Accident and disaster risk prediction system and accident and disaster risk prediction method

Abstract

When carrying out a task, the risks of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with that task are predicted quantitatively. [Solution] In the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1, the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 includes a database that stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in the cases, and the degree of damage in the cases; an occurrence frequency evaluation unit that evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to each type of work based on the number of cases corresponding to the type of work and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value; a severity evaluation unit that evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur related to each type of work based on the degree of damage in each case corresponding to the type of work and calculates a severity evaluation value; and a display unit that displays the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value for each type of work received by the input reception unit on the worker terminal 6, and an overall evaluation calculated based on these evaluation values.

Description

[[Technical Field]]

[0001] The present invention relates to an accident and disaster risk prediction system and an accident and disaster risk prediction method. [[Background Art]]

[0002] At work sites such as manufacturing sites and construction sites, efforts are being made to suppress the occurrence of accidents and disasters. As such an effort, for example, according to the type of work to be performed, a list of accidents and disasters that may occur when performing the type of work is prepared, and at a timing before the start of work such as a morning meeting, it is conceivable that the person leading the workers or each of the workers browses the list corresponding to the type of work to be performed from now on, and calls the workers' attention, etc. Such efforts to suppress the occurrence of accidents and disasters are sometimes carried out using information processing systems such as personal computers and servers.

[0003] In this regard, for example, Patent Document 1 discloses an information processing system comprising: a first database that stores worker attributes including worker identification information for identifying a worker and worker data indicating the work process of the worker; a second database that stores accident data related to accidents that occurred in the past; an input unit that inputs information based on an operation received from the outside; a search unit that searches for worker data from the second database based on the worker identification information in the information input by the input unit; a reading unit that reads accident data from the second database based on the worker data searched by the search unit; and an output unit that outputs output information based on the accident data read by the reading unit. In Patent Document 1, the reading unit compares items indicated by the worker data searched by the search unit with items indicated by the accident data, and reads accident data having matching items from the second database. Patent Document 1 also discloses that the reading unit counts the number of matching items as a score, and outputs output information in descending order of the score, for example, according to the value of the score.

[0004] The score calculated in Patent Document 1 is considered to be the degree of relevance between accident data and the worker, indicating how relevant the accident data is to the worker. Therefore, by using the system disclosed in Patent Document 1, workers can identify past accident and disaster cases that are particularly likely to occur to them in the type of work they are about to perform. However, as mentioned above, the score described in Patent Document 1 indicates the degree of correlation between accident data and workers, and does not quantitatively evaluate the risk of accidents, such as how frequently accidents corresponding to the accident data may occur, or how serious the damage or injury will be when an accident occurs.

[0005] When carrying out work, it is desirable to quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work. [Prior art documents] [Patent Documents]

[0006] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Publication No. 2021-93067 [Overview of the project] [Problems that the invention aims to solve]

[0007] The problem that this invention aims to solve is to provide an accident risk prediction system and an accident risk prediction method that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] To solve the above problems, the present invention employs the following means. In other words, the present invention provides an accident and disaster risk prediction system for predicting the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with work when performing work, comprising: a database storing correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases; an occurrence frequency evaluation unit that, for each type of work, evaluates the frequency of occurrence of accidents and disasters related to that type of work based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work in the database and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value; a severity evaluation unit that, for each type of work, evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur related to that type of work based on the degree of damage in each of the cases corresponding to that type of work in the database and calculates a severity evaluation value; an input reception unit that receives input of the type of work; and a display unit that displays either or both of the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the type of work received by the input reception unit, and an overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. In the configuration described above, the database stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in those cases, and the extent of the damage in those cases. The occurrence frequency evaluation unit evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to each type of work based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work in the database described above, and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value. As described above, this occurrence frequency evaluation value is calculated as the frequency of accidents and disasters related to each type of work, based on the number of cases corresponding to each type of work. Therefore, the higher the occurrence frequency evaluation value of a type of work, the more likely it is that accidents and disasters will occur in that type of work. In this way, the occurrence frequency evaluation value is a quantitative evaluation of the likelihood of accidents and disasters occurring. Furthermore, the severity assessment unit evaluates the severity of potential accidents and disasters for each type of work based on the degree of damage in each case corresponding to that type of work in the database described above, and calculates a severity assessment value. As described above, this severity assessment value is calculated as the severity of accidents and disasters for each type of work, based on the degree of damage in each case corresponding to each type of work. Therefore, it can be considered that the higher the severity assessment value for a type of work, the greater the damage and injuries that can result from accidents and disasters occurring in that type of work. In this way, the severity assessment value is a quantitative evaluation of the severity of accidents and disasters in the event that they occur. In such an accident and disaster risk prediction system, when a worker inputs, for example, the type of work they are about to perform, the input reception unit accepts the input of the type of work, and the display unit displays either or both of the following: the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the type of work accepted by the input reception unit, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. This allows the worker to quantitatively grasp the risk of the type of work by recognizing the frequency evaluation value, the severity evaluation value, or the overall evaluation calculated based on these values ​​for the type of work they have entered. In this way, it becomes possible to provide an accident and disaster risk prediction system that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out.

[0009] In one aspect of the present invention, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the types of work using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means, the severity evaluation unit calculates the severity evaluation value for each of the types of work using one or more severity calculation means, and for each combination of the occurrence frequency calculation means and the severity calculation means, for each of the types of work, the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to the combination calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means included in the combination for the type of work, and the severity calculation means included in the combination, corresponding to the combination The system further comprises: an overall evaluation calculation unit that calculates the overall evaluation of the type of work corresponding to the combination based on the severity evaluation value and; a combination selection unit that selects one of the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each of the types of work corresponding to each of the combinations; and the display unit displays either or both of the following: the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of the type of work for which input has been received by the input receiving unit; and the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of the type of work for which input has been received by the input receiving unit. With the configuration described above, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of work using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means. The severity evaluation unit also calculates a severity evaluation value for each type of work using one or more severity calculation means. Depending on the number of occurrence frequency calculation means and severity calculation means, there may be multiple combinations of occurrence frequency calculation means and severity calculation means. For each of these combinations of occurrence frequency calculation means and severity calculation means, the overall evaluation calculation unit calculates an overall evaluation of the work type corresponding to that combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means included in that combination for that work type, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the severity calculation means included in that combination. Furthermore, the combination selection unit selects one combination from among the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each work type corresponding to each combination, calculated as described above. The display unit then displays either the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of work types accepted by the input reception unit, or the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of work types accepted by the input reception unit, or both. This configuration allows for the appropriate implementation of an accident and disaster risk prediction system.

