Information processing system, information processing method and program

Abstract

To provide an information processing system, an information processing method, and a program for supporting planned maintenance for a plurality of buildings.SOLUTION: An information processing system which supports performing planned maintenance for a management object related to a plurality of buildings by management unit includes: a calculation processing part which calculates an evaluation value for the planned maintenance using: the number of management units including the management object identified as having a risk occurring in the management object expected to continue until the next planned maintenance period according to the evaluation result for each management object, and total number of the management units.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 7

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to an information processing system, an information processing method, and a program. [Background technology]

[0002] Planned maintenance is being carried out to keep the building in good condition. Incidentally, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) is sometimes used to manage budgets for building repair and renewal costs. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is defined by the following formula (1):

[0003] Residual defect index (FCI) = (remaining defect amount) / (building replica price) (1)

[0004] The above "remaining defect amount" refers to the cost required to repair and update maintenance items that have been postponed from the plan for the target building. The above "building reproduction price" is the replacement cost if the building were to be constructed as a new building at the present time. For example, if the "remaining defect amount" is large, it indicates that the cost required for repair and update is high compared to the cost required to reconstruct the building (new construction, etc.). This method is applied when the building itself is the subject of evaluation. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0005] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2002-236736 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0006] However, the above-mentioned residual failure index (FCI) is used to evaluate a single building, and it is not assumed that it can be applied to the evaluation of multiple buildings or the building equipment located in each of those buildings, etc. There has been a need to more rationally evaluate the management targets of multiple buildings and implement appropriate planned maintenance.

[0007] The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and aims to provide an information processing system, an information processing method, and a program that support planned maintenance of managed objects related to a plurality of buildings. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] (1) One aspect of the present invention for solving the above problem is an information processing system that supports the implementation of planned maintenance of managed objects related to multiple buildings for each management unit, and is an information processing system that includes an arithmetic processing unit that calculates an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including managed objects that have been identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed objects that will continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the evaluation results of each managed object, and the total number of management units. (2) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit compiles the evaluation results of each managed object corresponding to the constituent parts of the building into a building evaluation value for each building of the building, manages the planned maintenance of the managed object for each building of the building, and calculates the evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of risk-bearing buildings, which are buildings that have been identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed building based on the building evaluation value and will become a risk in the next period of the planned maintenance, and the total number of buildings that are the management unit. (3) In one embodiment of the information processing system described above, the number of buildings at risk includes “the number of buildings in which risk is expected to occur during the unit period for evaluating the planned maintenance” and “the number of buildings in which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period.” (4) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit uses an index value based on the ratio between the number of risk-bearing buildings and the total number of target buildings to calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance. (5) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit uses, at the end of a specified planning period, the “number of buildings that are expected to be at risk during the unit period for evaluating the planned maintenance” to calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance. (6) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit creates an evaluation value for the planned maintenance at the end of a specified planning period, which carries over to the next period of the specified planning period the number of buildings for which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period. (7) In the information processing system according to the above aspect, the processing unit creates a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance in which the number of buildings to be renovated is leveled over a predetermined planning period. (8) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit has Group A, which forms part of the plurality of buildings, and Group B, which forms part or all of the plurality of buildings other than Group A, and creates a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance based on the magnitude of the index value of Group A and the index value of Group B. (9) In one aspect of the information processing system described above, the calculation processing unit manages the planned maintenance of the managed objects for each building facility based on the evaluation results of each managed object including the building facilities, and calculates the evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of building facilities that possess risks that have been identified as risks that have occurred in the managed object's building facilities based on the evaluation results of each managed object and that will become risks in the next period of the planned maintenance, and the total number of building facilities that are managed. (10) An information processing method according to one embodiment of the present invention is an information processing method for supporting the implementation of planned maintenance of managed objects relating to a plurality of buildings for each management unit, and includes a computer calculating an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including managed objects identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed object that will continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the evaluation results of each managed object, and the total number of management units. (11) In one aspect of the information processing method described above, the computer identifies a method for aggregating the costs required for maintaining the building and the building facilities installed in the building based on the purpose of the analysis, the type of item to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis. (12) In one aspect of the information processing method described above, the computer groups the building equipment of the same item distributed across the multiple buildings and calculates an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of the building equipment. (13) One aspect of the program of the present invention is a program for causing a computer that assists in carrying out planned maintenance of managed objects related to multiple buildings for each management unit to calculate an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including managed objects that have been identified as having risks that have occurred in the managed objects that will continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the evaluation results of each managed object, and the total number of management units. [Effects of the Invention]

