected by the user, the type of the equipment and the usage status of the equipment, and the first selection mode and the first mode according to the signal output from the input device. and mode selection means for selecting one of the second selection mode, according to the usage status of the specified device by the application specific unit of the number stored in said storage means By performing the operation predetermined by using a score corresponding to the parameter, as well as calculating the appliance-specific number is not considered application for the facility for each type of the device, of the weighting value stored in said storage means a weight value corresponding to applications for the facility identified by the application identification unit, by weighting the appliance-specific number that does not consider the application, the score calculating means for calculating a score in accordance with the needs of the renovation of the equipment And when the first selection mode is selected by the mode selection means, the use specifying among the weight values stored in the storage means from among the types of devices specified by the use specifying means. the type of instrument value is large weighting value that corresponds to the application for the facility identified as the type of equipment to be preferentially renovation by means While constant, the mode when the second selection mode is selected by the selection means, from among the type of the specified device by the application identification unit, each type of equipment that is calculated by said score calculating means And a device selection means for preferentially selecting a device type having a large score according to the necessity of repair as a device type to be repaired. Furthermore, in order to contribute to the convenience of the user who wants to confirm the necessity of refurbishing the equipment, an output means for outputting at least one of the calculation result by the score calculation means and the selection result by the equipment selection means is provided. Is desirable.

  According to this configuration, since the weight value corresponding to the use of the facility is included as a parameter for evaluating the necessity of repair of each device, the use of the facility is reflected for each device installed in the facility. Evaluation can be performed. Therefore, it is possible to provide an index that reflects the actual situation of the facility in more detail to the user (for example, the manager of the facility).

The storage means stores, for each of the devices, the score for each stage when a period of time elapsed since the repair of each device is divided into a plurality of stages, and the score calculation means stores the score in the storage means. By performing the calculation using the score for each stage with reference, the score according to the necessity of repair for each type of the device for each period when assuming that the device is repaired for each specific period It is good also as a structure which calculates and the said output means outputs the score for every said period calculated by the said score calculation means. In this way, it is possible to provide the user with an index for determining the necessity of equipment repair in the future. In addition to this configuration, the point calculation means shall calculate points for each period when it is assumed that the equipment will not be repaired, and the output means shall not be repaired with the points when the equipment is assumed to be repaired. If it is configured to output together with the assumed score, it is possible to provide a powerful index when the user determines whether or not to repair in the future.

Further, under the configuration with equipment selection means, and renovation amount storage means for storing the amount of money required to repair for each type of the device, the amount required for the repair of the types of devices that are selected by the device selecting means, wherein It may be configured to have an amount calculation unit that calculates with reference to the inside of the repair amount storage unit, and the output unit outputs the amount calculated by the amount calculation unit. In this way, since the cost required for the repair of the device can be presented to the user, the user can appropriately determine whether or not to repair the device from a financial point of view. Also, under this configuration, the amount calculation means calculates the amount for each period when it is assumed that the equipment has been repaired every specific period, while the output means is the period calculated by the amount calculation means. It is good also as a structure which outputs the amount of money for every. In this way, it is possible to provide the user with an index for determining the necessity of equipment repair in the future. Further, the storage means stores the score for each type of device for each stage when the period of time elapsed since the repair of each device is divided into a plurality of stages, and the score calculation means includes the storage means According to the necessity of refurbishment for each type of the device for each period when it is assumed that the device has been refurbished for each specific period by performing calculations using the points for each stage with reference to the inside The amount calculation means calculates the amount required for the repair of the device type selected by the device selection means by referring to the repair amount storage means for each specific period. The amount for each period when it is assumed that the device has been repaired may be calculated, and the output unit may output the amount for each period calculated by the amount calculation unit. According to this configuration, it is possible to provide a powerful index for the user to determine the monetary profits and losses related to future repairs.

In the present invention, the renovation amount storage means for storing the amount of money required to repair for each type of the device, the amount required for the repair of the types of devices that are selected by the device selecting means, wherein the improvement amount storage means and a price calculating means for calculating with reference to said mode selection means in response to said signal outputted from the input device, the first selection mode, said second selection mode and a third choice of When any of the modes is selected and the third selection mode is selected by the mode selection unit, the device selection unit has the maximum sum of the number of points for each device corresponding to the type of the selected device. and wherein are measured by the amount calculating means so that the sum of Rukin amount is a numerical value that does not exceed the budget predetermined, select the type of equipment to be refurbishment, and the output means, the device selection Configured to output the result of the selection by means also desirable. In this way, devices that can maximize the total sum of points for each device are selected for refurbishment. Therefore, for users who place particular emphasis on the total sum of points, a powerful indicator for determining whether renovation is necessary or not. Can be provided.

  The parameters used for evaluation in the present invention include grades that are numerical values according to the specifications of the equipment, the quantity of equipment, the time that has elapsed since the start of use of the equipment, and the degree of malfunction occurring in the equipment. It is conceivable to adopt at least one of the corresponding numerical values.

  The present invention can also be specified as a program for causing a computer to function as the device evaluation apparatus described above. This program may be provided to the computer via a network, or may be provided in a form stored in various recording media such as an optical disk, a magnetic disk, or a magneto-optical disk, and installed in the computer. It may be a thing.

  As described above, according to the present invention, each of a plurality of devices installed in a facility can be evaluated according to the use of the facility.

<A: Configuration of Embodiment>
FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a configuration of a device evaluation apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention. As shown in the figure, the apparatus 100 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 12 connected to the CPU 11 via a bus 20, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 13, and a storage. It has a device 14, an input device 15 and a display device 16. As described above, the device evaluation apparatus 100 has the same hardware configuration as a general computer represented by a personal computer.

  The CPU 11 is a microprocessor for centrally controlling each part of the device evaluation apparatus 100, and realizes various functions by performing arithmetic processing based on a program and controlling each part. The ROM 12 is a memory for storing a program executed by the CPU 11, and the RAM 13 is a memory used as a work area by the CPU 11.

