Method and system for determining solution to quality deterioration of service

Abstract

To more appropriately determine a solution to quality deterioration of service.SOLUTION: Disclosed is a method that allows a system to determine a solution to quality deterioration of service provided by a service providing device. The system stores solution cost information about a relation between solution candidates and cost. In the method, the system predicts quality deterioration of service on the basis of monitoring information about service quality, estimates, on the basis of the solution cost information, solution cost required for solution candidates for quality items that are expected to have the quality deterioration of service, and determines a solution on the basis of the estimated solution cost.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 5

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to determining measures to be taken against degradation of service quality. [Background technology]

[0002] In the case of communication services, risk events are classified into a "service event part," a "risk event part," and a "system event part," the response level value is entered in the "response level value part," countermeasure proposals are extracted in the "measure content part," the countermeasure costs are entered in the "cost part," and negative factors are entered in the "constraint part." When multiple countermeasure proposals are presented, a technology for selecting the countermeasure to be actually implemented from the "cost part," "constraint part," or "remaining risk part" is described in Patent Document 1.

[0003] Also, a technology is known in which a communication quality prediction device includes a log collection unit that collects communication quality logs collected from user terminals in a carrier network and various logs collected from communication facilities or carrier servers, a change point detection unit that detects change points from data obtained by time-series analysis of the communication quality logs, and a prediction analysis unit that generates a model and predicts communication quality by excluding logs prior to the change points from data obtained by time-series analysis of the communication quality logs for each area (Patent Document 2). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] JP 2019-149157 A [Patent Document 2] JP 2016-91271 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] Service providers generally present terms and conditions such as a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that clearly state the level of service quality they can guarantee to their service subscribers, and take costly measures to ensure that the service quality does not fall below the stated level.

[0006] However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which measures should be taken before the proposed service quality falls below the standard. In Patent Document 1, the measures to be actually taken are determined based on cost, restrictions, and remaining risks, but since it is not known when the proposed service quality will fall below the standard, measures must always be taken at a cost.

[0007] In Patent Document 2, a model is generated and communication quality is predicted by excluding logs prior to the change point from data obtained by time-series analysis of communication quality logs for each area; however, when a deterioration in communication quality is predicted, it is not possible to determine an appropriate cost for taking measures. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] One aspect of the present invention is a method in which a system determines countermeasures for a deterioration in quality of a service provided by a service providing device, the system stores countermeasure cost information indicating a relationship between candidate countermeasures and costs, and the method comprises the system predicting a deterioration in service quality based on monitoring information of service quality, estimating the countermeasure costs required for each candidate countermeasure for a quality item for which a deterioration in service quality is predicted based on the countermeasure cost information, and determining countermeasures based on the estimated countermeasure costs. Effect of the Invention

[0009] According to the present invention, measures against deterioration of service quality can be determined more appropriately.

[0010] The details of at least one implementation of the subject matter disclosed herein are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, aspects, and advantages of the disclosed subject matter will become apparent from the following disclosure, drawings, and claims. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0011] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a computer system for taking measures against quality degradation according to a first embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 2] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a prediction table of service quality degradation according to the first embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 3] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a countermeasure cost table according to the first embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a countermeasure decision result screen of the interface device according to the first embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 5] 1 is a flowchart showing a quality degradation countermeasure processing procedure according to a first embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 6] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a service quality prediction table based on a communication state and an apparatus state in the second embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 7] 10 is a flowchart showing a procedure for predicting service quality based on a communication state and an apparatus state according to a second embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 8] FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a countermeasure cost calculation table for each service according to the third embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 9] 11 is a flowchart showing a procedure for estimating the cost of measures based on a cost calculation table for each service according to the third embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 10] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a countermeasure priority table for each service according to the fourth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 11] 13 is a flowchart showing a procedure of a process for determining countermeasures based on countermeasure priorities for each service according to a fourth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 12] FIG. 13 is a block diagram showing the configuration of a quality degradation countermeasure device including a damage cost estimation unit according to a fifth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 13]FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a damage cost estimation table according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 14] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a countermeasure decision result display screen including an estimated damage cost of the interface device according to the fifth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 15] 13 is a flowchart showing a procedure for estimating the cost of damages incurred when the quality of service is deteriorated according to a fifth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 16] FIG. 23 is a diagram showing an example of a service quality-damage cost estimation table based on the predicted degree of degradation in service quality according to the sixth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 17] 13 is a flowchart showing a procedure for estimating damage costs based on the predicted degree of deterioration in service quality according to a sixth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 18] FIG. 23 is a diagram showing an example of an impact extent-damage cost estimation table based on the impact extent predicted for a deterioration in service quality according to the seventh embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 19] 13 is a flowchart showing a procedure for estimating damage costs based on the extent of the predicted impact of a deterioration in service quality according to a seventh embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 20] FIG. 23 is a diagram showing an example of a damage cost correction table in a case where a deterioration in service quality is not permitted according to the eighth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 21] 13 is a flowchart showing an embodiment of a procedure for correcting damage costs when a deterioration in service quality is not permitted according to an eighth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 22] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a damage cost calculation table for each service according to the ninth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 23] 13 is a flowchart of a damage cost estimation process based on cost calculation data for each service according to a ninth embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 24] FIG. 23 is a diagram showing an example of a service quality degradation occurrence probability table according to the tenth embodiment of the present invention. [Diagram 25] 23 is a flowchart showing a procedure of a process for determining measures based on the occurrence probability of degradation in service quality according to a tenth embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0012] In the following, when necessary for convenience, the description will be divided into multiple sections or embodiments, but unless otherwise specified, they are not unrelated to each other, and one is related to the other as a partial or complete modification, detail, supplementary explanation, etc. Furthermore, in the following, when the number of elements, etc. (including the number, numerical value, amount, range, etc.) is mentioned, it is not limited to the specific number, and may be more than or less than the specific number, unless otherwise specified or clearly limited in principle to a specific number, etc. EXAMPLES

[0013] 1 shows an example of the configuration of a quality degradation countermeasure system for implementing quality degradation countermeasures. The system includes a quality degradation monitoring device 1, a quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2, and an interface device 4.

[0014] The quality degradation countermeasure system monitors the quality of services provided from a server 7 to a user terminal 8 via a network 6. The server 7 can provide a plurality of services to a plurality of user terminals 8. In the configuration example of FIG. 1 , the server 7 includes a processor 70, a memory 71, and a network interface 73, and the processor 70 provides the service in accordance with a service program 72.

[0015] The quality degradation countermeasure system predicts a degradation in service quality based on the service monitoring results, estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures against the quality degradation based on the predicted quality degradation, and determines the countermeasure to be implemented based on the countermeasure cost.

