Intermediary systems, methods, and programs

Abstract

This system, method, and program provides an intermediary system that proposes suitable intermediary candidates by considering both the Voice of the Enterprise (VOE) and the Voice of the Customer (VOC) in response to intermediary requests from clients. [Solution] According to the embodiment, the mediation system is a mediation system that proposes an appropriate candidate for a mediation partner in response to a mediation request from a client, and comprises a two-party compatibility determination unit that determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate for a mediation partner based on an evaluation of the candidate for a mediation partner made in advance by the client and an evaluation of the client made in advance by the candidate for a mediation partner, and a three-party compatibility determination unit that determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate for a mediation partner based on an evaluation made in advance by the mediator regarding the candidate for a mediation partner whose compatibility has been determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] Embodiments of the present invention relate to an intermediation system, method, and program that are suitably used for selecting a contractor in an after-sales service business and for matching compatibility between a customer and a contractor.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, in an after-sales service business such as maintenance of manufacturer products, when dealing with repair and inspection work by entrusting it to an external contractor, the manufacturer receiving the request from the customer is required to arrange an appropriate contractor from its own know-how.

[0003] Conventional contractor arrangement logic extracts an optimal contractor from the products, areas, required skills, etc. that a contractor can handle. For example, as in Patent Document 1, contractors are classified, and after the work is completed, the customer evaluates the contractor, which is then registered as contractor evaluation information, and contractors that match customer needs are searched for and extracted.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0004]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0005] However, even a contractor with a high performance evaluation may not receive good evaluations from all customers. Also, even a contractor with a low performance evaluation may be highly evaluated in dealing with a specific customer.

[0006] In addition, even a contractor who has the necessary skills and meets the requirements at the time of the request may be required by the customer to make a special on-site response, which may lead to trouble and result in a negative evaluation for the contractor.

[0007] Currently, customer evaluations of vendors (VOC: Voice of Customer) and vendor evaluations of customers (VOE: Voice of Employee) are managed either independently or not managed at all, and are not systematically used in vendor selection. As a result, unsuitable vendors may be selected, potentially leading to complaints and problems.

[0008] The problem that this invention aims to solve is to provide an intermediary system, method, and program that proposes suitable intermediary candidates by considering both the Voice of the Enterprise (VOE) and the Voice of the Customer (VOC) in response to an intermediary request from a client. [Means for solving the problem]

[0009] The mediation system of the embodiment is a mediation system that proposes an appropriate candidate for a mediation partner in response to a mediation request from a client, and comprises a two-party compatibility determination unit that determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate for a mediation partner based on an evaluation of the candidate for a mediation partner made in advance by the client and an evaluation of the client made in advance by the candidate for a mediation partner, and a three-party compatibility determination unit that determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate for a mediation partner based on an evaluation made in advance by the mediator regarding the candidate for a mediation partner whose compatibility has been determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0010] [Figure 1] Figure 1 is an exemplary system configuration diagram of a vendor selection system, which is a specific example realized by the intermediary system of the first embodiment. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment. [Figure 3] Figure 3 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment. [Figure 4]Figure 4 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor evaluation information database from the manufacturer's perspective in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment. [Figure 5] Figure 5 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment. [Figure 6] Figure 6 shows an example of the display of the vendor selection registration screen in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment. [Figure 7] Figure 7 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the vendor selection system according to the first embodiment. [Figure 8] Figure 8 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment. [Figure 9] Figure 9 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment. [Figure 10] Figure 10 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment. [Figure 11] Figure 11 shows an example of the display of the vendor selection registration screen in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment. [Figure 12] Figure 12 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the vendor selection system according to the second embodiment. [Figure 13] Figure 13 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment. [Figure 14] Figure 14 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the work performance database in the contractor selection system of the third embodiment. [Figure 15] Figure 15 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment. [Figure 16] Figure 16 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment. [Figure 17] Figure 17 is a flowchart showing an operation example of the business operator selection system in the third embodiment.

Embodiment for Implementing the Invention

[0011] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. The drawings are schematic or conceptual. In each drawing, elements that are the same as those described in the previous drawings are denoted by the same reference numerals, and detailed descriptions and redundant descriptions are omitted as appropriate.

[0012] (First Embodiment) A mediation system to which the mediation method of the first embodiment is applied will be described.

[0013] Hereinafter, a business operator selection system, which is a specific example realized by the mediation system of the first embodiment, will be described.

[0014] FIG. 1 is an exemplary system configuration diagram of a business operator selection system, which is a specific example realized by the mediation system of the first embodiment.

[0015] The business operator selection system 10 is a computer system that functions as a mediation system between customer A and service provider B by selecting an appropriate service provider B for customer A in consideration of the compatibility between customer A and service provider B, and includes a processing unit 30.