  The storage device 14 is means for storing a program executed by the CPU 11 and various data used in accordance with the execution of the program. For example, a hard disk device incorporating a magnetic disk, a device for driving a portable recording medium represented by a CD-ROM, or the like can be employed as the storage device 14. In addition to an OS (Operating System) for managing the overall operation of the device evaluation apparatus 100, the storage device 14 includes an application for evaluating and diagnosing the necessity of repairing a plurality of devices installed in various facilities. A program (hereinafter referred to as “device evaluation program”) is stored. In the present embodiment, it is assumed that the necessity of refurbishing a device is determined for an acoustic facility such as a theater or a hall.

  This equipment evaluation program is based on various parameters related to a system consisting of multiple equipment actually installed in the facility (hereinafter referred to as the “current system”). It is a program to evaluate. For this evaluation, the storage device 14 includes a table for specifying various parameters related to the current system (hereinafter referred to as “parameter specification table”) and a table for calculating a score as a reference for evaluation of the current system. (Hereinafter referred to as “score table”) and a table (hereinafter referred to as “optimum specification table”) for reflecting the use of the facility in the score is stored.

  Among these, as shown in FIG. 2, the parameter specification table is a table that associates the category, type, model, price, and grade of each of a plurality of devices that may be placed in the facility. Here, the category is a classification in which a large number of devices are classified according to their functions and uses. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, a device responsible for inputting a signal to another device belongs to the “input” category, and a device responsible for outputting a signal belongs to the “output” category. The responsible device belongs to the category of “line”. On the other hand, the type is a classification in which each category is divided more finely according to the function and application of each device. For example, the “input” category is classified into a type of “three-point suspended microphone” installed on the ceiling of the facility, a type of “wired microphone” installed on the stage of the facility, and the like.

  Each type includes one or more devices having different types. This type is an identifier (for example, a model number) uniquely assigned to one type of device. The amount included in the parameter specification table represents the amount required for purchase and installation of the device. On the other hand, the grade is a numerical value according to the specifications of the device, and varies depending on the performance and function of each device. That is, the higher the performance, the larger the grade, and the lower the performance, the smaller the grade. In this embodiment, it is assumed that this grade can take values from “1” to “5”. For example, in FIG. 2, a device to which “M-100” is assigned as the model belongs to the “3-point hanging microphone” type in the “input” category, the amount is “100,000 yen”, and the grade is “ The case of “4” is shown.

In the present embodiment, the grade of each device constituting the current system, the quantity for each type of each device constituting the current system, and the time from the installation of each device to the facility (hereinafter referred to as “elapsed time”) A score (hereinafter referred to as “item score”) is calculated for each of the five types of items, ie, the degree of failure (or presence / absence of failure) occurring in each device and the presence / absence of devices belonging to each type. The score (hereinafter referred to as “the score for each device”) p0 (i) is calculated by integrating the score for each item for each device. The score table shown in FIG. 3 is a table for calculating these item-specific scores. As shown in the figure, this score table is a table in which the score for each item is associated with the numerical value and range of each item, and is stored in advance in the storage device 14 for each type of device. In the score table shown in FIG. 3, when the number of devices belonging to type 1 is in the range of “1” to “5”, “0” is specified as the item-specific score β1 regarding the quantity, and “6”. In other words, “1” is specified as the item-specific score β1 in the range of “10” to “10”. By referring to the score table, the CPU 11 refers to the item-specific score α _i for the grade, the item-specific score β _i for the quantity, the item-specific score γ _i for the elapsed time, and the item-specific score η _i for the degree of failure. The item-specific score ξ _i regarding the presence or absence of equipment is specified.

On the other hand, the optimum specification table is prepared for each use of the facility as shown in FIG. This use includes “classical music performance”, “theater performance”, “lecture”, “light music performance”, “opera performance” and “musical performance”. As shown in FIG. 4, the optimum specification table corresponding to each application includes the types of devices that are to be components of the optimum system (the system to be compared with the current system) and the various types of the application. It is a table which designates the weight value. When the facility is used for a specific application, the type of each device constituting the optimal system is specified based on the table corresponding to the application among the plurality of optimal specification tables. Therefore, the configuration of the optimum system varies depending on the use of the facility. On the other hand, the weight value ε _i determined for each type is a numerical value for weighting the device-specific score p0 (i) calculated based on the score table in accordance with the use of the facility. That is, the weight value ε _i is a numerical value selected according to the importance of each type of device in the application, and can be a numerical value from “0” to “1”. For example, when a facility is used for “classical music performance”, the performance of a microphone that collects sound over the entire stage should be particularly emphasized. A relatively high numerical value is determined as a weight value corresponding to a type such as “three-point suspended microphone” or “wired microphone”.

  The input device 15 illustrated in FIG. 1 includes a pointing device such as a mouse and a keyboard for inputting characters and numbers, and outputs a signal corresponding to an operation by a user (for example, a facility manager) to the CPU 11. The user can input an instruction for starting the device evaluation program and various information related to the current system by appropriately operating the input device 15. On the other hand, the display device 16 includes a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube), a liquid crystal display panel, and the like, and displays various images under the control of the CPU 11. For example, the display device 16 displays an evaluation result of each device obtained by executing the device evaluation program.

<B: Operation of Embodiment>
Next, the operation of this embodiment will be described. When a predetermined operation is performed on the input device 15 by the user to start the device evaluation program, the CPU 11 stores the device evaluation program and each table (parameter specification table, score table, and optimum specification table) from the storage device 14. The device evaluation program is sequentially executed after being read into the RAM 13. FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the contents of the device evaluation program.

  After instructing the activation of the device evaluation program, the user operates the input device 15 to input the current operation status of the facility to be evaluated. Specifically, the user first inputs the current use of the facility and the total budget (hereinafter referred to as “renovation budget amount”) that can be used for the repair of the equipment. Next, for each category such as “input” and “output”, the user has passed the type of each device currently installed in the facility, the quantity of each device, and the start of use of each device to the present. And the degree of malfunction related to each device. Note that the degree of the defect is input by selecting one of the options “serious defect”, “minor defect”, and “no defect”.

