Sourcing support system, sourcing support method, and sourcing support program

Abstract

To facilitate selection of a suitable supplier for components.SOLUTION: A sourcing support system includes: weight calculation unit that calculates a name of a related component group related to a target component when target component identification information capable of identifying the target component is input, and calculates an evaluation index weight for each of supply capacity evaluation indexes on the basis of a current evaluation value for each of the supply capacity evaluation indexes for each of related components included in the related component group and a supplier supplying the target component; and a score calculation unit that calculates a name of a candidate supplier capable of purchasing the target component, calculates an evaluation index score for each of the supply capacity evaluation indexes and each of soundness evaluation indexes, for each of the calculated names of candidate suppliers, calculates a sum total of products of the evaluation index weight and the evaluation index score to the supply capacity evaluation index as a supply capacity score, and calculates a sum total of the evaluation index scores for each of the soundness evaluation indexes as a soundness score.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a sourcing support system, a sourcing support method, and a sourcing support program for calculating values for evaluating component suppliers.

Background Art

[0002] In recent years, due to changes in the social situation, the supply capacity of components by suppliers has changed, and as a result, it may be necessary to change suppliers. And in order to determine component suppliers, evaluations of suppliers are being carried out. Therefore, there is a technology for evaluating suppliers. For example, Patent Document 1 describes an evaluation method for suppliers that evaluates the management method of suppliers for component manufacturing, such as whether "sorting, tidying up, and cleaning of the workplace are carried out according to the manufactured products", and the manufacturing method of components by suppliers.

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] However, in the technology described in Patent Document 1, for example, information that is not easily known except by those who manufacture components at the supplier, such as whether "sorting, tidying up, and cleaning of the workplace are carried out according to the manufactured products", is used to evaluate the supplier. For this reason, there is a problem that it is difficult to evaluate the supplier even when using the technology described in Patent Document 1.

[0005] Furthermore, in recent years, changes in social conditions or natural disasters may necessitate changing component suppliers. For example, a supplier with whom a company regularly does business may be unable to supply power supply semiconductors, of which only 10 suppliers worldwide produce them, due to typhoon damage. In this case, there is a possibility of a global shortage of those power supply semiconductors. If those power supply semiconductors cannot be supplied, it becomes impossible to manufacture products that use them. Moreover, unless a business relationship is established with an alternative supplier, it may become impossible to obtain good quality components from a good supplier.

[0006] As described above, when it is necessary to quickly evaluate multiple suppliers and decide on a supplier, the following problems arise. 1. There are many types of evaluation metrics for evaluating suppliers. Evaluating all suppliers using all evaluation metrics requires considerable effort, making it difficult to quickly evaluate all suppliers. 2. Because supplier evaluation criteria vary from person to person, it is not easy to properly evaluate suppliers. In many cases, both manufacturing personnel and purchasing personnel evaluate suppliers. In many cases, purchasing personnel have information on various suppliers for various product parts. On the other hand, the supplier information that manufacturing personnel have may be limited to information on suppliers from whom they can purchase the parts they handle. For this reason, evaluations of suppliers may differ between manufacturing personnel and purchasing personnel. Also, for example, a manufacturing personnel member who has a lot of knowledge about the function of a part may have a different evaluation of a sample obtained from a supplier than a purchasing personnel member.

[0007] Therefore, evaluating suppliers and determining the most suitable one is difficult. For example, a supplier selected by the manufacturing team after spending time and effort choosing from multiple suppliers may be deemed unsuitable by the purchasing team, making it impossible to determine an alternative supplier.

[0008] Therefore, the present invention aims to provide a sourcing support system, a sourcing support method, and a sourcing support program that facilitate the selection of suitable component suppliers. [Means for solving the problem]

[0009] To achieve the above objective, one embodiment of the sourcing support system of the present invention is a sourcing support system for calculating a value for evaluating a supplier of parts, comprising: a weight calculation unit that, upon input of target part identification information that can identify a target part, calculates the names of related parts groups related to the target part, and calculates the weight of each supply capacity evaluation index based on the current evaluation value of each supply capacity evaluation index for each related part included in the related parts group and for the supply supplier that supplied the target part; and a score calculation unit that calculates the names of candidate suppliers from whom the target part can be purchased, calculates the evaluation index score for each supply capacity evaluation index and the evaluation index score for each soundness evaluation index for each of the names of the calculated candidate suppliers, calculates the sum of the products of the evaluation index weight and the evaluation index score for the supply capacity evaluation index as the supply capacity score, and calculates the sum of the evaluation index scores for each soundness evaluation index as the soundness score.

[0010] Furthermore, one embodiment of the sourcing support method in the sourcing support system of the present invention is a sourcing support method in a sourcing support system that calculates a value for evaluating a supplier of parts, wherein when target part identification information that can identify a target part is input, the system calculates the name of a group of related parts related to the target part, and calculates the weight of each supply capacity evaluation index based on the current evaluation value of each supply capacity evaluation index for each related part included in the group of related parts and for the supply supplier that supplied the target part, and performs a score calculation process that calculates the name of a candidate supplier that can purchase the target part, calculates the evaluation index score for each supply capacity evaluation index and the evaluation index score for each soundness evaluation index for each of the names of the calculated candidate suppliers, calculates the sum of the products of the evaluation index weight and the evaluation index score for the supply capacity evaluation index as the supply capacity score, and calculates the sum of the evaluation index scores for each soundness evaluation index as the soundness score. [Effects of the Invention]

[0011] According to a typical embodiment of the present invention, it is made easier to select a suitable supplier of parts.

[0012] Other issues, configurations, and effects not mentioned above will be clarified by the following description of the embodiments. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0013] [Figure 1] This figure shows an example of a functional block diagram of a sourcing support system in an embodiment. [Figure 2] This is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the sourcing support system in the embodiment. [Figure 3] This table shows an example of evaluation indicators used to calculate supply capacity scores and soundness scores, along with an example of the evaluation items for each indicator. [Figure 4] This figure shows an example of the formulas used to calculate the supply capacity score and the health score. [Figure 5] It is an explanatory diagram for explaining the calculation methods of evaluation index weights Wi, evaluation value weights Wij, evaluation index scores Si, and evaluation value scores Sij. [Figure 6] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the related parts group table 101. [Figure 7] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the related parts group composition table 102. [Figure 8] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the parts supply status table 103. [Figure 9] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the weight calculation table 104. [Figure 10] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the supplier information table 105. [Figure 11] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the quality information table 106. [Figure 12] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the quality standard information table 107. [Figure 13] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the price information table 108. [Figure 14] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the delivery date information table 109. [Figure 15] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the environmental information table 110. [Figure 16] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the environmental regulation information table 111. [Figure 17] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the financial information table 112. [Figure 18] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the social risk information table 113. [Figure 19] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the governance information table 114. [Figure 20] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the score calculation table 115. [Figure 21] It is a diagram showing an example of the data configuration of the weight calculation history table 116. [Figure 22]This figure shows an example of the data structure of the score calculation history table 117. [Figure 23] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an input / output screen. [Figure 24] This is a flowchart illustrating an example of the weight calculation process in the embodiment. [Figure 25] This graph illustrates the relationship between the values ​​of evaluation weights Wij and Wi, and the ranking of the current evaluation values ​​of the target component. [Figure 26] This is a flowchart illustrating an example of the score calculation process in the embodiment. [Figure 27] This graph shows the relationship between the ranking of candidate suppliers based on their evaluation scores and their supply capacity evaluation score, Sij. [Figure 28] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an FSG-sufficient supplier table display screen that presents a supplier table with sufficient soundness. [Figure 29] This is an explanatory diagram illustrating the calculation method for the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh in a modified example. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0014] The embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. However, the present invention is not to be construed as being limited to the embodiments described below. It will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art that the specific configuration can be modified without departing from the spirit or intent of the present invention.

[0015] In the configuration of the invention described below, identical or similar components or functions are denoted by the same reference numerals, and redundant descriptions are omitted.

[0016] The designations "First," "Second," "Third," etc., used in this specification are for the purpose of identifying constituent elements and do not necessarily limit their number or order.

[0017] In this specification, various types of information may be described using the expression "XX table," but they may also be described using data structures such as "XX list" or "XX queue." Furthermore, "XX table" may be replaced with "XX information." When describing identification information, expressions such as "identification information," "identifier," "name," "ID," and "number" are used, and these are interchangeable.

[0018] In the examples, the processes performed by executing a program may be described. Here, the computer executes the program using a processor (e.g., CPU, GPU) and performs the processing defined in the program using memory resources (e.g., memory) and interface devices (e.g., communication ports). Therefore, the main entity performing the processing by executing the program may be the processor. Similarly, the main entity performing the processing by executing the program may be a controller, device, system, computer, or node having a processor. The main entity performing the processing by executing the program may be an arithmetic unit, and may include dedicated circuits that perform specific processing. Here, dedicated circuits include, for example, FPGAs (Field Programmable Gate Arrays), ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits), CPLDs (Complex Programmable Logic Devices), etc.

[0019] The program may be installed on the computer from the program source. The program source may be, for example, a program distribution server or a storage medium readable by the computer. If the program source is a program distribution server, the program distribution server includes a processor and storage resources for storing the program to be distributed, and the processor of the program distribution server may distribute the program to other computers. In addition, in the embodiment, two or more programs may be implemented as one program, or one program may be implemented as two or more programs. [Examples]

[0020] The sourcing support system 1 of this embodiment, as described in detail below, calculates candidate suppliers for the target part (hereinafter referred to as "candidate suppliers") when the name of the target part (hereinafter referred to as "target part") is entered. Furthermore, for each candidate supplier, the sourcing support system 1 calculates a supply capacity score Sa, which is a numerical value representing supply capacity, and a health score Sh, which is a numerical value representing health, based on evaluation values ​​for various evaluation indicators. The sourcing support system 1 then presents the candidate supplier's name, supply capacity score Sa, and health score Sh to the user, associating them with each other. Therefore, the user can select a supplier for the target part by referring to the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh presented to the user by the sourcing support system 1. This makes it easy for the user to select a suitable supplier.

[0021] <<Configuration of Sourcing Support System 1>> As shown in Figure 1, the sourcing support system 1 comprises a calculation unit 20, a storage unit 13, an input unit 14, and an output unit 15. The calculation unit 20 includes a weight calculation unit 21, a score calculation unit 22, and an evaluation information generation unit 23. The storage unit 13 stores related component group tables 101 to score calculation history tables 117, as will be described later. The sourcing support system 1 is connected to the user terminal 2 and the information management device 3 via a network NW.

[0022] The network NW may be a wired network or a wireless network. Furthermore, the network NW may be a global network such as the Internet, or a local area network (LAN). Additionally, the network NW may utilize wired communication channels such as USB (Universal Serial Bus) or wireless communication channels such as Bluetooth.

[0023] Furthermore, as shown in Figure 2, the sourcing support system 1 has a hardware configuration that includes a processor 11, main memory 12, sub-memory 13, input device 14, output device 15, network I / F 16, and a bus 17 connecting these. The sourcing support system 1 can be implemented using an information processing device such as a general-purpose server.

[0024] Furthermore, the user terminal 2 and the information management device 3 can be implemented using the same hardware resources as the sourcing support system 1. The information management device 3 stores information that can supplement the information in the related parts group table 101 to the score calculation history table 117. The information management device 3 can update the stored information in accordance with changes in the global situation. The sourcing support system 1 can access the information management device 3 and supplement the information in the related parts group table 101 to the score calculation history table 117. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh that reflect changes in the global situation by supplementing the information in the related parts group table 101 to the score calculation history table 117 from the information management device 3 in accordance with changes in the global situation and then calculating the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh. This allows users to easily select a suitable supplier by having the sourcing support system 1 calculate a supply capacity score Sa and a health score Sh that reflect the changes in the global situation when it becomes necessary to change parts suppliers due to changes in the global situation, and by referring to the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh calculated by the sourcing support system 1.