[0016] In addition, the business operator selection system 10 is realized by a computer system. Therefore, although not shown in FIG. 1, the business operator selection system 10 includes components of a general computer, such as a CPU, a memory, a storage device, input means such as a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, etc., and display means such as a display, etc.

[0017] The memory stores a compatibility matching program that implements the vendor selection process C, which is executed by the processing unit 30. The vendor selection process C is performed when the compatibility matching program is executed by the CPU.

[0018] The vendor selection system 10 is used for after-sales service operations performed by the manufacturer, such as selecting a suitable service provider B for customer A, and is therefore used, for example, in the manufacturer's support center.

[0019] For example, when customer A submits a trouble response request to the manufacturer (support center), support center staff member a operates the aforementioned input means according to the work instruction registration screen 20 displayed on a display means such as a display in the vendor selection system 10, and inputs a work instruction D0 based on the content of the trouble response request from customer A. The input work instruction D0 is sent to the processing unit 30.

[0020] Figure 2 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment.

[0021] The processing unit 30 includes a search unit 31, a supplier candidate extraction processing unit 32, a two-party compatibility determination unit 33, a three-party compatibility determination unit 34, a supplier information master database 35, a two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36, a supplier evaluation information database from a manufacturer's perspective 37, a VOC information database 38, a VOE information database 39, a supplier candidate information database 40, and a processing processing unit 41.

[0022] The search unit 31 extracts from the work instruction D0 work instruction information D1 which shows the content of the work instruction, customer information D2 which is information about customer A, delivered equipment information D3 which is information about equipment related to the work, area information D4 which is information about the area where the equipment is installed, and skill information D5 which is information about the skills required of the service provider performing the work.

[0023] The search unit 31 further searches for equipment suppliers E1, skill suppliers E2, and area suppliers E3 from the aforementioned information D1 to D5. Equipment suppliers E1 are mainly found from delivered equipment information D3, skill suppliers E2 are mainly found from skill information D5, and area suppliers E3 are found from area information D4.

[0024] Subsequently, the processing unit 30 performs vendor selection processing C using the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, and the three-party compatibility determination unit 34, and stores the processing results in the vendor candidate information database 40. Details of this vendor selection processing C are described below.

[0025] The vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 extracts candidate service providers (candidate vendors) B from the vendor information master database 35 based on the equipment provider E1, skill provider E2, and area provider E3 retrieved by the search unit 31. The vendor information master database 35 is pre-prepared in the vendor selection system 10. The vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 further outputs the extracted candidate vendors B to the two-party compatibility determination unit 33.

[0026] The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 performs a two-party compatibility determination on candidate vendor B output from the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 using the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36. The two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 is pre-built based on the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39 and is prepared in the vendor selection system 10.

[0027] Figure 3 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment.

[0028] The two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 stores two-party compatibility evaluation information, which is information that quantitatively indicates the compatibility between customer A and service provider B. The two-party compatibility evaluation information is not limited, but for example, as illustrated in Figure 3, it includes items such as a scored VOC and its reason N1, a scored VOE and its reason N2, a two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3, a two-party compatibility evaluation N4, and handover items (two-party compatibility evaluation) N5 for each combination of customer A and service provider B.

[0029] The scored VOC and its reason N1 are created based on past work performance and stored in the VOC information database 38. The scored VOC is numerical information that quantitatively expresses the evaluation result of service provider B by customer A using scores such as good (3 points), average (2 points), and poor (1 point). Reason N1 is textual information that describes the reason for customer A's evaluation of service provider B.

[0030] The scored VOE and its reason N2 are created based on past work performance and stored in the VOE information database 39. The scored VOE is numerical information that quantitatively expresses the evaluation result of customer A by service provider B using scores such as good (3 points), average (2 points), and poor (1 point). Reason N2 is textual information that describes the reason for service provider B's evaluation of customer A.

[0031] The VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39 are updated each time a task is completed, with new information added to them. The contents of the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39 may be updated either by manual input by the user or by automatic updates by the vendor selection system 10.

[0032] The scored VOC and its reason N1 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 are obtained and stored from the VOC information database 38, and the scored VOE and its reason N2 are obtained and stored from the VOE information database 39.

[0033] The two-party compatibility evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 is numerical information obtained by multiplying the VOC score by the VOE score.

[0034] The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 performs a two-party compatibility evaluation corresponding to the combination of customer A and candidate vendor B extracted by the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32, based on the two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36.

[0035] The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 can perform a two-party compatibility evaluation by comparing the value of the two-party evaluation score N3 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 with a predefined compatibility evaluation criterion.

[0036] For example, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 can determine that the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B is poor if the two-party evaluation score N3, VOC × VOE, is 3 or less, and good if VOC × VOE exceeds 3.