  On the other hand, the CPU 11 detects this operation and stores various parameters input by the user in the RAM 13 (step S10). Next, the CPU 11 initializes a variable i for specifying the type of each device constituting the optimum system to “1”. The variable i can be any integer from “1” to “N”. The numerical value N (hereinafter referred to as “number of types N”) corresponds to the number of types in the optimum specification table corresponding to the application input in step S10, that is, the number of types of devices constituting the optimum system.

Next, based on the information input in step S10, the CPU 11 specifies the item-specific score of the type specified by the variable i among the devices constituting the current system and stores it in the RAM 13 (step S12). ). More specifically, the CPU 11 first identifies a grade corresponding to the type input in step S10 among the types indicated by the variable i in the parameter identification table, and corresponds to the grade in the score table corresponding to the variable i. The assigned score is specified as the grade-specific score α _i . For example, when the variable i represents the type of “three-point suspended microphone” and the model “M-100” is input in step S10, the numerical value “4” is set as the grade based on the parameter specification table of FIG. On the other hand, if the usage of the facility is “performance of classical music”, the numerical value “3” is a grade-specific score α _i based on the score table corresponding to “performance of classical music” shown in FIG. Identified as Further, the CPU 11 refers to the score table indicated by the variable i, and the score associated with the quantity input in step S10 is input as the item-specific score β _i in step S10. The score associated with the elapsed time is specified as an item score γ _i for the elapsed time, and the score according to the degree of the defect selected in step S10 is specified as the item score η _i . Further, the item-specific score ξ _i regarding the presence / absence of the device is when the device belonging to the type specified by the variable i is not input in step S10 (that is, the type included in the optimum system is not included in the current system). ) Is “0”, and “1” is entered when a device belonging to this type is input.

Next, for the type specified by the variable i, the CPU 11 calculates a device-specific device score q (i) that takes into account the use of the facility and a device-specific device score p0 (i) that does not take into account the use, and stores them in the RAM 13. (Step S13). Specifically, the CPU 11 determines the grade item score α _i , quantity item score β _i , elapsed time item score γ _i , defect item score η _i, and device presence / absence item score ξ _i. Is substituted into the following equation (1) to calculate the device-specific score p0 (i).
p0 (i) = f ([alpha] _i , [beta] _i , [gamma] _i ) * [eta] _i * [ _{xi] i} (1)
The function f in the equation (1) is a function having variables α _i , β _i and γ _i as variables. For example, as the function f, a function for multiplying the added value (α _i + β _i + γ _i ) of these variables by a specific coefficient, or each of the variables α _i , β _i, and γ _i is multiplied by a separate coefficient. A function for adding these numerical values can be adopted. In this function f, the coefficient multiplied by the added value (α _i + β _i + γ _i ) and the coefficient multiplied by each variable α _i , β _i, and γ _i may be a predetermined numerical value or used. A numerical value input by the person using the input device 15 may be used. On the other hand, the number of equipment by use q (i) taking into account the use of the facility is the following expression (2) using the equipment number p0 (i) calculated by the above expression (1) and the weight value ε _i as variables. Calculated by Incidentally, the weight value epsilon _i in this equation is the weight value epsilon _i associated with type indicated by the variable i of the optimum specification table corresponding to the application that has been input in step S10.
_{q (i) = {p0 i} _full-p0 (i)} × ε i (2)
In this equation (2), “p0 _i _full” is the maximum value that the device-specific score p0 (i) can take (that is, the perfect score of p0 (i)). If the content of equation (1) is determined such that p0 (i) is in the range of “0 ≦ p0 (i) ≦ 1,” the numerical value p0i_full is “1” which is the maximum value. As is clear from the above equation (2), the smaller the numerical value of the device-specific score p0 (i), the larger the numerical value of the application-specific device score q (i) calculated from the equation (2). Therefore, when evaluating the necessity of refurbishing the device indicated by the variable i based on the device score q (i) by use, the larger the number of device points q (i) by use, the greater the need for refurbishment. Can be evaluated.

  Subsequently, the CPU 11 specifies the repair amount c (i) required for repairing the type specified by the variable i based on the device type table, and stores it in the RAM 13 (step S14). Taking FIG. 2 as an example, when the variable i represents the type of “three-point suspended microphone”, the CPU 11 specifies “300000 (yen)” as the repair amount c (i). When a plurality of types of devices belong to one type, the CPU 11 specifies the amount of the device with the highest grade among these devices as the repair amount c (i).

  Next, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the variable i is smaller than the optimum system type number N (step S15). If the variable i is smaller than the number N of types, this means that there are still types that are not the targets of the processing from steps S12 to S14, so the CPU 11 sets the variable i to “1”. After incrementing (step S16), the process proceeds to step S12. As a result, the device-specific score p0 (i), the device-specific device score q (i), and the repair amount c (i) are calculated for the N types included in the optimum system, and as shown in FIG. A table (hereinafter referred to as “calculated value table”) in which numerical values are associated with each type is generated in the RAM 13.

On the other hand, if the variable i is greater than or equal to the number N of types, the CPU 11 calculates a score Psys for comprehensively evaluating the current system (hereinafter referred to as “total score”) and stores it in the RAM 13 (step S17). . Specifically, the CPU 11 calculates the total score Psys by substituting the device-specific score p0 (i) included in the calculated value table into the following equation (3). The device-specific device score q (i) may be used instead of the device-specific score p0 (i) in the equation (3).

この式（４）において、係数Ａはスケールメリットに応じた数値であり、種別数Ｎに応じた「１」以下の正数である。 Next, the CPU 11 calculates an amount Csys (hereinafter referred to as “total repair amount”) Csys required for refurbishing devices belonging to all types of the current system, and stores it in the RAM 13 (step S18). Specifically, the CPU 11 calculates the total repair amount Csys by substituting the repair amount c (i) of each device included in the calculated value table into the following equation (4).

In this equation (4), the coefficient A is a numerical value corresponding to the scale merit, and is a positive number equal to or less than “1” corresponding to the number N of types.