[0010] In another embodiment of the present invention, the combination selection unit calculates a histogram for each of the combinations of the overall evaluations of each of the types of work corresponding to that combination, and selects the combination in which the histogram is evaluated as being in a state that is closest to uniform distribution. For example, if a worker starts a different type of work each day, and similar risk values ​​are predicted for each day despite the different types of work, the worker may come to believe that the prediction results are not worth referring to because all tasks are predicted to have roughly the same level of risk. This could lead to a decrease in the worker's sense of urgency regarding the work. In contrast, with the configuration described above, the combination selection unit calculates a histogram of the overall evaluation of each work type corresponding to each combination, and selects the combination whose histogram is evaluated as being most uniformly distributed. The combination selected as a result of this process is considered to be one in which the overall evaluation values ​​of the multiple work types are most scattered and varied within the range of possible values. As a result, the risk prediction results tend to be different for different work types, thus suppressing the frequent prediction of similar risk values ​​despite different work types. Consequently, a weakening of workers' sense of crisis is suppressed.

[0011] In another embodiment of the present invention, the degree of damage in a given case, stored in the database in relation to the case, is either the degree of injury or illness suffered by the victim in the case, or the total amount of damage to the goods destroyed in the case. With the configuration described above, the risk of accidents and disasters can be assessed in terms of people and goods.

[0012] Furthermore, the present invention provides an accident and disaster risk prediction method for predicting the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with work when performing work, comprising: an occurrence frequency evaluation step, which uses a database storing correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases, and for each type of work, evaluates the frequency of occurrence of accidents and disasters related to that type of work based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work in the database and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value; a severity evaluation step, which uses the database and, for each type of work, evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur related to that type of work based on the degree of damage in each of the cases corresponding to that type of work in the database and calculates a severity evaluation value; an input reception step, which receives input of the type of work; and a display step, which displays either or both of the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the type of work for which input has been received, and a comprehensive evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. With the configuration described above, it becomes possible to provide a work risk prediction method that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being performed, similar to the accident and disaster risk prediction system described above. [Effects of the Invention]

[0013] According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an accident and disaster risk prediction system and an accident and disaster risk prediction method that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out. [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS]

[0014] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an accident and disaster risk prediction system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is an example of process types and work types to be processed by the accident and disaster risk prediction system. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of case details and a summary sentence. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is an example of occurrence frequency evaluation values and severity evaluation values calculated for some work types in the accident and disaster risk prediction system. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a histogram of comprehensive evaluations calculated for each of a plurality of work types in a combination of an occurrence frequency calculation means and a severity calculation means. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a histogram of comprehensive evaluations calculated for each of a plurality of work types in another combination of the occurrence frequency calculation means and the severity calculation means different from that in FIG. 5. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is a display example of prediction results obtained by the accident and disaster risk prediction system. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a display example of a result obtained when one case is selected in FIG. 7. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a flowchart relating to advance preparation of an accident and disaster risk prediction method using the accident and disaster risk prediction system. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a flowchart relating to risk evaluation of the accident and disaster risk prediction method. [MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION]

[0015] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the accident and disaster risk prediction system according to the present embodiment. The accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 comprises the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 and a worker terminal 6 used by the worker. When a worker performs a task, the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with that task and displays it to the worker. The accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 provides the worker with information about the risk of accidents and disasters related to the task in order to reduce the occurrence of accidents and disasters.

[0016] The worker terminal 6 is an information processing device with communication capabilities that allows it to communicate with the accident / disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 via an external network 100. The worker terminal 6 is a portable device used by multiple workers, such as a smartphone or tablet. The worker terminal 6 may also be a personal computer or the like that is permanently installed at the work site. Here, the external network 100 is, for example, a public wireless network or the internet that can communicate wirelessly with the accident / disaster risk prediction system main unit 2. The worker terminal 6 functionally includes a communication unit 61 capable of communicating with the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 via the network 100, an input receiving unit 62 into which the worker inputs information such as the ability to access the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2, and a display unit 63 such as a monitor or touch panel display that displays information transmitted from the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2.

[0017] Figure 2 shows an example of the types of processes and tasks that are processed by the accident and disaster risk prediction system. In this embodiment, the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 predicts the risk of accidents and disasters related to construction work involving the construction of building structures. The work targeted by the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 is not limited to this, and may also include civil engineering work, high-altitude construction, work inside various facilities such as factories, etc.

[0018] Building structures are constructed through multiple processes. In other words, the work targeted by the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 includes multiple types of processes C1. Process types C1 can be, for example, classified according to the characteristics of the work, depending on the differences in the occupations of the workers. In this embodiment, examples of process types C1 include "concrete pouring," "steel frame erection," and "PC / ALC construction."

[0019] Each of the process type C1 further includes multiple work types C2. Work type C2 is, for example, a detailed breakdown of process type C1. For example, process type C1 "Concrete pouring" may include work types C2 such as "Pipe laying, relocation, and removal of concrete pouring pipes," "Concrete pouring," and "Cleaning up after concrete pouring." For example, process type C1 "Steel frame erection" may include work types C2 such as "Steel frame unloading," "Steel frame assembly," and "Steel frame column erection." For example, process type C1 "PC / ALC work" may include work types C2 such as "Unloading and lifting of PC / ALC work," "ALC processing," and "Installation of fasteners and hardware." For example, in work type C2, "unloading and lifting of PC / ALC materials," a possible accident could be that PC / ALC materials fall and crush a worker underneath. Similarly, in work type C2, "processing of ALC materials," a possible accident could be that a worker is injured by a tool during processing. Thus, even within the same process type C1, different accidents can occur in work type C2. Therefore, work type C2 can be said to be a further subdivision of process type C1, based on the detailed work content and the characteristics of accidents that are likely to occur.