[0025] The processor 11 controls each part of the sourcing support system 1, reads data and programs stored in the sub-memory 13 into the main memory 12, and executes the processing defined by the program. The weight calculation unit 21 is realized by the processor 11 reading the weight calculation program 21a stored in the sub-memory 13 into the main memory 12 and executing it. The score calculation unit 22 is realized by the processor 11 reading the score calculation program 22a stored in the sub-memory 13 into the main memory 12 and executing it. The evaluation information generation unit 23 is realized by the processor 11 reading the evaluation information generation program 23a stored in the sub-memory 13 into the main memory 12 and executing it. In this specification, when describing the processing in a sentence with the weight calculation unit 21, score calculation unit 22, or evaluation information generation unit 23 as the subject, it indicates that the processor 11 of the sourcing support system 1 is executing the weight calculation unit program 21a, score calculation program 22a, and evaluation information generation program 23a that realize the respective functional units.

[0026] The main memory 12 is a RAM or similar, and has volatile memory elements that store programs executed by the processor 11 and data.

[0027] The secondary storage device 13 is an HDD (Hard Disk Drive) or SSD (Solid State Drive), and is a device that has non-volatile memory elements and stores programs, data, etc. The secondary storage device 13 has the weight calculation program 21a, the score calculation program 22a and the evaluation information generation program 23a installed on it. As mentioned above, the weight calculation program 21a, the score calculation program 22a and the evaluation information generation program 23a are programs that are executed by the processor 11 to realize the functions of the weight calculation unit 21, the score calculation unit 22 and the evaluation information generation unit 23, respectively.

[0028] Furthermore, the secondary storage device 13 stores the related parts group table 101, the related parts group configuration table 102, the parts supply status table 103, the weight calculation table 104, the supplier information table 105, the quality information table 106, the quality standard information table 107, the price information table 108, the delivery date information table 109, the environmental information table 110, the environmental regulation information table 111, the financial information table 112, the social risk information table 113, the governance information table 114, the score calculation table 115, the weight calculation history table 116, and the score calculation history table 117.

[0029] The related parts group table 101 stores the names of related parts groups associated with a particular part, as will be explained in detail later using Figure 6. A related parts group is a group of parts consisting of multiple parts related to a particular part. A related parts group includes multiple related parts that are related to multiple parts. Related parts are, for example, multiple parts included in an assembly that partially includes the target part, or parts of the same type as the target part. For example, if the target part is a screw, the related parts may be multiple parts other than screws included in an assembly part that includes a screw. Alternatively, they may be multiple screws similar to the target part.

[0030] The related parts group configuration table 102 stores the names of multiple related parts included in the related parts group, although the details will be described later using Figure 7.

[0031] The parts supply status table 103, which will be described in detail later using Figure 8, stores information on the current evaluation value of the evaluation index for parts supply capacity. The current evaluation value is the evaluation value for suppliers (referred to as supply suppliers) that have supplied related parts and target parts included in the related parts group to date.

[0032] The weight calculation table 104, as will be described in detail later using Figure 9, stores information that the sourcing support system 1 uses to calculate the value of the evaluation weight Wij from the relative ranking wr of each current evaluation value of the supply capacity evaluation index for the target part within the related parts group.

[0033] The supplier information table 105 stores information about suppliers from whom parts can be purchased, although details will be described later using Figure 10.

[0034] Quality information table 106 stores quality information for parts supplied by suppliers, although details will be described later using Figure 11.

[0035] The quality standard information table 107, which will be described in detail later using Figure 12, stores information on the standard names required for parts, as requested by suppliers who manufacture parts.

[0036] The price information table 108 stores information on the unit prices of supplier parts, which will be explained in detail later using Figure 13.

[0037] The delivery date information table 109 stores information on the delivery dates of parts from suppliers, although details will be described later using Figure 14.

[0038] The environmental information table 110, which will be described in detail later using Figure 15, stores information on the evaluation value of environmental E for suppliers.

[0039] The environmental regulations information table 111, which will be described in detail later using Figure 16, stores information on the standards required of suppliers for the manufacture of parts.

[0040] The financial information table 112, which will be described in detail later using Figure 17, stores information that allows suppliers to evaluate the financial status of F.

[0041] The social risk information table 113, which will be described in detail later using Figure 18, stores information for suppliers to assess the status of social risks S.

[0042] The governance information table 114, which will be described in detail later using Figure 19, stores information for suppliers to evaluate the status of their governance G.

[0043] The score calculation table 115, as will be explained in detail later using Figure 20, stores information that the sourcing support system 1 uses to calculate the evaluation score Sij from the relative ranking sr of the numerical evaluation values ​​of the target parts among the candidate supplier group.

[0044] The weight calculation history table 116 stores information on the evaluation index weight Wi calculated by the sourcing support system 1, which will be described in detail later using Figure 21.

[0045] The score calculation history table 117, which will be described in detail later using Figure 22, stores various scores used by the sourcing support system 1 to evaluate suppliers.

[0046] The input device 14 is a device that accepts user input such as a keyboard or mouse, and acquires information entered through user input. The output device 15 is a device that outputs information such as a display, and presents information to the user, for example, by displaying it on a screen.

[0047] Network I / F16 is connected to the network NW. Network I / F16 is an interface (transceiver) that can send and receive data via the network NW to devices such as user terminal 2 and information management device 3. Sourcing support system 1 can use network I / F16 to send and receive data via the network NW to devices such as user terminal 2 and information management device 3.

[0048] As shown in Figure 1, the sourcing support system 1 comprises a storage unit 13, an input unit 14, an output unit 15, and an arithmetic unit 20. The storage unit 13 is a sub-storage device 13. The storage unit 13 stores the related parts group table 101 to the score calculation history table 117.

[0049] The input unit 14 consists of an input device 14 and a network interface 16. The output unit 15 consists of an output device 15 and a network interface 16. The user can input information into the sourcing support system 1 using the input unit 14. The sourcing support system 1 can output information to the output unit 15 and present the information to the user using the output unit 15. Here, the user can input the name of the target part for which the supplier is being considered into the sourcing support system 1 using the input unit 14. Alternatively, the user may input the name of the target part into the sourcing support system 1 via the user terminal 2 by operating the user terminal 2. Note that the name of the target part is an example of the target part identification information. The target part identification information is information that identifies the target part. The user can input the target part product Instead of a name, it would suffice to input information that identifies the target part. For example, the user may input the part number of the target part into the sourcing support system 1 as the information that identifies the target part.

[0050] The calculation unit 20 comprises a weight calculation unit 21, a score calculation unit 22, and an evaluation information generation unit 23. The calculation unit 20 calculates a value for evaluating suppliers that can purchase the target part from the input target part name and outputs it to the output unit 15. Here, the calculation unit 20 calculates a supply capacity score Sa, which represents the supplier's supply capacity, and a health score Sh, which represents the supplier's health, as values ​​for evaluating the supplier.

[0051] Figure 3 is a table showing an example of evaluation indicators and evaluation items used to calculate the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh. The sourcing support system 1's score calculation unit 22 calculates the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh using the evaluation indicator score Si. Each evaluation indicator has one or more evaluation items. The sourcing support system 1 calculates one evaluation value for each evaluation item. The sourcing support system 1 calculates an evaluation value score Siij, which is the score for the evaluation item. The sourcing support system 1 also calculates an evaluation indicator score Si for the evaluation indicator from the evaluation value score Siij. The supply capacity score Sa is calculated by weighting the evaluation indicator score Si related to supply capacity. The health score Sh is the sum of the evaluation indicator scores Si related to health. The sourcing support system 1's score calculation unit 22 also calculates the evaluation indicator score Si using the evaluation value score Siij.

[0052] As shown in the table in Figure 3, there are four evaluation indicators for supply capacity: Quality Q, Price C, Delivery Time D, and Environment E. These indicators evaluate a supplier's ability to supply parts. Here, Quality Q, Price C, Delivery Time D, and Environment E are examples of supply capacity evaluation indicators. The supply capacity evaluation indicators may also include evaluation indicators other than Quality Q, Price C, Delivery Time D, and Environment E.

[0053] The evaluation items for Quality Q are the defect rate and the number of specifications met. The values ​​for the defect rate and the number of specifications met for Quality Q are the evaluation values ​​for Quality Q. The evaluation value is a value for an evaluation item. In this specification, the evaluation value is referred to as both the "evaluation value of the evaluation item" and the "evaluation value of the evaluation indicator." There are two evaluation items for Quality Q: the defect rate and the number of specifications met. The evaluation value for Quality Q has two values: the value for the defect rate and the value for the number of specifications met. As explained below, the sourcing support system 1 uses the evaluation values ​​of these two values—the value for the defect rate and the value for the number of specifications met—to calculate the evaluation indicator score SQ for Quality Q, which is the evaluation indicator. An evaluation indicator that calculates an evaluation indicator score Si using multiple evaluation values ​​in this way is called a composite evaluation indicator. Quality Q, Delivery Time D, Environment E, and Financial F are composite evaluation indicators. An evaluation indicator that calculates an evaluation indicator score Si using a single evaluation value is called a simple evaluation indicator. Price C, Social Risk S, and Governance G are simple evaluation indicators.

[0054] Furthermore, the soundness score evaluation indicators include three indicators: Financial F, Social Risk S, and Governance G. The soundness evaluation indicators are indicators that assess the soundness of Sunply's management. The soundness evaluation indicators may also include evaluation indicators other than Financial F, Social Risk S, and Governance G. In this embodiment, as shown in Figure 3, the values ​​for the soundness score evaluation indicators (Financial F, Social Risk S, Governance G) are based on information that is easily obtainable, such as supplier IR information, which is relatively easy to acquire. This makes it easy to calculate and evaluate soundness scores for many suppliers.

[0055] Figure 4 shows an example of the formulas used to calculate the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh. As shown in formula 1 of Figure 4, Supply capacity The score Sa is the sum of the products of the evaluation index weights Wi and the evaluation index scores Si for each supply capacity evaluation index (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E). That is, as shown in equation 1a in Figure 4, Supply capacityThe score Sa is the sum of the products of the quality Q weight WQ and the quality Q score SQ, the price C weight WC and the price C score SC, the delivery time D weight WD and the delivery time D score SD, and the environment E weight WE and the environment E score SE.

[0056] As shown in Equation 1b of Figure 4, the evaluation index weight Wi is the average value of the evaluation value weight Wij for the evaluation item. Also, as shown in Equation 1c of Figure 4, the evaluation index score Si is the average value of the evaluation value score Sij. As described above, the sourcing support system 1 calculates a supply capacity score Sa for each supplier (referred to as a candidate supplier) from which the target part can be purchased.

[0057] On the other hand, the soundness score Sh is the sum of the scores for each of the soundness evaluation indicators (SF for Financial F, Ss for Social Risk S, and SG for Governance G).

[0058] Figure 5 is an explanatory diagram illustrating the calculation methods for evaluation index weight Wi, evaluation value weight Wij, evaluation index score Si, and evaluation value score Sij. As shown in Figure 5, the evaluation index weight Wi and evaluation value weight Wij are calculated based on each related component included in the related component group associated with the target component, and the evaluation value of the target component. The evaluation index weight Wi and evaluation value weight Wij are used to calculate the supply capacity score Sa, as shown in equations 1, 1a, and 1b in Figure 4. Thus, the evaluation index weight Wi and evaluation value weight Wij, which are calculated considering the related component group associated with the target component, are used to calculate the supply capacity score Sa. This allows the sourcing support system 1 to calculate the supply capacity score Sa considering the characteristics of the target component.

[0059] On the other hand, as shown in Figure 5, the evaluation index score Si and the evaluation value score Sij are calculated based on the evaluation values ​​of suppliers (candidate suppliers) from whom the target part can be purchased. The evaluation index score Si and the evaluation value score Sij are values ​​that evaluate suppliers without considering the characteristics of the target part. The sourcing support system 1 stores the evaluation values ​​necessary to calculate the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh in the storage unit 13 (sub-storage device 13). The above describes how to calculate the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh.