[0009] According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an information processing system, an information processing method, and a program for supporting planned maintenance of multiple buildings. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0010] [Figure 1] 1 is a configuration diagram of an information processing system 1 according to an embodiment. [Figure 2A] FIG. 1 is a diagram for explaining an example of planned maintenance according to an embodiment. [Figure 2B] FIG. 1 is a diagram for explaining an example of planned maintenance according to an embodiment. [Figure 3] This is a diagram to explain the risk ratio and annual FCIg values ​​during the roof renovation process of Group B in an embodiment. [Figure 4] This is a diagram to explain the risk ratio and annual FCIg values ​​in the exterior wall renovation process of Group B in an embodiment. [Figure 5] 1 is a diagram for explaining an example of the maintenance standards for each process and the number of future risks according to an embodiment. FIG. [Figure 6] FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining a simulation result of the modification amount of each process of group A and group B in the embodiment. [Figure 7] FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining the simulation results of FCIg of the total risk obtained by accumulating the target processes of each year in groups A and B in the embodiment. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining an example of a method for deriving the number of remaining defective buildings in the embodiment. [Figure 9] FIG. 10 is a diagram for explaining a standard unit price table for each process in the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0011] Hereinafter, an embodiment of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. In the embodiments, "risk" refers to the magnitude of the impact of damage caused by a hazard, the possibility of damage occurring, or a combination of the magnitude of the impact and the possibility. "Hazard" in the embodiments includes, for example, "a state in which deterioration exceeds a predetermined level and repair or renovation is necessary." In the embodiments, the degree of this deterioration may be classified into levels and associated with an index of "deterioration level." Even if there is a "risk," it does not necessarily mean that damage will occur. Therefore, while it is desirable to have no "risk," by allowing a certain degree of "risk," the range of measures to be chosen will be broader, and more rational solutions can be selected. In the embodiment, the target of the "planned maintenance" evaluation is a group of buildings, that is, a group of buildings including multiple buildings. The buildings include not only the main building but also the building facilities attached to the building. For example, the above "risk" includes the "risk" of both the "building and the building facilities." Furthermore, when the target of evaluation includes multiple buildings, these are collectively included in the target of evaluation. "Remaining defects" in the evaluation of this embodiment include risks that have occurred in at least one of the target buildings and building facilities and are expected to continue until the next planned maintenance period. The scale is expressed as the number of risks expected in the buildings or building facilities (number of buildings, number of buildings with remaining defects). The "evaluation value of planned maintenance" in this embodiment is the result of a calculation using the number of risks expected in the buildings or building facilities that are the target of planned maintenance (number of remaining defective buildings, number of remaining defective building facilities) and the "total number of target buildings or total number of building facilities." The "evaluation value of planned maintenance" (referred to as FCIg) in this embodiment is expressed using the following calculation formula (2):

[0012] (FCIg) = (Number of buildings or building facilities expected to be at risk) / (Total number of buildings or facilities) (2)

[0013] An example of planned maintenance of a building and building facilities will be explained below.

[0014] FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of an information processing system 1 according to an embodiment. The information processing system 1 performs analysis for planned maintenance of each building and each building facility for multiple buildings divided into multiple groups, and supports the optimization of the planned maintenance. Each building and each building facility are sometimes collectively referred to as "buildings subject to planned maintenance." For example, buildings that are the subject of planned maintenance are managed in groups.

[0015] For example, the items to be maintained for each building should include building-related items such as the "roof" and "exterior walls (perimeter walls)," as well as building equipment-related items such as "elevators," "early fire detection systems," "automatic fire alarm systems," "water supply and drainage systems," "underground oil tanks," and "high-voltage building power receiving systems." At the planning stage for the planned maintenance of these items, estimates of their scale and costs are made (see Figures 5 and 6, etc., described below). In this embodiment, different calculation methods may be used to calculate the costs required for maintaining buildings and building equipment depending on the purpose of the analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis, and the like.

[0016] For the above building facilities, it is advisable to group the same type of facilities (building facilities) that are distributed across multiple buildings and conduct trend analysis using the number of building facilities. Also, for trend analysis of areas where it is convenient to count on a building basis (such as the exterior walls or rooftops of buildings), it is advisable to use the number of buildings. As mentioned above, you can use either of these methods as needed, or just one of them.

[0017] For example, the information processing device 100 (computer) described below may identify a method for calculating the costs required for maintaining buildings and building equipment installed in the buildings based on predetermined criteria for selecting the calculation method and information such as the purpose of the analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis.

[0018] More specifically, as a predetermined criterion for selecting a calculation method, a correspondence is determined between identification information of a calculation method for costs required for maintaining buildings and building facilities installed in the buildings and information such as the purpose of analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis, and the correspondence is stored in a data table. The information processing device 100 may identify a calculation method for costs required for maintaining buildings and building facilities installed in the buildings by referring to the data table in which the predetermined criterion for selecting a calculation method is enabled using information such as the purpose of analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis. By using the aggregation method identified in this way, the information processing device 100 can group building equipment of the same item that is distributed across multiple buildings and calculate an evaluation value for planned maintenance using the number of building equipment.

[0019] Below, we define more specific calculation formulas for analysis of construction equipment and analysis of buildings.