[0020] The accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 consists of information processing devices such as a server, personal computer, and tablet terminal, and performs the required functions by executing a pre-configured program. The accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 functionally includes an occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21, a severity evaluation unit 22, an overall evaluation calculation unit 23, a combination selection unit 24, an input reception unit 25, a display data creation unit 26, and a database 30. In the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2, the processing in the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21, the severity evaluation unit 22, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23, and the combination selection unit 24 is performed based on the information (only) stored in the database 30. Therefore, in this embodiment, these processes are performed as pre-processing prior to the introduction of the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1. Furthermore, since the above pre-processing is performed based on the information stored in the database 30, it can also be performed as update processing each time the contents of the database 30 are updated, even after the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 has been introduced and started to be operated.

[0021] Database 30 stores multiple past accident and disaster cases related to the operations targeted by the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1. In other words, database 30 collects and stores past accident and disaster cases. Database 30 stores text (documents) that describe the details of each case. Database 30 stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases and the type of work C2 performed in each case. In each case, the accident or disaster occurred while the worker was performing some type of work C2. Database 30 associates each case with the type of work C2 related to that case, as described above.

[0022] Furthermore, database 30 stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases and the degree of injury in those cases. In each case, it is possible that a worker suffered some kind of injury or illness as a result of the accident or disaster. Therefore, in this embodiment, the degree of injury in each case is associated with the degree of injury or illness suffered by the victim in that case. For each case, the greater the degree of damage, the more serious the damage suffered by the victim in that case. In this embodiment, the degree of injury or illness is associated with each case as an integer value between 1 and 5. In this embodiment, the degree of injury or illness is associated with each case as follows: a value of "1" if the victim is not injured or ill, or if the injury or illness is not severe enough to require time off work; a value of "2" if it requires time off work for 1 to 3 days; a value of "3" if it requires time off work for 4 days to less than 1 month; a value of "4" if it requires time off work for 1 month or more; and a value of "5" if it is a fatal accident. Thus, database 30 stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work C2 performed in those cases, and the extent of the damage in those cases.

[0023] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the database 30 stores, for each past accident and disaster case, the following information is stored: the type of process C1 to which the case pertains; a summary of the case; the age of the victim in the case; the occupation of the victim in the case; the accident type indicating the characteristics of the accident or disaster in the case, such as "falling" or "being caught in / entangled"; the name of the machine used in the case; and the location where the work was performed in the case. Figure 3 shows a case with details and an example of a summary. The above case summary can be generated by inputting the text sentences stored as case examples in database 30 into, for example, a Large Language Model (LLM). For example, by displaying such a summary instead of the original text sentences as case examples, the user can easily grasp the content of the case.

[0024] The occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 aggregates the number of cases corresponding to each type of work C2 in the database 30. Furthermore, for each type of work C2, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to that type of work C2 based on the aggregated number of cases corresponding to that type of work C2, and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value. The occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work type C2 using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40. In this embodiment, the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 comprises a first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and a second occurrence frequency calculation means 42.

[0025] The first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of process C1 independently, that is, using only information related to the type of process C1, for the type of work C2 included in that type of process C1. Specifically, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work type C2 as follows: First, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 calculates the maximum value MAXi and the minimum value MINi of the number of cases Nj corresponding to the type of work j included in the type of work i of process i for each type of process i. Next, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of work j for each type of work j, based on which of the ranges the number of cases Nj corresponding to the type of work j belongs to, which is divided from a minimum value MINi to a maximum value MAXi by the number of values ​​the occurrence frequency evaluation value can take (i.e., 5 in this embodiment). For example, the value d1 is defined as a value indicating the width of each range, as shown in equation (1) below. d1 = (MAXi - MINi) / Number of possible values ​​for the frequency evaluation value ... (1)

[0026] The first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 1 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is greater than or equal to the minimum value MINi and less than MINi + d1. Furthermore, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 2 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MINi + d1 or greater and less than MINi + 2 × d1. Furthermore, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 3 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MINi + 2 × d1 or more and less than MINi + 3 × d1. Furthermore, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 4 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MINi + 3 × d1 or more and less than MINi + 4 × d1. Furthermore, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 5 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MINi + 4 × d1 or more and the maximum value MAXi or less.

[0027] For example, when the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type C2, such as "steel frame unloading," "steel frame assembly," and "steel frame column erection," which are included in work type C1 of the "steel frame erection" process, it calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value based only on work type C2 included in work type C1 of the "steel frame erection" process. By performing the calculations described above, the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 can set the occurrence frequency evaluation values ​​for each of the types of work C2 included in each of the types of processes C1, such that they are appropriately distributed as integer values ​​between 1 and 5.

[0028] The second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work types C2 without being independent of the process type C1, that is, when performing calculations for the work types C2 included in a certain process type C1, it uses information about other process types C1 in conjunction with it. Specifically, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work type C2 as follows: First, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 calculates the maximum value MAX and the minimum value MIN of the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j, for all work type j included in all process type C1. Next, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of work j, which is obtained by dividing the number of cases Nj corresponding to the type of work j into ranges from a minimum value MIN to a maximum value MAX, by the number of values ​​the occurrence frequency evaluation value can take (i.e., 5 in this embodiment). For example, the value d2 is defined as a value indicating the width of each range, as shown in equation (2) below. d2 = (MAX - MIN) / Number of possible values ​​for the frequency evaluation value ... (2)

[0029] The second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 1 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is greater than or equal to the minimum value MIN and less than MIN + d2. Furthermore, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 2 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MIN+d2 or greater and less than MIN+2×d2. Furthermore, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 3 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MIN+2×d2 or greater and less than MIN+3×d2. Furthermore, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 4 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MIN + 3 × d2 or more and less than MIN + 4 × d2. Furthermore, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 sets the occurrence frequency evaluation value for work type j to 5 if the number of cases Nj corresponding to work type j is MIN + 4 × d2 or more and less than or equal to the maximum value MAX.