[0060] When the weight calculation unit 21 receives the name of the target part (target part name) for which the supplier is to be considered, it refers to the related parts group table 101 and obtains the related parts group name for the target part. Here, the related parts group is a group of parts related to the target part.

[0061] Furthermore, the weight calculation unit 21 refers to the related parts group configuration table 102 (see Figure 6) to the parts supply status table 103 (see Figure 8) to obtain the current evaluation value for each supply capacity evaluation index for each related part included in the related parts group and for the target part. The current evaluation value is the evaluation value for the suppliers (referred to as supply suppliers) that have supplied the related parts and target parts included in the related parts group to date.

[0062] Furthermore, the weight calculation unit 21 calculates the evaluation value weight Wij based on the weight calculation table 104 (see Figure 9) and the current evaluation values ​​of each supply capacity evaluation index for each related component and target component included in the acquired related component group. The evaluation value weight Wij is the weight value corresponding to the evaluation item. Here, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the corresponding evaluation value weight Wij for each evaluation item of the supply capacity evaluation index.

[0063] Furthermore, the weight calculation unit 21 calculates the average value of the evaluation value weight Wij for each evaluation item (see Equation 1b in Figure 4) as the evaluation index weight Wi. In this way, the weight calculation unit 21 calculates the evaluation index weight Wi (WQ, WC, WD, WE) for each of the supply capacity evaluation indices (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E).

[0064] The score calculation unit 22 refers to the supplier information table 105 (see Figure 10) to calculate the names of candidate supplier groups for the target part. Candidate suppliers are suppliers that can purchase the target part. A candidate supplier group is a group of multiple candidate suppliers.

[0065] Furthermore, the score calculation unit 22 calculates a supply capacity score Sa and a health score Sh for each candidate supplier included in the calculated candidate supplier group name (candidate supplier group), as follows. 1. The score calculation unit 22 calculates the evaluation index score Si for each of the supply capacity evaluation indices (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E) by referring to the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11) to the environmental regulation information table 111 (see Figure 16) and the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20). Then, the score calculation unit 22 calculates the supply capacity score S by summing the products of the evaluation index weights Wi calculated by the weight calculation unit 21 and the evaluation index scores Si for each supply capacity evaluation indice. a It is calculated as follows (see Equation 1 in Figure 4). 2. The score calculation unit 22 calculates the evaluation index score Si for each of the soundness evaluation indicators (Financial F, Social Risk S, Governance G) by referring to the financial information table 112 (see Figure 17) to the governance information table 114 (see Figure 19) and the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20). Then, the score calculation unit 22 calculates the sum of the evaluation index scores (SF, SS, SG) for each of the soundness evaluation indicators as the soundness score S. h This is calculated as follows (see Equation 2 in Figure 4). 3. The score calculation unit 22 stores the evaluation index weight Wi in the weight calculation history table 116 (see Figure 21). The score calculation unit 22 also stores the evaluation index score Si, supply capacity score Sa, and health score Sh, etc., in the score calculation history table 117 (see Figure 22).

[0066] The evaluation information generation unit 23 outputs supplier evaluation information (see Figure 28), which associates candidate supplier names (supplier identification information), supply capacity score Sa, and health score Sh, to the output device 15 in response to instructions entered by the user from the input / output screen (see Figure 23), causing the output device 15 to display the supplier evaluation information.

[0067] There are three types of supplier evaluation information: a supplier table with sufficient soundness, a supplier table with priority based on soundness score, and a supplier table with priority based on supply capacity score. As shown in Figure 28, the supplier table with sufficient soundness is comprised of candidate suppliers with a soundness score of S h However, for suppliers whose supply capacity score Sa is greater than a predetermined health threshold (referred to as healthy candidate suppliers), the supply capacity score Sa is ranked in descending order, and the information associates the supply capacity score Sa with the health score Sh and the name of the healthy candidate supplier (healthy supplier identification information) that identifies the healthy candidate supplier.

[0068] On the other hand, the health score priority candidate supplier table lists all candidate suppliers based on their health score S h This information is arranged in descending order of supply capacity score (Sa), health score (Sh), and candidate supplier name. Furthermore, the supply capacity score priority candidate supplier table lists all candidate suppliers based on their supply capacity score (Sh). a This information is arranged in descending order of quality, and associates the supply capacity score (Sa), health score (Sh), and candidate supplier name.

[0069] <<Data structure of Sourcing Support System 1>> Next, we will explain the data structure of the various data used in the sourcing support system 1 using Figures 6 to 22.

[0070] Figure 6 shows an example of the data structure of the related parts group table 101. The related parts group table 101 has two fields: part name 601 and related parts group name 602.

[0071] Part name 601 is the name of the part. Related part group name 602 is the name of the related part group for part name 601.

[0072] Figure 7 shows an example of the data structure of the related parts group configuration table 102. The related parts group configuration table 102 has two fields: related parts group name 701 and parts configuration 702. Related parts group name 701 is the name of the related parts group. Parts configuration 702 is the name of the related parts included in related parts group name 701.

[0073] Figure 8 shows an example of the data structure of the parts supply status table 103. The parts supply status table 103 has the following fields: part name 801, current evaluation value of quality Q 802, current evaluation value of price C 803, current evaluation value of delivery time D 804, and current evaluation value of environment E 805. These current evaluation values ​​802 to 805 are evaluation values ​​(current evaluation values) of the supply capacity evaluation indicators for the supplier (supply supplier) that supplied the part with part name 801.

[0074] Part name 801 is the part name. The current evaluation value of quality Q 802 is the field for the current evaluation value of quality Q for part name 801. The current evaluation value of quality Q 802 includes the defect rate 802a and the number of essential quality specifications 802b.

[0075] The current evaluation value of price C, 803, is the current evaluation value of price C for part name 801, and is the unit price of part name 801.

[0076] The current evaluation value 804 for delivery date D is the field for the current evaluation value of delivery date D for part name 801. The current evaluation value 804 for delivery date D includes the on-time delivery rate 804a and the delivery lead time 804b.

[0077] The current environmental assessment value 805 is the field for the current environmental assessment value of part name 801. The current environmental assessment value 805 includes the number of mandatory environmental regulations 805a and CO2 emissions 805b.

[0078] Figure 9 shows an example of the data structure of the weight calculation table 104. The weight calculation table 104 has two fields: relative rank wr901 and evaluation value weight Wij902. Relative rank wr901 is the relative rank wr of the current evaluation value of the supply capacity evaluation index for the target part within the group of related parts.

[0079] Figure 10 shows an example of the data structure of the supplier information table 105. The supplier information table 105 has the following fields: supplier name 1001, handled part name 1002, and transaction status 1003. Supplier name 1001 is the name of the supplier. Handled part name 1002 is the name of the part that can be purchased from supplier name 1001. Here, the part name is a type of part identification information that can identify a part. The value of handled part name 1002 can be any part identification information. The value of handled part name 1002 may also be the part's model number. Transaction status 1003 is the status of the transaction with supplier name 1001.

[0080] Figure 11 shows an example of the data structure of the quality information table 106. The quality information table 106 has the following fields: supplier name 1101, handled parts 1102, and quality Q evaluation value 1103. Supplier name 1101 is the name of the supplier. Handled parts 1102 are the names of the parts that can be purchased from supplier name 1101. Quality Q evaluation value 1103 is the field for the quality Q evaluation value of the parts handled 1102. Quality Q evaluation value 1103 includes the defect rate 1103a and the number of satisfied specifications 1103b as evaluation values. The number of satisfied specifications 1103b is the number of quality specifications of the parts handled 1102 that supplier name 1101 has obtained (satisfied). The specifications are standards that evaluate suppliers and parts, such as regulatory standards and certification standards.

[0081] Figure 12 shows an example of the data structure of the Quality Standard Information Table 107. The Quality Standard Information Table 107 has two fields: Part Name 1201 and Required Quality Standard Name 1202. Part Name 1201 is the name of the part. Required Quality Standard Name 1202 is the name of the quality standard required for the part of Part Name 1201. Here, a quality standard is a standard used to evaluate suppliers and parts, such as regulatory standards or certification standards related to quality.

[0082] Figure 13 shows an example of the data structure of the price information table 108. The price information table 108 has the following fields: supplier name 1301, handled parts 1302, and evaluation value 1103 for price C. Supplier name 1301 is the name of the supplier. Handled parts 1302 is the name of the part that can be purchased from supplier name 1301. Price C 1303 is the evaluation value, which is the unit price of the part handled 1102.

[0083] Figure 14 shows an example of the data structure of the delivery information table 109. The delivery information table 109 has the following fields: supplier name 1401, handled parts 1402, and delivery date D evaluation value 1403. Supplier name 1401 is the name of the supplier. Handled parts 1402 are the names of the parts that can be purchased from the supplier of supplier name 1401. Delivery date D evaluation value 1403 is the field for the delivery date D evaluation value of the parts of handled parts 1402. Delivery date D evaluation value 1403 includes the delivery date compliance rate 1403a and the delivery lead time 1403b as evaluation values.

[0084] Figure 15 shows an example of the data structure of the environmental information table 110. The environmental information table 110 has the following fields: supplier name 1501, handled parts 1502, and environmental E evaluation value 1503. Supplier name 1501 is the name of the supplier. Handled parts 1502 are the names of the parts that can be purchased from supplier name 1501. Environmental E evaluation value 1503 is the field for the environmental E evaluation value of the parts handled 1502. The environmental E evaluation value 1503 includes CO2 emissions 1503a, number of satisfied standards 1503b, and number of mandatory standards 1503c. Number of satisfied standards 1503b is the number of environmental standards (environmental standards) of the parts handled 1502 that supplier name 1501 has obtained (met). The number of required standards, 1503c, is the number of environmental standards required for the 1502 components handled. Here, environmental standards refer to standards that evaluate suppliers and components, such as regulations concerning the global environment and certification standards for the global environment.

[0085] Figure 16 shows an example of the data structure of the environmental regulation information table 111. The environmental regulation information table 111 has two fields: part name 1601 and required environmental standard name 1602. Part name 1601 is the name of the part. Required environmental standard name 1602 is the name of the environmental standard required for the part of part name 1601.

[0086] Figure 17 shows an example of the data structure of the financial information table 112. The financial information table 112 has the following fields: supplier name 1701 and financial F valuation value 1702. Supplier name 1701 is the name of the supplier. Financial F valuation value 1702 is the field for the supplier's financial F valuation value. Financial F valuation value 1702 includes the equity ratio 1702a, the current ratio 1702b, and the quick ratio 1702c as valuation values.

[0087] Figure 18 shows an example of the data structure of the social risk information table 113. The social risk information table 113 has the following fields: supplier name 1801, number of missing standards for supplier name 1801 1802, and number of required standards for supplier name 1801 1803. Supplier name 1801 is the name of the supplier. Number of missing standards 1802 is the number of compliance standards that supplier name 1801 is missing and has not yet obtained. Number of required standards 1803 is the number of compliance standards that supplier name 1801 is required to manufacture parts.

[0088] Figure 19 shows an example of the data structure of the governance information table 114. The governance information table 114 has the following fields: supplier name 1901 and number of misconduct incidents 1902. The number of misconduct incidents 1902 is the number of misconduct incidents that supplier name 1901 has caused to date.

[0089] Figure 20 shows an example of the data structure of the score calculation table 115. The score calculation table 115 has two fields: relative rank sr2001 and evaluation score Sij2002. Relative rank sr2001 is the relative rank sr of the evaluation value of the numerical value of the target part in the candidate supplier group. Evaluation score Sij2002 is the value of the evaluation score Sij.