[0016] The quality degradation monitoring device 1 obtains information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the server 7 and / or the user terminal 8. The quality degradation countermeasure device 3 predicts a degradation in service quality, estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the service quality degradation, and decides on the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost. The quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2 executes the quality degradation countermeasure. The interface device 4 displays the prediction result of the service quality degradation, the estimated result of the countermeasure cost, and the decision result of the quality degradation countermeasure.

[0017] The quality degradation countermeasure device 3 includes a processor 30, a memory 31 which is a main storage device, an auxiliary storage device 32, an input / output device 33, and a network interface 34. Each part of the information processing device 101 is communicably connected to each other via a communication means such as a bus (not shown). Note that the information processing device 101 may be configured such that all or part of its configuration is realized by a virtual resource such as a cloud server.

[0018] The processor 30 is configured using a CPU (Central Processing Unit), an MPU (Micro Processing Unit), a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), etc. The processor 30 reads out and executes a program stored in the memory 31, thereby realizing the functions of the quality degradation countermeasure device 3.

[0019] The memory 31 is a device for storing programs and data, and may be a Read Only Memory (ROM), a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Non-Volatile RAM (NVRAM), or the like.

[0020] The auxiliary storage device 32 is, for example, an SSD (Solid State Drive), an NVRAM such as an SD memory card, an optical storage device such as a CD (Compact Disc) or a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), an HDD (Hard Disc Drive), a storage area of ​​a cloud server, etc. The auxiliary storage device 32 includes a non-transitory storage medium that stores programs and data. The programs and data stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 are read into the memory 31 as needed.

[0021] The input / output device 33 is an interface that accepts input of information and outputs various kinds of information. As the input device, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, a card reader, a microphone, etc. can be used. As the output device, for example, a screen display device such as an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) or a graphic card, a printing device, an audio output device such as a speaker, etc. can be used. Some of the components shown in FIG. 1 may be omitted, and other components may be added.

[0022] The memory 31 stores various programs including a prediction unit 311, a countermeasure cost estimation unit 312, and a countermeasure decision unit 313. The processor 30 can store information received from the quality degradation monitoring device 1 in the auxiliary storage device 32. The processor 30 operates as a corresponding functional unit by performing processing together with other components according to these programs.

[0023] The information stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 includes, for example, a service quality degradation prediction table 321, and a countermeasure cost table 322 that stores the estimated countermeasure costs of candidate countermeasures. In addition, there are a service quality prediction table 323 that stores information on the predicted results of service quality based on the communication state and device state, a countermeasure cost calculation table 324 for each service, and a countermeasure priority table 325 that stores countermeasures based on the countermeasure priority for each service. The information stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 may be read, written, and rewritten by the interface device 4.

[0024] The description of the hardware configuration of the quality degradation countermeasure device 3 can be applied to the quality degradation monitoring device 1, the quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2, the interface device 4, and the user terminal 8. Note that this configuration merely shows one example of the configuration, and there are no restrictions on the physical configuration. For example, the quality degradation countermeasure device 3 may be physically implemented in the same device as the quality degradation monitoring device 1, the quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2, and the interface device 4.

[0025] 2 is an example of the service quality degradation prediction table 321. The quality item 3211 is identification information of an item for which a degradation in service quality is predicted. The evaluation score 10 seconds ago 3212 is the score when the service quality of each quality item is evaluated 10 seconds ago. The current evaluation score 3213 is the score when the service quality of each quality item is currently evaluated.

[0026] The evaluation score requirement 3214 is a score below which the service quality is judged to be degraded when the score when evaluating the service quality of each quality item falls. The service quality degradation time prediction result 3215 is a value indicating how much time has elapsed from the present time when the service quality is predicted to degrade as a result of the prediction of the service quality degradation. The method of predicting the service quality degradation will be described later.

[0027] FIG. 3 is an example of a countermeasure cost table 322 showing the estimation of countermeasure costs and the determination of countermeasures. Countermeasure candidate 3221 is identification information of countermeasure candidates for preventing deterioration of service quality. Countermeasure cost unit price 3222 is the unit price of countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. Target user number 3223 is the number of users for which each countermeasure candidate is executed. Countermeasure cost estimation result 3224 is the estimation result of the countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. The method of estimating countermeasure cost will be described later.

[0028] 4 is an example of a display screen 410 of the countermeasure decision result of the interface device 4. The screen 410 includes a service quality degradation prediction 411 and an estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 412. The service quality degradation prediction 411 has the same columns as the service quality degradation prediction table 321.

[0029] In service quality degradation prediction 411, the quality item is identification information of the item for which a degradation in service quality is predicted. The evaluation score 10 seconds ago is the score when the service quality of each quality item was evaluated 10 seconds ago. The current evaluation score is the score when the service quality of each quality item is currently evaluated. The evaluation score requirement is a score below which the service quality is judged to have deteriorated when the score when the service quality of each quality item is evaluated falls. The service quality deterioration time prediction result is a value indicating how much time has elapsed from the present time when it is predicted that the service quality will deteriorate as a result of the prediction of the service quality deterioration. The method of predicting the service quality deterioration will be described later.

[0030] The estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 412 has a column of countermeasure decision result in addition to the column of the countermeasure cost table 322. In the estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 412, the countermeasure candidate is identification information of a countermeasure candidate for preventing a deterioration in service quality. The countermeasure cost unit price is the unit price of the countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. The number of target users is the number of users for which each countermeasure candidate is executed. The countermeasure cost estimation result is an estimation result of the countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. The method of estimating the countermeasure cost will be described later. The countermeasure decision result is information indicating which countermeasure candidate has been selected as a countermeasure for preventing a deterioration in service quality. For example, the countermeasure decision result may be set to "○" for the selected countermeasure candidate and "-" for the non-selected countermeasure candidate.

[0031] Fig. 5 is a flowchart showing an embodiment of a quality degradation countermeasure processing procedure. The processing based on the first embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 5 is, for example, as follows. Note that the processing of this flowchart is executed at a predetermined cycle, for example.

[0032] Step S101: The processor 30 receives quality information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1. The quality information may include, for example, an evaluation score given by a receiver of a telepresence service to evaluate the sound quality of the received voice or the image quality of the video, or the time of the evaluation. The processor 30 may also receive information used for purposes other than predicting a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1. For example, in this step, the processor 30 may receive information from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, such as the number of users using a high-quality sound plan of the telepresence service, which is used to estimate the cost of measures.

[0033] Step S102: The prediction unit 311 predicts a degradation in service quality based on the quality information received in step S101 above, and stores the information in the service quality degradation prediction table 321. For example, assume that the quality information received in step S101 above is an evaluation score for evaluating the sound quality of the voice and the image quality of the video received in the telepresence service, and the time of evaluation. The prediction unit 311 records an evaluation score 3212 from 10 seconds ago and a current evaluation score 3213 for each of the sound quality and image quality in the quality item 3211, as in the service quality degradation prediction table 321 shown in FIG.