[0037] The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 writes the results of this compatibility determination to the two-party compatibility evaluation N4. In the example shown in Figure 3, "NG" indicates that customer A and candidate vendor B are incompatible, and "OK" indicates that customer A and candidate vendor B are compatible.

[0038] Furthermore, even if candidate contractor B is determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 to be incompatible with customer A, depending on the content of the work instruction D0, it may not be appropriate to exclude candidate contractor B from consideration for individual reasons, such as the technology possessed by candidate contractor B being essential, or candidate contractor B having sufficient resources to handle work requiring speed and being able to assign different members than those who handled the previous work.

[0039] To avoid the inappropriate exclusion of such candidate contractors, the contractor selection system 10 conducts a three-party compatibility assessment in addition to the two-party compatibility assessment described above. The three-party compatibility assessment is performed by the three-party compatibility assessment unit 34.

[0040] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 determines the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B, based on an evaluation that has been made in advance from the manufacturer's perspective, for candidate vendor B, whose compatibility has been determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33.

[0041] Specifically, the three-party compatibility determination unit 34 re-evaluates the compatibility of candidate vendor B, determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, with customer A based on the vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective, and writes the determination result to the vendor candidate information database 40 for storage.

[0042] Figure 4 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor evaluation information database from the manufacturer's perspective in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment.

[0043] The vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective is pre-prepared in the vendor selection system 10 and is not limited to it, but as illustrated in Figure 4, it includes items such as vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective and evaluation reasons N7 from the manufacturer's perspective for each service provider B.

[0044] The vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective is textual information expressed as "OK" indicating good compatibility or "NG" indicating poor compatibility. The evaluation reason N7 is textual information describing the reasons for the evaluation of vendor evaluation N6. Reasons for evaluation reason N7, from the manufacturer's perspective, that vendor evaluation N6 is "OK" can be expressed from the standpoint of fast response to requests, ability to handle requests with few resources and at low cost, and possession of unique technology. Reasons for evaluation reason N7, from the manufacturer's perspective, that vendor evaluation N6 is "NG" can be expressed from the standpoint of speed, quality, cost, and technical capabilities, such as many omissions or errors in reports.

[0045] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34, for candidate vendor B determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, refers to the aforementioned vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective to determine compatibility from the manufacturer's perspective. The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 determines that the three-party compatibility is good if the vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective for service vendor B corresponding to the candidate vendor in the vendor evaluation information database 37 is "OK", and not good if it is "NG".

[0046] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 writes this determination result to the contractor candidate information database 40 and stores it.

[0047] Figure 5 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment.

[0048] As illustrated in Figure 5, the vendor candidate information database 40 includes items such as two-party compatibility evaluation N4, handover items (two-party compatibility evaluation) N5, vendor evaluation from the manufacturer's perspective N6, three-party compatibility evaluation N8, handover items (three-party compatibility evaluation) N9, and two-party evaluation score (VOC×VOE) N3 for each combination of customer A and service provider B. The two-party evaluation score (VOC×VOE) N3, two-party compatibility evaluation N4, and handover items (two-party compatibility evaluation) N5 are stored in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36, while the vendor evaluation from the manufacturer's perspective N6 is stored in the vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective.

[0049] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 performs a three-party compatibility evaluation based on the information stored in the manufacturer's perspective vendor evaluation information database 37, and writes the results and handover items to the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 and evaluation handover items (three-party compatibility evaluation) N9 in the vendor candidate information database 40.

[0050] As shown in the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 of the candidate vendor information database 40, in the three-party compatibility evaluation, even if candidate vendor B was rated "NG" in the two-party compatibility evaluation N4, if it was rated "OK" in the vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective, it may be judged as "OK". For example, in the example of the third row (second record) in Figure 5, the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 is "NG", but because the vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective is "OK", the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 is "OK". However, if the result of the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 differs from the result of the two-party compatibility evaluation N4, the reason will be recorded in the handover item (three-party compatibility evaluation) N9.

[0051] As described above, the processing unit 30 performs compatibility determination by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 and compatibility determination by the three-party compatibility determination unit 34, and writes the determination result of the three-party compatibility determination to the contractor candidate information database 40 for storage.

[0052] Subsequently, the processing unit 41 creates a contractor candidate summary M from the contractor candidate information database 40, which summarizes the results of the contractor selection process C for the current work instruction D0, and displays the created contractor candidate summary M together with the work instruction D0 on the contractor selection registration screen 50.

[0053] Figure 6 shows an example of the display of the vendor selection registration screen in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment.

[0054] As illustrated in Figure 6(a), the contractor selection registration screen 50 includes work instructions D0 and a summary of candidate contractors M.

[0055] As illustrated in Figure 6(b), the candidate vendor summary M is displayed in a table format, including items such as service provider B, two-party compatibility evaluation N4, three-party compatibility evaluation N8, handover items (three-party compatibility evaluation) N9, and two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3.