[0090] Figure 21 shows an example of the data structure of the weight calculation history table 116. The weight calculation history table 116 has the following fields: part name 2101, evaluation index weight 2102, and calculation date 2103. Part name 2101 is the name of the target part. Evaluation index weight 2102 is the field for evaluation index weights. Evaluation index weight 2102 includes the evaluation index weight WQ2102a for quality Q, the evaluation index weight WC2102b for price C, the evaluation index weight WD2102c for delivery time D, and the evaluation index weight WE2102d for environment E as the values ​​of the evaluation index weights. Calculation date 2103 is the date on which the sourcing support system 1 calculated the evaluation index weight 2102.

[0091] Figure 22 shows an example of the data structure of the score calculation history table 117. The score calculation history table 117 has the following fields: part name 2201, supplier name 2202, quality Q evaluation index score SQ 2203, price C evaluation index score SC 2204, delivery time D evaluation index score SD 2205, environment E evaluation index score SE 2206, financial F evaluation index score SF 2207, social risk S evaluation index score SS 2208, governance G evaluation index score SG 2209, supply capacity score Sa 2210, soundness score Sh 2211, and calculation date 2212.

[0092] Part name 2201 is the name of the part in question. Supplier name 2202 is the name of the candidate supplier. Calculation date 2212 is the date on which Sourcing Support System 1 calculated the quality Q evaluation index scores SQ2203 to soundness score Sh2211.

[0093] <<Processing procedure of Sourcing Support System 1, Figures 23-28>> Next, the processing procedure of the sourcing support system 1 will be described. The user operates the user terminal 2 to allow the user terminal 2 to access the sourcing support system 1. When the sourcing support system 1 is accessed by the user terminal 2, it sends input / output screen information, which is information about the input / output screen, to the user terminal 2. The input / output screen information includes information about the configuration of the input / output screen and information indicating that the input / output screen should be displayed on the user terminal 2. As described below, the input / output screen is configured to accept input for the target part name, input for instructions to calculate a value to evaluate the supplier, and input indicating that the supplier evaluation result should be displayed.

[0094] Figure 23 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an input / output screen. The input / output screen 2300 shown in Figure 23 has a target component selection button 2301, a health threshold input field 2302, a weight calculation execution button 2303, a weight list table 2311, a supplier evaluation execution button 2312, and a supplier evaluation result display field 2320.

[0095] The target part selection button 2301 is a button for entering the target part name, which is the name of the part for which the supplier is being considered. When the target part selection button 2301 is pressed, a list of part names is displayed. On the input / output screen 2300, the user sets the name of the part selected from the displayed list of part names as the target part name.

[0096] The health threshold input field 2302 is a field where the user enters the health threshold, which will be described later. The health threshold input field 2302 displays an initial value, and when the user enters a number into the health threshold input field 2302, the display in the health threshold input field 2302 and the health threshold are changed to the entered number.

[0097] The weight calculation execution button 2303 is a button for inputting an instruction to start the weight calculation process. When the weight calculation execution button 2303 is pressed by the user, the sourcing support system 1 takes the name of the target part selected by the user with the target part selection button 2301 as input and executes the weight calculation process (see Figure 24).

[0098] The weight list table 2311 is a table that presents the supply capacity evaluation index weights Wi calculated by the sourcing support system 1 through its weight calculation process. Users can change the evaluation index weights Wi by entering numerical values ​​in the evaluation index weight Wi column in the weight list table 2311. This allows users to appropriately change the evaluation index weights Wi and then have the sourcing support system 1 calculate and display the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh of candidate suppliers, as described below. For example, if you want to obtain information on suppliers with short lead times for parts, you should make the value of the evaluation index weight WD for lead time D larger than the other evaluation index weights Wi. This increases the contribution of the evaluation value of lead time D to the supply capacity score Sa, making it easier for users to evaluate candidate suppliers that prioritize lead time D by referring to the supply capacity score Sa.

[0099] The supplier evaluation execution button 2312 is a button used to input an instruction to start the score calculation process. When the supplier evaluation execution button 2312 is pressed by the user, the sourcing support system 1 takes as input the name of the target part selected by the user with the target part selection button 2301, the health threshold entered in the health threshold input field 2302, and the supply capacity evaluation index weight Wi calculated by the sourcing support system 1 in the weight calculation process, which is displayed in the weight list table 2311, and executes the score calculation process (see Figure 26).

[0100] The supplier evaluation result display area 2320 is a field that displays a value for evaluating a supplier, calculated by the sourcing support system 1 through a score calculation process. The supplier evaluation result display area 2320 includes the candidate supplier name 2321, the health score display area 2322, the health chart 2323, the health alert display area 2324, the health-sufficient supplier table display button 2325, the health-priority supplier table display button 2326, the supply capacity score display area 2327, the supply capacity chart 2328, and the supply capacity-priority supplier table display button 2329.

[0101] The Candidate Supplier Name 2321 field displays the candidate supplier name associated with the information in the Health Score Display Field 2322, Health Chart 2323, Health Alert Display Field 2324, Supply Capacity Score Display Field 2327, and Supply Capacity Chart 2328.

[0102] The health score display field 2322 is the field that displays the health score Sh of candidate supplier name 2321. The health chart 2323 is a radar chart of the health evaluation index score Si of candidate supplier name 2321.

[0103] The health alert display field 2324 shows whether the health score Sh of candidate supplier name 2321 exceeds the health threshold. If the health score Sh of candidate supplier name 2321 is below the health threshold (health score Sh ≤ health threshold), the health alert display field 2324 displays "Yes," indicating that the health of candidate supplier name 2321 can be determined to be insufficient because the health score Sh of candidate supplier name 2321 is below the health threshold. On the other hand, if the health score Sh is greater than the health threshold (health threshold < health score), the health alert display field 2324 displays "No," indicating that the health of candidate supplier name 2321 can be determined to be sufficient because the health score Sh of candidate supplier name 2321 is greater than the health threshold.

[0104] The "Display Healthy Supplier Table" button 2325 is a button that inputs an instruction to display a healthy supplier evaluation value table (see Figure 28) in which candidate suppliers (healthy candidate suppliers) whose health score Sh is greater than the health threshold are arranged in descending order of their supply capacity score Sa. When the "Display Healthy Supplier Table" button 2325 is pressed by the user, the sourcing support system 1 generates a healthy supplier evaluation value table (healthy supplier table, see Figure 28) in the evaluation information generation unit 23, outputs the generated health score priority supplier evaluation value table, and presents it to the user.

[0105] The "Display Health Priority Supplier Table" button 2326 is a button that inputs an instruction to display a health priority supplier evaluation value table (not shown) which sorts candidate suppliers in descending order of health score Sh, and associates the supplier name with the evaluation index score Si, the supply capacity score Sa, and the health score Sh. When the user presses the "Display Health Priority Supplier Table" button 2326, the sourcing support system 1 generates the health priority supplier evaluation value table (not shown) in the evaluation information generation unit 23, outputs the generated health priority supplier evaluation value table, and presents it to the user.

[0106] The supply capacity score display field 2327 is the field that displays the supply capacity score Sa of candidate supplier name 2321. The supply capacity chart 2328 is a radar chart of the supply capacity evaluation index score Si of candidate supplier name 2321.

[0107] The Supply Capacity Priority Supplier Table Display Button 2329 is a button that instructs the user to display a Supply Capacity Priority Supplier Evaluation Value Table (not shown) which sorts candidate suppliers in descending order of Supply Capacity Score Sa, and associates the supplier name with the evaluation index score Si, Supply Capacity Score Sa, and Health Score Sh. When the Supply Capacity Priority Supplier Table Display Button 2329 is pressed by the user, the Sourcing Support System 1 generates the Supply Capacity Priority Supplier Evaluation Value Table (not shown) in the Evaluation Information Generation Unit 23, outputs the generated Supply Capacity Priority Supplier Evaluation Value Table, and presents it to the user.

[0108] As explained above, the input / output screen 2300 receives instructions for the weight calculation unit 21 to execute the weight calculation process, the score calculation unit 22 to execute the score calculation process, and the evaluation information generation unit 23 to execute the process. In other words, the user can input the name of the target part (target part identification information) using the target part selection button 2301. When the user presses the weight calculation execution button 2303, the sourcing support system 1 uses the name of the target part (target part identification information) entered using the target part selection button 2301 as input and executes the weight calculation process (see Figure 24) in the weight calculation unit 21.

[0109] Furthermore, the user can input a health threshold using the health threshold input field 2302. When the user presses the supplier evaluation execution button 2312, the sourcing support system 1 takes the target part name entered using the target part selection button 2301, the health threshold entered using the health threshold input field 2302, and the supply capacity evaluation index weight Wi displayed in the weight list table 2311 as input and executes the score calculation process (see Figure 26).

[0110] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 displays the supplier evaluation results calculated by the score calculation process in the evaluation information generation unit 23 in the supplier evaluation result display field 2320. In addition, when any of the following buttons in the supplier evaluation result display field 2320 is pressed—the "Sufficiently Healthy Supplier Table Display Button 2325", the "Priority of Healthy Supplier Table Display Button 2326", or the "Priority of Supply Capacity Supplier Table Display Button 2329—the sourcing support system 1 generates a table corresponding to the pressed button in the evaluation information generation unit 23, outputs the generated table to the output device 15 or network I / F 16, and presents the generated table to the user. The following describes the details of the processing in the weight calculation unit 21, the score calculation unit 22, and the evaluation information generation unit 23.

[0111] <Weight calculation process, Figures 24, 25> Figure 24 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the weight calculation process in the embodiment. When the name of the target part is entered into the input / output screen 2300 (see Figure 23) and the weight calculation execution button 2303 is pressed, the weight calculation unit 21 of the sourcing support system 1 (see Figure 1) takes the name of the target part as input and executes the weight calculation process shown as an example in Figure 24.

[0112] The sourcing support system 1 retrieves and saves the related parts group name associated with the target part name from the related parts group table 101 (see Figure 6) (step S2401).

[0113] Next, the sourcing support system 1 retrieves and saves the related part names associated with the related part group names from the related part group configuration table 102 (step S2402).

[0114] Next, the sourcing support system 1 starts a loop process to calculate the supply capacity evaluation index weight Wi from the target part name (step S2403). The process shown between step S2403, the start of the loop, and step S2405, the end of the loop, is repeated for each supply capacity evaluation index (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E). In step S2403, the sourcing support system 1 selects one supply capacity evaluation index from the names of the unprocessed supply capacity evaluation indicators.

[0115] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index weight Wi for the supply capacity evaluation index selected in step S2403 based on the current evaluation value of each evaluation index for each related part and the target part, and stores it in the weight calculation history table 116 (step S2404).

[0116] In step S2404, the sourcing support system 1 first performs the following processes (1A) to (1C) to calculate all evaluation value weights Wij for the evaluation items. (1A) Sourcing support system 1 is a parts supply status table 103 (Figure 8The system retrieves the current evaluation values ​​(current evaluation values ​​associated with each related part and the target part) from the reference, and saves the retrieved current evaluation values ​​in association with the related part names. (1B) Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of the target part's current evaluation value within the related parts group based on all acquired current evaluation values, and further calculates the relative ranking wr(%) of the target part's current evaluation value within the related parts group. Here, there are two types of current evaluation values: numerical current evaluation values ​​and regulatory current evaluation values. Numerical current evaluation values ​​include the defect rate of quality Q, the unit price of price C, the on-time delivery rate of delivery D, the delivery lead time, and the CO2 emissions of environment E. On the other hand, regulatory current evaluation values ​​consist of two types: the number of essential quality standards (quality regulation compliance rate) of quality Q and the number of essential environmental standards (environmental regulation compliance rate) of environment E.