[0034] The prediction unit 311 predicts the occurrence time of the service quality degradation based on the evaluation score 3212 10 seconds ago, the value of the current evaluation score 3213, and the evaluation score requirement 3214. The prediction result may be recorded as a service quality degradation time prediction result 3215. At this time, the evaluation score requirement may be set in advance. The prediction of the service quality degradation time may be, for example, calculated as the time when the evaluation score 10 seconds ago and the current evaluation score will fall below the evaluation score requirement, assuming that the rate of change between the evaluation score 10 seconds ago and the current evaluation score will remain constant in the future. In other words, if the evaluation score 10 seconds ago was A, the current evaluation score was B, and the evaluation score requirement was C, 10×(BC) / (AB) seconds later may be recorded as the service quality degradation time prediction result.

[0035] In this case, if the value of (BC) is negative, that is, the current evaluation score is already below the evaluation score requirement, or if the value of (AB) is negative, that is, the current evaluation score is higher than the evaluation score 10 seconds ago, the service quality degradation time prediction result may be set to "-", indicating no value.

[0036] Step S103: The countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the service quality degradation, and stores it in the countermeasure cost table 322. For example, as a result of the prediction of the service quality degradation in the above step S102, it is assumed that the service quality degradation time prediction result is not zero, as in the service quality degradation prediction table 321 shown in Fig. 2. In other words, it is assumed that the quality item for which the service quality degradation was predicted was "sound quality". The countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 may estimate the countermeasure cost based on the countermeasure candidates, the countermeasure cost unit price, and the number of target users, as in the countermeasure cost table 322 shown in Fig. 3, and record it as the countermeasure cost estimation result.

[0037] At this time, candidate countermeasures and countermeasure cost unit prices corresponding to each quality degradation such as degradation of sound quality may be set in advance. Candidate countermeasures for degradation of sound quality may include, for example, "changing sound quality settings" and "adding a server". "Changing sound quality settings" is, for example, changing the sound quality settings of the service, such as switching to normal sound quality and reducing the amount of data for a user who uses the service with high sound quality, such as a subscriber to a high sound quality plan. "Adding a server" is, for example, adding a server that performs processes such as sending and receiving sound.

[0038] The countermeasure cost unit price 3222 may be set to, for example, the difference in user unit price between the high sound quality plan and the normal sound quality plan in the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting", or the server usage fee in the countermeasure candidate "add server", etc.

[0039] The number of target users 3223 may be calculated for each countermeasure candidate based on, for example, information acquired from the quality degradation monitoring device 1. For example, if the information acquired from the quality degradation monitoring device 1 includes the number of users using a high-quality sound plan of the telepresence service, and the value of the number of users using a high-quality sound plan of the telepresence service is "30 people", the number of target users of the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting" may be set to "30 people" as in the countermeasure cost table 322 shown in FIG.

[0040] Furthermore, the number of target users may be set to "-", indicating no value, if the countermeasure candidate does not depend on the number of target users. For example, if the countermeasure cost of "server addition" is constant and does not depend on the number of target users, "-" may be set to the number of target users of the countermeasure candidate "server addition" as in the countermeasure cost table 322 shown in Fig. 3. The countermeasure cost estimation result may be set to, for example, the product of the countermeasure cost unit price and the number of target users for each countermeasure candidate.

[0041] For example, as shown in the countermeasure cost table 322 in Fig. 3, when the countermeasure cost unit price of the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting" is set to "400 yen / user" and the number of target users is set to "30 people", 400 x 30 = 12,000 yen may be set as the countermeasure cost estimation result of the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting". Also, when "-" indicating no value is set as the number of target users, the value set as the countermeasure cost unit price may be set as the countermeasure cost estimation result as it is.

[0042] For example, as shown in the countermeasure cost table 322 of FIG. 3, if the countermeasure cost unit price for the countermeasure candidate “add server” is set to “8000 yen” and the number of target users is set to “-”, the countermeasure cost estimate result of the countermeasure candidate “add server” may be set to 8000 yen set as the countermeasure cost unit price.

[0043] Step S104: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure based on the countermeasure cost estimated in the above step S103. The countermeasure determination may be performed, for example, by comparing the countermeasure cost estimation results estimated in the above step S103 between countermeasure candidates, and determining the countermeasure candidate with the smallest countermeasure cost estimation result as the countermeasure.

[0044] For example, if the countermeasure cost estimation result estimated in step S103 above is expressed as in the countermeasure cost table 322 shown in FIG. 3, the countermeasure cost estimation result of the countermeasure candidate “change sound quality settings” of “12,000 yen” may be compared with the countermeasure cost estimation result of the countermeasure candidate “add server” of “8,000 yen”, and the countermeasure candidate “add server” with the smallest countermeasure cost estimation result may be determined as the countermeasure.

[0045] The countermeasure decision unit 313 transmits the countermeasure decision result to the interface device 4, and the interface device 4 may display the countermeasure decision result, for example, as shown in Fig. 4. In the example shown in Fig. 4, the countermeasure decision unit 313 transmits information on the prediction result indicated by the service quality deterioration prediction table 321 together with information on the countermeasure decision result to the interface device 4. The interface device 4 displays the received information on a display device.

[0046] Step S105: The processor 30 transmits information on the countermeasure determined in step S104 to the quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2. For example, when the countermeasure candidate is expressed as in the countermeasure cost table 322 shown in FIG. 3, the countermeasure information may include the name of the countermeasure candidate "server addition" determined as the countermeasure in step S104. The quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2 executes the quality degradation countermeasure based on the received countermeasure information. For example, when the countermeasure candidate determined as the countermeasure in step S104 is "server addition", a server that performs processing such as sending and receiving voice may be added. EXAMPLES

[0047] In this embodiment, the prediction of the degradation of service quality in the prediction unit 311 of the first embodiment is executed based on the communication state such as delay and throughput, and the device state such as CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate. As a result, the degradation of service quality can be predicted based on objectively measurable data, which is expected to have the effect of improving the prediction accuracy of the degradation of service quality. In addition, since the degradation of service quality is predicted based on the communication and device states, it is expected to have the effect of being able to isolate which state is causing the degradation of service quality, and to set appropriate candidate countermeasures according to the cause.

[0048] In the second embodiment, for example, in step S101 in the flowchart of the first embodiment shown in FIG. 5, information indicating the communication state such as delay and throughput and the state of the server 7 (device) such as CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate is received, and in step S102, a process is added to predict a deterioration in service quality based on the communication state such as delay and throughput and the device state such as CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate. The information indicating the device state may be one or both of the CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate, or may be other types of numerical values. The information indicating the communication state may be one or both of the delay and throughput, or may be other types of numerical values. Only one or both of the communication and device information may be referenced.

