Mediation plan presentation system

Abstract

To present a mediation plan to a plurality of subjects.SOLUTION: A system stores management information of KPIs. The management information includes a constraint condition and a weighting coefficient to each of the plurality of KPIs. The plurality of KPIs include an individual KPI unique to each subject of the plurality of subjects and a whole KPI common to the plurality of KPIs. The system retrieves a provisional plan showing a time series of decision making of the plurality of subjects of a Pareto solution on the basis of the plurality of KPIs and the weighting coefficient. The system determines a presentation plan that satisfies a constraint condition of a KPI selected on the basis of a degree of easiness of satisfying the constraint condition in a plurality of provisional plans that violate at least a portion of the constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs in the case that a provisional plan satisfying the whole constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs are not be found. The system presents a presentation plan and the information of the degree of easiness of satisfying the constraint conditions of the KPIs.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 6

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a system for presenting a mediation proposal between multiple parties. [Background technology]

[0002] Patent Document 1 is cited as background art of this specification. Patent Document 1 discloses a schedule arbitration system. More specifically, Patent Document 1 describes a schedule arbitration system including: "a first server that sends pre-stored first scheduling constraints and first schedule information for a certain period to a schedule arbitration server; a second server that sends pre-stored second scheduling constraints and second schedule information for a certain period to the schedule arbitration server; and a schedule arbitration server that has a control unit and a storage unit that arbitrates the schedules of the first server and the second server, wherein the storage unit of the schedule arbitration server stores global optimization constraint information, and the control unit of the schedule arbitration server has an acquisition unit that acquires the first scheduling constraints, the first schedule information, the second scheduling constraints, and the second schedule information from the first server and the second server, and a schedule reconciliation system comprising: an inconsistency detection unit that detects an inconsistency between the first schedule information and the second schedule information based on the schedule information, the second schedule creation constraint, the second schedule information, and the overall optimization constraint information stored in the storage unit; a schedule reconciliation unit that corrects the first schedule information and the second schedule information and reconstitutes third schedule information and fourth schedule information when an inconsistency is detected; a credit calculation unit that calculates a first credit and a second credit for the first server and the second server, respectively, depending on the degree of correction; and a transmission unit that sends the third schedule information and the first credit to the first server and sends the fourth schedule information and the second credit to the second server (see claims). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] International Publication No. 2017 / 130367 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] In the invention described in Patent Document 1, credits are awarded according to the degree of schedule modification made by the subject, and the subject is given priority for future schedule modifications. However, the strictness of the conditions of each schedule itself cannot be specified, and schedules with strict conditions may be given more credit. Therefore, if a subject submits a schedule with strict conditions, the subject may end up being given preferential treatment. [Means for solving the problem]

[0005] One aspect of the present invention is a system for presenting a mediation proposal, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores management information for KPIs, the management information including constraints and weighting factors for each of multiple KPIs, the multiple KPIs including individual KPIs specific to each of multiple entities and an overall KPI common to the multiple entities, and the processor searches for an interim plan that shows a timeline of decision-making by the multiple entities for a Pareto solution based on the multiple KPIs and the weighting factors, and if an interim plan that satisfies all of the constraints of the multiple KPIs is not found, determines a presented plan that satisfies the constraints of a KPI selected from multiple interim plans that violate at least some of the constraints of the multiple KPIs based on the ease of satisfying the constraints, and presents the presented plan and information on the ease of satisfying the constraints of at least some of the KPIs in the multiple KPIs. [Effects of the Invention]

[0006] According to one aspect of the present invention, it is possible to present an appropriate mediation plan between multiple parties. Other objects, configurations and advantages will become apparent from the following description of the embodiments. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0007] [Figure 1] Overall flowchart of the mediation proposal presentation system [Figure 2] Configuration diagram of the mediation proposal presentation system [Figure 3] Configuration diagram of the plan calculation section [Figure 4] Constraint violation management unit configuration diagram [Figure 5] Planning and Management Department Structure [Figure 6] Mediation proposal calculation flow chart for the mediation proposal presentation system [Figure 7] Hardware configuration diagram of the mediation proposal presentation system [Figure 8A] User interface of the mediation proposal presentation system when presenting a mediation proposal [Figure 8B] User interface of the mediation proposal presentation system when presenting a mediation proposal [Figure 8C] User interface of the mediation proposal presentation system when presenting a mediation proposal [Figure 8D] User interface of the mediation proposal presentation system when presenting a mediation proposal [Figure 9A] User interface for accessing the mediation proposal system [Figure 9B] User interface for accessing the mediation proposal system DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0008] Hereinafter, embodiments will be described with reference to the drawings. For convenience, when necessary, the description will be divided into multiple sections or embodiments. However, unless otherwise specified, these are not unrelated to one another, and one is related to the other as a partial or complete modification, detail, supplementary explanation, etc. Furthermore, hereinafter, when the number of elements (including the number, numerical value, amount, range, etc.) is mentioned, it is not limited to the specific number, and may be more or less than the specific number, unless otherwise specified or when it is clearly limited to a specific number in principle.

[0009] The processor realizes a predetermined function by executing a program stored in a primary storage device. The primary storage device stores the program executed by the processor and data necessary for the execution of the program. The program includes an operating system (OS) (not shown) as well as other programs. The processor may include multiple chips and multiple packages.

[0010] A program is executed by a processor to perform a predetermined process using a storage device and a communication port (communication device). Therefore, in this and other embodiments, a description that uses a program as the subject may also use a processor as the subject. Alternatively, the process executed by a program is a process performed by the computer and computer system on which the program runs.

[0011] A processor operates as a functional unit (means) that realizes a predetermined function by operating according to a program. Furthermore, the processor also operates as a functional unit (means) that realizes each of the multiple processes executed by each program. A computer and a computer system are devices and systems that include these functional units (means).