Subsequently, the CPU 11 causes the display device 16 to display the device score q (i) for each type, the total score Psys, and the total repair cost Csys (step S19). Specifically, for example, as shown in FIG. 7, the CPU 11 causes the display device 16 to display a graph of the device-specific score p0 (i) for each type. In this figure, the vertical axis indicates the type of device, and the horizontal axis indicates a bar graph indicating the score p0 (i) for each device. Further, the total score Psys and the total repair cost Csys are displayed in the vicinity of the graph. The user can determine the necessity of refurbishment for each type by checking this display. For example, it can be determined that a device belonging to a type having a lower score than the other types among the types shown in the graph of FIG. In addition, although the case where the score for each type is displayed is illustrated here, a graph illustrated in FIG. 8 may be displayed together with this display or instead of this display. This graph is a bar graph showing the numerical value of the score for each item included in the above formula (1). In other words, each of the numerical values α _i , β _i , γ _i , η _i, and ξ _i corresponding to the grade, quantity, elapsed time, and degree of failure, and the value of the weight value ε _i as a bar graph Is displayed. However, when this display is performed, it is necessary to store the numerical values of these portions in the RAM 13 in step S12. By checking this graph, the user can determine which of various parameters such as grade and quantity should be improved for each type of device. 7 and 8 exemplify the configuration for displaying the device-specific score p0 (i), but the application-specific device score q (i) is displayed on the display device 16 together with or instead of this display. The structure to do can also be employ | adopted.

  On the other hand, the user who has confirmed this display can select one of three evaluation modes for performing further detailed evaluation by appropriately operating the input device 15. These three evaluation modes are a mode for selecting the type that requires refurbishment based on the use-specific device score q (i) and the total score Psys (hereinafter referred to as “repair necessity judgment mode”), and the user A mode for selecting the type that requires refurbishment with emphasis on the selected elements (hereinafter referred to as “optimum renovation judgment mode”) and a mode for evaluating changes in the need for refurbishment in the future “renovation prediction mode” It is said.

  When detecting this operation, the CPU 11 determines the evaluation mode selected by the user (step S20), and executes processing according to each evaluation mode (steps S21 to S23). When each process ends, the CPU 11 determines whether or not an operation for ending the execution of the device evaluation program has been performed on the input device 15 (step S24). If it is determined that this operation has not been performed, the CPU 11 returns the process to step S20 and waits for any evaluation mode to be selected again by the user. On the other hand, if it is determined that an operation for termination has been performed, the CPU 11 terminates execution of the device evaluation program.

  Next, the contents of the process executed by the CPU 11 when each evaluation mode is selected in step S20 will be described.

<B-1: Remediation Necessity Determination Process (Step S21 in FIG. 5)>
FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing the processing contents when the repair necessity determination mode is selected. When this process is started, the CPU 11 first compares the total score Psys calculated in step S17 in FIG. 5 with a predetermined reference score Pd to determine whether the total score Psys is equal to or greater than the reference score Pd. Determination is made (step Sa1). Here, when it is determined that the total score Psys is greater than or equal to the reference score Pd, the CPU 11 causes the display device 16 to display a message indicating that the device does not need to be repaired (step Sa2), and in step S24 of FIG. Return processing.

  On the other hand, if it is determined that the total score Psys is less than the reference score Pd, the CPU 11 displays the type to be repaired and the amount required for the repair on the display device 16 (step Sa3). FIG. 10 is a diagram showing the display contents at this time. As shown in the figure, the CPU 11 displays a word indicating that the device needs to be repaired as an evaluation result, and also shows the number of devices q (i) for each type of use requiring repair and the repair amount c (i). Are displayed based on the calculated value table. More specifically, the CPU 11 selects, based on the calculated value table stored in the RAM 13, a type for which the application-specific device score q (i) is greater than a predetermined threshold among the N types. For each type, the device-specific device score q (i) and the repair amount c (i) are displayed. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 10, the CPU 11 may display the total amount for renovating all types selected as requiring renovation. Here, the type of the device to be repaired is selected based on the size of the device-specific device score q (i), but the device may be selected based on the device-specific score p0 (i) described above.

<B-2: Optimal repair determination process (step S22 in FIG. 5)>
FIG. 11 is a flowchart showing the processing contents when the optimum modification determination mode is selected in step S20 of FIG. This optimal repair determination process is a process of selecting a device to be repaired out of N types, and three selection modes with different elements that are emphasized when selecting a device are prepared. As this selection mode, the first selection mode for selecting the type so that the total number Psys after the repair is maximized, and the second selection for preferentially selecting the type having a large number of application-specific equipment points q (i). There is a mode and a third selection mode in which a type having a large weight value ε _i is preferentially selected. The user can arbitrarily select one of these selection modes by appropriately operating the input device 15.

  When detecting this operation, the CPU 11 determines which selection mode is selected (step Sb1). Hereinafter, the contents of the process executed by the CPU 11 when each selection mode is selected will be described.

[First selection mode]
When the first selection mode is selected, the CPU 11 initializes the variable j to “1” (step Sb101). The variable j is a numerical value assigned to each of all patterns (hereinafter referred to as “combination patterns”) in which one or more of N types are combined. For example, the combination pattern in which the variable j is “1” includes only the type in which the variable i is “1”, and the combination pattern in which the variable j is “2” includes the type in which the variable i is “1” and “2”. The combination with the type of “is included. In the following, it is assumed that Nj types are included in the _jth combination pattern.

  Next, the CPU 11 initializes a variable k indicating one of the types included in the jth combination pattern to “1” (step Sb102). Subsequently, the CPU 11 needs to modify the type based on the device-specific score p0 (i) calculated in step S13 for the type specified by the variable k among the types included in the jth combination pattern. It is determined whether or not there is (step Sb103). Specifically, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the device-specific score p0 (i) specified by the variable k is “1”, and if it is “1”, no modification is required. Then, the process proceeds to step Sb105.

  On the other hand, if it is determined in step Sb103 that the value is smaller than “1”, the CPU 11 assumes that the type specified by the variable k in the jth combination pattern is the target of the modification (step Sb104).