[0117] The relative ranking wr of the current evaluation value is calculated so that a higher ranking indicates a better current evaluation value for all current evaluation values ​​(either numerical or regulatory). Specifically, for numerical current evaluation values, the ranking is calculated so that a higher ranking indicates a better current evaluation value, and the relative ranking wr(%) is calculated by dividing the calculated ranking by the number of related parts. Also, the fewer the number of mandatory specifications, the fewer the specifications imposed on the parts. Therefore, in the case of regulatory current evaluation values, the ranking of the number of mandatory specifications is calculated so that a lower number of mandatory specifications indicates a higher ranking, and the relative ranking wr(%) is calculated by dividing the calculated ranking by the number of related parts. (1C) The sourcing support system 1 obtains evaluation value weights Wij from the weight calculation table 104 (see Figure 9), which are associated with the relative rank wr of the current evaluation value of the target part.

[0118] Figure 25 is a graph illustrating the relationship between the evaluation value weight Wij, the value of evaluation value weight Wij, and the rank of the current evaluation value of the target component. Figure 25 is a graph created based on Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, the weight calculation table 104 is generated such that the lower the relative rank wr(%) of the current evaluation value, the larger the value of the evaluation value weight Wij. Therefore, as shown in Figure 25, the lower the relative rank wr(%) of the current evaluation value, that is, the worse the current evaluation value is in the group of related components, the larger the value of the evaluation value weight Wij is set to be. The evaluation index weight Wi is the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weight Wij. Therefore, the evaluation index weight Wi becomes larger as the value of evaluation value weight Wij increases. Consequently, the evaluation index weight Wi is set to become larger as the relative rank wr of the current evaluation value decreases (the worse the current evaluation value is). Furthermore, instead of obtaining the evaluation weight Wij from the relative rank wr(%) using the weight calculation table 104 as described above, the sourcing support system 1 may obtain the evaluation weight Wij from the relative rank wr using a function (for example, relative rank wr(%) x 10).

[0119] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weights Wij as the evaluation index weight Wi (see equation 1b in Figure 4).

[0120] The following describes a more specific method for calculating the evaluation metric weights Wi, as explained above. There are four evaluation metrics for supply capacity: quality Q, price C, delivery time D, and environment E. For these four evaluation metrics, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation metric weights Wi as described below.

[0121] The evaluation items for Quality Q are the defect rate and the number of required quality specifications. The evaluation weight WQ1 for the defect rate is calculated as follows: (1A) For each related part, the sourcing support system 1 searches the parts supply status table 103 for records where part name 801 is the related part name. The sourcing support system 1 uses the value of defect rate 802a of the searched record as the defect rate value. The sourcing support system 1 then stores the defect rate value in association with the related part name.

[0122] Next, (1B) Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of the target part's defect rate within the group of related parts based on the defect rate values ​​(current evaluation values) of all related parts acquired. Furthermore, Sourcing support system 1 calculates the relative ranking wr(%) of the target part's current evaluation value. A lower defect rate (%) is a better value. Therefore, Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of the related parts' defect rates (current evaluation values) so that related parts with lower defect rates (current evaluation values) have higher rankings. Then, Sourcing support system 1 divides the ranking of the target part's defect rate by the number of related parts to calculate the relative ranking wr(%) of the target part's defect rate (current evaluation value).

[0123] Next, (1C) the sourcing support system 1 obtains evaluation value weight WQ1 from the weight calculation table 104, which is associated with the relative rank wr of the defect rate (current evaluation value) of the target part.

[0124] The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation weight WQ2 for the number of essential quality standards (quality regulation compliance rate) among the evaluation items of quality Q as follows. The number of essential quality standards is a type of current evaluation value of the standards. (1A) The sourcing support system 1 obtains the value of the number of essential quality standards 802b for each related part from the parts supply status table 103, similar to how the defect rate value is obtained as described above. Next, (1B) the sourcing support system 1 calculates the rank of the number of essential quality standards (current evaluation value) of the target part within the group of related parts, and further calculates the relative rank wr(%) of the number of essential quality standards (current evaluation value) of the target part. Next, (1C) the sourcing support system 1 obtains the evaluation weight WQ2 associated with the relative rank wr of the number of essential quality standards (current evaluation value) of the target part from the weight calculation table 104.

[0125] As explained above, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation weights WQ1 and WQ2 for all evaluation items of quality Q (defect rate, quality regulation compliance rate), and then calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation weights WQ1 and WQ2 for all evaluation items of quality Q (defect rate, quality regulation compliance rate) as the evaluation index weight WQ of quality Q (WQ = (WQ1 + WQ2) / 2).

[0126] The evaluation item for price C is the unit price only. A lower unit price is considered a better value. Sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value weight WC1 for price C in the same way as the evaluation value weight WQ1 for the defect rate of quality Q described above. Then, sourcing support system 1 uses the calculated value of the evaluation value weight WC1 for price C as the value of the evaluation index weight WC for price C.

[0127] The evaluation items for delivery date D are two numerical evaluation items: on-time delivery rate (%) and delivery lead time (days). Sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value weights WD1 for on-time delivery rate and WD2 for delivery lead time in the same way as the evaluation value weight WQ1 for defect rate of quality Q described above. Then, sourcing support system 1 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weights WD1 and WD2 of all evaluation items (on-time delivery rate, delivery lead time) for delivery date D as the evaluation index weight WD (WD = (WD1 + WD2) / 2).

[0128] The evaluation items for Environment E are the number of mandatory environmental regulations (environmental regulation compliance rate) and CO2 emissions. The number of mandatory environmental regulations (environmental regulation compliance rate) is a type of current evaluation value of regulations. On the other hand, CO2 emissions is a type of current evaluation value of a numerical value. Sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value weight WE1 for the number of mandatory environmental regulations (environmental regulation compliance rate) in the same way as the evaluation value weight WQ2 for the number of mandatory quality regulations (quality regulation compliance rate) of Quality Q described above. Sourcing support system 1 also calculates the evaluation value weight WE2 for CO2 emissions in the same way as the evaluation value weight WQ1 for the defect rate of Quality Q described above. Then, sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index weight WE for Environment E as the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weights WE1 and WE2 of all evaluation items (number of mandatory environmental regulations, CO2 emissions) WE1 and WE2 (WE = (WE1 + WE2) / 2).

[0129] Next, the sourcing support system 1 determines whether processing has been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E) (step S2405). If the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has not been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity, the sourcing support system 1 returns to step S2403 and continues processing. On the other hand, if the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity, the sourcing support system 1 terminates the weight calculation process.

[0130] <Score calculation process, Figures 26, 27> Figure 26 is a flowchart illustrating an example of the score calculation process in the embodiment. The score calculation process shown as an example in Figure 26 is executed by the score calculation unit 22 (see Figure 1) of the sourcing support system 1. When the supplier evaluation execution button 2312 on the input / output screen 2300 (see Figure 23) is pressed, the score calculation unit 22 (see Figure 1) of the sourcing support system 1 takes the target part name and evaluation index weight Wi as input and performs the calculation as shown in Figure 26. Score Execute the calculation process.

[0131] The sourcing support system 1 retrieves all supplier names associated with the target part name from the supplier information table 105 (see Figure 10) and saves them as the names of candidate suppliers who can purchase the target part (candidate supplier names) (step S2601). Here, the sourcing support system 1 searches the supplier information table 105 for records where the handled part name 1002 is the target part name. The sourcing support system 1 retrieves all records and saves the value of the supplier name 1001 for all records as candidate supplier names.

[0132] Next, the sourcing support system 1 starts a loop process to calculate the supply capacity evaluation index score Si (step S2602). The process shown between step S2602, the start of the loop, and step S2604, the end of the loop, is repeated for each supply capacity evaluation index (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E). In step S2602, the sourcing support system 1 selects one evaluation index from the names of the unprocessed evaluation indexes.

[0133] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index score Si of the supply capacity evaluation index selected in step S2602 based on the evaluation values ​​of each supply capacity evaluation index for each related part and the target part, and stores it in the score calculation history table 117 (step S2603).

[0134] In step S2603, the sourcing support system 1 calculates all evaluation score Sij of supply capacity as follows, and further calculates the evaluation index score Si.

[0135] There are two types of evaluation values: numerical evaluation values ​​and regulatory evaluation values. Numerical evaluation values ​​for supply capacity include the defect rate (Quality Q), unit price (Price C), on-time delivery rate and delivery lead time (Delivery D), and CO2 emissions (Environment E). Regulatory evaluation values ​​for supply capacity include the quality regulation compliance rate (Quality Q) and the environmental regulation compliance rate (Environment E).

[0136] Sourcing support system 1 performs the following processes (2A) to (2C) to calculate the evaluation score Sij of the numerical evaluation value. (2A) The sourcing support system 1 obtains evaluation values ​​associated with each candidate supplier name and target part name from one of the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11), price information table 108 (see Figure 13), delivery date information table 109 (see Figure 14), or environmental information table 110 (see Figure 15), and stores the candidate supplier names and the obtained evaluation values ​​in association. (2B) Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of each candidate supplier's evaluation value among all candidate suppliers based on the evaluation values ​​of all acquired candidate suppliers, and further calculates the relative rank sr(%) of each candidate supplier's evaluation value. Sourcing support system 1 then stores the candidate supplier name and the relative rank sr of the evaluation value of that candidate supplier in association. Here, the relative rank sr of the evaluation value is calculated in an order in which a higher relative rank sr indicates a better evaluation value for the candidate supplier. (2C) The sourcing support system 1 obtains an evaluation score Sij from the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20) which is associated with the relative ranking sr of the evaluation values ​​of candidate suppliers.

[0137] Meanwhile, the sourcing support system 1 performs the following processes (3A) to (3C) to calculate the evaluation score Sij of the regulatory evaluation value. The regulatory evaluation value consists of two components: the quality regulation compliance rate (price C) and the environmental regulation compliance rate (environment E). (3A) The sourcing support system 1 obtains the number of required regulations from the quality standard information table 107 (see Figure 12) or the environmental regulation information table 111 (see Figure 16). Then, the sourcing support system 1 obtains the number of satisfied regulations from the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11) or the environmental information table 110 (see Figure 15). (3B) The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation score Sij of the regulation evaluation item as the value obtained by dividing the number of satisfied regulations by the number of mandatory regulations (regulation satisfaction rate = number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations) and multiplying that value by 10 (number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations x 10). Here, by multiplying by 10, the value of the evaluation score Sij of the regulation evaluation value is set to be between 0 and 10. In other words, the value of the evaluation score Sij of the regulation evaluation value is set to be between 0 and 10, just like the value of the evaluation score Sij of the numerical evaluation value.

[0138] Furthermore, a higher number of satisfied regulations indicates that the necessary regulations are being followed, suggesting that the number of satisfied regulations is a good value. Similarly, the evaluation score Sij of the regulatory evaluation value, calculated by multiplying the regulatory compliance rate (regulatory compliance rate = number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations), which is obtained by dividing the number of satisfied regulations by the number of mandatory regulations, by 10, is also considered a good value when its value is higher. In other words, according to the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), the more relatively good the regulatory evaluation value, the higher the number of mandatory regulations and the regulatory compliance rate (regulatory compliance rate = number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations), as well as the value of the evaluation score Sij for the regulatory evaluation items.

[0139] In this manner, the sourcing support system 1, in its score calculation unit 22, calculates the relative ranking of the numerical evaluation value within the candidate supplier group for each candidate supplier included in the candidate supplier group, and calculates an evaluation score for the numerical evaluation value such that the value increases in proportion to the calculated relative ranking. Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1, in its score calculation unit 22, calculates an evaluation score for the regulatory evaluation value for each candidate supplier included in the candidate supplier group, such that the value increases in proportion to the ratio of the number of regulations already satisfied by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory regulations.

[0140] Figure 27 is a graph showing the relationship between the ranking of candidate suppliers' evaluation values ​​and their supply capacity evaluation score Sij. As explained above, as shown in Figure 27, the score calculation table 115 is set so that the higher the relative ranking sr(%) of the evaluation value, that is, the better the evaluation value is among all candidate suppliers, the larger the evaluation value score Sij will be. The evaluation index score Si is the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value scores Sij. Therefore, for both the numerical evaluation value score Sij and the regulatory evaluation value score Sij, the larger the evaluation value score Sij, the larger the evaluation index score Si will be.