[0012] One embodiment of this specification presents a proposal for mediating decisions (actions) between multiple entities. In an environment where multiple entities with mutual interests exist, the time-series decisions of each entity determine the time-series transition of the state in the environment, and multiple time-series KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are determined based on the decisions and the state. There is at least one global KPI, which is a KPI common to all entities, and at least one individual KPI for each entity, which is a KPI specific to each entity.

[0013] Each entity wants to coordinate decision-making among themselves to optimize the overall KPI while also optimizing their individual KPIs. Conflicts of interest among entities make it difficult to coordinate decision-making. One embodiment of this specification mediates decision-making to optimize the overall KPI based on information input from each entity, taking into account each entity's individual KPI.

[0014] The system in one embodiment of this specification is given as input constraints on the overall KPI that are determined with the agreement of all parties, constraints on individual KPIs that are determined by each party, and weighting coefficients that indicate the importance of each KPI.

[0015] The system optimizes the time-series decision-making of each entity, the time-series state of the environment, and the time-series plan for each KPI (hereinafter simply referred to as the plan) based on weighting coefficients and presents it to each entity. If the optimized plan cannot satisfy all the constraints related to the KPIs, the system further explores and updates the plan, while simultaneously calculating the degree of ease with which each constraint can be satisfied.

[0016] For example, the system determines a plan that satisfies as many constraints as possible, prioritizing constraints with a relatively high degree of ease of satisfying them, and presents this to the subject along with the state of compliance with the constraints and the degree of ease of satisfying the constraints.

[0017] According to one embodiment of the present specification, a plan involving decision-making by multiple entities can be calculated and presented. According to one embodiment of the present specification, the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint, which is determined by the strictness of each constraint related to KPIs and the relationship between KPIs, can be calculated and presented to the entities. According to one embodiment of the present specification, a plan that satisfies as many constraints as possible can be calculated and presented to the entities, giving priority to constraints with a relatively high degree of ease of satisfying each constraint. This makes it possible to avoid preferential treatment for entities that have input strict constraints related to individual KPIs. [Example]

[0018] FIG. 1 is a flowchart showing the overall processing flow of a system for presenting a mediation proposal among a plurality of entities according to an embodiment of the present specification.

[0019] In step 100, the initial state of the target environment is acquired. The initial state of the environment may be acquired from each subject via the data input / output unit (described later) or from a publicly available database. If the initial state of the environment cannot be acquired, an estimate thereof is acquired.

[0020] In step 101, constraints on the overall KPI, which are determined by consensus among all entities, constraints on individual KPIs for each entity, which are determined by each entity, and weighting coefficients indicating the importance of each KPI for the overall KPI and the individual KPIs, are input from each entity via a data input / output unit, which will be described later. The constraints on KPIs indicate, for example, the range within which the value of the KPI should fall.

[0021] Here, the weighting coefficients of the individual KPIs and the overall KPI may be set so that their sum is 1. For example, the sum of the weighting coefficients of the overall KPIs is 0.7, and the sum of the weighting coefficients of the individual KPIs is 0.3. Furthermore, in order to ensure fairness among entities in conjunction with scaling in the plan evaluation unit 1102, which will be described later, the sum of the weighting coefficients of the individual KPIs of each entity may be the same. For example, if there are six entities, the sum of the weighting coefficients of the individual KPIs of each entity is 0.05. Note that the sum of the weighting coefficients of the individual KPIs may differ among entities. Furthermore, constraints on each KPI may be set for the time series sum of the KPIs, or may be set instantaneously for the KPI at each time.

[0022] In step 102, based on the initial state of the environment, the constraints for each KPI, and the weighting coefficients for each KPI acquired in steps 100 and 101, the plan to be presented to each entity (for example, an action plan such as a parts procurement plan, which will be described later), the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint, and the impact of each KPI on other KPIs are calculated, and presented to each entity via the data input / output unit, which will be described later. Details will be made clear in Figure 6, which will be described later.

[0023] In step 103, based on the information presented in step 102, each subject inputs whether they agree or reject the plan via the data input / output unit, which will be described later.

[0024] In step 104, it is determined whether agreement has been obtained from all parties based on the information entered in step 103. If true, the process ends. If false, the flow returns to step 101.

[0025] FIG. 2 is a functional configuration diagram of the mediation proposal presentation system 1000. The mediation proposal presentation system 1000 exchanges various pieces of information with each of a plurality of entities. In FIG. 2, only entity i is shown as a representative of the multiple entities, but in reality, there are multiple entities. For example, there are entity 1, entity 2, ..., entity |I|. An entity is something that acts on and influences the environment and other entities, and has a stake in the target plan, such as a human being, a company, or a system. The specific content exchanged between each entity and the mediation proposal presentation system 1000 differs, but the meaning of the data is common.

[0026] Each subject exchanges data with the mediation proposal presentation system 1000 via a data input / output unit 200. The data input / output unit 200 is, for example, a general-purpose computer. A human subject uses a keyboard or mouse to input an initial state 201, constraints 202 related to the overall KPI, constraints 203 related to individual KPIs, weighting coefficients 204 related to each KPI, the overall KPI and the individual KPIs, a plan access ID 205, and agreement or rejection 206 regarding the plan to the data input / output unit 200. The data input / output unit 200 transmits the input data to the mediation proposal presentation system 1000 either as is or after processing it.

[0027] The data input / output unit 200 further outputs the data received from the mediation proposal presentation system 1000 as video or audio, proposed plan information 207, the constraint compliance status of the proposed plan 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value of the number of constraint violations 210, the degree of influence of each KPI on other KPIs 211, accessed plan information 212, and the constraint compliance status of the accessed plan 213.

[0028] Constraint compliance status 208, 213 indicates the compliance / violation status of constraint conditions of each KPI in the plan. Constraint violation count 209 indicates the number of plans that violate the constraint conditions of each KPI in multiple plans. Relative evaluation value 210 of the constraint violation count of each KPI is a value calculated from the violation count 209 of each KPI, and is, for example, the ranking of the violation count. For example, the fewer the violation count, the higher the ranking, indicating that the constraint conditions are easier to satisfy. The influence 211 of each KPI on other KPIs indicates the influence on the constraint conditions of other KPIs due to compliance with the constraint conditions of each KPI.