[0056] A contractor selection registration screen 50, which displays such a candidate contractor summary M along with the work instruction D0, is shown on a display device such as a monitor.

[0057] Manufacturer representative A can view the work instruction D0 and the candidate contractor summary M from the contractor selection registration screen 50 displayed on the display device, and consider them in order to determine the most suitable contractor.

[0058] In this case, the vendor selection registration screen 50 may also display the service provider B in the vendor candidate summary M in order of compatibility. This allows the manufacturer's representative a to easily and visually identify the most compatible service provider B, enabling efficient dispatch of the optimal service provider B.

[0059] Next, we will describe an example of the operation of the vendor selection system realized by the intermediary system of the first embodiment configured as described above.

[0060] Figure 7 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the vendor selection system according to the first embodiment.

[0061] For example, when customer A submits a trouble response request to the manufacturer (support center), support center staff member a operates the input device according to the work instruction registration screen 20 displayed on a display device such as a display in the vendor selection system 10, and inputs a work instruction D0 based on the content of the trouble response request from customer A (S1).

[0062] The input work instruction D0 is sent to the processing unit 30, where the search unit 31 extracts from the work instruction D0 the following: work instruction information D1 indicating the content of the work instruction, customer information D2 relating to customer A, delivered equipment information D3 relating to the equipment related to the work, area information D4 relating to the area where the equipment is installed, and skill information D5 relating to the skills required of the service provider performing the work. The search unit 31 further searches for the equipment provider E1, the skill provider E2, and the area provider E3 from the information D1 to D5 (S2).

[0063] Next, the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 extracts candidate service providers (candidate vendors) B from the vendor information master database 35 based on the equipment provider E1, skill provider E2, and area provider E3 retrieved by the search unit 31 (S3). The extracted candidate vendors B are output by the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 to the two-party compatibility determination unit 33.

[0064] In the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, a two-party compatibility determination is performed on candidate vendor B output from the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 using the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 (S4). Specifically, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 performs a two-party compatibility evaluation by comparing the value of the two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 with a predefined compatibility determination criterion.

[0065] For example, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 determines that if the two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3 is 3 or less, the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B is poor, and if it exceeds 3, the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B is good.

[0066] Next, the three-party compatibility determination unit 34 performs a three-party compatibility determination (S5). In the three-party compatibility determination, the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B is determined based on an evaluation that has been made in advance from the manufacturer's perspective, using candidate vendor B whose compatibility has been determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33.

[0067] Specifically, the three-party compatibility determination unit 34 determines the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B, who was determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, based on the vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective. The determination result is then written to and stored in the vendor candidate information database 40.

[0068] The manufacturer's perspective vendor evaluation information database 37 includes items such as the manufacturer's perspective vendor evaluation N6 and the manufacturer's perspective evaluation reason N7 for each service provider B, as illustrated in Figure 4.

[0069] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 performs a compatibility determination from the manufacturer's perspective for candidate vendor B, who was determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, by referring to the vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective. For example, if the vendor evaluation N6 from the manufacturer's perspective for service vendor B corresponding to the candidate vendor in the vendor evaluation information database 37 is "OK", then the three-party compatibility is determined to be good; if it is "NG", then it is determined to be not good.

[0070] These judgment results are written to and stored in the contractor candidate information database 40 by the three-party compatibility judgment unit 34.

[0071] Subsequently, the processing unit 41 creates a contractor candidate summary M from the contractor candidate information database 40, which summarizes the results of the contractor selection process for the current work instruction D0. As illustrated in Figure 6(a), the created contractor candidate summary M is displayed together with the work instruction D0 on the contractor selection registration screen 50 (S6).

[0072] Manufacturer representative A can view the work instructions D0 and the candidate contractor summary M on the contractor selection registration screen 50 displayed from the display device, and use this information to determine the most suitable service provider B (S7).

[0073] As described above, according to the vendor selection system 10 in the first embodiment, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 determines the mutual compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B, and further, the three-party compatibility determination unit 34 can determine the appropriateness of candidate vendor B from the manufacturer's perspective.

[0074] This two-stage evaluation allows for the determination of a suitable candidate vendor B, not only in terms of compatibility with customer A but also from the perspective of the work content. Therefore, the support center can use the vendor selection system 10 to select an appropriate vendor according to the situation, thereby not only improving the efficiency of the work performed by service vendor B but also enhancing the sense of security and satisfaction of both customer A and service vendor B.

[0075] Furthermore, the contents of the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39 are updated manually or automatically after the completion of actual service operations, based on the results of these services. This allows the vendor selection system 10 to always use the latest information in the VOC information database 38 and VOE information database 39 to perform compatibility assessments between two parties. This is expected to further improve the accuracy of mediation in the future.

[0076] (Second embodiment) A mediation system to which the mediation method of the second embodiment is applied will be described.