[0141] The above explains how to calculate the evaluation score Sij for two types of evaluation values: numerical evaluation values ​​and regulatory evaluation values. As described above, once the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation score Sij, it calculates the arithmetic mean of all evaluation score Sij for each evaluation index as the evaluation index score Si (see equation 1c in Figure 4).

[0142] The following describes a more specific method for calculating the evaluation index score Si, which was explained above. There are four evaluation indexes for supply capacity: Quality Q, Price C, Delivery D, and Environment E. For these four evaluation indexes, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index score Si as described below.

[0143] The evaluation items for Quality Q are the defect rate and the quality regulation compliance rate. The evaluation score SQ1 for the defect rate is calculated as follows. The defect rate is a numerical evaluation value. (2A) For each candidate supplier, the Sourcing Support System 1 searches the Quality Information Table 106 (see Figure 11) for records where the supplier name 1101 is the candidate supplier name and the handled part 1102 is the target part name. The Sourcing Support System 1 takes the value of the defect rate 1103a of the searched record as the defect rate value. The Sourcing Support System 1 then stores the defect rate value in association with the candidate supplier name.

[0144] Next, (2B) Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of each candidate supplier's defect rate among all candidate suppliers based on the defect rate values ​​(evaluation values) of all acquired candidate suppliers. Furthermore, for each candidate supplier, Sourcing support system 1 calculates the relative ranking sr(%) of the defect rate (evaluation value) by dividing the candidate supplier's defect rate value (evaluation value) by the number of candidate suppliers (the number of candidate supplier names acquired by Sourcing support system 1 in step S2601). A lower defect rate (%) is a better value. Therefore, Sourcing support system 1 calculates the ranking of the candidate suppliers' defect rates (evaluation values) so that suppliers with lower defect rates (evaluation values) are ranked higher. As a result, the relative ranking sr(%) of the defect rate (evaluation value) is higher as the defect rate (evaluation value) is lower and the defect rate value is better.

[0145] Next, (2C) Sourcing support system 1 obtains an evaluation score Sij for each candidate supplier from the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), which is associated with the relative rank sr of the candidate supplier's defect rate (evaluation value), and sets the obtained evaluation score as evaluation score SQ1.

[0146] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation score SQ2 for the quality regulation compliance rate among the evaluation items of quality Q as follows. The quality regulation compliance rate is the evaluation value of the regulation. (3A) The sourcing support system 1 obtains the number of mandatory regulations from the quality standard information table 107 (see Figure 12). That is, the sourcing support system 1 searches the quality standard information table 107 (see Figure 12) for records in which part name 1201 is the target part name, and calculates the number of mandatory quality standard names 1202 of the searched records as the number of mandatory standards.

[0147] Next, the sourcing support system 1 obtains the satisfaction limit, which is an evaluation value, from the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11). Specifically, for each candidate supplier, the sourcing support system 1 searches the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11) for a record in which the supplier name 1101 is the candidate supplier name and the handled part 1102 is the target part name. The sourcing support system 1 uses the value of the satisfaction limit 1103b of the searched record as the satisfaction limit value.

[0148] Next, (3B) Sourcing support system 1 calculates a value for each candidate supplier as the quality regulation compliance rate evaluation score SQ2, which is obtained by dividing the number of compliance requirements by the number of mandatory requirements and multiplying the result by 10 (number of compliance requirements / number of mandatory requirements x 10). (SQ2 = number of compliance requirements / number of mandatory requirements x 10)

[0149] As explained above, Sourcing Support System 1 calculates evaluation scores SQ1 and SQ2 for all evaluation items (defect rate, quality regulation compliance rate) of the candidate supplier's quality Q. Then, Sourcing Support System 1 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation scores SQ1 and SQ2 for all evaluation items (defect rate, quality regulation compliance rate) of quality Q as the quality Q evaluation index score SQ (SQ = (SQ1 + SQ2) / 2).

[0150] The evaluation value for price C is the unit price only. A lower unit price indicates a better value. The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value score SC1 for price C using the price information table 108 (see Figure 13) and the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), similar to the evaluation value score SQ1 for the defect rate of quality Q described above. The sourcing support system 1 then uses the calculated evaluation value score SC1 for price C as the evaluation index score SC for price C.

[0151] The evaluation items for delivery date D are two numerical evaluation items: on-time delivery rate (%) and delivery lead time (days). Sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value score SD1 for on-time delivery rate and the evaluation value score SD2 for delivery lead time using the delivery date information table 109 (see Figure 14) and score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), similar to the evaluation value score SQ1 for the defect rate of quality Q mentioned above. Then, sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index score SD for delivery date D as the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value scores SD1 and SD2 for all evaluation items (on-time delivery rate, delivery lead time) (SD = (SD1 + SD2) / 2).

[0152] The evaluation values ​​for Environment E consist of two components: the environmental regulation compliance rate and CO2 emissions. The environmental regulation compliance rate is an evaluation value of the regulations. On the other hand, CO2 emissions is an evaluation value of a numerical value. The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value score SE1 for the environmental regulation compliance rate using the environmental information table 110 (see Figure 15) and the environmental regulation information table 111 (see Figure 16), similar to the evaluation value score SQ2 for the quality regulation compliance rate of Quality Q described above.

[0153] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the CO2 emission evaluation score SE2 using the environmental information table 110 (see Figure 14) and the score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), similar to the evaluation score SQ1 for the defect rate of quality Q described above. The sourcing support system 1 then calculates all evaluation items of environment E (environmental regulation compliance rate, C O2 The arithmetic mean of the emission assessment scores SE1 and SE2 is calculated as the environmental assessment score SE (SE = (SE1 + SE2) / 2).

[0154] Next, the sourcing support system 1 determines whether processing has been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E) (step S2604). If the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has not been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity, the sourcing support system 1 returns to step S2602 and continues processing. On the other hand, if the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has been completed for all evaluation indicators of supply capacity, the sourcing support system 1 proceeds to step S2605.

[0155] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates a supply capacity score Sa for each candidate supplier and stores the calculated supply capacity score Sa in the score calculation history table 117, associating it with the candidate supplier name (step S2605). Here, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the supply capacity score Sa as the sum of the products (ΣWixSi) of the evaluation index weight Wi and the evaluation index score Si for each of the evaluation indexes of supply capacity (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E) (supply capacity score Sa = ΣWixSi).

[0156] Next, the sourcing support system 1 starts a loop process to calculate the soundness evaluation index score Si (step S2606). The process shown between step S2606, the start of the loop, and step S2608, the end of the loop, is repeated for each soundness evaluation index (Financial F, Social Risk S, Governance G). In step S2606, the sourcing support system 1 selects one soundness evaluation index from the names of the unprocessed soundness evaluation indexes.

[0157] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates an evaluation score Sij for each candidate supplier based on the soundness evaluation index selected in step S2606. Furthermore, it calculates an evaluation index score Si for the soundness evaluation index based on the calculated evaluation score Sij, and stores the calculated evaluation index score Si and the candidate supplier name in the score calculation table 115 (step S2607).

[0158] In step S2607, the sourcing support system 1 performs the same processing as in step S2602 to calculate all evaluation value scores Sij of the health evaluation indicators, and further calculates the evaluation indicator score Si.

[0159] The soundness assessment indicators are Financial F, Social Risk S, and Governance G. For these three indicators, Sourcing Support System 1 calculates an assessment indicator score Si, as explained below. The numerical evaluation values ​​include the equity ratio, current ratio, and quick ratio for Financial F, and the number of scandals for Governance G. system The evaluation value includes the compliance rate of labor environment regulations for social risk S.

[0160] The evaluation items for Financial F include three: the equity ratio, the current ratio, and the quick ratio. Sourcing support system 1 calculates the equity ratio evaluation score SF1 using the equity ratio 1702a and score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20) from Financial Information Table 112 (see Figure 17), similar to the evaluation score SQ1 for the defect rate of Quality Q mentioned above. Sourcing support system 1 also calculates the current ratio evaluation score SF2 using the current ratio 1702b and score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20) from Financial Information Table 112 (see Figure 17), similar to the evaluation score SQ1 for the defect rate of Quality Q mentioned above. Furthermore, sourcing support system 1 calculates the quick ratio evaluation score SF2 using the quick ratio 1702c and score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20) from Financial Information Table 112 (see Figure 17), similar to the evaluation score SQ1 for the defect rate of Quality Q mentioned above.

[0161] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation scores SF1, SF2, and SF3 for all evaluation items of financial F (equity ratio, current ratio, quick ratio) as the evaluation index score SF for financial F (SF = (SF1 + SF2 + SF3) / 3).

[0162] The only evaluation item for social risk S is the compliance rate of labor environment regulations. system This is the evaluation value. The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation score SS1 of the labor environment regulation compliance rate using the social risk information table 113 (see Figure 18), similar to the evaluation score SQ2 of the quality regulation compliance rate for quality Q described above. Here, the structure differs between the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11) used to calculate the evaluation score SQ2 of the quality regulation compliance rate and the social risk information table 113 (see Figure 18) used to calculate the evaluation score SS1 of the labor environment regulation compliance rate. Therefore, the method for calculating the evaluation score SS1 of the labor environment regulation compliance rate differs from the method for calculating the evaluation score SQ2 of the quality regulation compliance rate in the following respects.

[0163] In calculating the quality regulation compliance rate evaluation score SQ2, the number of satisfied specifications is obtained from the number of satisfied specifications 1103b in the quality information table 106 (see Figure 11), and the number of mandatory quality specifications is calculated from the quality specification information table 107 (see Figure 12). Then, the value obtained by dividing the number of satisfied regulations by the number of mandatory regulations and multiplying it by 10 (number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations x 10) is calculated as the quality regulation compliance rate evaluation score SQ2 (SQ2 = number of satisfied regulations / number of mandatory regulations x 10).

[0164] In contrast, the method for calculating the labor environment regulation compliance rate evaluation score SS1 involves obtaining the number of required specifications from the number of required specifications (1803) in the social risk information table 113 (see Figure 18), and calculating the number of required specifications (1803) minus the number of deficient specifications (1802) as the number of required specifications (1803) in the social risk information table 113 (see Figure 18) as the number of required specifications (1803) (number of required specifications = number of required specifications 1803 - number of deficient specifications 1802). The sourcing support system 1 then calculates the labor environment regulation compliance rate evaluation score SE1 as the value obtained by dividing the number of required specifications by the number of required specifications and multiplying the result by 10 (number of required specifications / number of required specifications x 10) (SE1 = number of required specifications / number of required specifications x 10). Furthermore, the calculated labor environment regulation compliance rate evaluation score SE1 is used as the evaluation index score SS for social risk S (SS = SE1 = number of required specifications / number of required specifications x 10).

[0165] The only evaluation item for Governance G is the number of misconduct incidents. The number of misconduct incidents is a numerical evaluation value. Sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation value score SG1 for the number of misconduct incidents using the number of misconduct incidents (1902) in governance information table 114 (see Figure 19) and score calculation table 115 (see Figure 20), similar to the evaluation value score SQ1 for the defect rate of Quality Q mentioned above. Sourcing support system 1 then uses the calculated evaluation value score SG1 for the number of misconduct incidents as the evaluation index score SG (SG=SG1) for Governance G.

[0166] Next, the sourcing support system 1 determines whether processing has been completed for all soundness evaluation indicators (Financial F, Social Risk S, Governance G) (step S2608). If the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has not been completed for all soundness evaluation indicators, it returns to step S2606 and continues processing. On the other hand, if the sourcing support system 1 determines that processing has been completed for all supply capacity evaluation indicators, it proceeds to step S2609.