In the subsequent step Sb105, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the variable k is smaller than the number of types N _j included in the j-th combination pattern. Here, if the variable k is smaller than the classification number N _j, since it means that there remains a type which is not subject to judgment in yet step SB103, CPU 11 sets a variable k "1" After incrementing by only (step Sb106), the process returns to step Sb103.

In contrast, if the variable k is equal to classification number N _j or more, which means that for all types belonging to the j-th combination pattern determination step Sb103 was performed. In this case, the CPU 11 sets the score p to “1” for the type specified as the repair target in step Sb104 in the j-th combination pattern, and then scores based on the formula (3) (hereinafter referred to as “repair assumption total score”). Psys (j) is calculated (step Sb107). That is, in the equation (3), the CPU 11 sets “1” as the number of devices by use q (i) of the type that is the target of renovation in step Sb104 among the N types, The renovation assumption total point Psys (j) is calculated by using the number of use-specific equipment points q (i) included in the calculation value table. As is clear from this, the renovation assumption total point Psys (j) is the total score when it is assumed that the remodeling is actually performed for the type determined to require refurbishment in step Sb103 among the j-th combination pattern. Equivalent to.

  Subsequently, the CPU 11 specifies the amount of money required for the type of repair identified in step Sb104 based on the calculated value table, and calculates the total amount Csys (j) to be repaired by summing the amount and stores it in the RAM 13 ( Step Sb108). The assumed total repair Csys (j) corresponds to the total cost required for actually repairing the device of the type specified in step Sb104 in the jth combination pattern. In the calculation of step Sb108, the coefficient A corresponding to the merit of scale may be reflected as in the above formula (4).

  Next, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the variable j is smaller than the total number of combination patterns (step Sb109). Here, when the variable j is smaller than the total number of combination patterns, it means that there are still combination patterns that are not yet processed. Therefore, after incrementing the variable j by “1” (step Sb110), the CPU 11 returns the process to step Sb102. As a result, as shown in FIG. 12, for each combination pattern, a table in which the repair assumption total point Psys (j) and the repair assumption total Csys (j) are associated is generated in the RAM 13.

  On the other hand, when the variable j is equal to or greater than the total number of combination patterns, it means that the repair assumption total point Psys (j) and the repair assumption total Csys (j) are calculated for all the combination patterns. In this case, the CPU 11 shifts the process to step Sb111 to identify a combination pattern having the maximum repair assumption total score Psys (j) among the combination patterns in which the repair assumption total Csys (j) does not exceed the repair budget amount. To do. Thereby, the combination pattern that can maximize the total score within the range of the repair budget amount is specified.

  Next, the CPU 11 displays the processing result in step Sb111 on the display device 16 (step Sb2), and then returns the process to step S24 in FIG. Here, FIG. 13 is a diagram showing the display contents in step Sb2. The CPU 11 displays the type determined to require repair in step Sb103 among the combination patterns identified in step Sb111. Further, the CPU 11 displays the repair assumption total point Psys (j) and the repair assumption total Csys (j) calculated for the combination pattern specified in step Sb111. By visually recognizing this indication, the user shall confirm the total score after repair and the total cost required for repair, as well as the type that can obtain the maximum total score for repair within the repair budget. Can do.

[Second selection mode]
Next, the operation when the second selection mode is selected in step Sb1 in FIG. 11 will be described. In this selection mode, a type having a large use-specific device score q (i) calculated in step S13 of FIG. 5 is preferentially selected as a target for repair. For this purpose, the CPU 11 first sorts the N types included in the calculated value table in descending order from the largest application-specific device score q (i) (step Sb201). Specifically, the CPU 11 changes the variable i for specifying each type into a numerical value representing the order when rearranged in accordance with the usage-specific device score q (i). Next, the CPU 11 initializes the variable m to “1” (step Sb202). This variable m is a variable for designating any of the N types according to the order after the rearrangement in step Sb201.

  Next, the CPU 11 changes the device-specific score p0 (m) of the type corresponding to the mth after the rearrangement in step Sb201 out of the device-specific score p0 (i) included in the calculated value table to “1”. (Step Sb203). As a result, a situation is assumed in which the m-th type is modified to an optimal device. Further, the CPU 11 modifies the first to m-th types (only the first type when m is “1”) based on the various types of repair amounts c included in the calculated value table. The total repair amount Csys (m) is calculated (step Sb204).

  Subsequently, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the total repair amount Csys (m) calculated in step Sb204 is smaller than the repair budget amount (step Sb205). Here, when the total repair cost Csys (m) is smaller than the repair budget amount, there is a possibility that other types can be repaired within the range of the repair budget amount. Therefore, in this case, after incrementing the variable m by “1” (step Sb206), the CPU 11 shifts the processing to step Sb203.

  On the other hand, if it is determined in step Sb205 that the total repair cost Csys (m) exceeds the repair budget amount, the repair m can be repaired within the range of the repair budget amount up to the previous type from the type indicated by the variable m at that time. Means. In this case, the CPU 11 specifies up to the (m−1) th type as the target of the repair, and when these types are repaired by the same procedure as the formula (3) and the formula (4) described above. The total score Psys and the total repair cost Csys required for the repair are calculated (step Sb207). As a result, the total score Psys and the total repair cost Csys when the equipment is selected as the repair target in order from the type with the largest device score q (i) calculated in step S13 in FIG. 5 are calculated. . Thereafter, the CPU 11 displays a screen similar to that shown in FIG. 13 on the display device 16 based on the calculation result in step Sb207 (step Sb2), and then returns the process to step S24 in FIG.

[Third selection mode]
Next, the operation when the third selection mode is selected in step Sb1 in FIG. 11 will be described. This selection mode is a mode in which the weight value ε _i is large and is selected as a target to be repaired preferentially, and the basic processing procedure is the same as in the second selection mode. That is, the CPU 11 first sorts a plurality of types included in the calculated value table in descending order from the largest weight value ε _i included in the optimum specification table (step Sb301). Specifically, the CPU 11 changes the variable i for specifying each type to a numerical value representing the order when rearranged according to the weight value ε. Next, the CPU 11 initializes a variable n for specifying any of the N types according to the order after rearrangement to “1” (step Sb302).