[0077] The following describes a specific example of a vendor selection system implemented by the intermediary system of the second embodiment.

[0078] The vendor selection system, which is a specific example realized by the intermediary system of the second embodiment (hereinafter referred to as the "vendor selection system of the second embodiment"), is a modified version of the vendor selection system, which is a specific example realized by the intermediary system of the first embodiment (hereinafter referred to as the "vendor selection system of the first embodiment").

[0079] Therefore, the description of the vendor selection system in the second embodiment will not repeat the same information as that described in the first embodiment, but will instead focus on the differences from the vendor selection system in the first embodiment.

[0080] Figure 8 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment.

[0081] Figure 9 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment.

[0082] Figure 10 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment.

[0083] The overall system configuration of the vendor selection system in the second embodiment is the same as that of the vendor selection system in the first embodiment, as shown in Figure 1. However, as shown in Figure 8, the configuration of the processing unit 30A in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment differs from the configuration of the processing unit 30 in the vendor selection system of the first embodiment shown in Figure 2.

[0084] In the second embodiment of the business selection system 10, the processing unit 30A, as illustrated in Figure 8, is configured to add an AI analysis unit 42 and an AI dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 to the processing unit 30 shown in Figure 2, and further includes a two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a (see Figure 9) instead of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36 (see Figure 3), and a vendor candidate information database 40a (see Figure 10) instead of the vendor candidate information database 40 (see Figure 5).

[0085] Unlike the two-party compatibility evaluation database 36, the two-party compatibility evaluation database 36a expresses VOC and VOE qualitatively through text information rather than quantitatively through scores. Furthermore, it does not have items such as Reason N1, Reason N2, Two-party evaluation score (VOC × VOE) N3, and Handover items (two-party compatibility evaluation) N5, but instead has Two-party evaluation reason N10. Two-party evaluation reason N10 contains text information describing the reason for the two-party compatibility evaluation N4.

[0086] The AI ​​analysis unit 42 uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) to analyze the content of text information indicating customer A's evaluation of vendor B, which was registered as a comment in the VOC information database 38, and the content of text information indicating vendor B's evaluation of customer A, which was registered as a comment in the VOE information database 39, and automatically performs a qualitative evaluation of the compatibility between the two parties.

[0087] For example, the AI ​​analysis unit 42 can evaluate the text information as a good match if it contains positive keywords (e.g., good, polite, would like to ask, speedy, no problem, etc.), and as a bad match if it contains negative keywords (e.g., bad, would not like to ask, slow, worrying).

[0088] The AI ​​analysis unit 42 registers "OK" in the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a if it evaluates the compatibility as good, and registers "NG" if it evaluates the compatibility as bad. The AI ​​analysis unit 42 further writes text information describing the reason for the evaluation to the two-party evaluation reason N10.

[0089] The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 performs a two-party compatibility determination on candidate vendor B output from the vendor candidate extraction processing unit 32 using the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a. The two-party compatibility determination unit 33 evaluates that if the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 in the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a is "OK", the compatibility between customer A and candidate vendor B is good, and if it is "NG", the compatibility is poor.

[0090] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34 compares candidate vendor B, determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, with the vendor evaluation information database 37 from the manufacturer's perspective to perform a three-party compatibility evaluation, and outputs the evaluation result to the AI ​​dispatcher determination reason extraction unit 43.

[0091] When the AI ​​dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 receives the evaluation result output from the three-party compatibility determination unit 34, it extracts information such as the opinions of the three parties related to this evaluation result from the AI ​​analysis unit 42, writes the extracted information to the contractor candidate information database 40a, and stores it.

[0092] Subsequently, the processing unit 41, as described in the first embodiment, creates a contractor candidate summary Ma from the contractor candidate information database 40a, which shows the evaluation results for the current work instruction D0, and displays the created contractor candidate summary Ma together with the work instruction D0 on the contractor selection registration screen 50.

[0093] Figure 11 shows an example of the display of the vendor selection registration screen in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment.

[0094] As illustrated in Figure 11(a), the contractor selection registration screen 50 includes work instruction D0 and contractor candidate summary Ma.

[0095] The candidate vendor summary Ma is displayed as a list in a table format, as illustrated in Figure 11(b), and includes items such as service provider B, two-party compatibility evaluation N4, three-party compatibility evaluation N8, three-party compatibility evaluation reason N11, and two-party evaluation result N12. The three-party compatibility evaluation reason N11 and three-party evaluation result N12 are written by the AI ​​dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 based on the content extracted from the AI ​​analysis unit 42. The display order of the list can be, for example, by vendors with a proven track record or by those with the best evaluation. Note that for service provider B, which is selected for the first time, the two-party compatibility evaluation N4, three-party compatibility evaluation N8, three-party compatibility evaluation reason N11, and three-party evaluation result N12 are displayed as blank. Furthermore, in Figure 11(b), both the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 and the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 are marked as "NG," and "Company A and B," whose three-party evaluation result is "Unacceptable," are also displayed. However, it is acceptable to hide the display of service provider B, whose three-party evaluation result is "Unacceptable."