[0020] (Analysis of construction facilities) In this embodiment, the "remaining defects" in the evaluation of construction equipment include risks that have occurred in the target building equipment and are expected to continue until the next scheduled maintenance period. The scale is expressed as the number of risks expected in the building equipment (number of building equipment, number of remaining defective building equipment). In this embodiment, the "evaluation value of planned maintenance" of construction equipment is the result of a calculation using the number of risks expected in the building equipment that is the target of scheduled maintenance (number of building equipment, number of remaining defective building equipment) and the "total number of building equipment that is the target of scheduled maintenance (total number of building equipment)." For example, the "evaluation value of planned maintenance" of construction equipment in this embodiment (referred to as FCIg) is expressed using the following calculation formula (3):

[0021] (FCIg) = (number of buildings and facilities expected to be at risk) / (total number of buildings and facilities) (3)

[0022] For example, when a required number of ready-made devices such as elevators are applied to a building, there are cases where a plurality of devices (elevator cars) are installed in the building. In this way, when the number of devices (cars) per building cannot be standardized, it is advisable to manage building facilities for each device (car).

[0023] (Analysis for buildings) The "remaining defects" in the building evaluation of this embodiment include risks that have occurred in the target building and are expected to continue until the next planned maintenance period. The scale is expressed as the number of buildings expected to be at risk (number of remaining defective buildings). The "evaluation value of planned maintenance" of a building in this embodiment is the result of a calculation using the number of buildings expected to be at risk in buildings that are the target of planned maintenance (number of remaining defective buildings) and the "total number of buildings that are the target of planned maintenance." For example, the "evaluation value of planned maintenance" of a building in this embodiment (referred to as FCIg) is expressed using the following calculation formula (4).

[0024] (FCIg) = (Number of buildings at risk) / (Total number of buildings) (4)

[0025] (Information processing device) The information processing device 100 is an information device including a computer, such as a smartphone, a personal computer, or a server device. For example, the information processing device 100 includes a storage unit 110, an input / output unit 120, and a processing unit .

[0026] The storage unit 110 includes a semiconductor memory, etc., and stores various data related to Group A buildings, such as a Group A building list, Group A actual data, and Group A development plan data; various data related to Group B buildings, such as a Group B building list, Group B actual data, and Group B development plan data; standard unit price tables for each process; and programs for various processing. The above Group A actual data, Group A development plan data, Group B actual data, and Group B development plan data will be described later. For example, the data on current and future renovation amounts shown in Figure 6 is one example.

[0027] The input / output unit 120 includes, for example, input devices such as a keyboard and a mouse, and a display device such as an LCD. The input / output unit 120 may be configured as a touch panel display that combines an input device and a display device. The input / output unit 120 inputs and outputs data for various processes of the information processing device 100. Note that a communication interface may be provided within the input / output unit 120 or separately from the input / output unit 120.

[0028] The arithmetic processing unit 130 may be configured to include a CPU. For example, some or all of the various processes executed by the arithmetic processing unit 130 are stored in the storage unit 110 in the form of a program. The arithmetic processing unit 130 (CPU) reads and develops the program from the storage unit 110, and executes predetermined processes in accordance with the program. The arithmetic processing unit 130 (CPU) also allocates a storage area in the storage unit 110 for the above-mentioned predetermined processes in accordance with the program. The arithmetic processing unit 130 (CPU) acquires various data from the storage unit 110 and stores the calculation results in the storage unit 110 in accordance with the program.

[0029] The calculation processing unit 130 includes a performance analysis unit 131 and a maintenance plan creation unit 132 . For example, when processing buildings in Group B, the performance analysis unit 131 refers to the Group B building list in the storage unit 110 and the data on the "current renovation" pace per year for Group B (FIG. 6), acquires renovation history data for a predetermined period, extracts trends in renovation performance for that period, and generates data that can be displayed by graphing the results (see the "number of renovations" section in FIGS. 2A and 2B, etc.).

[0030] For example, when processing Group B buildings, the maintenance plan creation unit 132 refers to the data trend of the "current renovation" pace per year for Group B stored in the memory unit 110 (part of the data in Figure 6) and the standard unit price in the standard unit price table (Figure 9) to estimate the investment amount for each fiscal year for each process. The maintenance plan creation unit 132 adds up the results to obtain the total investment amount for each fiscal year. The maintenance plan creation unit 132 adds this data to the Group B maintenance plan data and writes it to the memory unit 110.

[0031] The maintenance plan creation unit 132 corrects the number of cases per year for each process as necessary and estimates the investment amount for each year for each process in the same manner as above. The maintenance plan creation unit 132 adds up the results to obtain the "total investment amount per year" recalculated after the review. The maintenance plan creation unit 132 adds this data to the group B maintenance plan data so that it can be compared with the results before the review, and writes it to the memory unit 110.

[0032] The calculation processing unit 130 performs processing in response to various requests received by the input / output unit 120, and outputs the analysis results, such as B group maintenance plan data, to the display device of the input / output unit 120 upon request.

[0033] The above explanation of Group B can be applied to Group A as well.

[0034] (Methods to support planned maintenance) Next, a method for supporting planned maintenance of a plurality of buildings and each building facility will be described.

[0035] Step S1: The input / output unit 120 acquires various data. Step S2: Consideration of planned maintenance of part of the building The calculation processing unit 130 analyzes the trend of maintenance processing based on the performance data and sets the current trend as a precondition. For example, the current trend may be determined based on data on the current pace of "current repairs" per year.