[0029] However, if the subject is a system, the input data and output information may be electronic data. Furthermore, if the subject is a system, the data input / output unit 200 is not an essential component, and the subject may directly exchange various data with the mediation proposal presentation system 1000. In this case, the subject sends input data directly to the mediation proposal presentation system 1000.

[0030] Each entity receives the proposed plan information 207, the proposed plan's compliance status with constraints 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value of the number of constraint violations 210, and the degree of influence 211 of each KPI on other KPIs, which correspond to the initial state 201, constraints on the overall KPI 202, constraints on individual KPIs 203, and weighting coefficients 204 for each KPI, sent from the mediation proposal presentation system 1000.

[0031] The subject may arbitrarily input the plan access ID 205 via the data input / output unit 200. At that time, the subject receives the accessed plan information 212 and the constraint compliance status 213 of the accessed plan via the data input / output unit 200.

[0032] The mediation proposal presentation system 1000 includes a plan calculation unit 1100, a constraint condition management unit 1200, and an output generation unit 1300. The plan calculation unit 1100 receives an initial state 201, constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI, constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs, and weighting coefficients 204 related to each KPI as input, and outputs a tentative solution plan 1105, a selection flag 1106, and a Pareto flag 1107.

[0033] The constraint condition management unit 1200 receives as input the tentative solution plan 1105, constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI, constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs, selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100, and Pareto flag 1107, and outputs constraint violation information 1203, selection flag 1204, and constraint violation management information 1205. The constraint violation information 1203 indicates whether or not the constraint conditions of each KPI are satisfied (obeyed) in the corresponding tentative solution plan 1105. The constraint violation management information 1205 includes the constraint violation information 1203 of all tentative solution plans 1105.

[0034] The output generation unit 1300 receives as input the selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100, the constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI and the constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs from the constraint condition management unit 1200, the constraint violation management information 1205, the plan access ID 205, the tentative solution plan 1105, and the Pareto flag 1107, and outputs proposed plan information 207, the constraint condition compliance status of the proposed plan 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, the influence degree of each KPI on other KPIs 211, the accessed plan information 212, and the constraint condition compliance status of the accessed plan 213. Detailed processing contents will become clear from the description below.

[0035] 3 is a functional configuration diagram of the plan calculation unit 1100. The plan calculation unit 1100 includes, as components, a plan search unit 1101, a plan evaluation unit 1102, a plan update unit 1103, and a Pareto solution determination unit 1104. The plan calculation unit 1100 receives an initial state 201, constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI, constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs, and weighting coefficients 204 related to each KPI, and outputs a tentative solution plan 1105, a selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100, and a Pareto flag 1107.

[0036] The plan calculation unit 1100 has an optimization algorithm that reflects the evaluation value for updating the tentative solution in updating the plan of the tentative solution. The optimization algorithm is, for example, reinforcement learning or metaheuristics.

[0037] The plan search unit 1101 has an environmental model that calculates the state of the environment at the next time t+1 from the decisions (actions) of each subject at time t and the state of the environment at time t. The environmental model includes multiple variables, and the state of the environment is represented by a set of values ​​of the multiple variables. Changes in the state of the environment are represented as a time series of sets of values ​​of the multiple variables. Each subject makes one or multiple decisions at each time.

[0038] The plan search unit 1101 searches for the decision-making 1108 of each subject on a series of time series, calculates a series of states on a series of time series 1109 based on the initial state 201, the searched series of decisions on a series of time series 1108, and an environmental model, and outputs the searched series of decisions on a series of time series 1108 and the series of states on a series of time series 1109.

[0039] The plan evaluation unit 1102 receives as input decision making 1108 of each subject on the searched series of time series and states 1109 on the series of time series, and calculates and outputs an evaluation value 1110 for each KPI based on each KPI. The KPI evaluation value 1110 is a value calculated using a predetermined formula from the KPIs for optimization. The evaluation value 1110 for each KPI may vary in the impact on updating the plan of a single tentative solution depending on the scale of the evaluation value of each KPI, and there is a possibility that the number of constraint violations, which is the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint condition described below, may not be counted fairly. Therefore, scaling may be performed for each KPI by normalization or standardization, etc.

[0040] The plan updating unit 1103 receives as input the weighting coefficients 204 for each KPI, the constraint violation information 1203, and the evaluation value 1110 for each KPI, updates the tentative solution plan 1105, and outputs a new tentative solution plan 1105 and a selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100. The plan updating unit 1103 calculates an evaluation value for updating the tentative solution using the weighting coefficients 204 for each KPI and the evaluation value 1110 for each KPI, and updates the tentative solution plan 1105 using the evaluation value for updating the tentative solution. The evaluation value for updating the tentative solution may be expressed, for example, as the sum of products of the evaluation value 1110 for each KPI and the weighting coefficients 204.

[0041] In this case, after the Pareto solution determination unit 1104 (described later) determines that the tentative solution plan is a Pareto solution, subsequent updates may be performed by calculating evaluation values ​​for updating the tentative solution, limited to the evaluation values ​​1110 of KPIs that the constraint violation information 1203 indicates as violating constraints, and updating the tentative solution plan 1105. That is, the plan update unit 1103 selects KPIs that the constraint violation information 1203 indicates as violating constraints. The evaluation values ​​for updating the tentative solution may be expressed, for example, as the sum of the products of the evaluation values ​​1110 of the selected KPIs that violate constraints and their weighting coefficients 204. This makes it easier to obtain a new tentative solution that satisfies the constraints of KPIs that previously violated constraints, and efficiently searches for a potentially optimal plan without trying various weighting coefficients.

[0042] Furthermore, in order to fairly count the number of constraint violations, which is the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint condition described later, a configuration may be adopted in which an index indicating the update range of the tentative solution is used to impose a specified constraint on the update range of the tentative solution, causing the tentative solution to be updated, and the plan is searched under the condition that the update range of a specific tentative solution update is within the specified constraint range and is not too large. Furthermore, when the plan update unit 1103 updates the plan 1105 of the tentative solution for the specified number of updates, the selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100 is output.