[0030] The second occurrence frequency calculation means 42, for example, when calculating the occurrence frequency evaluation value of work type C2 such as "steel frame unloading," "steel frame assembly," and "steel frame column erection" included in the type C1 of the "steel frame erection" process, calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value based not only on the work type C2 included in the above-mentioned "steel frame erection" process type C1, but also on information of all work type C2 included in the type C1 of other processes. By performing the calculation as described above, the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 can set the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work types C2 included in all process types C1 such that the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work types C2 is appropriately distributed as an integer value between 1 and 5.

[0031] In this way, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of work C2 on a scale of 1 to 5 using one or more (two in this embodiment) occurrence frequency calculation means 40. Therefore, even for the same type of work C2, different occurrence frequency evaluation values ​​may be calculated by one occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and another occurrence frequency calculation means 40. Furthermore, both the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 are configured such that the more cases there are corresponding to the type of work C2, the closer the occurrence frequency evaluation value for the type of work C2 will be to the maximum value of 5 and the larger the calculated value will be. Also, both the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the second occurrence frequency calculation means 42 are configured such that the fewer cases there are corresponding to the type of work C2, the closer the occurrence frequency evaluation value for the type of work C2 will be to the minimum value of 1 and the smaller the calculated value will be.

[0032] The severity assessment unit 22 evaluates the severity of potential accidents and disasters that may occur for each type of work C2, based on the degree of damage to each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30, and calculates a severity assessment value. The severity assessment unit 22 calculates a severity assessment value for each of the work type C2 using one or more severity calculation means 50. In this embodiment, the severity calculation means 50 comprises a first severity calculation means 51, a second severity calculation means 52, a third severity calculation means 53, and a fourth severity calculation means 54.

[0033] The first severity calculation means 51 obtains the maximum value among the degree of damage associated with the cases corresponding to each type of work C2, and sets the maximum value as the severity evaluation value for the type of work C2.

[0034] The second severity calculation means 52 calculates the average value of the degree of damage associated with the cases corresponding to each type of work C2, and sets the average value as the severity evaluation value for that type of work C2.

[0035] The third severity calculation means 53 calculates the average value for each type of work C2, for the degree of damage associated with the case corresponding to the type of work C2, where the value is not 1, i.e., a value between 2 and 5, and sets the average value as the severity evaluation value for the type of work C2. For example, when calculating the average value of the degree of damage to set a severity assessment value, if there are many cases in the database 30 where the corresponding degree of damage is such that the victim did not suffer any injury or illness, or even if they did, it did not require them to take time off work, and a value of "1" is set, then the average value may be significantly lowered due to this influence, and as a result, the severity assessment value may be calculated to be excessively low. To suppress this, the third severity calculation means 53 is configured to calculate the average value for the degree of damage that is not 1, as described above.

[0036] The fourth severity calculation means 54 calculates a weighted average value of the degree of damage associated with the cases corresponding to each type of work C2, and sets the weighted average value as the severity evaluation value for the type of work C2. One possible weighted mean calculation method is to calculate the average of the squared values ​​of the degree of damage. This allows for greater weighting of cases where the damage was significant and considered to be a major accident or disaster when calculating the average.

[0037] Here, for example, when calculating the average value in the second severity calculation means 52 or the third severity calculation means 53, the calculated average value may include decimals and may not be an integer between 1 and 5. In this case, it is advisable to set the value obtained by rounding the average value as the severity evaluation value. Furthermore, for example, when calculating a weighted average value in the fourth severity calculation means 54, the calculated weighted average value may be a real number less than 1 or greater than 5, depending on the weighting method. In this case, it is preferable to assign the calculated value to an integer between 1 and 5 by an appropriate normalization method and set this as the severity evaluation value.

[0038] In this way, the severity evaluation unit 22 calculates the severity evaluation value for each type of work C2 on a scale of 1 to 5 using one or more (four in this embodiment) severity calculation means 50. Therefore, even for the same type of work C2, different severity evaluation values ​​may be calculated by one severity calculation means 50 and another severity calculation means 50. Furthermore, the first severity calculation means 51, the second severity calculation means 52, the third severity calculation means 53, and the fourth severity calculation means 54 all calculate based on the degree of damage, which can take a larger value in the case of more severe damage. Therefore, the more cases corresponding to work type C2 that have a high degree of damage, the more likely it is that the severity evaluation value for work type C2 will be calculated to be a large value, close to the maximum value of 5. Conversely, the more cases corresponding to work type C2 that have a low degree of damage, the more likely it is that the severity evaluation value for work type C2 will be calculated to be a small value, close to the minimum value of 1.

[0039] The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the overall evaluation of each type of work C2 based on the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value calculated for that type of work C2. Specifically, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the overall evaluation of each type of work C2 by multiplying the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value calculated for that type of work C2. Here, for each type of work C2, an occurrence frequency evaluation value is calculated individually by each occurrence frequency calculation means 40, as described above. Similarly, for each type of work C2, a severity evaluation value is calculated individually by each severity calculation means 50, as described above. In contrast, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 of this embodiment calculates a comprehensive evaluation for each type of work C2 for each of all combinations of one or more (multiple, two in this embodiment) occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and one or more (multiple, four in this embodiment) severity calculation means 50. In other words, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates 2 × 4 = 8 comprehensive evaluations for each type of work C2.

[0040] In this way, for each combination of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the comprehensive evaluation of the work type C2 corresponding to the combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 included in the combination, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the severity calculation means 50 included in the combination. For example, for each combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the comprehensive evaluation of the work type C2 corresponding to that combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 (i.e., the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41) included in the combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51 for that work type C2, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the severity calculation means 50 (i.e., the first severity calculation means 51) included in that combination.

[0041] Figure 4 shows an example of frequency and severity ratings calculated for some types of work. Figure 4 shows the overall evaluation calculated for the combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51. More specifically, Figure 4 shows, in relation to each type of work C2, the occurrence frequency evaluation value calculated by the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 for that type of work C2, the severity evaluation value calculated by the first severity calculation means 51 for that type of work C2, and the overall evaluation value obtained by multiplying these occurrence frequency evaluation values ​​and severity evaluation values. As described above, the incidence rate and severity ratings are each calculated to have a value on a 5-point scale from 1 to 5. Therefore, the overall rating, calculated by multiplying these two values, will have a value from 1 to 25.