[0036] Step S3: Estimate the future planned maintenance trend The calculation processing unit 130 estimates the tendency of future planned maintenance using predetermined conditions. In the first case, the analysis result of the current maintenance process trend is included in the above-mentioned predetermined condition. In the case of repeated cases, the results of a partial change in the analysis result of the current maintenance process trend are included in the predetermined condition. The specific method for this will be described later.

[0037] Step S4: Consider whether the estimated planned maintenance needs to be revised. The calculation processing unit 130 determines whether or not planned maintenance needs to be reviewed based on the results of analyzing the trends in maintenance processing for individual items or the results of analyzing the trends in overall maintenance processing. For example, if the analysis results of the maintenance processing trends for individual items ("evaluation value of planned maintenance") show an increasing trend, or if the scale of the analysis results of the overall maintenance processing trends exceeds a predetermined range, it is determined that a review of planned maintenance is necessary. If it is determined that the planned maintenance does not need to be revised, the series of processes ends.

[0038] Step S5: Review planned maintenance The calculation processing unit 130 reviews the scale of maintenance work each year, aiming to reduce the number of buildings that have accumulated deterioration levels exceeding a predetermined level (degree) to the same number as the number of buildings that are newly identified as at risk each year. This review may be carried out for each item individually. After the review, the process is carried out from step S3.

[0039] (Example of planned maintenance of part of a building as a prerequisite) Next, an example of planned maintenance of a building according to the embodiment will be described with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B. 2A and 2B are diagrams for explaining an example of planned maintenance of a building according to an embodiment. The planned maintenance shown in Figures 2A and 2B is an example of the results of individually considering the planned maintenance of some of the building facilities (building ancillary facilities) attached to the prerequisite building. The vertical axis of the graphs shown in Figures 2A and 2B shows the ratio of the number of remaining defective buildings to the total number of buildings. The elements of the graph are the number of buildings based on the results of the following classification.

[0040] To be more specific, let us look at the difference. In the case shown in Figure 2A, the number of renovations and updates for planned maintenance of the building has been revised to a more efficient investment number than in the case shown in Figure 2B. Furthermore, since the scale of renovation costs varies depending on the type of building equipment, determining prerequisites based on the results of an analysis of a portion of the building is effective in reviewing the overall scale of investment in the building by examining each part separately.

[0041] The target processes, evaluation methods, and evaluation levels of the analysis in FIG. 2A are as follows:

[0042] · Target process: Rooftop renovation Evaluation method: Visual inspection to diagnose deterioration and evaluate each part Evaluation level: The degree of deterioration is divided into five levels, IV to IV.

[0043] For example, a healthy state is designated as Deterioration Level I, and a state where deterioration has progressed significantly overall is designated as Deterioration Level V, and the level is divided into five levels from Deterioration Level I to Deterioration Level V. For example, if a facility is identified as Deterioration Level V, it has been diagnosed as needing "urgent maintenance and repair."

[0044] The elements of the stacked graph shown in FIG. 2A are as follows:

[0045] Accumulation of deterioration level V (category A) Newly occurring accumulation of deterioration level V (category B) Newly occurring deterioration level V (category C) Number of treatments carried out (Category D) ·Deterioration degree (I-IV) (Category E)

[0046] The "number of remaining defective buildings" above is the sum of "backlog (category A)," "newly backlogged buildings with level V deterioration (category B)," and "newly occurring buildings subject to maintenance with level V deterioration (category C)." The buildings subject to maintenance are those with level V deterioration. Buildings in category D above will be classified as level I-IV deterioration because the causes of level V deterioration have been resolved. For example, based on the results of maintenance work, we estimate that 41 rooftops and 33 exterior walls will be newly designated as targets for maintenance each year. The trend shown in Figure 2A shows that the backlog is increasing every year, and the number of buildings with remaining defects is on the rise.

[0047] The target processes for analysis in Figure 2B, the points for reviewing the plan, and the requirements for reviewing the plan are as follows: · Target process: Rooftop renovation · Key point of review: Aim to eliminate backlog within five years. ·conditions: (1) Newly occurring maintenance targets: 41 rooftops per year (assumed based on past performance). (2) Backlog: We plan to renovate approximately 50 buildings each year from among the backlogged buildings. (3) No backlog (after backlog is resolved): For (new) maintenance targets that are confirmed to be at level V in deterioration during annual inspections, repairs are carried out the following year. By formulating a maintenance plan as described above, the remaining defect rate can be kept constant.

[0048] Through this type of analysis, the number of new buildings that will need maintenance after the backlog is resolved will be balanced with the number of buildings that will be renovated the following year. This leads us to derive the ideal FCIg as (41 / 2690), which is approximately 1.5%.

[0049] Figure 3 is a diagram to explain the risk ratio and annual values ​​of FCIg in the roof renovation process of Group B. Figures 3(a) and (b) show the results of annual calculations of the risk ratio and FCIg for the example of the roof renovation process of Group B.