[0043] The Pareto solution determination unit 1104 determines whether the tentative solution plan 1105 is a Pareto solution based on the history of the tentative solution plan 1105 calculated by the plan update unit 1103, and if the tentative solution plan 1105 is determined to be a Pareto solution, it outputs a Pareto flag 1107. Here, a Pareto solution is an element of a set of solutions in which an attempt to improve one KPI results in a deterioration of another KPI. Since a Pareto solution is uniquely determined by setting the weighting coefficient 204 for each KPI, for example, the Pareto solution determination unit 1104 may use, as a determination criterion, whether the solution has converged based on the history of the tentative solution plan 1105.

[0044] 4 is a functional configuration diagram of the constraint condition management unit 1200. The constraint condition management unit 1200 has as its components a constraint violation detection unit 1201 and a constraint violation management unit 1202. The constraint condition management unit 1200 receives as input a tentative solution plan 1105, constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI, constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs, selection flags 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100, and Pareto flags 1107, and outputs constraint violation information 1203, selection flags 1204 from the constraint condition management unit 1200, and constraint violation management information 1205.

[0045] The constraint violation detection unit 1201 receives the tentative solution plan 1105, the constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI, and the constraint conditions 203 related to the individual KPI, determines whether the tentative solution plan 1105 satisfies the constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI and the constraint conditions 203 related to the individual KPI, and outputs constraint violation information 1203 indicating whether the tentative solution plan 1105 satisfies the constraint conditions of each KPI. Furthermore, if the constraint violation information 1203 determines that the tentative solution plan 1105 satisfies all of the constraint conditions of each KPI, the constraint violation detection unit 1201 outputs a selection flag 1204 from the constraint condition management unit 1200.

[0046] The constraint violation management unit 1202 saves (registers) all constraint violation information 1203 for the tentative solution plan 1105 after the Pareto flag 1107 is input, and when the selection flag 1204 is input from the constraint condition management unit 1200, it outputs all of the saved constraint violation information 1203 as constraint violation management information 1205.

[0047] 5 is a functional block diagram of the output generation unit 1300. The output generation unit 1300 has a plan management unit 1301, a plan selection unit 1302, a constraint matching unit 1303, and an influence calculation unit 1304 as components.

[0048] The output generation unit 1300 receives as input the selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100, the constraint conditions 202 related to the overall KPI from the constraint condition management unit 1200, the constraint conditions 203 related to individual KPIs, the constraint violation management information 1205, the plan access ID 205, the tentative solution plan 1105, and the Pareto flag 1107, and outputs proposed plan information 207, the constraint condition compliance status of the proposed plan 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, the influence of each KPI on other KPIs 211, the accessed plan information 212, and the constraint condition compliance status of the accessed plan 213.

[0049] After the Pareto flag 1107 is input, the plan management unit 1301 stores all tentative solution plans 1105 that are input thereafter, and when the selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100 or the selection flag 1204 from the constraint condition management unit 1200 is input, the plan management unit 1301 outputs all of the stored tentative solution plans 1105 as plan history 1305.

[0050] When the plan selection unit 1302 receives a selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100 or a selection flag 1204 from the constraint condition management unit 1200, it calculates a constraint violation count 209, which is the number of times the constraint condition was not satisfied for each KPI, in the input constraint violation management information 1205. It also calculates a relative evaluation value 210 of the constraint violation count. The relative evaluation value is, for example, the ranking of the constraint violation count, which is information that ranks KPIs in order of the least number of constraint violation counts 209.

[0051] The system narrows down the plans that satisfy the constraint conditions from the plan history 1305 in order from the KPI with the fewest number of constraint violations 209, selects at least one piece of plan information 207 to propose, and outputs the proposed plan information 207, the number of constraint violations 209, which is the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint condition determined by the strictness of each constraint condition related to the KPI and the relationship between the KPIs, and a relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations.

[0052] When the selection flag 1204 is input from the constraint management unit 1200, it means that a plan that satisfies all the constraints has been calculated, and therefore the proposed plan information 207 is a plan that satisfies all the constraints.

[0053] The selection flag 1106 is input from the plan calculation unit 1100 when a plan satisfying all constraint conditions is not calculated even after updating the tentative solution plan 1105 the specified number of updates. The proposed plan information 207 is a plan that satisfies the constraint conditions of more KPIs by prioritizing KPIs with a smaller number of constraint violations 209, which indicates the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint condition.

[0054] For example, the plan selection unit 1302 removes from the plan history 1305, which is a candidate plan, a plan in which the KPI with the smallest number of constraint violations 209 does not satisfy the constraint conditions. Next, from the remaining candidate plan, it removes from the candidates a plan in which the KPI with the second smallest number of constraint violations 209 does not satisfy the constraint conditions. This limiting operation is continued in order from the KPI with the smallest number of constraint violations 209 until no candidate plans remain. When the selection flag 1106 is input, this means that a plan that satisfies all constraint conditions has not been calculated, and therefore no candidate plans will remain at some KPI timing. In this case, the plan with the smallest amount of constraint violations for the KPI when no candidate plans remain may be selected as the proposed plan information 207.

[0055] In the plan selection unit 1302, after outputting the proposed plan information 207, the number of constraint violations 209, and the number of constraint violations 209, if a plan access ID 205 is input, accessed plan information 212, which is the plan information of the corresponding ID, is output from the plan history 1305.

[0056] When the proposed plan information 207 or the accessed plan information 212 is input, the constraint matching unit 1303 matches the input constraint conditions 202 regarding the overall KPI and the constraint conditions 203 regarding the individual KPI with the plan information, and outputs the constraint condition compliance status 208 of the proposed plan or the constraint condition compliance status 213 of the accessed plan in the form of a graph or the like.