[0042] The combination selection unit 24 selects one combination from all possible combinations of one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and one or more severity calculation means 50. The combination selection unit 24 selects one combination from the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each of the work type C2 corresponding to each combination. To perform this process, the combination selection unit 24 calculates a histogram of the overall evaluation for each of the work type C2 corresponding to each of the all combinations of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50. The combination selection unit 24 calculates and generates an overall evaluation histogram for all process type C1, that is, for all work type C2 included in all process type C1.

[0043] Figure 5 is a histogram of the overall evaluation calculated for each of the multiple work types in a certain combination of the frequency calculation means and the severity calculation means. Figure 6 is a histogram of the overall evaluation calculated for each of the multiple work types in a different combination of the frequency calculation means and the severity calculation means than that in Figure 5. More specifically, Figure 5 is a histogram of the overall evaluation calculated for the combination of the first frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51, and Figure 6 is a histogram of the overall evaluation calculated for the combination of the first frequency calculation means 41 and the second severity calculation means 52. In both Figures 5 and 6, the horizontal axis represents integer values ​​from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation, and the vertical axis represents the number of work types C2 such that the overall evaluation is the value shown on the horizontal axis.

[0044] From the perspective of evaluating the risk of accidents and disasters for each type of work C2, it is desirable that the degree to which the risk of the type of work C2 that the worker is about to perform is greater or smaller compared to other types of work C2 be displayed as different numerical values ​​as possible. Therefore, it is desirable that the overall evaluation be as different as possible for each type of work C2. In such cases where the overall evaluation is as different as possible for each type of work C2, it is desirable that the histograms shown in Figures 5 and 6 be distributed so that the values ​​on the vertical axis, i.e., the number of types of work C2, are as similar as possible for each integer value from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation on the horizontal axis. In other words, it is desirable that the histogram be more uniformly distributed. Therefore, for example, the combination that results in the histogram shown in Figure 5 is more desirable than the combination that results in the histogram shown in Figure 6. Based on this idea, the combination selection unit 24 selects from all combinations of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50 the combination that is evaluated as having the histogram distributed most uniformly.

[0045] To this end, the combination selection unit 24 first calculates the specific form of the histogram that is considered ideal. The combination selection unit 24 calculates the expected frequency at which the histogram will be uniformly distributed from the total number of work types C2. The expected frequency (expected value) at which the histogram will be uniformly distributed is the number of each value on the vertical axis of the overall evaluation, i.e., the number of work types C2, when the histogram is perfectly uniformly distributed. This expected frequency can be obtained, for example, by dividing the total number of work types C2 by the number of integer values ​​from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation. For example, if the total number of work types C2 is 166 and the number of integer values ​​from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation is 25 as described above, then this expected frequency is 166 / 25 = 6.64. In other words, in this case, the most ideal histogram is one in which 6.64 work types C2 are associated with all overall evaluation values ​​from 1 to 25. In this way, the combination selection unit 24 sets the calculated expected frequency value as the vertical axis for each of the overall evaluation values, and generates a histogram in which all of the overall evaluation values ​​have the same value on the vertical axis, which is considered an ideal histogram.

[0046] Next, the combination selection unit 24 compares the histogram generated for each combination of the frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50 with the ideal histogram described above. Specifically, the combination selection unit 24 calculates the difference in histograms for each of all combinations by performing the following process. First, for each integer value from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation, it calculates the square of the difference between the number of work type C2 whose overall evaluation is that integer in the histogram generated for that combination and the number of work type C2 whose overall evaluation is that integer in the ideal histogram (i.e., 6.64 in the above case). Then, it calculates the sum of the squares of the above differences calculated for each integer value from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation, and takes this as the difference in histograms. For example, in the example in Figure 5, the overall evaluation value of 1 is (26-6.64) 2 The value is calculated, and for the overall evaluation value 2, it is (3-6.64) 2 The value of this difference is calculated. The square of this difference is calculated for all the overall evaluation values ​​from 1 to 25, and the sum of these is calculated as the difference in the histogram.

[0047] The combination selection unit 24 then selects one combination of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50 that results in the smallest difference between the histograms calculated as described above. In the case of Figure 5, the difference in the histograms is 1839. In the case of Figure 6, the difference in the histograms is 4165. Therefore, for example, when comparing the combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51 corresponding to Figure 5 with the combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the second severity calculation means 52 corresponding to Figure 6, the combination of the first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and the first severity calculation means 51 may be selected.

[0048] As already explained, the processes of the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21, the severity evaluation unit 22, the overall evaluation calculation unit 23, and the combination selection unit 24 described above can be executed only once when the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 is introduced. Furthermore, the above processes can also be executed when the contents of the database 30 are updated, for example, by adding a new case to the database 30.

[0049] With the above-mentioned preparations completed, the worker inputs the type of work C2 corresponding to the work they are about to perform into the input receiving unit 62, such as the touch panel display, of the worker terminal 6, before starting the work. The input receiving unit 62 receives the input of the type of work C2 from the worker. The communication unit 61 transmits the input type of work C2 to the accident / disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 via the network 100.

[0050] In the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2, the input receiving unit 25 receives the type of work C2 transmitted via the network 100. Then, the display data creation unit 26 creates display data using both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 that was received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value. More specifically, the display data creation unit 26 obtains the following: an occurrence frequency evaluation value calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 included in the combination of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50 selected by the combination selection unit 24 for the type of work C2 input received by the input reception unit 62; a severity evaluation value calculated using the severity calculation means 50 included in the above combination for the type of work C2 input received by the input reception unit 62; and an overall evaluation calculated using these occurrence frequency evaluation values ​​and severity evaluation values. The display data creation unit 26 uses the obtained occurrence frequency evaluation value, severity evaluation value, and overall evaluation to create display data to show the results to the worker. The display data creation unit 26 transmits the display data to the worker terminal 6 via the network 100.