[0050] The buildings assessed were classified according to their level of risk, and the results are shown in a stacked bar graph, with the number of buildings assigned to the left vertical axis. The legend for the stacked bar graphs refers to Figures 2A and 2B above. The FCIg for all buildings is shown in a line graph, with the FCIg assigned to the right vertical axis. The example shown in Figure 3 covers the period from the present (2022) to 2032, 10 years from now, and sets two different conditions for the pace of renovations (pace of investment amounts) for rooftop renovations over the next 10 years. For example, the conditions in Figure 3(a) are based on the current performance and current plans. If the renovation pace (investment pace) for the next 10 years remains the same as it is now without any special measures being taken, the risk of backlogs will increase during this period. As a result, the FCIg for the final year of the analysis (2032) will be 9.8%.

[0051] In contrast, under the conditions in Figure 3(b), a development plan with a higher investment amount is predicted than under the conditions in Figure 3(a). For example, a development plan with an increased investment amount can be predicted so that the risk of delay in 2032, 10 years from now (2022), is equivalent to one year's worth. By taking such special measures, the FCIg for the final year of the analysis (2032) will be 4.4%.

[0052] Figure 4 is a diagram to explain the risk ratio and annual values ​​of FCIg in the exterior wall renovation process of Group B. Figures 4(a) and (b) show the results of annual calculations of the risk ratio and FCIg for the example of the exterior wall renovation process of Group B. The example shown in Figure 4 covers the period from the present (2022) to 2032, 10 years from now, and sets two different conditions for the pace of renovations (pace of investment amounts) for exterior wall renovations over the next 10 years.

[0053] For example, the conditions in Figure 4(a) are based on the results achieved to date and current plans. If the renovation pace (investment pace) for the next 10 years remains the same as it is now, without any special measures being taken, the risk of backlogs will decrease over this period. As a result, the number of backlogs is expected to be zero in 2030 (8 years from now), within the range of years covered by the analysis. In this case, the FCIg for the final year (2032) will be 1.2%.

[0054] In contrast, under the conditions in Figure 4(b), a development plan with a reduced investment amount is envisaged compared to the conditions in Figure 4(a). For example, a development plan with a reduced investment amount is envisaged so that the risk of delay in 2032, 10 years from now (2022), is equivalent to one year. As a result, the FCIg for the final year of the analysis (2032) will be 2.5%.

[0055] Even if the result is an increase in investment in a specific item, as shown in Figure 4, it is possible to mitigate the simple increase in the total investment amount by taking measures to reduce investment in other items, as shown in Figure 3.

[0056] Fig. 5 is a diagram for explaining an example of the maintenance standard for each process and the number of future risks. Fig. 9 is a diagram for explaining the standard unit price for each process according to the embodiment. There are no restrictions on the maintenance standards for each process and the number of new risks that may occur in the future, as shown here, and these may be modified as appropriate.

[0057] For the "exterior wall" and "roof" processes, the "maintenance standard" should be set to "degree of deterioration," and the "number of new risks occurring in the future" should be determined based on past trends. For example, the past trends based on the past four years going back from the time of analysis should be used as the average value of the "number of new risks occurring."

[0058] The occurrence of new risks can be determined by the results of a deterioration assessment conducted through on-site inspections for maintenance planning. It is also advisable to record the occurrence of water leakage as a new risk.

[0059] In the case of processes for building facilities such as "elevators," "early fire detection systems (early fire detection)," and "automatic fire alarm systems (automatic fire alarms)," the "maintenance standards" can be set to, for example, "EOL (End Of Life)," and the "number of new risks occurring in the future" can be determined to be the number of years determined in accordance with the "EOL." "EOL" is determined in accordance with the end of product sales and support.

[0060] In the case of processes for building facilities such as "water supply and drainage facilities," "underground oil tanks," and "high-voltage building power receiving facilities," the "maintenance standard" can be set to, for example, "age since renovation," and the "number of new risks that will occur in the future" can be determined to be the number of years determined in accordance with laws, regulations, past performance, etc. Conditions other than those mentioned above may also be added.

[0061] A standard unit price (Figure 9) is set for each item as the cost required for repairing each item in a single year.

[0062] Note that for the "roof" and "exterior wall" items, variations in the scale of buildings can cause variations in the values. In such cases, it is advisable to determine a standard building model using the following procedure.

[0063] (1) Calculate the average total floor area of ​​buildings in each group. (2) Select several buildings with total floor area close to the above average value. (3) Measure the roof area, length of the fascia, and exterior wall area of ​​the extracted building. (4) Calculate the average values ​​of the roof area, fascia length, and exterior wall area measured in (3) above. (5) Multiply the above average value by the unit price to calculate the standard unit price for the building.

[0064] An example of maintaining the current plan and reviewing the plan will be explained with reference to Figures 6 and 7. Here, we will show an example of dividing the buildings into two groups, A and B, and analyzing each group independently. Figure 6 is a diagram for explaining the simulation results of the modification amounts for each process in Groups A and B. There is no limit to the quantities shown here, and they may be changed as appropriate to suit the application case. The data in the table shown in Figure 6 corresponds to the cases in Figures 3 and 4 mentioned above. For example, when creating a plan, it is a good idea to use performance data (accumulated data) from several years in the past, such as from fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2021.