[0057] When the influence calculation unit 1304 receives a selection flag 1106 from the plan calculation unit 1100 or a selection flag 1204 from the constraint condition management unit 1200, it calculates and outputs the influence 211 that each KPI has on other KPIs in a plan in which each KPI satisfies the constraint conditions, based on the constraint violation management information 1205 and the plan history 1305.

[0058] For example, by calculating the compliance status of a certain KPI with the constraint conditions of other KPIs in a plan in which the KPI satisfies the constraint conditions from the constraint violation management information 1205, it is possible to present the relationships between KPIs. For example, the influence calculation unit 1304 calculates the constraint violation rate of each of the other KPIs in a plan in which the target KPI satisfies the constraint conditions. The violation rate is the proportion of the plan in which the constraint conditions are not satisfied. The influence of the target KPI may indicate a value in relation to each of the other KPIs, or may be a statistical value thereof (for example, the average value of the constraint violation rate).

[0059] FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing the procedure for calculating a mediation proposal by the mediation proposal presenting system.

[0060] In step 300, the initial state 201 of the environment, the constraints 202 on the overall KPI, the constraints 203 on the individual KPI, and the weighting coefficients 204 of each KPI obtained in steps 100 and 101 are obtained.

[0061] In step 301, the Pareto solution determination unit 1104 determines whether the Pareto flag 1107 has been output at least once. If true (301: YES), the process proceeds to step 304. If false (301: NO), the process proceeds to step 302.

[0062] In steps 302 and 307, the plan search unit 1101 searches for a plan.

[0063] In step 303, the plan evaluation unit 1102 evaluates the plan found by optimizing all KPIs based on the weighting coefficients set for the KPIs. Specifically, as described above, an update evaluation value is calculated from the evaluation values ​​of all KPIs and their weighting coefficients. The plan update unit 1103 updates the tentative solution plan by optimizing all KPIs based on the evaluation results.

[0064] In step 304, the plan management unit 1301 saves (registers) the plan of the tentative solution.

[0065] In step 305, the constraint violation detection unit 1201 determines whether the plan of the provisional solution satisfies all the constraint conditions. If true (305: YES), the process proceeds to step 310. If false (305: NO), the process proceeds to step 306.

[0066] In step 306, the plan update unit 1103 determines whether the plan of the provisional solution has been updated a specified number of times. If true (306: YES), the process proceeds to step 311. If false (306: NO), the process proceeds to step 307.

[0067] In step 308 , the constraint violation management unit 1202 saves (registers) the constraint violation information 1203 determined in step 305 .

[0068] In step 309, the plan evaluation unit 1102 evaluates the plan found based on the weighting coefficients, with KPIs that violate the constraints as targets for optimization. Specifically, KPIs that satisfy the constraints in the previous tentative solution are excluded, and an update evaluation value is calculated from the evaluation values ​​of KPIs that violate the constraints (do not satisfy the constraints) and their weighting coefficients. The plan update unit 1103 updates the tentative solution plan based on the evaluation results, with KPIs that violate the constraints as targets for optimization.

[0069] In step 310, the output generation unit 1300 presents the proposed plan information 207 and the constraint compliance status 208 of the proposed plan to each entity via the data input / output unit 200. If necessary, the output generation unit 1300 may also present the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, the degree of influence 211 of each KPI on other KPIs, the accessed plan information 212, and the constraint compliance status 213 of the accessed plan to each entity.

[0070] In step 311, the output generating unit 1300 determines a plan to be presented to each subject from the saved tentative solution plans, giving priority to KPIs with fewer constraint violations, as described above.

[0071] Next, in step S312, the output generation unit 1300 presents information about the plan selected from the tentative solution plans. Specifically, the output generation unit 1300 presents the plan information 207, the constraint compliance status 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, and the influence 211 of each KPI on other KPIs to each entity via the data input / output unit 200. As described above, the influence calculation unit 1304 calculates the influence 211 of each KPI on other KPIs from the constraint violation management information 1205 and the plan history 1305. Furthermore, if necessary, the output generation unit 1300 may present the accessed plan information 212 and the constraint compliance status 213 of the accessed plan to each entity.

[0072] 7 is a block diagram showing the hardware configuration of the reconciliation proposal presentation system 1000. The reconciliation proposal presentation system 1000 includes a server 410 and a plurality of terminal devices 420. The server 410 includes a controller 411 and a server communication device 412. The controller 411 includes a processor 414 and a memory 415.

[0073] The memory 415 stores a plan calculation unit 1100, a constraint condition management unit 1200, and an output generation unit 1300. These are programs, and the processor 414 operates in accordance with these programs to function as the plan calculation unit, the constraint condition management unit, and the output generation unit.

[0074] The memory 415 (also called a storage device) can include a ROM and a RAM. The processor 414 implements the plan calculation unit 1100, the constraint condition management unit 1200, and the output generation unit 1300 by loading a program stored in the ROM into the RAM and executing the program.

[0075] Instead of a combination of a CPU, ROM, and RAM, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), which is a rewritable logic circuit, or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), which is an application specific integrated circuit, may be used. Also, instead of a combination of a CPU, ROM, and RAM, the plan calculation unit 1100, the constraint management unit 1200, and the output generation unit 1300 may be realized by a combination of different configurations, for example, a combination of a CPU, ROM, RAM, and an FPGA.

[0076] The terminal device 420 includes an input device 421, an output device 422, a terminal communication device 423, a processor 424, and a memory 425. The terminal device 420 corresponds to the data input / output unit 200 in FIG. 2. The terminal device 420 is, for example, a general-purpose computer. A terminal device 420 exists for each subject i. The terminal device 420 transmits information input by the subject i using the input device 421 to the server 410 via the terminal communication device 423 and the network 430.

[0077] Based on the information of each entity input, the server 410 uses the plan calculation unit 1100, constraint condition management unit 1200, and output generation unit 1300 in the controller 411 to calculate proposed plan information 207, constraint condition compliance status of the proposed plan 208, number of constraint violations 209, relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, degree of influence of each KPI on other KPIs 211, accessed plan information 212, and constraint condition compliance status of the accessed plan 213.

