Method and system for determining countermeasures against service quality degradation

Abstract

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

Description

[Technical Field]

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

[0002] In the case of communications services, risk events are classified into a "service event section," a "risk event section," and a "system event section," with the response level value entered in the "response level value section," countermeasure proposals extracted in the "measure content section," the cost of the measures entered in the "cost section," and negative factors entered in the "constraint section." Patent Document 1 describes a technology for selecting the countermeasure to actually be implemented from the "cost section," "constraint section," or "remaining risk section" when multiple countermeasure proposals are identified.

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

[0004] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2019-149157 [Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2016-91271 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] Service providers generally present their contractual obligations to their service subscribers, such as SLAs (Service Level Agreements), which clearly state the level of service quality they can guarantee, and take costly measures to ensure that the service quality does not fall below the stated level.

[0006] However, it is difficult to determine the level of cost required to implement measures before the proposed service quality falls below the target. In Patent Document 1, the measures to be implemented are determined based on cost, constraints, and remaining risks, but since it is not known when the proposed service quality will fall below the target, it is necessary to constantly implement measures at a cost.

[0007] In Patent Document 2, a model is generated and communication quality is predicted by excluding logs prior to the change point from data obtained by time-series analysis of communication quality logs for each area, but when a decline in communication quality is predicted, it is not possible to determine how much cost should be spent on countermeasures. [Means for solving the problem]

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

[0009] According to the present invention, it is possible to more appropriately determine countermeasures against deterioration of service quality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0033] Step S102: The prediction unit 311 predicts a degradation in service quality based on the quality information received in step S101 above, and stores the information in the service quality degradation prediction table 321. For example, assume that the quality information received in step S101 above is an evaluation score for the sound quality of the audio and the image quality of the video received in the telepresence service, and the time of the evaluation. The prediction unit 311 records an evaluation score 3212 from 10 seconds ago and a current evaluation score 3213 for each of the quality items 3211, sound quality and image quality, as in the service quality degradation prediction table 321 shown in FIG. 2.

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

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

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

[0037] At this time, candidate countermeasures for each quality degradation, such as a degradation in sound quality, and the cost unit of the countermeasures may be set in advance. Candidate countermeasures for a degradation in sound quality may include, for example, "changing the sound quality settings" and "adding a server." "Changing the sound quality settings" changes the sound quality settings of the service, for example, by switching to normal sound quality and reducing the amount of data for users who use the service with high sound quality, such as subscribers to a high-sound quality plan. "Adding a server" adds a server that performs processes such as sending and receiving sound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0047] In this embodiment, the prediction of a degradation in service quality in the prediction unit 311 of the first embodiment is performed based on communication conditions such as delay and throughput, and device conditions such as CPU usage and memory usage. This makes it possible to predict a degradation in service quality based on objectively measurable data, which is expected to have the effect of improving the accuracy of prediction of a degradation in service quality. Furthermore, because a degradation in service quality is predicted based on communication and device conditions, it is expected to have the effect of being able to identify which condition is causing the degradation in service quality and set appropriate countermeasure candidates according to the cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0059] Step S203: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0072] In this embodiment, the countermeasure decision unit 313 of the first embodiment decides on countermeasures based on the countermeasure priority for each service. As a result, when a deterioration in the quality of multiple services is likely to occur at the same time, for example, it is possible to select countermeasures that prioritize services with high countermeasure priority, and it is expected that countermeasures suited to the policy for each service can be implemented.

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

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

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

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

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

[0078] Step S403: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

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

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

[0081] Step S405: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

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

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

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

[0085] The quality degradation monitoring device 1 acquires information used to predict a degradation in service quality. The quality degradation countermeasure device 3 predicts a degradation in service quality, estimates the damage cost that will occur when the service quality degrades, estimates the countermeasure cost required for the countermeasure based on the predicted service quality degradation, and decides on the countermeasure based on the estimated countermeasure cost. The quality degradation countermeasure execution device 2 executes the quality degradation countermeasure. The interface device 4 displays the predicted results of the service quality degradation, the estimated results of the damage cost, the estimated results of the countermeasure cost, and the decided results of the quality degradation countermeasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0099] Step S504: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

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

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

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

[0103] Step S506: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0110] Step S603: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that will occur when the service quality deteriorates, based on the predicted degree of deterioration in service quality. The estimated damage cost based on the degree of deterioration in service quality can be shown, for example, in a service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 shown in FIG. 16.

[0111] If the evaluation score for the quality item "sound quality" is 80 or less, a penalty of "10,000 yen" will be incurred if the high-quality sound plan becomes unavailable. Furthermore, if the evaluation score is 70 or less, a penalty of "30,000 yen" will be incurred if the low-quality sound plan becomes unavailable.

[0112] The following describes the estimation of damage costs based on the predicted degree of degradation in service quality. For example, suppose that the quality item for which a degradation in service quality was predicted in step S602 above is "sound quality," and that the evaluation score for "sound quality" is predicted to fall below 80 in 10 seconds as shown in prediction table 321 in Fig. 2, and that the estimated damage costs based on the degree of degradation in service quality are expressed as shown in service quality-damage cost estimation table 327 in Fig. 16. The damage cost estimation unit 314 may estimate, as the damage cost, an estimated damage cost of "15,000 yen" corresponding to the evaluation score for sound quality of "80" in service quality-damage cost estimation table 327.