[0167] Next, the sourcing support system 1 calculates a health score Sh for each candidate supplier and stores the calculated health score Sh and the candidate supplier name in the score calculation history table 117 (step S2609). Here, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the health score Sh (Sh=ΣSi=SF+SS+SG) as the sum of the evaluation index scores Si of the health evaluation indicators, and stores the calculated health score Sh, the candidate supplier name, and the calculation date 2212 in the score calculation history table 117 (see Figure 22), and then terminates the process.

[0168] As explained above, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh for each candidate supplier using the score calculation unit 22. The score calculation unit 22 then outputs the calculation results to the output device 15 or network I / F 16, and displays the calculation results in the supplier evaluation result display section 2320 of the input / output screen (see Figure 23). That is, as described above, the health score S h However, among the candidate suppliers whose supply capacity score Sa is the highest among those whose supply capacity score is higher than the health threshold entered in the health threshold input field 2302, information about the optimal candidate supplier is displayed in the supplier evaluation result display field 2320.

[0169] <Evaluation information generation process, Figure 28> When any of the following buttons on the input / output screen 2300 shown in Figure 23 are pressed by the user: the "Sufficiently Healthy Supplier Table Display Button 2325", the "Priority Healthy Supplier Table Display Button 2326", or the "Priority Supply Capacity Supplier Table Display Button 2329", the evaluation information generation unit 23 outputs supplier evaluation information (see Figure 28) to the output device 15, associating candidate supplier names (supplier identification information), supply capacity scores Sa, and health scores Sh, causing the output device 15 to display the supplier evaluation information. As mentioned above, the supplier evaluation information includes a "Sufficiently Healthy Supplier Table", a "Priority Healthy Score Candidate Supplier Table", and a "Priority Supply Capacity Score Candidate Supplier Table". The evaluation information generation process generates these "Sufficiently Healthy Supplier Table", the "Priority Healthy Score Candidate Supplier Table", and outputs them to the user terminal 2 via the output device 15 or the network I / F 16.

[0170] When the "Display Healthy Supplier Table" button 2325 on the input / output screen 2300 shown in Figure 23 is pressed by the user, the evaluation information generation unit 23 generates a Healthy Supplier Table in the evaluation information generation process and outputs the Healthy Supplier Table to the output device 15 or network I / F 16. This causes the evaluation information generation unit 23 to display the Healthy Supplier Table to the output device 15 or user terminal 2. The Healthy Supplier Table, as described below and shown in Figure 28, is information that associates the Healthy Candidate Supplier name (Healthy Supplier Identification Information), the Supply Capacity Score Sa, and the Healthy Score Sh with the Healthy Candidate Suppliers whose Health Score is greater than a predetermined Health Threshold, sorted in descending order of Supply Capacity Score Sa.

[0171] Figure 28 is an explanatory diagram showing an example of an FSG-sufficient supplier table display screen that presents a sound supplier table. The FSG-sufficient supplier table display screen 2800 shown in Figure 28 has a part name 2801, a supplier name 2802, a quality Q evaluation index score column 2803, a price C evaluation index score column 2804, a delivery D evaluation index score column 2805, an environmental E evaluation index score column 2806, a financial F evaluation index score column 2807, a social risk S evaluation index score column 2808, a governance G evaluation index score column 2809, a supply capacity score column 2810, and a soundness score column 2811.

[0172] Component name 2801 is the name of the component in question. Supplier name 2802 is the field for the name of the candidate supplier.

[0173] As mentioned above, the health score priority candidate supplier table lists all candidate suppliers based on their health score S hThis information is arranged in descending order of supply capacity score (Sa), health score (Sh), and candidate supplier name (supplier identification information). The structure of the health score priority candidate supplier table is the same as the health-sufficient supplier table explained using Figure 28. Therefore, the illustration and explanation of the health score priority candidate supplier table are omitted.

[0174] Furthermore, the supply capacity score priority candidate supplier table lists all candidate suppliers with a supply capacity score of S a This information is arranged in descending order of supply capacity score, and associates the supply capacity score (Sa), the health score (Sh), and the candidate supplier name (supplier identification information). The structure of the supply capacity score priority candidate supplier table is the same as the health-sufficient supplier table explained using Figure 28. Therefore, the illustration and explanation of the supply capacity score priority candidate supplier table are omitted.

[0175] <<Effects of the Invention>> Thus, in this embodiment, the sourcing support system 1 facilitates the user's selection of a suitable parts supplier through the following 1 to 3.

[0176] 1. The sourcing support system 1 calculates a supply capacity score Sa and a health score Sh for each candidate supplier from which the target part can be purchased. This makes it easy for the user to compare and evaluate candidate suppliers by referring to the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh. Thus, the sourcing support system 1 facilitates the selection of a suitable supplier for the part.

[0177] 2. The supply capacity score Sa is the sum of the products of the evaluation index weights Wi and the evaluation index score Si for each supply capacity evaluation index (Supply capacity score Sa = Σ(evaluation index weights Wi x evaluation index score Si)). Here, the supply capacity score Sa is calculated by weighting the evaluation index score Si. This allows the supply capacity score Sa to appropriately represent the supply capacity of candidate suppliers.

[0178] 3. The sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation index weight Wi using the current evaluation values ​​for the supply capacity evaluation index for the target part and related parts. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate the supply capacity evaluation index weight Wi, which takes into account the supply status of the related parts group. As a result, the sourcing support system 1 can appropriately calculate the supply capacity evaluation index weight Wi. Consequently, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate an appropriate supply capacity score Sa.

[0179] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 can mitigate global warming by reducing the energy required to select parts suppliers and the carbon dioxide emissions generated.

[0180] Furthermore, the sourcing support system 1 not only evaluates component suppliers using supplier capacity evaluation indicators (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E), but also evaluates component suppliers using supplier soundness evaluation indicators (financial F, social risk S, governance G). This makes it easy to select suppliers that are suitable not only in terms of supply capacity but also in terms of soundness. In addition, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate the supply capacity score Sa and soundness score Sh of candidate suppliers after acquiring data collected by the information management device 3 in response to changes in social conditions. This makes it easier for the sourcing support system 1 to respond to changes in social conditions and production systems regarding component supply.

[0181] The supply capacity evaluation indicators include four metrics: quality, price, delivery time, and environmental impact. This allows the sourcing support system 1 to appropriately calculate the supply capacity score Sa.

[0182] The soundness assessment indicators include three indicators: financial, social risk, and governance. This allows the sourcing support system 1 to appropriately calculate the soundness score Sh.

[0183] The sourcing support system 1 uses a weight calculation unit 21 to calculate the relative ranking wr of the current evaluation value of each supply capacity evaluation index for the target component within the group of related components, and then calculates the evaluation index weight for each supply capacity evaluation index based on the calculated relative ranking wr. Since the sourcing support system 1 calculates the value of the evaluation index weight Wi based on the relative ranking wr of the current evaluation value Si, it can suppress changes in the value of the evaluation index weight Wi due to differences in the units of the current evaluation value Si (for example, differences in units of thousands of yen, millions of yen, etc.). Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 can appropriately calculate the evaluation index weight Wi.

[0184] The sourcing support system 1's weight calculation unit 21 calculates evaluation index weights Wi such that the lower the relative rank wr of the current evaluation value, the greater the value of the evaluation index weight Wi. As a result, the sourcing support system 1 calculates evaluation index weights Wi such that the value of evaluation index weight Wi is greater for evaluation indices with low relative rank wr of the current evaluation value, which are considered to require particular attention because of their low relative rank wr of the current evaluation value. Therefore, in calculating the supply capacity score Sa, the sourcing support system 1 increases the evaluation index weight Wi for evaluation indices that require particular attention, thereby increasing the contribution of the evaluation index score Si to the supply capacity score Sa. In this way, the sourcing support system 1 can appropriately calculate the value of the evaluation index weight Wi.

[0185] The evaluation indicators for supply capacity or soundness include composite evaluation indicators that calculate an evaluation indicator score using multiple evaluation values. Quality Q, delivery time D, environment E, and financial F are examples of composite evaluation indicators. By using composite evaluation indicators, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate an evaluation indicator score for a single evaluation indicator using multiple evaluation values. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 can calculate a more appropriate evaluation indicator score.

[0186] The supply capacity evaluation indicators include composite evaluation indicators that calculate an evaluation indicator score using multiple evaluation values. Quality Q, delivery time D, and environment E are composite evaluation indicators for supply capacity. The sourcing support system 1's score calculation unit 22 calculates the average of the evaluation value scores Sij of multiple evaluation values ​​for the composite evaluation indicator as the composite evaluation indicator score Si. Here, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation indicator score Si based on the evaluation value scores Sij of multiple evaluation values, rather than a single evaluation value score Sij. This allows the sourcing support system 1 to calculate an appropriate supply capacity score Sa.

[0187] The soundness evaluation indicators include composite evaluation indicators that calculate an evaluation indicator score Si using multiple evaluation values. Financial F is a composite evaluation indicator of the soundness evaluation indicators. The sourcing support system 1's score calculation unit 22 calculates the average of the evaluation value scores Sij of multiple evaluation values ​​for the composite evaluation indicator as the evaluation indicator score Si for the composite evaluation indicator. Here, the sourcing support system 1 calculates the evaluation indicator score Si based on the evaluation value scores Sij of multiple evaluation values, rather than a single evaluation value score Sij. This allows the sourcing support system 1 to calculate a more appropriate soundness score Sh.

[0188] Sourcing support system 1 can calculate evaluation values ​​not only for numerical evaluation values ​​but also for regulatory evaluation values. Furthermore, sourcing support system 1 uses the numerical evaluation values ​​and regulatory evaluation values ​​to calculate the supply capacity score Sa or the health score Sh. As a result, sourcing support system 1 can calculate an appropriate supply capacity score Sa and an appropriate health score Sh.

[0189] The sourcing support system 1's evaluation information generation unit 23 outputs supplier evaluation information that associates candidate supplier names (supplier identification information), supply capacity scores (Sa), and health scores (Sh). This makes it easy for the user to compare supply capacity scores (Sa) and health scores (Sh) among candidate suppliers. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 facilitates the user's selection of a suitable component supplier by outputting supplier evaluation information from its evaluation information generation unit 23.

[0190] The sourcing support system 1's evaluation information generation unit 23 sorts candidate suppliers with a soundness score Sh greater than a predetermined soundness threshold, in descending order of supply capacity score Sa, and outputs a soundness-sufficient supplier table that associates the supply capacity score Sa, the soundness score Sh, and the name of the sound candidate supplier (sound supplier identification information). This allows the user to understand the soundness score S When h is greater than the health threshold, it becomes easier to compare the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh among candidate suppliers whose health is considered sufficient. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 facilitates the user in selecting a suitable supplier for the part.

[0191] Sourcing support system 1 calculates two scores, a supply capacity score (Sa) and a health score (Sh), from the evaluation values ​​of various evaluation indicators and presents them to the user. Therefore, the user can evaluate candidate suppliers by considering various evaluation items of various evaluation indicators, simply by using the supply capacity score (Sa) and health score (Sh) presented by sourcing support system 1, and can then evaluate candidate suppliers capable of purchasing the target parts. This makes it easier for the user to select a suitable supplier.

[0192] For example, traditionally, manufacturing personnel, who are responsible for design and production, might evaluate suppliers based solely on their supply capacity and select potential suppliers for the target parts. The purchasing personnel would then make the final decision on whether or not to purchase the parts from these suppliers. However, by using the sourcing support system 1, manufacturing personnel can easily evaluate not only the supply capacity but also the soundness of suppliers before selecting potential suppliers for the target parts. Because the suppliers selected by the manufacturing personnel are chosen based on both supply capacity and soundness, the selection is more appropriate. Purchasing personnel can then decide whether or not to purchase the parts from the more appropriately selected suppliers, making the decision easier. Furthermore, it becomes easier for manufacturing and purchasing personnel to reach an agreement on which supplier to use for the target parts. As a result, both manufacturing and purchasing personnel can more easily decide which supplier to use for the target parts.