[0078] The server 410 transmits the proposed plan information 207, the constraint compliance status of the proposed plan 208, the number of constraint violations 209, the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations, the degree of influence of each KPI on other KPIs 211, the accessed plan information 212, and the constraint compliance status of the accessed plan 213 to the terminal device 420 via the server communication device 412 and the network 430.

[0079] The input device 421 is a device for inputting information that each subject wants to input, such as a keyboard, mouse, microphone, touch panel, etc. The output device 422 is a device for outputting data and information within the system, such as a display, speaker, printer, etc.

[0080] 8A to 8D show example images that the reconciliation proposal presentation system 1000 displays on the user interface when presenting a reconciliation proposal.

[0081] 8A shows an example of a user interface image of input information 500 by a user. The input information 500 indicates to each entity the constraints 202 for the overall KPI, the constraints 203 for individual KPIs, and the weighting coefficients 204 for each KPI that have been input. The input information may be displayed to all entities, or the constraints 203 for the individual KPIs and the weighting coefficients 204 for each KPI may be displayed only to the corresponding entity. Each entity can check the input information and confirm the mediation proposal by referring to the input information 500.

[0082] 8B shows an example of a user interface image of proposed plan information 501. The proposed plan information 501 shows the contents of the proposed plan information 207. The proposed plan information 501 shows the plans of each subject's decision-making (actions resulting from the decision-making), the time series transition of the environmental state, and each KPI on a time series determined by the plans of each subject's decision-making and the time series transition of the environmental state.

[0083] All decision-making plans (decision-making timeline), the time series transition of the environmental state, and each KPI on the time series may be displayed to all entities, or only the decision-making plans, the time series transition of the environmental state, and each KPI on the time series related to each entity may be displayed to each entity. Figure 8B shows only information related to the decision-making of one entity. One entity makes one or more types of decisions. In addition, the environment has one or more state variables. Each entity can check the time series information of the proposed plan by referring to the display shown on the user interface 501.

[0084] 8C shows an example of a user interface image of proposed constraint compliance information 502. The proposed constraint compliance information 502 indicates, for each entity, the constraint compliance status 208 of each proposed plan, the number of constraint violations 209, which indicates the degree of ease of satisfying the constraints, and the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations. Information about all KPIs may be displayed to all entities, or only KPIs related to each entity may be displayed to each entity. In this way, information about at least some of the KPIs is presented.

[0085] The example in Figure 8C shows information about all KPIs for one plan. Specifically, it shows a graph including the time series (change over time) of each KPI and the constraint conditions. Also, near each KPI graph, it shows information about constraint violations in all plans, specifically, the total number of plans, the number of plans in which constraint violations occur (number of constraint violations), and the ranking of the number of constraint violations (constraint violation rate).

[0086] The leftmost graph shows a graph of the time series and constraints of the overall KPI1. The constraint, for example, is that the value of the overall KPI1 is equal to or less than the value indicated by the dashed line. In the plan shown in the graph in FIG. 8C, the constraints of the overall KPI1 are observed. This graph is the constraint observation status 208 of the proposed plan.

[0087] Near the leftmost graph, constraint violation information "Number of constraint violations: 200 / 1000 (4th place)" is shown. This means that the total number of plans is 1000, of which the number of plans with constraint violations for Overall KPI1 is 200. The rank of the constraint violations is the relative evaluation value of the number of constraint violations, 210. The rank of the constraint violation for Overall KPI1 is 4th place. The rank of the constraint violations is higher the fewer the number of constraint violations. In other words, the higher the rank, the looser the constraint condition is and the easier it is to meet.

[0088] Each entity can check whether the constraints for each KPI are satisfied, and if not, the amount of violation of the constraints, by referring to the display shown in the proposed constraint compliance information 502. Furthermore, each entity can check the strictness of the constraints for each KPI from the degree of ease of satisfaction of each constraint, which is objectively determined by the mediation proposal presentation system 1000, and the relative evaluation value of the degree of ease of satisfaction of each constraint.

[0089] 8D shows an example of a user interface image of the impact information 503. The impact information 503 mainly shows the impact 211 that each KPI has on other KPIs. The impact information 503 shows, in a table, the violation rates of the constraint conditions of other KPIs in a plan in which each KPI satisfies the constraint conditions.

[0090] Each entry in the impact information 503 indicates the degree of influence of each KPI on other KPIs. In the example shown in Fig. 8D, each entry indicates the number of constraint violations and the constraint violation rate of each of the other KPIs in a plan in which the target KPI complies with the constraint conditions. Column 531 indicates the target KPI, the total number of plans, and the number of plans violating the constraint conditions of the target KPI. Column group 532 indicates the number of constraint violations and the constraint violation rate of the other KPIs in a plan in which each target KPI indicated in column 531 satisfies the constraint conditions.

[0091] For example, the top entry 538 shows information about overall KPI1. Column 531 indicates that the total number of plans is 1000, and the number of plans in which overall KPI1 violates the constraints is 200. The column for individual KPI1 in column group 532 indicates that the number of plans in which overall KPI1 satisfies the constraints is 800, of which the number of plans in which individual KPI1 violates the constraints is 750, and the constraint violation rate is 750 / 800 = 93.8%.

[0092] KPIs with a high violation rate against other KPIs indicate that they are likely to be in a trade-off relationship, and by referring to the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint, which indicates the strictness of each constraint, each entity can confirm which constraints between KPIs in a trade-off relationship should be relaxed.

[0093] Note that information about all KPIs may be displayed to all entities, or the degree of influence of only the KPIs related to each entity on other KPIs may be displayed to each entity. Each entity can confirm the relationship between each KPI by referring to the display shown on the user interface 503. Instead of being presented in the table format shown in Fig. 8D, the influence degree 211 may be presented in a graph as shown in Fig. 8C, or may be expressed as a statistical value of the values ​​of other KPIs.