[0049] FIG. 6 is an example of a service quality prediction table 323 based on communication status / device status. Measurement item 3231 is identification information of the measurement target indicating the communication status / device status. Measurement value 10 seconds ago 3232 is the value when each measurement item was measured 10 seconds ago. Current measurement value 3233 is the value when each measurement item is currently measured. Measurement value requirement is a value above or below which the measurement value of each measurement item is judged to violate the measurement requirement. Whether the measurement value is judged to violate the measurement requirement when it is above or below this value may be set in advance for each measurement item.

[0050] The upper limit / lower limit 3235 is identification information indicating whether the value set in the measurement value requirement corresponds to the upper limit or the lower limit. For example, if the value set in the upper limit / lower limit is the "upper limit", the measurement value may be determined to be a requirement violation when it is equal to or greater than this value, and if the value set in the upper limit / lower limit is the "lower limit", the measurement value may be determined to be a requirement violation when it is equal to or less than this value. The requirement violation time prediction result 3236 is a value indicating how much time has elapsed from the present as a result of the prediction of the requirement violation of the measurement value before the requirement violation of the measurement value occurs. The method of predicting the requirement violation time of the measurement value will be described later.

[0051] The process according to the second embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 7 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0052] Step S201: The processor 30 receives from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, in addition to the information in step S101 above, information indicating communication states such as delay and throughput, and device states such as CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate.

[0053] Step S202: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the quality of service based on the communication state such as delay and throughput received in the above step S201 and the device state such as CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate.

[0054] For example, assume that the information indicating the communication state received in step S201 above is the measured values ​​of delay and throughput, and the information indicating the device state is the measured values ​​of CPU utilization rate and memory utilization rate. The prediction unit 311 may record the measured values ​​10 seconds ago and the current measured values ​​for each of delay, throughput, CPU utilization rate, and memory utilization rate, as in the service quality prediction table 323 shown in Fig. 6. The prediction unit 311 may predict the occurrence time of a requirement violation based on the measurement value requirements, and record it as a requirement violation time prediction result.

[0055] In this case, the measurement value requirement may be set in advance. The time of violation of the requirement may be predicted by assuming that the rate of change between the measurement value 10 seconds ago and the current measurement value will remain constant in the future. In other words, if the measurement value 10 seconds ago is A, the current measurement value is B, and the measurement value requirement is C, 10×(BC) / (AB) seconds later may be recorded as the predicted result of the time of violation of the requirement.

[0056] In this case, for throughput, which is a measurement item for which the upper / lower limit 3235 in the service quality prediction table 323 is set to "lower limit," if the value of (BC) is negative, meaning that the current measurement value is already below the measurement value requirement, or if the value of (AB) is negative, meaning that the current measurement value is higher than the measurement value 10 seconds ago, the requirement violation time prediction result 3236 may be set to "-," indicating no value.

[0057] Similarly, for the measurement items delay, CPU utilization, and memory utilization that have “upper limit” set in the upper / lower limit 3235 of the service quality prediction table 323, if the value of (BC) is positive, meaning that the current measurement value is already above the measurement value requirement, or if the value of (AB) is positive, meaning that the current measurement value is lower than the measurement value 10 seconds ago, the requirement violation time prediction result 3236 may be set to “-”, indicating no value.

[0058] The method of predicting a degradation in service quality based on a violation of requirements of a communication state or a device state may be preset, for example. For example, a threshold M·N for the violation of requirements may be preset, and if violations of requirements of N or more measured values ​​are predicted within M seconds, it may be determined that a degradation in service quality is predicted.

[0059] Step S203: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0060] Step S204: The countermeasure decision unit 313 decides on a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S104 above.

[0061] Step S205: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. EXAMPLES

[0062] In this embodiment, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 of the first embodiment estimates the countermeasure cost based on cost calculation data for each service. This makes it possible to refer to cost calculation data suitable for each service, and is expected to have the effect of improving the estimation accuracy of the countermeasure cost.

[0063] In the third embodiment, for example, a process is added in which information indicating the name of the service being executed is received in step S101 in the flowchart of the first embodiment shown in FIG. 5, and the cost of the countermeasure is estimated in step S103 based on cost calculation data for each service.

[0064] 8 is an example of countermeasure cost calculation table 324 for each service. Service name 3241 is identification information of the service for which the countermeasure cost is to be calculated when the service quality deteriorates. Sound quality setting change cost unit price 3242 shows the unit price of the countermeasure cost required to execute the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting" for each service. Server addition cost unit price 3243 shows the unit price of the countermeasure cost required to execute the countermeasure candidate "add server" for each service.

[0065] The process according to the third embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 9 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0066] Step S301: The processor 30 receives information indicating the name of the service being executed in addition to the information in step S101. The information indicating the name of the service being executed may be, for example, a unique numeric value or character string for each service.

[0067] Step S302: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0068] Step S303: The countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the cost calculation data for each service. For example, it is assumed that the countermeasure cost calculation data for each service is expressed as in the countermeasure cost calculation table 324 shown in Fig. 8, and the countermeasure cost table 322 is expressed as in Fig. 6.

[0069] If the information indicating the service name received in step S301 above corresponds to "voice call", the value of "countermeasure cost unit price" of "sound quality setting change" in countermeasure cost table 322 used to estimate the countermeasure cost in step S103 above may be changed to "200 yen / user" which corresponds to the "sound quality setting change cost unit price" of "voice call" in countermeasure cost calculation table 324, and the value of "countermeasure cost unit price" of "server addition" in countermeasure cost table 322 may be changed to "5000 yen" which corresponds to the "server addition cost unit price" of "voice call" in countermeasure cost calculation table 324, and the countermeasure cost may be estimated in the same manner as in step 103 above.

[0070] Step S304: The countermeasure decision unit 313 decides on a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S104 above.

[0071] Step S305: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0072] In this embodiment, the countermeasure decision unit 313 of the first embodiment decides on countermeasures based on the countermeasure priority for each service. As a result, when quality degradation of multiple services is likely to occur at the same time, for example, a countermeasure that prioritizes a service with a high countermeasure priority can be selected, so that it is possible to expect an effect of being able to take countermeasures suitable for the policy of each service.

[0073] In the fourth embodiment, for example, a process is added in which information indicating the name of a service being executed is received in step S101 in the flowchart of the first embodiment shown in FIG. 5, and a process is added in step S104 in which a countermeasure is determined based on the countermeasure priority for each service.

[0074] 10 is an example of a countermeasure priority table 325 for each service. The service name 3251 is identification information of the service for which countermeasures are to be determined when the service quality deteriorates. The countermeasure priority 3252 indicates, for each service, the priority for executing countermeasures when the service quality deteriorates. The countermeasure priority is set in advance. For example, the countermeasure priority may be set to a smaller value as the priority for executing countermeasures when the service quality deteriorates increases.

[0075] The process according to the fourth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 11 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0076] Step S401: The processor 30 receives information indicating the name of the service being executed in addition to the information in step S101. The information indicating the name of the service being executed may be, for example, a unique numeric value or character string for each service.

[0077] Step S402: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0078] Step S403: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in step S103 above.