[0113] Step S604: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

[0114] Step S605: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505 above.

[0115] Step S606: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

[0116] In this embodiment, the damage cost estimation unit 314 of the fifth embodiment estimates the damage cost incurred when the service quality deteriorates based on the predicted extent of the impact of the deterioration of the service quality. As a result, for example, in a case where the damage cost varies depending on the extent of the impact of the deterioration of the service quality, the damage cost can be estimated based on the predicted extent of the impact of the deterioration of the service quality, which is expected to improve the accuracy of the damage cost estimation. Note that the extent of the impact of the deterioration of the service quality may be determined for each server or site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0124] The estimated damage cost may be the sum of the estimated damage costs corresponding to the services included in the information indicating the service names received in step S701, among the service names "Telepresence" and "Voice call" included in the impact range 3281 of sound quality degradation in the impact range-damage cost estimation table 328. For example, if the information indicating the service names received in step S701 includes information corresponding to "Telepresence" and "Voice call," the estimated damage cost may be 10,000 + 30,000 = 40,000 yen.

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

[0126] Step S705: The countermeasure determination unit 313 determines a countermeasure in the same manner as in step S505 above.

[0127] Step S706: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

[0128] In this embodiment, the damage cost is corrected when the degradation of service quality is not permitted in the estimation of the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is degraded in the damage cost estimation unit 314 of the fifth embodiment. As a result, when the degradation of service quality is not permitted for legal, ethical, safety, or other reasons, for example, the damage cost can be corrected so that a countermeasure that is low in cost but has a high probability of causing a degradation of service quality is not selected, and therefore, it is expected that a countermeasure that has a low probability of causing a degradation of service quality will be selected without modifying the logic for determining the countermeasure itself.

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

[0130] Fig. 20 is an example of a damage cost correction table 329 indicating whether or not a degradation in service quality is permissible. The quality item 3291 is identification information for the item for which the damage cost is estimated when service quality is degraded. The permissible flag 3292 is information indicating whether or not a degradation in service quality is permissible for legal, ethical, safety, etc. reasons. Information on whether or not a degradation in service quality is permissible is set in advance.

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

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

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

[0134] Step S803: The damage cost estimation unit 314 estimates the damage cost that occurs when the service quality deteriorates, similarly to step S503 above.

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

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

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

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

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

[0140] Step S808: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

[0141] In this embodiment, the damage cost that occurs when the service quality is degraded is estimated based on cost calculation data for each service in the damage cost estimation unit 314 of the fifth embodiment. This makes it possible to refer to cost calculation data appropriate for each service, which is expected to have the effect of improving the accuracy of damage cost estimation.

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

[0143] Figure 22 is an example of a damage cost calculation table 3210 for each service. Service name 32101 is identification information for the service for which damage costs are to be calculated when service quality deteriorates. Estimated damage cost when sound quality deteriorates 32102 indicates, for each service, an estimated value of damage costs that will occur when the quality item "sound quality" deteriorates. Estimated damage cost when image quality deteriorates 32103 indicates, for each service, an estimated value of damage costs that will occur when the quality item "image quality" deteriorates.

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

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

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

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

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

[0149] Step S904: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

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

[0151] Step S906: The processor 30 transmits information about the determined measures to the quality degradation measures execution device 2, similarly to the above-mentioned step S105. [Example]

[0152] In this embodiment, the countermeasure determination unit 313 of the fifth embodiment determines the countermeasure based on the probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality. This allows the countermeasure to be determined by estimating the damage and the cost of the countermeasure based on the probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality, and is therefore expected to have the effect of reducing the total cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[0159] Step S1004: As in step S103, the countermeasure cost estimation unit 312 estimates the countermeasure cost required for countermeasures based on the prediction of the deterioration in service quality.

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

[0161] The evaluation function E based on the probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality is expressed as (1-P) × L, where P is the probability of occurrence of degradation in service quality when each candidate measure is implemented and L is the damage cost when degradation in service quality occurs. Furthermore, the total cost may be expressed as M-(1-P) × L, using the cost M of the measure required to implement the candidate measure.

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

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

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

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

[0166] The present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments and includes various modifications. For example, the above-described embodiments have been described in detail to clearly explain the present invention, and are not necessarily limited to those including all of the described configurations. Furthermore, it is possible to replace part of the configuration of one embodiment with the configuration of another embodiment, or to add the configuration of another embodiment to the configuration of one embodiment. Furthermore, with respect to part of the configuration of each embodiment, addition, deletion, or substitution of other configurations can be applied alone or in combination.

[0167] Furthermore, the above-described configurations, functions, processing units, and processing means may be partially or entirely implemented in hardware, for example, by designing them as integrated circuits. The above-described configurations and functions may also be implemented in software, with a processor interpreting and executing a program that implements each function. Information such as the programs, tables, and files that implement each function can be stored in a memory, a recording device such as a hard disk or SSD (Solid State Drive), or a recording medium such as an IC card, SD card, or DVD.