[0094] 9A and 9B show examples of user interface images presented by the reconciliation proposal presentation system 1000 when a plan access request is made by a subject.

[0095] 9A shows access plan information 600, which indicates the contents of accessed plan information 212. The access plan information 600 includes each subject's decision-making plan, a time series transition of the environmental state, and each KPI on a time series determined by each subject's decision-making plan and the time series transition of the environmental state.

[0096] All decision-making plans, time-series transitions of the environmental state, and each KPI on the time series may be displayed to all entities, or only the decision-making plans, time-series transitions of the environmental state, and each KPI on the time series related to each entity may be displayed to each entity. Each entity can check the time-series information of the accessed plan by referring to the display shown in the access plan information 600, and compare it with the contents of the plan shown in the proposed plan information 501.

[0097] 9B shows an example of the configuration of the access constraint compliance information 601. The access constraint compliance information 601 indicates, for each entity, the constraint compliance status 213 of the accessed plan, the number of constraint violations 209 which indicates the degree of ease of satisfying the constraints, and the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations.

[0098] Information about all KPIs may be displayed to all entities, or only KPIs relevant to each entity may be displayed to each entity. In this way, information about at least some of the KPIs is presented. Each entity can check the constraint compliance status of the accessed plan by referring to the display shown in the access constraint compliance information 601, and compare it with the constraint compliance status of the plan shown in the proposed constraint compliance information 502. [Example]

[0099] Next, the operation of the arbitration proposal presentation system 1000 will be described using an example of a plan in which multiple manufacturers in a supply chain procure parts from multiple suppliers. This embodiment can appropriately support arbitration of parts procurement between multiple manufacturers in a supply chain. Note that the configuration described in the first embodiment can be applied to systems and plans other than parts procurement plans in a supply chain.

[0100] Here, the main actors are manufacturers, and we consider the problem of arbitrating their respective procurement plans. The overall KPI is the demand fulfillment rate for the entire market, and the individual KPIs are the procurement costs of parts. The prices set by suppliers are not uniform, and each supplier is subject to a constraint in the form of production capacity. Note that this constraint differs from the constraints of the KPIs specified by the user.

[0101] When each manufacturer tries to minimize the procurement costs of parts, orders are concentrated on one supplier, and due to production capacity constraints, the supplier is unable to supply sufficient parts, resulting in a decline in the demand fulfillment rate in the entire market. Therefore, the purpose of the arbitration proposal presentation system 1000 is to arbitrate the procurement plans of each manufacturer and improve the demand fulfillment rate in the entire market.

[0102] 1, first, each manufacturer inputs the initial state of the environment, i.e., the initial inventory in this case, in step 100. The initial inventory may indicate the number of parts, intermediate products, and finished products held by each manufacturer.

[0103] Next, in step 101, constraints on the demand fulfillment rate (overall KPI) in the entire market agreed upon by all manufacturers, constraints on procurement costs (individual KPIs) determined by each manufacturer, and weighting coefficients indicating the importance of each KPI are input.

[0104] The individual KPI may be, for example, the procurement cost (instantaneous cost) for a given period of time of one part or a combination of some parts, the cumulative procurement cost up to now of one part or a combination of some parts, the procurement cost (instantaneous cost) for a given period of time of all parts, the cumulative procurement cost of all parts, etc. Note that KPIs of different types of procurement costs may also be used, and KPIs other than procurement costs may also be used.

[0105] The constraints for each KPI indicate, for example, the range within which the value of each KPI or a value calculated from that value should fall. Examples of constraints include a demand fulfillment rate being higher than a specified value, or the procurement cost of a certain part being lower than a specified value.

[0106] Next, in step 102, the arbitration proposal presentation system 1000 calculates a procurement plan to be presented to each manufacturer based on the initial state of inventory, constraints on the demand fulfillment rate in the entire market, constraints on procurement costs, and weighting coefficients for each KPI, as well as the degree of ease of satisfying each constraint and the impact each KPI has on other KPIs, and presents this to each manufacturer. As described above, the plan shows the timeline of decision-making by each entity. In this example, the parts procurement plan shows the type, quantity, and price of parts that each manufacturer will purchase from each supplier at each time.

[0107] The presented information is, for example, the information described with reference to Figures 8A to 8D. The input information 500 displays, for example, the set constraint conditions and weighting coefficients. The proposed plan information 501 displays, for example, the procurement plan proposed by the arbitration proposal presentation system 1000, as well as time-series data on inventory transitions, demand fulfillment rates in the entire market, and procurement costs.

[0108] The proposed constraint compliance information 502 displays the constraint compliance status 208, the number of constraint violations 209, and the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations for each KPI. Here, a KPI with a low number of constraint violations 209 is determined to have a high degree of ease of satisfying the constraints, and a plan that complies with the constraints is proposed. Conversely, a KPI with a high number of constraint violations 209 is determined to have a low degree of ease of satisfying the constraints, and a plan that violates the constraints is proposed.

[0109] The impact information 503 displays the impact 211 that each KPI has on other KPIs. Each manufacturer can check which KPIs are causing trade-offs or conflicts with their own procurement costs or the demand fulfillment rate in the entire market, and by comparing this with the number of constraint violations, it can be confirmed which constraint condition is more difficult to satisfy.

[0110] The information presented when a plan is accessed is, for example, the information described with reference to Figures 9A and 9B. Access plan information 600 indicates the contents of the accessed plan information 212. Access constraint compliance information 601 indicates the constraint compliance status 213 of the accessed plan, the number of constraint violations 209 which indicates the degree of ease of satisfying the constraints, and the relative evaluation value 210 of the number of constraint violations. Each manufacturer can refer to the presented information to know the contents of the accessed plan.

[0111] Next, in step 103, each manufacturer inputs via the data input / output section 200 whether they agree or reject the presented plan 206.

[0112] Finally, in step 104, it is determined whether agreement has been obtained from all the subjects. If it is true (104: YES), the process ends; if it is false (104: NO), the process returns to step 101.