  Next, the CPU 11 changes the device-specific score p0 (n) of the type corresponding to the nth after the rearrangement in step Sb301 among the device-specific scores p0 (i) included in the calculated value table to “1”. (Step Sb303). Further, the CPU 11 calculates the total repair amount Csys (n) when it is assumed that the first to nth types (only the first type when n is “1”) have been repaired (step). Sb304).

  Subsequently, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the total repair amount Csys (n) calculated in step Sb304 is smaller than the repair budget amount (step Sb305). If the total is smaller, the variable n is incremented by “1”. (Step Sb306), the process returns to step Sb303. On the other hand, when it is determined that the total repair cost Csys (n) exceeds the repair budget amount, the CPU 11 identifies up to the (n-1) th type as the target of the repair, and the total when these types are repaired. The score Psys and the total repair cost Csys required for the repair are calculated (step Sb307). Thereafter, the CPU 11 displays a screen similar to that shown in FIG. 13 based on the calculation result in step Sb307 (step Sb2), and then returns the process to step S24 in FIG.

In addition, although the structure which selects various classification | _category according to the equipment score q (i) or weight value (epsilon) _i according to a use here was illustrated, each point score (alpha) _i , (beta) _i , (gamma) _i , (eta) _i and (xi) mentioned above are mentioned. _The type to be repaired may be selected according to other parameters such as _i .

<B-3: Repair Prediction Process (Step S23 in FIG. 5)>
Next, FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing the processing contents when the repair prediction mode is selected in step S20 of FIG. This modification prediction process is a process for evaluating a change in the necessity for modification in the future, and three prediction modes having different contents displayed on the display device 16 as evaluation results are prepared. As this prediction mode, there are a first prediction mode for displaying the total score and the total repair amount when the various types of repairs are regularly performed in the future, and the transition of the total score when various types of repairs are not performed in the future. , And a second prediction mode for displaying the transition of the total repair amount when the repair is performed for the first time in each year, and a third prediction mode for displaying the display contents in the first and second prediction modes together. When selecting the first prediction mode or the third prediction mode, the user inputs a budget amount (hereinafter referred to as “annual budget amount”) that can be used for repair in each future year.

  When the repair prediction process is started, the CPU 11 first specifies the prediction mode selected by the user according to the operation content to the input device 15 (step Sc1). When the first or third mode is selected, the annual budget amount that is subsequently input is stored in the RAM 13. Next, the CPU 11 initializes a variable y representing the number of years elapsed from the present time to “1” (step Sc2).

Subsequently, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the prediction mode specified in step Sc1 corresponds to either the first or third prediction mode (step Sc3). If it is determined here that this is the case, the CPU 11 selects one or more types to be repaired in the y-th year (step Sc4). That is, the CPU 11 selects the type to be repaired so that the total score becomes the maximum within the range of the annual budget amount of the y-th year by the same procedure as the processing from step Sb101 to Sb111 shown in FIG. Select. Of course, the factors considered when selecting this type are not limited to the total score, but the number of device points q (i) by application and the weight value ε _i and other factors as in the second or third selection mode described above. The type may be selected according to

  Subsequently, the CPU 11 assumes that the total score Psys (y) and the total repair amount Csys (y) when the repair is executed for the type selected in step Sc4, that is, the repair is performed every year from the present. The total score Psys (y) and the total repair cost Csys (y) in year y are calculated and stored in the RAM 13 (step Sc5). On the other hand, when the prediction mode specified in step Sc1 is the second prediction mode, the CPU 11 shifts the process to step Sc6 without going through steps Sc3 to Sc5.

  In subsequent Step Sc6, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the prediction mode specified in Step Sc1 corresponds to either the second prediction mode or the third prediction mode. If it is determined that this is the case, the CPU 11 calculates the total score P′sys (y) in the y-th year when it is assumed that no repair has been made in any year from the present to the y-th year. Store in the RAM 13 (step Sc7). Specifically, the CPU 11 sets the numerical value obtained by adding “y” to the elapsed time input in step S10 in FIG. 5 as a new elapsed time, and then performs the same process as in steps S12 to S13 in FIG. According to the above procedure, the number of equipments q (i) for each application for each type is calculated and stored in the RAM 13. Then, the total score P′sys (y) is calculated by substituting these application-specific device scores q (i) into the above formula (3).

  Next, the CPU 11 calculates the total repair amount C′sys (y) when the repair is performed for the first time when the year y has elapsed from the present, and stores it in the RAM 13 (step Sc8). Specifically, the CPU 11 compares the device score q (i) for each use obtained in step Sc7 with a predetermined threshold value, and the device score q (i) for each use is the threshold. A type smaller than the value is selected as a target for renovation. Then, the CPU 11 specifies the various repair amounts c (i) selected here based on the calculated value table shown in FIG. 6, and calculates the sum of these amounts as the total repair amount C'sys (y). It is.

  Next, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the variable y is smaller than a predetermined constant y0 (step Sc9). Here, if the variable y is smaller than the constant y0, it means that there are still years that are not targeted for the steps Sc3 to Sc9. In this case, the CPU 11 increments the variable y by “1” (step Sc10), and then returns the process to step Sc3. On the other hand, when the variable y is greater than or equal to the constant y0, that is, when the processes from step Sc3 to Sc9 are completed for all years, the CPU 11 shifts the process to step Sc11. In this step Sc11, the CPU 11 causes the display device 16 to display the calculation results so far every year.

  Here, FIG. 15 and FIG. 16 are diagrams showing the contents displayed on the display device 16 in step Sc11. Among these, FIG. 15 shows a line graph in which the horizontal axis represents the number of years elapsed (y) from the present, and the vertical axis represents the total score for each year. Here, since the case where the third prediction mode is selected is assumed, a graph A1 representing a transition of the total score Psys (y) when various types are periodically repaired in each year, and any year In addition, a graph B1 showing the transition of the total score P ′ (y) when no repair is performed is also displayed. Among these, the numerical value of the total score Psys (y) shown in the graph A1 is the numerical value specified in step Sc5 of FIG. 14, and the numerical value of the total score P'sys (y) shown in the graph B1 is specified in step Sc7. It is a numerical value. By visually recognizing this display and comparing the scores of both, the user can judge whether the repair is performed regularly or not. Note that only the graph A1 in FIG. 15 is displayed when the first prediction mode is selected, and only the graph B1 is displayed when the second prediction mode is selected.