[0065] The data shown in Figure 6 is related to the exterior wall repair process, and data is prepared for each process in a similar manner. The above process shown in Figure 6 determines a model of a standard building, making it possible to grasp the scale of each process based on the number of standard buildings.

[0066] The estimated cost of repairing each item is calculated based on the product of the standard unit price for each item (Figure 9) and the number of items, and the results are shown in "Rebalancing results by item."

[0067] For example, let's assume that for each of Group A and Group B, the "current renovation" pace per year is changed to a "revised renovation" pace for the purpose of the simulation. The trend in the amount calculated through this revision is shown in the "Rebalancing Results." The resulting trend in the amount is indicated by the slope of the arrow. The steeper the slope of the arrow, the greater the rate of increase or decrease.

[0068] According to this analysis, the annual renovation pace (pace of "investment amount") for Group A will increase from 155 to 167, while the annual renovation pace for Group B will increase from 224 to 267.

[0069] 6 can be configured as a data table in the storage unit 110. Furthermore, the arithmetic processing unit 130 may refer to such a data table and display the simulation condition settings and the results all together on one screen.

[0070] 7 is a diagram for explaining the simulation results of the FCIg of the total risk obtained by accumulating the target processes for each year in Groups A and B of the embodiment. This simulation was carried out under two conditions: a "business as usual" condition in which the modification pace remains the same as the current situation, and a "revision plan" condition in which the modification pace is revised from the current situation, and these are shown side by side. Here, we will show examples where the trends of the simulation results differ from each other. For example, Group A's FCIg in fiscal year 2022 is 14%, and if things proceed as planned, FCIg in fiscal year 2032 will be 13%. If the current investment amount is maintained, the same effect as the current situation can be achieved. In contrast, if the plan is revised in fiscal year 2022, FCIg in fiscal year 2032 will be 8%. According to the results of this analysis of Group A, a reduction of around 30% is expected. For example, Group B's FCIg for fiscal year 2022 is 25%, and if things proceed as planned, FCIg for fiscal year 2032 will be 20%. Maintaining the current investment amount will result in some improvement over the current situation. In contrast, reviewing it in fiscal year 2022 will result in FCIg of 8% for fiscal year 2032. The results of this analysis of Group B show that a reduction of around 60% is expected, roughly halving the current figure.

[0071] (Method for calculating the number of remaining defective buildings) An example of a method for deriving the number of remaining defective buildings according to the embodiment will be described in more detail with reference to FIG. FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining an example of a method for deriving the number of remaining defective buildings according to the embodiment. First, we will generalize and explain the variables used to evaluate the status of a specific "S section" in each fiscal year.

[0072] SAk: The number of buildings whose condition in the S section was classified as Category A in fiscal year k (k is a natural number. The same applies below.) SBk: The number of buildings whose condition in the S section was classified as Category B in fiscal year k SCk: The number of buildings that were classified as C in the evaluation of the condition of the S section in fiscal year k SDk: The number of buildings that were classified as D in the evaluation of the condition of the S section in fiscal year k SEk: The number of buildings that were classified as E as a result of the evaluation of the condition of the S section in fiscal year k The above sections A to E correspond to FIGS. 2A and 2B.

[0073] State of S section in year k (number of buildings): SNk = (SAk, SBk, SCk, SDk, SEk) Total number of buildings in year k: TNBk = (SAk + SBk + SCk + SDk + SEk)

[0074] Status of S section in fiscal year k (number of buildings): SNk / TNBk=(SXAk,SXBk,SXCk,SXDk,SXEk)

[0075] For example, rooftop condition in year k (number of buildings): Rooftop Nk = (Rooftop Ak, Rooftop Bk, Rooftop Ck, Rooftop Dk, Rooftop Ek) Total number of buildings in year k: TNBk = (Rooftop Ak + Rooftop Bk + Rooftop Ck + Rooftop Dk + Rooftop Ek)

[0076] In the above case, rooftop condition in year k (ratio of buildings): Roof Nk / TNBk = (Roof XAk, Roof XBk, Roof XCk, Roof XDk, Roof XEk)

[0077] If we compare this with Figure 2A, The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2016 will be (90, 0, 0, 9, 2591). The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2017 will be (60, 0, 41, 30, 2559). The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2018 will be (30, 41, 41, 30, 2548). The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2019 will be (0, 82, 41, 30, 2537). The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2020 will be (0, 93, 41, 30, 2526). The number of buildings in categories A to E in 2021 will be (0, 104, 41, 30, 2515).

[0078] For example, the number of Category A buildings, which was 90 in 2016, has decreased each year to zero in 2019. It is estimated that 41 buildings will be newly classified as Category C and confirmed to be deteriorated. In this case, 41 buildings will be classified as Category C from 2017 onwards.

[0079] The difference between Category A, Category B, and Category C is that they are all in the same state of deterioration ("Deterioration Level V"). The difference is the year in which the deterioration occurred. Those in which deterioration was confirmed by the first year (2016) are called Category A, and those in which deterioration newly occurred after the first year are called Category C. If conservation measures are given priority to buildings that have been found to be in a deteriorated state first, then the number of Category A buildings will decrease first. As a result, conservation measures will not extend to Category C buildings that arose while Category A buildings remained. Category C buildings that do not undergo conservation measures will be classified as Category B buildings for the following year.