[0079] Step S404: The countermeasure decision unit 313 decides on a countermeasure based on the countermeasure cost estimated in the above step S403 and the countermeasure priority for each service. For example, the decision on a countermeasure based on the countermeasure priority for each service assumes that the quality item predicted to deteriorate in the above step S402 is "sound quality", and the countermeasure priority for each service when "sound quality" deteriorates is expressed as in the countermeasure priority table 325 shown in Fig. 10, and the information indicating the service name received in the above step S401 includes information corresponding to "telepresence" and "voice call".

[0080] The countermeasure decision unit 313 may compare the values ​​of countermeasure priority 3252 in the countermeasure priority table 325 between "Telepresence" and "Voice call" and prioritize the decision of countermeasure for "Voice call" which has a smaller value. Here, the decision of countermeasure for "Telepresence" which has a larger value may be performed after the decision of countermeasure for "Voice call" which has a smaller value, for example.

[0081] Step S405: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0082] In this embodiment, after the prediction of the deterioration of service quality in the prediction unit 311 of the first embodiment and before the estimation of the countermeasure cost in the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312, the damage cost occurring when the service quality deteriorates is estimated. This makes it possible to select a countermeasure commensurate with the damage cost occurring when the service quality deteriorates, and is expected to have the effect of reducing the total cost in terms of both damage and countermeasures.

[0083] In the fifth embodiment, for example, a damage cost estimation unit 314 is added to the configuration example of Fig. 1. Also, for example, after step S102 and before step S103 in the flowchart of the first embodiment shown in Fig. 5, a step of estimating the damage cost occurring when the service quality is deteriorated is added, and in step S104, a countermeasure is determined based on the damage cost and the countermeasure cost.

[0084] The quality degradation countermeasure system including the damage cost estimation unit 314 in FIG. 12 has a quality degradation monitoring device 1, a quality degradation countermeasure device 3, a quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2, and an interface device 4.

[0085] The quality degradation monitoring device 1 acquires information used to predict degradation of service quality. The quality degradation countermeasure device 3 predicts degradation of service quality, estimates damage costs incurred when the service quality deteriorates, estimates countermeasure costs required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the service quality deterioration, and decides on countermeasures based on the estimated countermeasure costs. The quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2 executes countermeasures for quality deterioration. The interface device 4 displays the prediction results of degradation of service quality, the estimated results of damage costs, the estimated results of countermeasure costs, and the decision results of quality degradation countermeasures.

[0086] 1, the quality degradation countermeasure device 3 has a damage cost estimation unit 314. The processor 30 can store the information received from the quality degradation monitoring device 1 in the auxiliary storage device 32.

[0087] The information stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 includes, for example, a service quality degradation prediction table 321, a countermeasure cost table 322 that stores the estimated countermeasure costs and the determined countermeasures, and a service quality prediction table 323 based on the communication status and device status.In addition, there is a countermeasure cost calculation table 324 for each service, a countermeasure priority table 325 based on the countermeasure priority for each service, a damage cost estimation table 326, and a service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 based on the predicted degree of degradation in service quality.

[0088] Further information stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 includes an impact scope-damage cost estimation table 328 based on the impact scope of a predicted service quality degradation, a damage cost correction table 329 showing information for correcting damage costs when a service quality degradation is not acceptable, a damage cost calculation table 3210 for each service, and an occurrence probability table 3220 showing the occurrence probability of a service quality degradation.

[0089] The information stored in the auxiliary storage device 32 may be read, written, and rewritten by the interface device 4. Note that this configuration is merely an example, and there are no restrictions on the physical configuration. For example, the quality degradation countermeasure device 3 may be physically implemented in the same device as the quality degradation monitoring device 1, the quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2, and the interface device 4.

[0090] Fig. 13 is an example of the damage cost estimation table 326. The quality item 3261 is identification information of an item for which the damage cost is to be estimated when the service quality deteriorates. The estimated damage cost 3262 is an estimated value of the damage cost that occurs when the service quality of each quality item deteriorates. The value of the estimated damage cost 3262 for each item of the quality item 3261 is set in advance.

[0091] 14 is an example of a display screen 420 of a countermeasure decision result including an estimated damage cost of the interface device 4. The screen 420 includes a service quality degradation prediction 421 and an estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 422. The service quality degradation prediction 421 has an estimated damage cost column in addition to the column of the service quality degradation prediction table 321.

[0092] In service quality degradation prediction 421, the quality item is identification information of the item for which a degradation in service quality is predicted. The evaluation score 10 seconds ago is the score when the service quality of each quality item is evaluated 10 seconds ago. The current evaluation score is the score when the service quality of each quality item is currently evaluated. The evaluation score requirement is a score below which the service quality is determined to have deteriorated when the score when the service quality of each quality item is evaluated falls.

[0093] The service quality degradation time prediction result is a value indicating how much time has elapsed from the present time when the service quality degradation is predicted as a result of the prediction of the service quality degradation. The method of predicting the service quality degradation will be described later. The estimated damage cost is an estimate of the damage cost that will occur when the service quality of each quality item is degraded.

[0094] The estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 422 has a column of countermeasure decision result in addition to the column of the countermeasure cost table 322. In the estimated countermeasure cost and countermeasure 422, the countermeasure candidate is identification information of a countermeasure candidate for preventing a deterioration in service quality. The countermeasure cost unit price is the unit price of the countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. The number of target users is the number of users for which each countermeasure candidate is executed. The countermeasure cost estimation result is an estimation result of the countermeasure cost required for executing each countermeasure candidate. The method of estimating the countermeasure cost will be described later. The countermeasure decision result is information indicating which countermeasure candidate has been selected as a countermeasure for preventing a deterioration in service quality. For example, the countermeasure decision result may be set to "○" for the selected countermeasure candidate and "-" for the non-selected countermeasure candidate.

[0095] The process according to the fifth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 15 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0096] Step S501: The processor 30 receives quality information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, similarly to the above step S101.

[0097] Step S502: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0098] Step S503: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost incurred when the service quality deteriorates. For example, assume that the quality item for which the deterioration of the service quality was predicted in step S502 above is "sound quality", and the estimated damage cost is expressed as in the damage cost estimation table 326 shown in Fig. 13. The estimated result of the damage cost may be the estimated damage cost "15,000 yen" corresponding to the quality item "sound quality" in the damage cost estimation table 326.

[0099] Step S504: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0100] Step S505: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure based on the damage cost estimated in the above step S503 and the countermeasure cost estimated in the above step S504. The countermeasure may be determined, for example, by comparing the countermeasure cost estimation results estimated in the above step S504 between countermeasure candidates, and comparing the countermeasure cost estimation result of the countermeasure candidate with the smallest countermeasure cost estimation result with the damage cost estimated in the above step S503.