  On the other hand, FIG. 16 shows a line graph in which the horizontal axis is the number of years elapsed (y) from the present, and the vertical axis is the amount of money required for renovation in each year. More specifically, the graph A2 in FIG. 16 represents the transition of the total repair amount Csys (y) when it is assumed that the repair is performed every year, and the graph B2 is the total repair amount C'sys ( It represents the transition of y). Among these, the numerical value of the total repair amount Csys (y) shown in the graph A2 is specified in Step Sc5 of FIG. 14, and the numerical value of the total repair amount C'sys (y) shown in the graph B2 is specified in Step Sc8. It is a thing. By visually recognizing this display and comparing the amounts of both, the user can determine the profit or loss between the case where the repair is performed periodically and the case where the repair is not performed over a long period of time. Note that, when the first prediction mode is selected, only the graph A2 of FIG. 16 is displayed, and when the second prediction mode is selected, only the graph B2 is displayed.

  Thus, in this embodiment, since the weight value according to the use of a facility is included as a parameter for evaluating the necessity of refurbishment for equipment belonging to various types, an appropriate value reflecting the actual use of the facility is included. Evaluation can be performed.

  In this embodiment, since the total score indicating the overall evaluation of the current system and the total repair cost are displayed, powerful indicators for determining whether the current system needs to be repaired are given to the user. Can be provided. In particular, as shown in FIG. 7 and FIG. 8, the device-specific score p0 (i) and the item-specific score are displayed for each device type, so that the user has detailed information on whether or not the device needs to be repaired. Judgment can be made.

  By the way, the elements that should be emphasized when repairing each device are generally different depending on the management policy of the facility. In the present embodiment, by selecting the optimal repair determination mode, the user can select the elements that should be emphasized when repairing each device. it can.

  Furthermore, in the present embodiment, by selecting the remodeling prediction mode, a prediction regarding future remodeling is diagnosed, so that it is effective when the user determines the appropriateness of the future remodeling schedule. Judgment materials can be provided. In particular, according to the third prediction mode, the user can compare the total score and total repair amount when repairs are made every year with the total score and total repair amount when repairs are not made. It is possible to judge the pros and cons of renovation, or to formulate a renovation schedule based on the judgment results.

<C: Modification>
Various modifications can be made to the above-described embodiment. Specific modes of deformation are as follows. In addition, you may combine each aspect shown below suitably.

<C-1: Modification 1>
In the above-described embodiment, the configuration in which one use is selected by the user has been exemplified. However, depending on the facility, a case where the use is used for a plurality of uses may be assumed. Therefore, in step S10 in FIG. 5, the user may select a plurality of uses. In this case, as an optimum system parameter specified in step S12 of FIG. 5, an average value of parameters included in a plurality of optimum specification tables corresponding to the selected application may be used, or these optimum specification tables may be used. Of these, the maximum value or the minimum value of each parameter may be used.

<C-2: Modification 2>
In the repair prediction mode of the above embodiment, it is assumed that the device is repaired every future year, but the period for which the repair is assumed is not limited to this. For example, instead of or together with the evaluation method of the above-described embodiment, a method of performing evaluation so that the repair is performed when the total score Psys falls below a predetermined threshold value may be employed. More specifically, the CPU 11 determines whether or not the total score Psys calculated in step Sc5 in FIG. 14 is lower than the threshold value, and only if the total score Psys is lower than the threshold value, it is assumed that the equipment is repaired in step Sc4. May be. Under this evaluation method, as shown in FIG. 17, equipment is assumed to be repaired when forecasting the next fiscal year following a certain threshold (80 points in this case). The score Psys will be higher than the total score Psys of the previous year. In addition, when the total score Psys calculated for a certain year is lower than the threshold value, it is possible to recalculate the total score Psys for that year on the assumption that each device is repaired in that year. Further, it may be assumed that the equipment is repaired every plural years. In this case, the total score Psys increases every plural years. Furthermore, by combining these methods, it is assumed that repairs will be made every multiple years, and equipment repair will be assumed for the year when the total score Psys falls below the threshold even under this periodic repair. Such an evaluation method can also be adopted.

<C-3: Modification 3>
In the said embodiment and modification, although the structure which displays an evaluation result on the display apparatus 16 was illustrated, it is good also as a structure by which this evaluation result is output by another method. For example, the evaluation result may be output after being printed on paper by a printing device, or the evaluation result may be output as sound from a sound output device such as a speaker. Alternatively, if the device evaluation apparatus 100 includes an apparatus that drives a portable recording medium, the evaluation result may be recorded on the recording medium.

  Further, if the device evaluation apparatus 100 is connected to a network, the evaluation result may be transmitted to another computer via the network. Further, under this configuration, the device evaluation device 100 is used as a server device connected to a network, and each parameter input to another computer as a client is received via the network, while using each parameter. You may make it transmit the obtained evaluation result to the said computer via a network.

<C-4: Modification 4>
In the above-described embodiment and each modification, it is assumed that the present invention is applied for the evaluation of equipment installed in an acoustic facility such as a hall. However, the medical facility and various instruments in which various medical devices are installed The present invention can also be applied to other facilities such as an exercise facility in which is installed or a park in which various playground equipment is installed.