[0080] Buildings whose risk of deterioration will be eliminated through annual maintenance treatment will be classified as Category D. In this example, it is expected that 30 buildings in Category D will be created in the fiscal years following the first year. These Category D buildings were classified in Category A, Category B, or Category C in the previous fiscal year. Of the 90 Category A buildings in the first fiscal year (2016), 30 were renovated, and in 2017, the renovated buildings were classified as Category D.

[0081] Buildings in category E are buildings that have not been found to be in a state of deterioration requiring repair work. Needless to say, the number of buildings in category E is the total number of buildings minus the total number of buildings in categories A, B, C, and D.

[0082] The total number of buildings in the example shown in Figure 2A is 2,690, and it is assumed that there will be no increase or decrease during the period shown. Note that although the vertical axis of the graph shown in Figure 2A is expressed as a percentage, the same trend will be observed even if this is replaced with the number of buildings. The above explanation corresponds to the table in FIG. 8(a). By replacing the above FIG. 2A with FIG. 2B, the explanation corresponds to the table in FIG. 8(b).

[0083] The arithmetic processing unit 130 executes the above-described processing steps by using a program, thereby enabling the repeated processing to proceed efficiently.

[0084] The information processing system 1 described in the above embodiment supports the implementation of planned maintenance for managed objects related to multiple buildings for each management unit. The calculation processing unit 130 in the information processing system 1 calculates an evaluation value for the planned maintenance using the number of management units including managed objects identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed object and will continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the evaluation results of each managed object, and the total number of management units. This makes it possible to support planned maintenance for managed objects related to multiple buildings.

[0085] For example, the calculation processing unit 130 in the information processing system 1 obtains a building evaluation value for each building of a target building from the evaluation results for each component part of the target building, and calculates an evaluation value for planned maintenance using the number of risk-bearing buildings, which are buildings where a risk that has occurred in the target building is expected to continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the building evaluation value, and the total number of target buildings. This may enable planned maintenance of buildings and each building facility to be supported. The "building" mentioned above includes the building itself and the building facilities attached to it. The components within this building may include components such as the "rooftop (roof)" and "exterior walls (perimeter walls)" that require planned maintenance, as well as components such as "elevators," "early fire detection systems," "automatic fire alarm systems," "water supply and drainage systems," "underground oil tanks," and "high-voltage building power receiving systems" that are building facilities that require planned maintenance. By carrying out the above evaluation in stages, it becomes easier to organize. For example, the calculation processing unit 130 of the information processing system 1 may evaluate (aggregate) the costs related to planned maintenance for each component part in a building, and then aggregate and evaluate the costs related to planned maintenance for each building as a whole (building evaluation value). Even if the evaluation is carried out in stages in this way, a comprehensive evaluation of the building as a whole can be carried out.

[0086] The calculation processing unit 130 may use an index value (FCIg (%)) based on the ratio of the number of buildings (called risk-bearing buildings) where a risk that has occurred in at least one of the target building and equipment is expected to continue until the next planned maintenance period to the total number of target buildings, in calculating the evaluation value of the planned maintenance. The number of buildings at risk mentioned above should preferably include "the number of buildings in which risk is expected to occur during the unit period for evaluating the planned maintenance" and "the number of buildings in which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period."

[0087] The calculation processing unit 130 may use "the number of buildings where risks are expected to occur during the unit period for evaluating planned maintenance" at the end of the predetermined planning period (fiscal year) to calculate the evaluation value of planned maintenance. Note that the "predetermined planning period" refers to the period to be planned, which is divided into predetermined lengths such as a quarter, half a year, one year (fiscal year), a short-term planning period, a medium-term planning period, etc.

[0088] The calculation processing unit 130 may create an evaluation value for planned maintenance at the end (fiscal year) of a specified planning period, which carries over to the next period of the specified planning period the number of buildings for which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period.

[0089] The calculation processing unit 130 may create a maintenance plan for planned maintenance that levels out the number of buildings to be renovated over a predetermined planning period.

[0090] The calculation processing unit 130 may prepare a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance based on the magnitudes of the index values ​​of group A and group B, where group A forms part of the multiple buildings and group B forms all or part of the multiple buildings other than group A. For example, the calculation processing unit 130 may prepare a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance by comparing the magnitudes of the index values ​​of group A and group B. In this case, the calculation processing unit 130 may prepare a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance such that the index value FCIg of group A and the index value FCIg of group B are similar in magnitude.

[0091] In this way, the calculation processing unit 130 manages planned maintenance for each managed object for each building facility based on the evaluation results of each managed object including the building facility. The calculation processing unit 130 may calculate an evaluation value for planned maintenance using the number of building facilities that have risks that have been identified as risks that have occurred in the managed object's building facility based on the evaluation results of each managed object and that will become risks in the next period of planned maintenance, and the total number of managed building facilities, and may determine planned maintenance for the managed object based on this result. This makes it possible to support planned maintenance even when building facilities are subject to management.