[0113] The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments and includes various modifications. For example, the above-described embodiments have been described in detail to clearly explain the present invention, and the present invention is not necessarily limited to those including all of the described configurations. Furthermore, it is possible to replace part of the configuration of one embodiment with the configuration of another embodiment, or to add the configuration of another embodiment to the configuration of one embodiment. Furthermore, it is possible to add, delete, or replace part of the configuration of each embodiment with other configurations.

[0114] Furthermore, the above-mentioned components, functions, processing units, etc. may be realized in part or in whole by hardware, for example, by designing them as integrated circuits. Furthermore, the above-mentioned components, functions, etc. may be realized in software by a processor interpreting and executing a program that realizes each function. Information such as the programs, tables, and files that realize 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 or SD card.

[0115] In addition, the control lines and information lines shown are those that are considered necessary for the explanation, and do not necessarily show all the control lines and information lines in the product. In reality, it can be assumed that almost all components are interconnected. [Explanation of symbols]

[0116] 200 Data input / output section 201 Initial state 202 Constraints on overall KPI 203 Constraints on Individual KPIs 204 Weighting factors for each KPI 205 Plan Access ID 206 Agreeing to or Rejecting the Plan 207 Proposed Planning Information 208 Compliance with constraints of proposed plan 209 Constraint Violations 210 Relative evaluation value of the number of constraint violations 211 The degree to which each KPI influences other KPIs 212 Accessed planning information 213 Constraint compliance status of accessed plans 410 Server 411 Controller 412 Server communication device 420 Terminal Equipment 421 Input Device 422 Output Device 423 Terminal Communication Device 430 Network 500-503 User interface for mediation proposal presentation system 600-601 User interface for accessing plans in a mediation proposal presentation system 1000 Mediation Proposal Presentation System 1100 Planning Calculation Department 1101 Planning and Exploration Department 1102 Planning and Evaluation Department 1103 Planning and Update Department 1104 Pareto solution determination unit 1105 Tentative Solution Plan 1106 Selection flag from the plan calculation unit 1100 1107 Pareto Flag 1108 Decision making 1109 Status 1110 Evaluation value for each KPI 1200 Constraint condition management department 1201 Constraint Violation Detection Unit 1202 Constraint violation management department 1203 Constraint violation information 1204 Selection flag from the constraint condition management unit 1200 1205 Constraint violation management information 1300 Output Generation Unit 1301 Planning and Management Department 1302 Planning Selection Department 1303 Constraint Matching Unit 1304 Impact calculation unit 1305 Planning History

Claims

1. A mediation proposal presentation system, a processor; a memory, The memory stores management information of KPIs, The management information is Constraints and weighting factors for each of the multiple KPIs are included, The multiple KPIs are: Individual KPIs specific to each of the multiple entities, An overall KPI common to the multiple entities, The processor: Based on the plurality of KPIs and the weighting coefficients, a tentative plan is searched for that indicates a time series of decision-making by the plurality of entities for a Pareto solution; When a tentative plan that satisfies all of the constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs cannot be found, a proposed plan that satisfies the constraint conditions of the KPIs selected from the plurality of tentative plans that violate at least some of the constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs based on the degree of ease of satisfying the constraint conditions is determined; A mediation proposal presentation system that presents the presented plan and information on the degree of ease of satisfying constraints of at least some of the KPIs among the plurality of KPIs.

2. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 1, The processor: In the search for the provisional plans, information on KPIs that violate constraint conditions in each provisional plan is included in constraint violation management information; determining the number of constraint violation tentative plans for each KPI by referring to the constraint violation management information; The arbitration proposal presentation system presents information on the number of tentative plans that violate the constraints as an index showing the degree of ease of satisfying the constraint conditions.

3. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 1, The processor, in searching for the interim plan, Calculating an evaluation value for updating the tentative plan based on the KPI values ​​and weighting coefficients of the searched tentative plan; updating the tentative plan based on the evaluation value; The calculation of the evaluation value is Scaling is performed for each of the KPIs, The arbitration proposal presentation system calculates the evaluation value based on the scaled KPI and the weighting coefficient.

4. 4. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 3, The processor, in updating the tentative plan, imposes constraints on the update range of the tentative plan using an index indicating the update range.

5. 4. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 3, The processor, in searching for the interim plan, Select the KPIs for which the provisional plan before updating violates the constraints, The arbitration proposal presentation system calculates the evaluation value based on the selected KPI and a weighting coefficient for the selected KPI.

6. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 1, A mediation proposal presentation system in which, when a tentative plan is found that satisfies all of the constraints of the multiple KPIs, the processor presents information about the tentative plan and information about the degree of ease of satisfying the constraints of at least some of the KPIs among the multiple KPIs.

7. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 1, The processor determines the proposed plan that gives priority to satisfying the constraints of KPIs that are more likely to satisfy the constraints.

8. The mediation proposal presentation system according to claim 1, The processor determines the degree of impact on each of the other KPIs based on the number of interim plans that violate the constraints of each of the other KPIs in an interim plan that satisfies the constraints of the target KPI, and presents the degree of impact.

9. A method for a system to present a mediation proposal, comprising: The system stores management information of KPIs, The management information includes constraints and weighting factors for each of the multiple KPIs, The multiple KPIs include individual KPIs specific to each of the multiple entities and an overall KPI common to the multiple entities, The method further comprises the steps of: Based on the plurality of KPIs and the weighting coefficients, a tentative plan is searched for that indicates a time series of decision-making by the plurality of entities for a Pareto solution; When a tentative plan that satisfies all of the constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs cannot be found, a proposed plan that satisfies the constraint conditions of the KPIs selected from the plurality of tentative plans that violate at least some of the constraint conditions of the plurality of KPIs based on the degree of ease of satisfying the constraint conditions is determined; A method for presenting the presented plan and information on the degree of ease of satisfying constraints of at least some of the KPIs among the plurality of KPIs.

Images