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

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

Claims

1. A method for a system to determine a countermeasure against a deterioration in quality of a service provided by a service providing device, comprising: the system comprises a processor and a storage device; the storage device stores countermeasure cost information, which indicates, in the form of a table, the relationship between countermeasure candidates corresponding to quality degradation of each quality item of the service and the countermeasure costs required for each countermeasure candidate; The method further comprises the processor: predicting a degradation of service quality for each quality item, which is identification information of an item for which degradation of service quality is to be predicted, based on monitoring information of service quality, which is information based on the state of the communication providing the service or the state of the service providing device, from a difference between the state of the service device at a predetermined time and the current state of the service device, or a difference between the state of the communication providing the service at a predetermined time and the current state of the communication providing the service; Estimating the cost of each of the candidate countermeasures for the quality degradation of each quality item based on the countermeasure cost information; A method for determining, as a countermeasure, a candidate countermeasure whose estimated cost is smaller than other candidate countermeasures.

2. A method according to claim 1, the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidate and the countermeasure cost for each service; The method further comprises the processor: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, estimating the remediation costs of the running service based on the remediation cost information.

3. A method according to claim 1, the storage device stores countermeasure priority information indicating countermeasure priority for each service; The method further comprises the processor: Predicting degradation of service quality of multiple running services, A method for determining a running service for which a countermeasure is to be taken based on the countermeasure priority information.

4. The method of claim 1, the storage device stores damage cost estimation information indicating, in the form of a table, a relationship between the quality items and estimated damage costs that are preset as damage costs that occur when the evaluation of the quality items falls below a predetermined value; The method further comprises the processor: estimating damage costs for quality items for which the service quality is predicted to deteriorate based on the damage cost estimation information; The method determines the candidate countermeasure as a countermeasure if the estimated countermeasure cost is lower than the damage cost.

5. The method according to claim 4, the damage cost estimation information indicates a relationship between the degree of service quality degradation and the damage cost; The method further comprises the step of: the processor estimating the damage cost based on a predicted degree of degradation in service quality, by referring to the damage cost estimation information.

6. The method according to claim 4, the storage device stores impact extent information indicating a relationship between an impact extent of a deterioration in service quality and an estimated damage cost; The method further comprises the step of: the processor referring to the impact extent information to estimate a damage cost based on the impact extent of a predicted degradation in service quality.

7. The method of claim 4, the storage device stores information on whether a degradation in service quality is permitted for each preset quality item; The method wherein the processor executes a countermeasure for a quality item for which a degradation in service quality is not allowed, regardless of the countermeasure cost.

8. The method of claim 4, comprising: the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidate and the countermeasure cost for each service; the damage cost estimation information indicates a relationship between the quality item and the estimated damage cost for each of the services, The method further comprises the processor: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, estimating the countermeasure cost of the running service based on the countermeasure cost information; estimating the damage costs of the running service based on the damage cost estimation information.

9. A method as described in claim 4, wherein the processor determines the countermeasure based on the probability that the candidate countermeasure will cause a degradation in service quality.

10. A method as described in claim 7, wherein the processor sets the damage cost to ∞ for quality items for which a degradation in service quality is not acceptable.

11. A system for determining a countermeasure against a deterioration in quality of a service provided by a service providing device, a processor; a storage device, the storage device stores countermeasure cost information, which indicates, in the form of a table, the relationship between countermeasure candidates corresponding to quality degradation of each quality item of the service and the countermeasure costs required for each countermeasure candidate; The processor: predicting a degradation of service quality for each quality item, which is identification information of an item for which degradation of service quality is to be predicted, based on monitoring information of service quality, which is information based on the state of the communication providing the service or the state of the service providing device, from a difference between the state of the service device at a predetermined time and the current state of the service device, or a difference between the state of the communication providing the service at a predetermined time and the current state of the communication providing the service; Estimating the cost of each of the candidate countermeasures for the quality degradation of each quality item based on the countermeasure cost information; The system determines, as a countermeasure, a countermeasure candidate whose estimated countermeasure cost is smaller than other countermeasure candidates.

12. The system of claim 11, the countermeasure cost information indicates a relationship between the countermeasure candidate and the countermeasure cost for each service; The processor: Predict degradation of service quality of running services, The system estimates the remediation costs of the running services based on the remediation cost information.

13. The system of claim 11, the storage device stores countermeasure priority information indicating countermeasure priority for each service; The processor: Predicting degradation of service quality of multiple running services, The system determines the running service for which countermeasures should be taken based on the countermeasure priority information.

14. The system of claim 11, the storage device stores damage cost estimation information indicating, in the form of a table, a relationship between the quality items and estimated damage costs that are preset as damage costs that occur when the evaluation of the quality items falls below a predetermined value; The processor: estimating damage costs for quality items for which the service quality is predicted to deteriorate based on the damage cost estimation information; The system determines the candidate countermeasure as a countermeasure if the estimated countermeasure cost is lower than the damage cost.

Images