[0092] In the information processing system of the above embodiment, the calculation processing unit 130 compiles the evaluation results of each managed object associated with the constituent parts of the building into a building evaluation value for each building of the building, and manages the planned maintenance of the managed object for each building of the building. The calculation processing unit 130 may calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of risk-bearing buildings, which are buildings that have been identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed building based on the building evaluation value and will become a risk in the next period of the planned maintenance, and the total number of buildings that are the management unit. This makes it possible to support planned maintenance when a building is subject to planned maintenance management. The building may include the building and building facilities as described above.

[0093] For example, the calculation processing unit 130 (computer) may identify a method for aggregating the costs required for maintaining buildings and building facilities installed in the buildings based on predetermined selection criteria and information such as the purpose of the analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis.

[0094] Furthermore, the calculation processing unit 130 may group the building facilities of the same item distributed among the plurality of buildings, and calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of the building facilities.

[0095] The information processing system 1 described in any of the above embodiments supports the implementation of planned maintenance for managed objects related to multiple buildings for each management unit. The calculation processing unit 130 in the information processing system 1 calculates an evaluation value for the planned maintenance using the number of management units including managed objects identified as having a risk that has occurred in the managed object and will continue until the next planned maintenance period based on the evaluation results of each managed object, and the total number of management units. This makes it possible to support planned maintenance for managed objects related to multiple buildings.

[0096] Although several embodiments of the present invention have been described, these embodiments are presented as examples and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. These embodiments can be implemented in various other forms, and various omissions, substitutions, and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. These embodiments and their modifications are included within the scope and spirit of the invention, as well as within the scope of the invention described in the claims and their equivalents. [Explanation of symbols]

[0097] 1. Information Processing Systems 130 Processing unit

Claims

1. An information processing system that supports the implementation of planned maintenance of managed objects related to multiple buildings for each management unit, a calculation processing unit that calculates an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including management targets identified as having a risk that has occurred in the management targets and will continue until the next period of planned maintenance based on the evaluation results of each management target, and the total number of the management units; An information processing system comprising:

2. The arithmetic processing unit aggregating the evaluation results of each of the management targets associated with the constituent parts of the building into a building evaluation value for each building of the building, and managing planned maintenance of the management targets for each building of the building; The evaluation value of the planned maintenance is calculated using the number of risk-bearing buildings, which are buildings that have a risk that has occurred in the building under management based on the building evaluation value and has been identified as a risk for the next period of the planned maintenance, and the total number of buildings that are the management unit. The information processing system according to claim 1 .

3. The number of buildings with risk includes "the number of buildings in which risk is expected to occur during the unit period for evaluating the planned maintenance" and "the number of buildings in which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period." The information processing system according to claim 2 .

4. The arithmetic processing unit An index value based on the ratio of the number of risk-bearing buildings to the total number of buildings is used to calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance. The information processing system according to claim 2 .

5. The arithmetic processing unit At the end of a specified planning period, the "number of buildings expected to be at risk during the unit period for evaluating the planned maintenance" is used to calculate the evaluation value of the planned maintenance. The information processing system according to claim 3 .

6. The arithmetic processing unit At the end of a predetermined planning period, an evaluation value of the planned maintenance is created that carries over to the next period of the predetermined planning period the number of buildings for which risk is expected to accumulate during the unit period. The information processing system according to claim 3 .

7. The arithmetic processing unit Create a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance that levels out the number of buildings to be renovated throughout a specified planning period.

7. The information processing system according to claim 1.

8. The arithmetic processing unit There is a group A that forms a part of the plurality of buildings, and a group B that forms a part or all of the plurality of buildings other than the group A, and a maintenance plan for the planned maintenance is created based on the magnitude of the index value of the group A and the index value of the group B.

7. The information processing system according to claim 1.

9. The arithmetic processing unit Based on the evaluation results of each of the management targets including building facilities, managing planned maintenance of the management targets for each of the building facilities, Calculating an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of building facilities that have risks identified as risks that have occurred in the building facilities of the managed object based on the evaluation results of each managed object and that will become risks in the next period of the planned maintenance, and the total number of building facilities that are managed. The information processing system according to claim 1 .

10. An information processing method for supporting the implementation of planned maintenance of managed objects relating to a plurality of buildings for each management unit, comprising: The computer calculating an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including management targets identified as having a risk that has occurred in the management target that will continue until the next period of planned maintenance based on the evaluation results of each management target, and the total number of the management units; An information processing method including:

11. The computer Identify a method for calculating the costs required for maintaining the building and the building facilities installed in the building based on the purpose of the analysis, the type of items to be analyzed, or the convenience of counting on a building-by-building basis. The information processing method according to claim 10.

12. The computer The building facilities of the same item distributed across the plurality of buildings are grouped together, and an evaluation value of the planned maintenance is calculated using the number of the building facilities. The information processing method according to claim 11.

13. A computer that supports the implementation of planned maintenance of managed objects relating to a plurality of buildings for each management unit, calculating an evaluation value of the planned maintenance using the number of management units including management targets identified as having a risk that has occurred in the management target that will continue until the next period of planned maintenance based on the evaluation results of each management target, and the total number of the management units; A program to execute.

Images