[0101] For example, suppose that the countermeasure cost estimation result estimated in step S504 above is represented as in countermeasure cost table 322 shown in Fig. 3, and the damage cost estimated in step S503 above is represented as in damage cost estimation table 326 shown in Fig. 13. Comparing the countermeasure cost estimation result "12,000 yen" of the countermeasure candidate "change sound quality setting" with the countermeasure cost estimation result "8,000 yen" of the countermeasure candidate "add server", the countermeasure cost estimation result of the countermeasure candidate "add server" which has the smallest countermeasure cost estimation result is "8,000 yen".

[0102] On the other hand, since the damage cost estimated in step S503 above is "15,000 yen" and the countermeasure cost of "8,000 yen" is cheaper, the countermeasure candidate "add server" may be determined as the countermeasure. Here, if the countermeasure cost is higher than the damage cost if the countermeasure is not taken, the countermeasure candidate "-" indicating that the countermeasure will not be executed may be determined as the countermeasure. The countermeasure determination result may be displayed on the interface device 4, for example, as shown in FIG. 14.

[0103] Step S506: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0104] In this embodiment, the damage cost estimating unit 314 of the fifth embodiment estimates the damage cost occurring when the service quality deteriorates based on the predicted degree of deterioration of the service quality. As a result, in a case where the damage cost varies depending on the degree of deterioration of the service quality, for example, the damage cost can be estimated based on the predicted degree of deterioration of the service quality, and therefore, it is expected to have an effect of improving the accuracy of the damage cost estimation.

[0105] In the sixth embodiment, for example, in step S503 in the flowchart of the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 15, a process of estimating the damage cost based on the predicted degree of degradation in service quality is added.

[0106] Fig. 16 is an example of a service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 based on the predicted degree of degradation of service quality. Sound quality evaluation score 3271 is a score that is estimated to incur damage costs if the score when evaluating the service quality of the quality item "sound quality" becomes equal to or lower than this value. Estimated damage cost 3272 is a damage cost that is estimated to incur if the score when evaluating the service quality of the quality item "sound quality" becomes equal to or lower than the value of "sound quality evaluation score" in the same row. The value of estimated damage cost 3272 for each value of sound quality evaluation score 3271 is preset.

[0107] The process according to the sixth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 17 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0108] Step S601: The processor 30 receives quality information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, similarly to step S101 described above.

[0109] Step S602: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0110] Step S603: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is degraded based on the predicted degree of the service quality degradation. The estimated damage cost based on the degree of the service quality degradation may be shown in, for example, the service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 shown in FIG. 16.

[0111] If the evaluation score for the quality item "sound quality" is 80 or less, a penalty of "10,000 yen" will be incurred if the high-quality sound plan cannot be used. Furthermore, if the evaluation score is 70 or less, a penalty of "30,000 yen" will be incurred if the low-quality sound plan cannot be used either.

[0112] The estimation of damage cost based on the predicted degree of degradation of service quality will be described. For example, assume that the quality item for which degradation of service quality was predicted in step S602 above is "sound quality", the evaluation score of "sound quality" is predicted to be 80 or less after 10 seconds as shown in the prediction table 321 shown in Fig. 2, and the estimated damage cost based on the degree of degradation of service quality is expressed as shown in the service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 shown in Fig. 16. The damage cost estimation unit 314 may estimate the estimated damage cost "15,000 yen" corresponding to the evaluation score of sound quality "80" in the service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 as the damage cost.

[0113] Step S604: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0114] Step S605: The countermeasure decision section 313 decides on a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505 above.

[0115] Step S606: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0116] In this embodiment, the damage cost estimating unit 314 of the fifth embodiment estimates the damage cost occurring when the service quality is degraded based on the predicted extent of the impact of the service quality degradation. As a result, in a case where the damage cost varies depending on the extent of the impact of the service quality degradation, for example, the damage cost can be estimated based on the predicted extent of the impact of the service quality degradation, and therefore the effect of improving the accuracy of the damage cost estimation is expected. Note that the extent of the impact of the service quality degradation may be determined for each server or site.

[0117] In the seventh embodiment, for example, in step S503 in the flowchart of the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 15, a process of estimating the damage cost based on the predicted extent of the impact of the deterioration of the service quality is added.

[0118] FIG. 18 is an example of the damage impact range-damage cost estimation table 328 showing the estimated damage cost based on the impact range of the predicted service quality degradation. Impact range of sound quality degradation 3281 is identification information of a service for which damage cost is estimated to occur when the service quality of the quality item "sound quality" is degraded. Estimated damage cost 3282 is the damage cost estimated to occur when the service quality of the quality item "sound quality" is degraded and the service indicated in "impact range of sound quality degradation" in the same row is being executed. The value of estimated damage cost 3282 for each value of impact range of sound quality degradation 3281 is preset.

[0119] The process according to the seventh embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 19 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0120] Step S701: The processor 30 receives information indicating the name of the service being executed in addition to the information in step S101. The information indicating the name of the service being executed may be, for example, a unique numeric value or character string for each service.

[0121] Step S702: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0122] Step S703: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost incurred when the service quality is degraded based on the predicted impact range of the service quality degradation. The predicted impact range of the service quality degradation may be set, for example, to the service name for which damage cost will be incurred if the quality is degraded for each quality item. For example, as in the impact range-damage cost estimation table 328 shown in FIG. 18, the service names for which damage cost will be incurred if the quality item "sound quality" is degraded may be set to "telepresence" and "voice call".

[0123] The following describes the estimation of damage costs based on the extent of the impact of a predicted service quality degradation. For example, assume that the quality item for which the service quality degradation was predicted in step S702 above is "sound quality," and the estimated damage costs based on the extent of the impact of the predicted service quality degradation are expressed as in the impact extent-damage cost estimation table 328 shown in FIG.

[0124] The estimated damage cost may be the sum of the estimated damage costs corresponding to the services included in the information indicating the service names received in step S701 above, among the service names "Telepresence" and "Voice call" included in the impact range 3281 of sound quality degradation in the impact range-damage cost estimation table 328. For example, if the information indicating the service names received in step S701 above includes information corresponding to "Telepresence" and "Voice call", the estimated damage cost may be 10000+30000=40000 yen.

[0125] Step S704: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0126] Step S705: The countermeasure decision section 313 decides on a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505 above.

[0127] Step S706: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0128] In this embodiment, the damage cost is corrected when the deterioration of service quality is not permitted in the estimation of the damage cost occurring when the deterioration of service quality is performed by the damage cost estimation unit 314 in the fifth embodiment. As a result, when the deterioration of service quality is not permitted for reasons of law, ethics, safety, etc., the damage cost can be corrected so that a measure that is low in cost but has a high probability of causing a deterioration of service quality is not selected, and therefore, it is expected to have the effect of selecting a measure that has a low probability of causing a deterioration of service quality without modifying the logic for determining the measure itself.

[0129] In the eighth embodiment, for example, in step S503 in the flowchart of the sixth embodiment shown in FIG. 15, a process of correcting the damage cost when the deterioration of the service quality is not allowed is added.