[0051] The worker terminal 6 receives the transmitted display data via the network 100 by the communication unit 61. The display unit 63 displays the received display data on a display device such as a touch panel display. Figure 7 shows an example of the display of accident and disaster risk prediction results. The display data creation unit 26 creates display data as shown in Figure 7, for example, and the display unit 63 displays this display data. Figure 7 shows that when a worker selects "Scaffolding assembly / disassembly, etc." as process type C1 and "Scaffolding material unloading / lifting" as work type C2, the predicted accident risk results are a frequency evaluation of "5", a severity evaluation of "4", and an overall evaluation of "20". Figure 7 also displays a list of cases where work type C2 corresponds to "scaffolding material unloading / lifting." This list of cases is sorted in order of the degree of damage associated with each case in database 30, for example, from the most severe damage to the most severe damage. In the list of cases in Figure 7, the degree of damage and a summary of the case are displayed for each case.

[0052] Figure 8 shows an example of the result of selecting one case in Figure 7. For example, if one case is selected from the list of cases shown in Figure 7, then, as shown in Figure 8, each piece of information associated with the selected case in the database 30 may be displayed as detailed information about the case. In the example shown in Figure 8, the selected case is displayed with detailed text (documents), the victim's age, occupation, type of accident, extent of damage, name of the machinery used, and location where the work was performed.

[0053] Thus, the display unit 63 displays both the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 that has been received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value. Furthermore, the display unit 63 displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination (of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50) for the type of work C2 that has been received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination.

[0054] Next, the accident and disaster risk prediction method using the above-described accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 will be explained using Figures 1 to 8, and Figures 9 and 10. Figure 9 is a flowchart of the preparations for the accident and disaster risk prediction method using the above-described accident and disaster risk prediction system. Figure 10 is a flowchart of the risk assessment for the accident and disaster risk prediction method. First, as a preliminary step, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 aggregates the number of cases corresponding to each type of work C2 in the database 30. Based on the aggregated number of cases corresponding to each type of work C2, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 evaluates the occurrence frequency of accidents and disasters related to that type of work C2 and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value (occurrence frequency evaluation step S1). The occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work type C2 using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40.

[0055] Next, the severity assessment unit 22 evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur for each type of work C2 based on the degree of damage of each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30, and calculates a severity assessment value (severity assessment process S2). The severity assessment unit 22 calculates a severity assessment value for each of the work type C2 using one or more severity calculation means 50.

[0056] The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the overall evaluation of each type of work C2 based on the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value calculated for that type of work C2 (comprehensive evaluation calculation step S3). The comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the comprehensive evaluation for each type of work C2 for each of all combinations of one or more (two in this embodiment) occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and one or more (four in this embodiment) severity calculation means 50. For each combination of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50, the comprehensive evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates the comprehensive evaluation for each type of work C2 corresponding to that combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 included in that combination for the type of work C2, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the severity calculation means 50 included in that combination for the type of work C2.

[0057] The combination selection unit 24 selects one combination from all possible combinations of one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and one or more severity calculation means 50. The combination selection unit 24 selects one combination from the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each of the work type C2 corresponding to each combination (combination selection step S4).

[0058] Once the preliminary processing described above as the frequency evaluation step S1, the severity evaluation step S2, the overall evaluation calculation step S3, and the combination selection step S4 is completed, the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 becomes ready for use by an operator to evaluate the risk of accidents and disasters. In this state, before starting work, the worker inputs the type of work C2 corresponding to the work they are about to perform from the input receiving unit 62, such as the touch panel display, of the worker terminal 6. The input receiving unit 62 receives the input of the type of work C2 from the worker (input receiving process S5). The communication unit 61 transmits the input type of work C2 to the accident / disaster risk prediction system main unit 2 via the network 100.

[0059] In the accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 2, the input receiving unit 25 receives the type of work C2 transmitted via the network 100. Then, the display data creation unit 26 creates display data using both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 that was received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value. The display data creation unit 26 transmits the display data to the worker terminal 6 via the network 100.

[0060] The worker terminal 6 receives the transmitted display data via the network 100 by the communication unit 61. The display unit 63 displays both the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type C2 of work that has been received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value (display step S6).

[0061] The accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 described above predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out, and comprises a database 30 that stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work C2 performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases, and for each type of work C2, it evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to that type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value. The system includes a frequency evaluation unit 21, a severity evaluation unit 22 that evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur for each type of work C2 based on the degree of damage of each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates a severity evaluation value, an input reception unit 62 that receives input of the type of work C2, and a display unit 63 that displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value for the type of work C2 received by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value. In the configuration described above, the database 30 stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work C2 performed in those cases, and the extent of the damage in those cases. The occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to each type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 described above, and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value. As described above, this occurrence frequency evaluation value is calculated as the frequency of accidents and disasters related to each type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to each type of work C2. Therefore, the higher the occurrence frequency evaluation value of a type of work C2, the more likely it is that accidents and disasters will occur in that type of work C2. In this way, the occurrence frequency evaluation value is a quantitative evaluation of the likelihood of accidents and disasters occurring. Furthermore, the severity assessment unit 22 evaluates the severity of potential accidents and disasters for each type of work C2 based on the degree of damage to each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 described above, and calculates a severity assessment value. As described above, this severity assessment value is calculated as the severity of accidents and disasters related to each type of work C2, based on the degree of damage to each case corresponding to each type of work C2. Therefore, it can be considered that the higher the severity assessment value for a type of work C2, the greater the damage and injuries that can result from accidents and disasters occurring in that type of work C2. In this way, the severity assessment value quantitatively evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters in the event that an accident or disaster occurs. In this accident and disaster risk prediction system 1, when a worker inputs, for example, the type of work C2 that they are about to perform, the input reception unit 62 accepts the input of the type of work C2, and the display unit 63 displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 that the input reception unit 62 has accepted, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. As a result, the worker can quantitatively grasp the risk of the type of work C2 by recognizing the occurrence frequency evaluation value, the severity evaluation value, or the overall evaluation calculated based on these values ​​for the type of work C2 that they have entered. In this way, it becomes possible to provide an accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out.