[0096] A contractor selection registration screen 50, which displays such a candidate contractor summary Ma along with the work instruction D0, is displayed on a display device such as a monitor.

[0097] Manufacturer representative A can view the work instructions D0 and the candidate contractor summary Ma displayed on the display device and consider them in order to select the most suitable contractor.

[0098] For example, in the vendor candidate summary Ma, by displaying service provider B in order of compatibility, manufacturer representative a can efficiently dispatch the most suitable service provider B.

[0099] Next, we will describe an example of the operation of the vendor selection system realized by the intermediary system of the second embodiment configured as described above.

[0100] Figure 12 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the vendor selection system according to the second embodiment.

[0101] In the flowchart shown in Figure 12, the same processing steps as in the flowchart in Figure 7 are given the same step numbers to avoid redundant explanations. That is, the flowchart in Figure 12 has steps S3A and S5A added to the flowchart in Figure 7.

[0102] In step S3A, the content of the text information registered as comments in the VOC information database 38 and VOE information database 39 is analyzed by the AI ​​analysis unit 42 using AI. If the evaluation result indicates good compatibility, the AI ​​analysis unit 42 registers "OK" in the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a, and if the evaluation result indicates poor compatibility, it registers "NG". Furthermore, the AI ​​analysis unit 42 writes the reason for the evaluation in the two-party evaluation reason N10.

[0103] In the two-party compatibility evaluation information database 36a, if the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 is "OK", then in the next step S4, the two-party compatibility determination unit 33 determines that the compatibility between the customer and the candidate company is good, and if it is "NG", then it determines that the compatibility is poor.

[0104] In step S5A, the AI ​​dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 extracts information such as the opinions of the three parties related to the evaluation results from the three-party compatibility determination unit 34 from the AI ​​analysis unit 42, and the extracted information is written to and stored in the contractor candidate information database 40a.

[0105] Subsequently, similar to the first embodiment, the processing unit 41 creates a supplier candidate summary Ma from the supplier candidate information database 40a, showing the evaluation results for the current work instruction D0. The created supplier candidate summary Ma is displayed together with the work instruction D0 on the supplier selection registration screen 50 (S6). The manufacturer's representative a can then view the work instruction D0 and the supplier candidate summary Ma on the supplier selection registration screen 50 to help determine the most suitable service supplier B (S7).

[0106] As explained above, according to the vendor selection system 10 in the second embodiment, the AI ​​analysis unit 42 analyzes the text information in the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39 and evaluates the compatibility (for example, negative or positive) between customer A and service provider B. This makes it possible to understand the background and emotions of the evaluation and then perform an evaluation for selecting the optimal vendor.

[0107] Furthermore, the AI ​​dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 extracts information such as the opinions of the three parties regarding the evaluation reasons from the AI ​​analysis unit 42, writes it to the contractor candidate information database 40a, creates a contractor candidate summary Ma based on the contents written to the contractor candidate information database 40a, and displays the contractor selection registration screen 50, which includes the work instruction D0 and the contractor candidate summary Ma, on the display.

[0108] By viewing the three-party compatibility evaluation reason N11 in the vendor candidate summary Ma, manufacturer representative A can also understand any precautions regarding service provider B and communicate them to service provider B in advance. This helps prevent potential problems between customer A and service provider B.

[0109] (Third embodiment) A mediation system to which the mediation method of the third embodiment is applied will be described.

[0110] The following describes a specific example of a vendor selection system implemented by the third embodiment of the intermediary system.

[0111] The vendor selection system, which is a specific example realized by the intermediary system of the third embodiment (hereinafter referred to as the "vendor selection system of the third embodiment"), is a modified version of the vendor selection system, which is a specific example realized by the intermediary system of the second embodiment (hereinafter referred to as the "vendor selection system of the second embodiment").

[0112] Therefore, the explanation of the vendor selection system in the third embodiment will not repeat the same information as that described in the second embodiment, but will instead focus on the differences from the vendor selection system in the second embodiment.

[0113] Figure 13 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the processing unit in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment.

[0114] Figure 14 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the work performance database in the contractor selection system of the third embodiment.

[0115] Figure 15 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the two-party compatibility evaluation information database in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment.

[0116] Figure 16 is a data table showing an example of the data structure of the vendor candidate information database in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment.

[0117] The overall system configuration of the vendor selection system in the third embodiment is the same as that of the vendor selection system in the first embodiment, as shown in Figure 1. However, as shown in Figure 13, the configuration of the processing unit 30B in the vendor selection system of the third embodiment differs from the configuration of the processing unit 30A in the vendor selection system of the second embodiment shown in Figure 8.