[0130] Fig. 20 is an example of a damage cost correction table 329 indicating whether or not a deterioration in service quality is permitted. A quality item 3291 is identification information of an item for which damage costs are estimated when a deterioration in service quality occurs. An allowable flag 3292 is information indicating whether or not a deterioration in service quality is permitted for reasons such as law, ethics, and safety. Information on whether or not a deterioration in service quality is permitted is preset.

[0131] The process according to the eighth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 21 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0132] Step S801: The processor 30 receives quality information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, similarly to the above step S101.

[0133] Step S802: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0134] Step S803: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is deteriorated, in the same manner as in step S503 above.

[0135] Step S804: The damage cost estimation unit 314 judges whether the degradation of the service quality predicted in the above step S802 is acceptable or not by referring to the information on the allowance of the degradation of the service quality. If the result of the judgment is that it is acceptable, the process proceeds to step S806, and if it is not acceptable, the process proceeds to step S805.

[0136] For example, when the quality item for which the service quality degradation predicted in step S802 is predicted is "sound quality" and the acceptability / non-acceptability of the service quality degradation is expressed as in the damage cost correction table 329 shown in FIG. 20, the judgment result may be "not acceptable" based on the acceptance flag "non-acceptable" corresponding to the quality item "sound quality" in the damage cost correction table 329.

[0137] Step S805: The damage cost estimation unit 314 corrects the damage cost based on the deterioration in service quality predicted in the above step S802, and proceeds to step S807. The damage cost may be corrected, for example, to "∞", which indicates that countermeasures are always executed regardless of countermeasure costs, or an upper limit amount that may be spent as countermeasure costs may be set.

[0138] Step S806: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0139] Step S807: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505. For example, if the damage cost is set to "∞" in step S805, the countermeasure cost estimated in step S806 is always lower, so the countermeasure candidate with the smallest countermeasure cost may be determined as the countermeasure.

[0140] Step S808: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0141] In this embodiment, the damage cost estimating unit 314 of the fifth embodiment estimates the damage cost occurring when the service quality is deteriorated based on the cost calculation data for each service. This makes it possible to refer to the cost calculation data suitable for each service, and is expected to have the effect of improving the accuracy of the damage cost estimation.

[0142] In the ninth embodiment, for example, in step S503 in the flowchart of the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 15, a process of estimating damage costs based on cost calculation data for each service is added.

[0143] Fig. 22 is an example of a damage cost calculation table 3210 for each service. Service name 32101 is identification information of the service for which the damage cost when the service quality is degraded is to be calculated. Estimated damage cost when sound quality is degraded 32102 shows the estimated value of the damage cost incurred when the quality item "sound quality" is degraded for each service. Estimated damage cost when image quality is degraded 32103 shows the estimated value of the damage cost incurred when the quality item "image quality" is degraded for each service.

[0144] The process according to the ninth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 23 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0145] Step S901: The processor 30 receives information indicating the name of the service being executed in addition to the information in step S101. The information indicating the name of the service being executed may be, for example, a unique numeric value or character string for each service.

[0146] Step S902: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0147] Step S903: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is deteriorated based on the cost calculation data for each service. For example, it is assumed that the damage cost calculation data for each service is expressed as the damage cost calculation table 3210 shown in Fig. 22, the damage cost estimation table 326 is expressed as shown in Fig. 13, and the information indicating the service name received in the above step S901 corresponds to "voice call".

[0148] The damage cost estimation based on the cost calculation data for each service may be performed by changing the value of estimated damage cost 3262 for “sound quality” in the damage cost estimation table 326 to “30,000 yen”, which corresponds to the estimated damage cost 32102 when sound quality is degraded for “voice call” in the damage cost calculation table 3210, and by changing the value of estimated damage cost 3262 for “image quality” in the damage cost estimation table 326 to “0 yen”, which corresponds to the estimated damage cost 32103 when image quality is degraded for “voice call” in the damage cost calculation table 3210.

[0149] Step S904: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0150] Step S905: The countermeasure decision unit 313 decides on a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505 above.

[0151] Step S906: The processor 30 transmits information on the determined measure to the quality degradation measure execution device 2, similarly to the above step S105. EXAMPLES

[0152] In this embodiment, the countermeasure decision unit 313 of the fifth embodiment decides on the countermeasure based on the occurrence probability of the degradation of the service quality. This makes it possible to estimate the damage and the cost of the countermeasure based on the occurrence probability of the degradation of the service quality and decide the countermeasure, so that the effect of reducing the total cost is expected.

[0153] In the tenth embodiment, for example, in step S505 in the flowchart of the fifth embodiment shown in FIG. 15, the decision of the countermeasure is made based on the occurrence probability of the degradation of the service quality.

[0154] 24 is an example of an occurrence probability table 3220 showing the relationship between candidate countermeasures and the occurrence probability of degradation in service quality. Candidate countermeasures 32201 are identification information of candidate countermeasures for preventing degradation in service quality. Occurrence probability of degradation in service quality 32202 is the probability that degradation in service quality will occur even if each candidate countermeasure is implemented. Information on the relationship between candidate countermeasures and the occurrence probability of degradation in service quality is set in advance.

[0155] The process according to the tenth embodiment shown in the flowchart of Fig. 25 is, for example, as follows: Note that the process of this flowchart is executed, for example, at a predetermined cycle.

[0156] Step S1001: The processor 30 receives quality information used to predict a degradation in service quality from the quality degradation monitoring device 1, similarly to step S101 described above.

[0157] Step S1002: The prediction unit 311 predicts a deterioration in the service quality based on the quality information, similarly to step S102 above.

[0158] Step S1003: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is deteriorated, similarly to the above step S503.

[0159] Step S1004: The countermeasure cost estimating unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the prediction of the deterioration of the service quality, in the same manner as in the above step S103.

[0160] Step S1005: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure based on the countermeasure cost estimated in the above step S1003 and the occurrence probability of the service quality degradation. The determination of the countermeasure based on the occurrence probability of the service quality degradation may be determined, for example, by using an evaluation function based on the occurrence probability of the service quality degradation.

[0161] The evaluation function E based on the probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality expresses, for example, the expected value of the reduction effect of damage cost by executing a candidate countermeasure as (1-P) x L, based on the probability P of occurrence of degradation in service quality when each candidate countermeasure is executed and the damage cost L when degradation in service quality occurs. Furthermore, it may be M-(1-P) x L, which expresses the total cost using the countermeasure cost M required for executing the candidate countermeasure.

[0162] For example, suppose that the occurrence probability of a service quality degradation is expressed as in occurrence probability table 3220 shown in Fig. 24, and the quality item for which a service quality degradation was predicted in the above step S1002 is "sound quality." Also, suppose that the estimated damage cost in the above step S1003 is expressed as in damage cost estimation table 326 shown in Fig. 13. Furthermore, suppose that the countermeasure cost estimated in the above step S1004 is expressed as in countermeasure cost table 322 shown in Fig. 3.