[0062] Furthermore, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the work type C2 using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40, and the severity evaluation unit 22 calculates a severity evaluation value for each of the work type C2 using one or more severity calculation means 50, and for each combination of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50, for each of the work type C2, the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to the combination calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 included in the combination for the work type C2, and the combination calculated using the severity calculation means 50 included in the combination, The system further includes an overall evaluation calculation unit 23 that calculates an overall evaluation of the work type C2 corresponding to the combination based on the severity evaluation value corresponding to the combination, and a combination selection unit 24 that selects one combination from among the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each work type C2 corresponding to each combination, and the display unit 63 displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 that has been input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 that has been input by the input reception unit 62. With the configuration described above, the occurrence frequency evaluation unit 21 calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value for each type of work C2 using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means 40. The severity evaluation unit 22 also calculates a severity evaluation value for each type of work C2 using one or more severity calculation means 50. Depending on the number of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50, there may be multiple combinations of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50. For each of these combinations of occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and severity calculation means 50, the overall evaluation calculation unit 23 calculates an overall evaluation of the type of work C2 corresponding to that combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 included in that combination for the type of work C2, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to that combination, calculated using the severity calculation means 50 included in that combination. Then, the combination selection unit 24 selects one combination from among the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each work type C2 corresponding to each combination calculated as described above, and the display unit 63 displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 that was input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 that was input by the input reception unit 62. With this configuration, the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 can be appropriately realized.

[0063] Furthermore, the combination selection unit 24 calculates a histogram of the overall evaluation of each work type C2 corresponding to each combination for each combination, and selects the combination in which the histogram is evaluated as being in a state that is closest to uniform distribution. For example, if a worker starts a different type of work each day, and the risk C2 for each type of work is different, but the same risk value is predicted for each day, the worker may think that the prediction results are not worth referring to because all tasks are predicted to have roughly the same level of risk. This could lead to a decrease in the worker's sense of risk regarding the work. In contrast, with the above configuration, the combination selection unit 24 calculates a histogram of the overall evaluation of each work type C2 corresponding to each combination, and selects the combination in which the histogram is evaluated as being most uniformly distributed. The combination selected as a result of this process is considered to be one in which the overall evaluation values ​​of the multiple work types C2 are most scattered and varied within the range of possible values. As a result, the risk prediction results tend to be different when the work type C2 is different, thus suppressing the frequent prediction of similar risk values ​​despite the work type C2 being different. Consequently, a weakening of workers' sense of crisis is suppressed.

[0064] Whether the overall evaluation value is set to be as different as possible for each type of work C2 can potentially be confirmed by evaluating the variance of the overall evaluation value calculated for each type of work C2. If the variance is large, the overall evaluation value should be more scattered, and therefore it may have different values ​​for each type of work C2. For example, it is conceivable to configure the system to select a combination by calculating the variance of the overall evaluation value calculated for each of the all combinations of the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50, and then adopting the one with the largest variance. However, since the variance is calculated by summing the squares of the differences between each value and its mean, the variance will be a large value even if, for example, the overall evaluation values ​​are polarized, concentrated at the maximum value (25 in this embodiment) and the minimum value (1 in this embodiment). Thus, when calculating the variance of the overall evaluation, even if the variance is a large value, it can be assumed that the actual dispersion is small. In contrast, as described above, by calculating a histogram of the overall evaluation for each of the work type C2 corresponding to each combination, and selecting the combination whose histogram is evaluated as being most uniformly distributed, it is possible to more appropriately select combinations in which the overall evaluation values ​​are scattered.

[0065] Furthermore, the degree of damage in a given case, as stored in database 30 in relation to that case, represents the degree of injury or illness suffered by the victim in that case. With the configuration described above, the risk of accidents and disasters can be evaluated with respect to people.

[0066] Furthermore, the accident and disaster risk prediction method described above is an accident and disaster risk prediction method that predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work when the work is carried out, and uses a database 30 that stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work C2 performed in the case, and the degree of damage in the case, and for each type of work C2, it evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to the type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to the type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value, The system includes an evaluation step S1, a severity evaluation step S2 which uses a database 30 to evaluate the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur for each type of work C2 based on the degree of damage of each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates a severity evaluation value, an input reception step S5 which receives input of the type of work C2, and a display step S6 which displays both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the received input of the type of work C2, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. With the configuration described above, it becomes possible to provide a work risk prediction method that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being performed, similar to the case of the accident and disaster risk prediction system 1 described above.

[0067] (Modified example of Embodiment 1) It should be noted that the accident and disaster risk prediction system and accident and disaster risk prediction method of the present invention are not limited to the embodiments described above with reference to the drawings, and various other modifications are conceivable within their technical scope. For example, in the above embodiment, the degree of damage in a given case, stored in the database 30 in relation to that case, was the degree of injury or illness suffered by the victim in that case, but is not limited to this. The degree of damage in a given case, stored in the database 30 in relation to that case, may also be the total amount of damage to the goods destroyed in that case. In this case, the risk of accidents and disasters can be assessed based on the goods themselves.

[0068] (Second modified example of the embodiment) Furthermore, in the above embodiment, the display data creation unit 26 created display data using both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 that was received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. The display unit 63 displayed both the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. Alternatively, the display data creation unit 26 may create display data using only the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value of the type C2 of work that has been received as input by the input reception unit 62, and the display unit 63 may display only the occurrence frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value. Alternatively, the display data creation unit 26 may create display data using only the overall evaluation of work type C2 received by the input reception unit 62, and the display unit 63 may display only the overall evaluation.

[0069] In other words, the accident and disaster risk prediction system of this modified example is an accident and disaster risk prediction system that predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with work when performing work, and comprises a database 30 that stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work C2 performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases, and for each type of work C2, it evaluates the frequency of accidents and disasters related to that type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value. The system includes a degree evaluation unit 21, a severity evaluation unit 22 that evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur with respect to each type of work C2 based on the degree of damage of each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates a severity evaluation value, an input reception unit 62 that receives input of the type of work C2, and a display unit 63 that displays either the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value of the type of work C2 received by the input reception unit 62, or the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. Furthermore, the accident risk prediction method of this modified example is an accident risk prediction method that predicts the risk of accidents that may occur in connection with work when carrying out work, and uses a database 30 that stores the correspondence between past accident cases, the type of work C2 performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases, and for each type of work C2, it evaluates the frequency of accidents related to that type of work C2 based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30 and calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value, The process includes: a step S1; a severity evaluation step S2 which uses a database 30 to evaluate the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur with respect to each type of work C2, based on the degree of damage of each case corresponding to that type of work C2 in the database 30, and calculates a severity evaluation value; an input reception step S5 which receives input of the type of work C2; and a display step S6 which displays either the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the received input of the type of work C2, or the overall evaluation calculated based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. In this case as well, it becomes possible to provide an accident and disaster risk prediction system and method that can quantitatively predict the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work when carrying out the work.