[0118] In the third embodiment, the processing unit 30B, as illustrated in Figure 13, performs AI analysis using the AI ​​analysis unit 42 from the second embodiment shown in Figure 8, taking into account not only the VOC information database 38 and VOE information database 39, but also the work instruction information D1, customer information D2, vendor information master database 35, and work performance information database 45.

[0119] The work performance information database 45 is pre-configured in the vendor selection system 10 and, as shown in Figure 14, although not limited to these, includes the following items: work request number J1, work type J2, customer name A, service provider name B, delivered equipment J3, work date J4, work time J5, work report content J6, and status J7. Each time a job is completed, new performance data is written to the work performance information database 45, either manually or automatically, based on the work performance.

[0120] The results of the AI ​​analysis performed by the AI ​​analysis unit 42, which takes into account not only the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39, but also the work instruction information D1, customer information D2, vendor information master database 35, and work performance information database 45, are utilized not only by the two-party compatibility determination unit 33, but also by the three-party compatibility determination unit 34a and the AI ​​dispatcher determination reason extraction unit 43.

[0121] The processing unit 30B also includes an input unit 44 for a user, such as manufacturer representative a, to input further judgment conditions to be considered in the compatibility judgment in the three-party compatibility judgment unit 34a. As such further judgment conditions, it is possible to incorporate logic that changes the evaluation under certain conditions, such as when the evaluation among three parties differs from the evaluation among two parties. For example, if the evaluation among two parties is "NG," but the evaluation among three parties including the manufacturer's perspective is "OK," the evaluation may be set to "OK" if customer A agrees, or if the evaluation from the manufacturer's perspective is "NG," but the evaluation among two parties is "OK."

[0122] Furthermore, the input unit 44 is equipped with an interactive AI function, which displays an input screen 46 from the display. The user can input judgment conditions in an interactive format from the input screen 46 according to the conversational information generated by the interactive AI function. Through this interactive input, the content of the judgment conditions is narrowed down, so it becomes possible to input judgment conditions that reflect not only situations such as whether work instruction D0 is urgent or whether cost should be prioritized, but also past know-how that was previously only possible for experts, as well as the background and emotions of the evaluations of customer A and service provider B.

[0123] The three-party compatibility determination unit 34a, when performing a three-party compatibility determination, considers not only the analysis results from the AI ​​analysis unit 42 but also the narrowed-down determination conditions input from the input unit 44. This enables the three-party compatibility determination unit 34a to perform a three-party compatibility determination based on detailed determination conditions.

[0124] As a result, the data structure diagram of the contractor candidate information database 40b written by the AI ​​dispatcher judgment reason extraction unit 43 is as illustrated in Figure 16. Unlike the contractor candidate information database 40a illustrated in Figure 10, the contractor candidate information database 40b also has an item called interactive narrowing point N13. The interactive narrowing point N13 is created based on the judgment conditions entered from the input unit 44.

[0125] The processing unit 41 creates a supplier candidate summary Ma based on the supplier candidate information database 40b. The processing unit 41 can automatically summarize the overall evaluation reasons and selection considerations based on the evaluation reasons among the three parties, the evaluation reasons among the two parties, and the evaluation reasons from the manufacturer's perspective, and create a supplier candidate summary Ma. In the supplier candidate summary Ma, the three-party evaluation result N12 can be, for example, "Excellent," "Good," or "Acceptable" if both the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 and the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 are "OK," "Acceptable" if one of the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 and the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 is "OK" and the other is "NG," and "Unacceptable" if both the two-party compatibility evaluation N4 and the three-party compatibility evaluation N8 are "NG."

[0126] Next, we will describe an example of the operation of the vendor selection system realized by the third embodiment of the intermediary system configured as described above.

[0127] Figure 17 is a flowchart showing an example of the operation of the vendor selection system in the third embodiment.

[0128] In the flowchart shown in Figure 17, the same processing steps as in the flowchart in Figure 12 are given the same step numbers to avoid redundant explanations. That is, the flowchart in Figure 17 has steps S4A and S4B added to the flowchart in Figure 12.

[0129] In step S4A, an input screen 46 for inputting further judgment conditions to be considered in the compatibility judgment of the three-party compatibility judgment unit 34 is displayed on the display by the input unit 44. The user can input the judgment conditions according to this input screen 46.

[0130] The input unit 44 is equipped with an interactive AI function, which allows the user to input criteria in a conversational format, as shown in step S4B. This makes it possible to reflect not only the situation, such as whether the work instruction D0 is urgent or one where cost should be prioritized, but also past know-how that was previously only available to experts, as well as the background and emotions of the evaluations of customers and contractors, in the criteria for judgment.

[0131] Then, in the three-party compatibility determination process in step S5, it becomes possible to perform a three-party compatibility determination based on such detailed determination conditions.