[0163] The service quality degradation occurrence probability 32202 "0%" of countermeasure candidate 32201 "change of sound quality setting" in occurrence probability table 3220, the estimated damage cost 3262 "15,000 yen" of the quality item "sound quality" in damage cost estimation table 326, and the countermeasure cost estimation result 3224 "12,000 yen" of countermeasure candidate 3221 "change of sound quality setting" in countermeasure cost table 322 are substituted into evaluation function E. Then, the evaluation function E of countermeasure candidate 32201 "change of sound quality setting" becomes 12,000-(1-0)×15,000=(-3,000).

[0164] Similarly, when the evaluation function E is substituted for the candidate measure 32201 “server addition”, the evaluation function E of the candidate measure 32201 “server addition” becomes 8000-(1-0.5)×15000=500. From this result, the candidate measure “sound quality setting change”, which is the candidate measure with the smallest value of the evaluation function E, may be determined as the measure.

[0165] Step S1006: As in step S105, the processor 30 transmits information on the determined countermeasure to the quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2. For example, if the countermeasure candidate determined as the countermeasure in step S1005 is "changing the sound quality setting", the sound quality may be switched to normal for a user who is using the service with high sound quality, such as a subscriber of a high sound quality plan.

[0166] The present invention is not limited to the above-mentioned embodiment, and various modifications are included. For example, the above-mentioned embodiment is described in detail to easily explain the present invention, and is not necessarily limited to including all the configurations described. In addition, it is possible to replace a part of the configuration of one embodiment with the configuration of another embodiment, and it is also possible to add the configuration of another embodiment to the configuration of one embodiment. In addition, any addition, deletion, or replacement of other configurations can be applied to a part of the configuration of each embodiment, either alone or in combination.

[0167] In addition, the above-mentioned configurations, functions, processing units, processing means, etc. may be realized in part or in whole by hardware, for example, by designing them as integrated circuits. In addition, the above-mentioned configurations and functions, etc. may be realized in software by a processor interpreting and executing a program that realizes each function. Information such as the program, table, file, etc. that realizes each function can be stored in a memory, a recording device such as a hard disk or SSD (Solid State Drive), or a recording medium such as an IC card, SD card, or DVD.

[0168] In addition, the control lines and information lines shown are those that are considered necessary for the explanation, and not all control lines and information lines in the product are necessarily shown. In reality, it can be considered that almost all components are connected to each other. [Explanation of symbols]

[0169] 1 Quality deterioration monitoring device 2. Quality degradation countermeasure execution device 3. Quality degradation prevention device 4 Interface Device 33 Input / Output Devices 34 Network Interface 6 Network 7 Server 8 User terminal 30 processors 31 Memory 32 Storage device 70 Processors 71 Memory 72 Services 73 Network Interface 311 Prediction Department 312 Countermeasures Cost Estimation Department 313 Countermeasures Decision-Making Department 321 Service Quality Degradation Prediction Table 322 Countermeasures Cost Table 323 Service Quality Prediction Table 324 Countermeasures Cost Calculation Table 325 Countermeasure Priority Table 326 Damage Cost Estimation Table 327 Service Quality - Damage Cost Estimation Table 328 Impact Area-Damage Cost Estimation Table 329 Damage Cost Adjustment Table 3210 Damage Cost Calculation Table 3220 Probability Table

Claims

1. A method for determining a countermeasure against a deterioration in quality of a service provided by a service providing device, comprising: The system stores countermeasure cost information indicating a relationship between countermeasure candidates and costs; The method further comprises the steps of: Predicts deterioration of service quality based on service quality monitoring information, estimating a cost required for each of candidate countermeasures for the quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted based on the countermeasure cost information; determining a countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the system predicts the service quality degradation based on at least one of a state of the communication providing the service and a state of the service providing device.

3. 2. The method of claim 1 , the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidates and the costs for each service, The method further comprises the steps of: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, estimating the treatment costs of the running services based on the treatment cost information.

4. 2. The method of claim 1 , The system stores countermeasure priority information indicating a countermeasure priority for each service, The method further comprises the steps of: Predicts degradation of service quality of multiple running services, determining which running services to take countermeasures on based on the countermeasure priority information.

5. 2. The method of claim 1 , The system stores damage cost estimation information indicating a relationship between service quality items and estimated damage costs; The method further comprises the steps of: Estimating damage costs for quality items for which the service quality degradation is predicted based on the damage cost estimation information; determining the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost and the damage cost.

6. 6. The method of claim 5, The damage cost estimation information indicates a relationship between the degree of deterioration in service quality and the damage cost, The method further comprises the step of: the system estimating the damage cost based on a predicted degree of degradation in service quality by referring to the damage cost estimation information.

7. 6. The method of claim 5, The system stores impact extent information indicating a relationship between an impact extent of a service quality degradation and an estimated damage cost; The method further comprises the step of: the system estimating damage costs based on the extent of impact of a predicted degradation in service quality by referring to the impact extent information.

8. The method of claim 5, wherein the system increases damage costs for quality items for which service quality degradation is not tolerated.

9. 6. The method of claim 5, the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidates and the costs for each service, the damage cost estimation information indicates a relationship between the service quality items and the estimated damage costs for each of the services, The method further comprises the steps of: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, estimating the countermeasure cost of the running service based on the countermeasure cost information; estimating the damage costs of the running services based on the damage cost estimation information.

10. The method according to claim 5 , wherein the system determines the countermeasure based on a probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality due to the countermeasure candidate.

11. A system for determining a measure against a deterioration in quality of a service provided by a service providing device, comprising: one or more processors; one or more storage devices; the one or more storage devices store countermeasure cost information indicating a relationship between countermeasure candidates and costs; The one or more processors: Predicts deterioration of service quality based on service quality monitoring information, estimating a cost required for each of candidate countermeasures for the quality item for which the service quality degradation is predicted based on the countermeasure cost information; The system determines a countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost.

12. The system of claim 11 , wherein the one or more processors predict the degradation in quality of service based on at least one of a state of a communication providing the service and a state of the service providing device.

13. 12. The system of claim 11, the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidates and the costs for each service, The one or more processors: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, The system estimates the remediation costs of the running services based on the remediation cost information.

14. 12. The system of claim 11, the one or more storage devices store countermeasure priority information indicating a countermeasure priority for each service; The one or more processors: Predicts degradation of service quality of multiple running services, The system determines which running services to take countermeasures for based on the countermeasure priority information.

15. 12. The system of claim 11, the one or more storage devices store damage cost estimation information indicating a relationship between a service quality item and an estimated damage cost; The one or more processors: Estimating damage costs for quality items for which the service quality degradation is predicted based on the damage cost estimation information; The system determines the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost and the damage cost.

Images