[0070] In this case, the display unit 63 displays either the frequency evaluation value and severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 received by the input reception unit 62, or the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of work type C2 received by the input reception unit 62.

[0071] As explained in the above embodiment, the overall evaluation is calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. Therefore, even if the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value are not displayed in this modified example, and only the overall evaluation is displayed, the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value are actually calculated.

[0072] (Third modified example of the embodiment) Furthermore, in the above embodiment, the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value each had values ​​from 1 to 5 (integers). Therefore, the overall evaluation calculated by multiplying these two values ​​had values ​​from 1 to 25 (integers). Here, in the above embodiment, the expected frequency value used to determine whether the histogram was close to a uniform distribution was calculated by dividing the total number of work type C2 by the number of integer values ​​from the lower limit to the upper limit of the overall evaluation, for example, 166 / 25 = 6.64. However, in reality, the overall evaluation value is obtained by multiplying two integers from 1 to 5, as described above. Therefore, among the integers from 1 to 25, there are 11 values ​​that cannot be obtained by multiplying two integers from 1 to 5, such as 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, which cannot be used as the overall evaluation value. In other words, the values ​​that can be used as the overall evaluation are limited to the remaining 14 integers from the 25 integers, excluding the 11 integers mentioned above. Based on this idea, the expected frequency can be calculated by dividing the total number of work types C2 by the number of values ​​that can actually be taken as an overall evaluation. In this case, for example, if the total number of work types C2 is 166, the expected frequency would be 166 / 14 = 11.86. This approach increases the likelihood of selecting a combination of frequency and severity evaluation values ​​that results in a more appropriately distributed overall evaluation value for work type C2.

[0073] (Other variations of the embodiment) In the above embodiment, the occurrence frequency calculation means 40 comprises two means, a first occurrence frequency calculation means 41 and a second occurrence frequency calculation means 42, and the severity calculation means 50 comprises four means, a first severity calculation means 51, a second severity calculation means 52, a third severity calculation means 53, and a fourth severity calculation means 54, but is not limited to this. The occurrence frequency calculation means 40 and the severity calculation means 50 may each be provided in any number of units, as long as there is one or more units. In addition to the above, it is possible to select or discard the configurations listed in the above embodiments and their respective modifications, or to change them to other configurations as appropriate. [Explanation of symbols]

[0074] 1. Accident and disaster risk prediction system 2. Accident and disaster risk prediction system main unit 6. Worker terminals 21. Frequency Evaluation Unit 22 Severity Assessment Department 23. Comprehensive Evaluation Calculation Department 24 Combination Selection Section 25 Input receiving unit 26 Display Data Creation Section 30 databases 40. Means for calculating the frequency of occurrence 50 Significance Calculator 62 Input Reception Section 63 Display section C1 Type of process C2 Type of work

Claims

1. An accident and disaster risk prediction system that predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out, A database storing the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in those cases, and the extent of damage in those cases, For each of the aforementioned types of work, an occurrence frequency evaluation unit calculates an occurrence frequency evaluation value by evaluating the frequency of occurrence of the aforementioned accidents and disasters related to that type of work based on the number of the aforementioned cases corresponding to that type of work in the database, A severity evaluation unit calculates a severity evaluation value by evaluating the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur with respect to each of the aforementioned types of work, based on the degree of damage of each of the aforementioned cases corresponding to that type of work in the database. An input receiving unit that receives input of the type of work described above, A display unit that displays either or both of the following: the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value of the type of work that has been received as input by the input receiving unit, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. An accident and disaster risk prediction system characterized by having the following features.

2. The occurrence frequency evaluation unit calculates the occurrence frequency evaluation value for each of the types of work using one or more occurrence frequency calculation means. The severity evaluation unit calculates the severity evaluation value for each of the types of work using one or more severity calculation means. For each combination of the occurrence frequency calculation means and the severity calculation means, for each of the types of work, a comprehensive evaluation calculation unit calculates the comprehensive evaluation of the type of work corresponding to the combination, based on the occurrence frequency evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the occurrence frequency calculation means included in the combination for that type of work, and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the combination, calculated using the severity calculation means included in the combination. A combination selection unit selects one of the combinations based on the overall evaluation of each of the types of work corresponding to each of the aforementioned combinations, Furthermore, The display unit displays either or both of the following: the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value corresponding to the selected combination of the work type received by the input receiving unit; and the overall evaluation corresponding to the selected combination of the work type received by the input receiving unit. The accident and disaster risk prediction system according to feature 1.

3. The combination selection unit calculates a histogram of the overall evaluation for each of the work types corresponding to each of the combinations for each of the combinations, and selects the combination in which the histogram is evaluated as being in a state that is closest to uniform distribution. The accident and disaster risk prediction system according to feature 2.

4. The extent of damage in the case, as stored in the database corresponding to the case, is either the degree of injury or illness suffered by the victim in the case, or the total amount of damage to the goods destroyed in the case. The accident and disaster risk prediction system according to claim 1 or 2.

5. A method for predicting accident and disaster risk, which predicts the risk of accidents and disasters that may occur in connection with the work being carried out, A frequency evaluation step involves using a database that stores the correspondence between past accident and disaster cases, the type of work performed in those cases, and the degree of damage in those cases, and for each type of work, evaluating the frequency of accidents and disasters related to that type of work based on the number of cases corresponding to that type of work in the database, and calculating a frequency evaluation value. A severity assessment step, which uses the database and, for each type of work, evaluates the severity of accidents and disasters that may occur with respect to that type of work based on the degree of damage in each of the cases corresponding to that type of work in the database, and calculates a severity assessment value; An input reception process that receives input of the type of work described above, A display step that displays either or both of the following: the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value for the type of work for which input has been received, and the overall evaluation calculated based on the frequency evaluation value and the severity evaluation value. A method for predicting accident and disaster risk, characterized by including the following:

Images