[0132] Subsequently, the processes in steps S5A, S6, and S7 are carried out in the same manner as in the second embodiment.

[0133] As described above, according to the third embodiment of the vendor selection system, the AI ​​analysis unit 42 can perform AI analysis considering not only the VOC information database 38 and the VOE information database 39, but also the work instruction information D1, customer information D2, vendor information master database 35, and work performance information database 45. By using the results of this analysis, it becomes possible to perform more detailed and reliable judgments in two-party compatibility judgments and three-party compatibility judgments.

[0134] The user can input conditions for determining compatibility among the three parties through the input unit 44 in an interactive format. As the input conditions are refined through the interactive input, the user can easily input detailed conditions that would have previously only been possible for experts, enabling more detailed and reliable determinations in the three-party compatibility assessment.

[0135] Thus, the present invention makes it possible to provide an intermediary system, method, and program that proposes appropriate intermediary candidates by considering both the VOE and VOC in response to an intermediary request from a client.

[0136] While several embodiments of the present invention have been described, these embodiments are presented as examples only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. These embodiments can be carried out in a variety of other forms, and various omissions, substitutions, and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. These embodiments and their variations are included in the scope and spirit of the invention, as well as in the claims and their equivalents. [Explanation of symbols]

[0137] 10. Vendor Selection System 20. Work Order Registration Screen 30, 30A, 30B Processing Units 31 Search Section 32. Vendor Candidate Extraction Processing Unit 33 Compatibility determination unit between two parties 34. Compatibility determination unit between three parties 35. Vendor Information Master Database 36, 36a, 36b Two-Party Compatibility Evaluation Information Database 37. A database of vendor evaluation information from a manufacturer's perspective. 38 VOC Information Database 39 VOE Information Database 40, 40a, 40b Contractor Candidate Information Database 41 Processing Section 42 AI Analysis Department 43 AI Dispatcher Judgment Reason Extraction Unit 44 Input section 45. Work Performance Information Database 46 Input screen 50. Vendor Selection Registration Screen a. Manufacturer's representative A customer B Service providers, candidate companies C. Vendor Selection Process D0 Work instructions D1 Work Instruction Information D2 Customer information D3 Delivered equipment information D4 Area Information D5 Skill Information Summary of potential contractors M and Ma

Claims

1. This is an intermediary system that proposes suitable intermediary candidates in response to intermediary requests from clients. A two-party compatibility determination unit determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate intermediary based on the evaluation of the candidate intermediary made in advance by the client and the evaluation of the client made in advance by the candidate intermediary. An intermediary system comprising a three-party compatibility determination unit that determines the compatibility between the client and the candidate intermediary based on an evaluation made in advance by the intermediary regarding the candidate intermediary whose compatibility has been determined by the two-party compatibility determination unit.

2. Both the evaluation of the aforementioned intermediary candidate and the evaluation of the aforementioned client are expressed using scores corresponding to the evaluation content. The intermediary system according to claim 1, wherein the two-party compatibility determination unit determines the compatibility based on a comparison between the product of a score corresponding to the evaluation of the candidate intermediary and a score corresponding to the evaluation of the client and a predetermined threshold.

3. Furthermore, we have added an AI (Artificial Intelligence) analysis department. Both the evaluation of the aforementioned intermediary candidate and the evaluation of the aforementioned client are expressed in text information that describes the evaluation content. The AI ​​analysis unit analyzes the text information representing the evaluation content of the intermediary candidate and the text information representing the evaluation content of the client using AI to create two-party evaluation information, which is a qualitative evaluation result regarding the compatibility between the client and the intermediary candidate. The mediation system according to claim 2, wherein the two-party compatibility determination unit determines the compatibility based on the two-party evaluation information, instead of determining the compatibility based on a comparison with the threshold value.

4. The mediation system according to claim 3, further comprising a determination reason extraction unit that extracts determination reasons corresponding to the determination result by the three-party compatibility determination unit from the AI ​​analysis unit.

5. The mediation system according to claim 3, further comprising an input unit equipped with an interactive AI function, which accepts input of further determination conditions to be considered in the compatibility determination of the three-party compatibility determination unit in a conversational format using the interactive AI function.

6. This is an intermediary method applied to an intermediary system that proposes suitable intermediary candidates in response to an intermediary request from a client. The processor of the aforementioned intermediary system A step of determining the compatibility between the client and the prospective intermediary based on the evaluation of the prospective intermediary made in advance by the client and the evaluation of the client made in advance by the prospective intermediary, A mediation method comprising the step of determining the compatibility between the client and the candidate for the mediating service, based on an evaluation made in advance by the mediator with respect to the candidate for the mediating service whose compatibility has been determined.

7. A program for causing a computer to function as one of the components of the intermediary system according to any one of claims 1 to 5.

Images