It is a block diagram which shows the structure of the apparatus evaluation apparatus which concerns on embodiment of this invention. It is a figure showing the content of an apparatus model table. It is a figure which shows the content of the score table. It is a figure which shows the content of the optimal specification table. It is a flowchart which shows the content of an apparatus evaluation program. It is a figure which shows the content of the calculation value table. It is a figure which shows the display content by a display apparatus. It is a figure which shows the display content by a display apparatus. It is a flowchart which shows the content of the necessity determination process of repair. It is a figure which shows the display content of the display apparatus in repair necessity determination mode. It is a flowchart which shows the content of the optimal repair determination process. It is a figure which shows the content of the table containing the total score for every combination pattern, and the total repair amount. It is a figure which shows the display content of the display apparatus in the optimal repair determination mode. It is a flowchart which shows the content of a repair prediction process. It is a figure which shows the display content of the display apparatus in repair prediction mode. It is a figure which shows the display content of the display apparatus in repair prediction mode. It is a figure which shows the display content of the display apparatus in the improvement prediction mode of the modification of this invention.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 100 ... Equipment evaluation apparatus, 11 ... CPU, 12 ... ROM, 13 ... RAM, 14 ... Memory | storage device, 15 ... Input device, 16 ... Display apparatus.

Claims (8)

In a device that evaluates the need for refurbishment of multiple devices installed in a facility,
Thereby memorize the number that corresponds to the parameters corresponding to the type and usage of the device, storage means for storing a weight value corresponding to each of a plurality of applications for the facility for classification of the respective devices,
Use specifying means for specifying a use related to the facility selected by the user, a type of the equipment, and a use status of the equipment in accordance with a signal output from an input device that outputs a signal corresponding to an operation by the user When,
Mode selection means for selecting either the first selection mode or the second selection mode in accordance with a signal output from the input device;
Considering the use related to the facility by performing a predetermined calculation using the score corresponding to the parameter according to the usage status of the device specified by the use specifying means among the points stored in the storage means with the device-number not be calculated for each type of the device, the weight value corresponding to the application for the facility specified by the application specifying means among the stored weight value in the storage means, do not consider the application A point calculation means that calculates points according to the need for repair of each device by weighting the points by device,
When the first selection mode is selected by the mode selection unit, the use specifying unit among the weight values stored in the storage unit is selected from the types of devices specified by the use specifying unit. while selecting the type of instrument value is large weighting value that corresponds to the application for the facility identified as the type of equipment to be preferentially renovation, the second selection mode is selected by said mode selecting means in a case where it is, from among the type of the specified device by the application specific device, preferentially the type of device number is large in accordance with the needs of the renovation of each type of calculation is the equipment by the score calculating means And a device selection means for selecting the device type to be repaired. The apparatus evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an output unit that outputs at least one of a calculation result by the score calculation unit and a selection result by the device selection unit. The storage means stores, for each of the devices, the score for each stage when a period of time elapsed since the repair of each device is divided into a plurality of stages,
The score calculation means refers to the storage means and performs an operation using the score for each stage, whereby the type of the equipment for each period when it is assumed that the equipment is repaired for each specific period. Calculate the number of points according to the need for each renovation ,
The device evaluation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the output unit outputs the score for each period calculated by the score calculation unit. A repair amount storage means for storing the amount of money required for repair for each type of the device;
Amount calculation means for calculating the amount required for the repair of the type of device selected by the device selection means with reference to the inside of the repair amount storage means,
The device evaluation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the output unit outputs the amount calculated by the amount calculation unit. The storage means stores the score for each type of device for each stage when a period of time elapsed since the modification of each device is divided into a plurality of stages.
The score calculation means refers to the storage means and performs an operation using the score for each stage, whereby the type of the equipment for each period when it is assumed that the equipment is repaired for each specific period. Calculate the number of points according to the need for each renovation,
The amount calculating means has repaired the equipment for each specific period by calculating the amount required for the repair of the type of the equipment selected by the equipment selecting means with reference to the inside of the repair amount storage means. calculated the amount of each the period when it is assumed,
The device evaluation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the output unit outputs the amount for each period calculated by the amount calculation unit. A repair amount storage means for storing the amount of money required for repair for each type of the device;
Amount calculation means for calculating the amount required for the repair of the type of device selected by the device selection means with reference to the inside of the repair amount storage means,
It said mode selection means, in response to the signal output from the input device, the first selection mode, selects one of the second selection mode, and third selection modes,
When the third selection mode is selected by the mode selection unit, the device selection unit has the maximum sum of the number of points for each device corresponding to the type of the selected device , and is calculated by the amount calculation unit. It is as sum of Rukin amount is a numerical value that does not exceed the budget predetermined, select the type of equipment to be refurbishment,
The device evaluation apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the output unit outputs a result of selection by the device selection unit.   The plurality of parameters are at least one of a numerical value corresponding to the specification of the device, a number of the device, a time elapsed since the start of use of the device, and a numerical value corresponding to the degree of malfunction occurring in the device. The apparatus evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one apparatus is included. Computer
Thereby memorize the number that corresponds to the type and path according to the operating conditions parameters of the device, storage means for storing a weight value corresponding to each of a plurality of applications related to facilities for the type of each device installed in the facility ,
Use specification specifying the facility related to the facility selected by the user, the type of the device, and the usage status of each device according to the signal output from the input device that outputs a signal according to the operation by the user means,
Mode selection means for selecting one of the first selection mode and the second selection mode in accordance with a signal output from the input device;
Considering the use related to the facility by performing a predetermined calculation using the score corresponding to the parameter according to the usage status of the device specified by the use specifying means among the points stored in the storage means with the device-number not be calculated for each type of the device, the weight value corresponding to the application for the facility specified by the application specifying means among the stored weight value in the storage means, do not consider the application When the first selection mode is selected by the point calculation means for calculating the number of points according to the necessity of renovation of each equipment by weighting the score for each equipment, and when the first selection mode is selected by the mode selection means, the use specification from among the type of the identified equipment by means specified by the application specifying means among the stored weight value in the storage means the While selecting the type of instrument value is large weighting value that corresponds to the application related to facilities as the type of equipment to be preferentially renovation, when the second selection mode is selected by said mode selecting means from among the type of equipment specified by the application identification unit is preferentially renovation the type of calculation to the equipment number is large in accordance with the needs of the renovation of each type of equipment by the score calculating means Program to function as a device selection means to select as the type of device to be.

Images