[0193] Furthermore, manufacturing and purchasing personnel can use the supply capacity Sa score and health score Sh calculated by the sourcing support system 1 to select several suppliers, examine the status of the selected suppliers in more detail, and ultimately decide which supplier to purchase the target parts from. Here, when ultimately deciding which supplier to purchase the target parts from, the calculated supply capacity force Score Sa By using the health score Sh and selecting several suppliers, the number of suppliers to be investigated in detail can be reduced. Reducing the number of suppliers to be investigated in detail allows manufacturing and purchasing personnel to focus on supply capacity. force Score Sa Furthermore, it becomes easier to examine the supplier's situation in more detail from perspectives other than the health score Sh. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 allows the user to... force Score Sa This also makes it easier to examine the supplier's situation in more detail from perspectives other than the health score Sh.

[0194] <<Example 1>> In the sourcing support system 1 of the above-described embodiment, the weight calculation unit 21 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weights Wij as the evaluation index weight Wi in the weight calculation process (step S2404 in Figure 24). The score calculation unit 22 calculates the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value scores Siij as the evaluation index score Si in the score calculation process (steps S2603 and S2607 in Figure 25). The score calculation unit 22 uses the evaluation index weight Wi and evaluation index score Si calculated as described above to calculate the supply capacity score Sa and the health score Sh.

[0195] Figure 29 is an explanatory diagram illustrating the calculation method for the supply capacity score Sa and health score Sh in the modified example. As shown in equations 3a and 3h in Figure 29, in this modified example, the supply capacity score Sa is calculated as the sum of the evaluation weights Wij and the evaluation score Sij, without calculating the arithmetic mean of the evaluation weights Wij and the evaluation score Sij, and the health score Sh is calculated as the sum of the evaluation score Sij. In this modified example, "evaluation weight Wij" is referred not only to the "evaluation index weight" for each of the supply capacity evaluation indices (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E), but also to "evaluation index weight". Furthermore, in this modified example, "evaluation score Sij" is referred not only to the "evaluation score" for each evaluation index (quality Q, price C, delivery time D, environment E, financial F, social risk S, governance G), but also to "evaluation index score".

[0196] As shown in Equation 3h in Figure 29 and Equations 1c and 2 in Figure 4, the health score Sh, which represents the health of the candidate supplier, is the same value for the health score Sh in the embodiment and the health score Sh in the modified example. On the other hand, as shown in Equation 3a in Figure 29 and Equations 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c in Figure 4, the supply capacity of the candidate supplier is expressed Supply capacityThe score Sa differs between the supply capacity score Sa of the embodiment and the supply capacity score Sa of the modified example. In the calculation process of the supply capacity score Sa of the modified example, the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value weight Wij and the arithmetic mean of the evaluation value score Sij are not calculated. Therefore, the sourcing support system 1 of the modified example can calculate a supply capacity score Sa that more accurately reflects the characteristics of the evaluation items than the sourcing support system 1 of the embodiment. As a result, when it is desired to evaluate and compare candidate suppliers using a supply capacity score Sa that more accurately reflects the characteristics of the evaluation items, the sourcing support system 1 of the modified example can calculate and present a suitable supply capacity score Sa to the user. Consequently, the sourcing support system 1 of the modified example facilitates the user in selecting a suitable supplier for the parts. [Explanation of symbols]

[0197] 1: Sourcing support system 2: User terminal 3: Information management device 11: Processor 12: Main memory 13: Secondary storage device 14: Input device 15: Output device 16: Network Interface 17: Bus 20: Arithmetic section 21: Weight calculation unit 22: Score Calculation Section 23: Evaluation Information Generation Unit 101: Related Parts Group Table 102: Related Parts Group Configuration Table 103: Parts Supply Status Table 104: Weight Calculation Table 105: Supplier Information Table 106: Quality Information Table 107: Quality Standards Information Table 108: Price Information Table 100: Delivery Information Table 110: Environmental Information Table 111: Environmental Regulation Information Table 112: Financial Information Table 113: Social Risk Information Table 114: Governance Information Table 115: Score Calculation Table 116: Weight calculation history table 117: Score Calculation History Table NW: Network

Claims

1. A sourcing support system that calculates a value to evaluate a parts supplier, When target part identification information that can identify the target part is entered, Based on the aforementioned target part identification information, a group of related parts, which consists of multiple related parts related to the target part, is identified. A weight calculation unit calculates the weights of each of the multiple supply capability evaluation indicators, which include four evaluation indicators: quality, price, delivery time, and environmental performance, for each of the multiple related parts included in the identified group of related parts and for suppliers that have previously supplied the target parts. The weight calculation unit calculates the relative ranking of each of the supply capability evaluation indicators within the group of related parts, based on the calculated relative ranking. Based on the aforementioned target component identification information, multiple candidate suppliers who are capable of purchasing the target component and who are potential suppliers of the target component are identified. For each of the identified candidate suppliers, The evaluation score for each of the multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated by determining the evaluation value for each of the one or more predetermined evaluation items used to evaluate each evaluation indicator, and then calculating the evaluation score based on the one or more evaluation values ​​obtained. The evaluation score for each of the multiple soundness evaluation indicators, including three evaluation indicators: financial, social risk, and governance, is calculated by determining the evaluation value for one or more predetermined evaluation items for evaluating each evaluation indicator, and then calculating the evaluation score based on the one or more of the aforementioned evaluation values. The sum of the products of the evaluation index weights and evaluation index scores for multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated as the supply capacity score. The system includes a score calculation unit that calculates a health score by summing the evaluation index scores of each of the multiple health evaluation indicators, The aforementioned evaluation values ​​include two types of evaluation values: a numerical evaluation value corresponding to the evaluation item, and a regulatory evaluation value indicating the ratio of the number of compliance requirements already met by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory requirements corresponding to the evaluation item. The score calculation unit, Based on the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value, the relative ranking of the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value among multiple candidate suppliers is calculated, and an evaluation score is calculated such that the value increases in proportion to the height of the calculated relative ranking. Based on the evaluation values ​​of the aforementioned regulations, an evaluation score is calculated such that the value increases in proportion to the ratio of the number of regulations already satisfied by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory regulations. Using the calculated evaluation score, the evaluation index score is calculated. Sourcing support system.

2. A sourcing support system according to claim 1, The weight calculation unit calculates the evaluation index weights such that the lower the relative rank, the larger the value of the evaluation index weight. Sourcing support system.

3. A sourcing support system according to claim 1, The multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators or the multiple health evaluation indicators include a composite evaluation indicator that calculates the evaluation indicator score using the multiple evaluation values. Sourcing support system.

4. A sourcing support system according to claim 3, The multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators include a composite evaluation indicator that calculates the evaluation indicator score using the multiple evaluation values, The weight calculation unit calculates the evaluation value weight for each of the multiple evaluation values ​​for the composite evaluation index, and calculates the average of the calculated evaluation value weights of the multiple evaluation values ​​as the evaluation index weight for the composite evaluation index. The score calculation unit calculates the evaluation value score for each of the multiple evaluation values ​​for the composite evaluation index, and calculates the average of the calculated evaluation value scores for the multiple evaluation values ​​as the evaluation index score for the composite evaluation index. Sourcing support system.

5. A sourcing support system according to claim 3, The multiple health evaluation indicators include a composite evaluation indicator that calculates the evaluation indicator score using the multiple evaluation values, The score calculation unit calculates the evaluation value score for each of the multiple evaluation values ​​for the composite evaluation index, and calculates the average of the calculated evaluation value scores for the multiple evaluation values ​​as the evaluation index score for the composite evaluation index. Sourcing support system.

6. A sourcing support system according to Claim 1, The plurality of predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the aforementioned quality evaluation indicators are the defect rate and the quality regulation compliance rate. One of the predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the price evaluation indicator is the unit price, The aforementioned predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the delivery date evaluation indicators are the delivery date compliance rate and the delivery lead time. The plurality of predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the aforementioned environmental evaluation indicators are the environmental regulation compliance rate and CO2 emissions, The aforementioned predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the financial evaluation indicators are the equity ratio, the current ratio, and the quick ratio. One of the predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the social risk assessment indicators is the rate of compliance with labor environment regulations, One of the predetermined evaluation items for evaluating the governance evaluation indicators is the number of incidents of misconduct. Sourcing support system.

7. A sourcing support system according to claim 1, Furthermore, it includes an evaluation information generation unit that outputs supplier evaluation information that associates supplier identification information that can identify the candidate supplier, a supply capacity score, and a health score. Sourcing support system.

8. A sourcing support system according to claim 7, The evaluation information generation unit sorts the candidate suppliers whose health score is greater than a predetermined health threshold in descending order of supply capacity score, and outputs a healthy supplier table that associates the supply capacity score, the health score, and healthy supplier identification information that can identify the healthy candidate supplier. Sourcing support system.

9. A sourcing support method in a sourcing support system that calculates a value for evaluating a parts supplier, When target part identification information that can identify the target part is entered, Based on the aforementioned target part identification information, a group of related parts, which consists of multiple related parts related to the target part, is identified. A weight calculation process is performed to calculate the weights of each of the multiple supply capability evaluation indicators, which include four evaluation indicators: quality, price, delivery time, and environmental performance, for each of the multiple related parts included in the identified group of related parts and for suppliers that have previously supplied the target parts. Based on these current evaluation values, which indicate an evaluation based on past parts supply status, the weights of each of the multiple supply capability evaluation indicators are calculated based on the relative ranking of the current evaluation values ​​of each of the supply capability evaluation indicators within the group of related parts, and the weights are calculated based on the calculated relative ranking. Based on the aforementioned target component identification information, multiple candidate suppliers who are capable of purchasing the target component and who are potential suppliers of the target component are identified. For each of the identified candidate suppliers, The evaluation score for each of the multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated by determining the evaluation value for each of one or more predetermined evaluation items for evaluating each evaluation indicator, and based on the calculated evaluation value, the relative ranking of the evaluation level among the multiple candidate suppliers is calculated, and based on the calculated relative ranking, The evaluation score for each of the multiple soundness evaluation indicators, including three evaluation indicators: financial, social risk, and governance, is calculated by determining the evaluation value for one or more predetermined evaluation items for each evaluation indicator, and based on the calculated one or more evaluation values, the relative ranking of the evaluation level among the multiple candidate suppliers is calculated, and based on the calculated relative ranking, The sum of the products of the evaluation index weights and evaluation index scores for multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated as the supply capacity score. The system performs a score calculation process that calculates a health score by summing the evaluation index scores of each of the multiple health evaluation indicators, The aforementioned evaluation values ​​include two types of evaluation values: a numerical evaluation value corresponding to the evaluation item, and a regulatory evaluation value indicating the ratio of the number of compliance requirements already met by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory requirements corresponding to the evaluation item. The aforementioned score calculation process is: Based on the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value, the relative ranking of the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value among multiple candidate suppliers is calculated, and an evaluation score is calculated such that the value increases in proportion to the height of the calculated relative ranking. Based on the evaluation values ​​of the aforementioned regulations, an evaluation score is calculated such that the value increases in proportion to the ratio of the number of regulations already satisfied by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory regulations. Using the calculated evaluation score, the evaluation index score is calculated. Sourcing support methods.

10. A sourcing support program to be executed by the processor of a sourcing support system having a processor, the processor of which calculates a value for evaluating component suppliers, When target part identification information that can identify the target part is entered, The aforementioned processor, Based on the aforementioned target part identification information, a group of related parts, which consists of multiple related parts related to the target part, is identified. A weight calculation process is performed to calculate the weights of each of the multiple supply capability evaluation indicators, which include four evaluation indicators: quality, price, delivery time, and environmental performance, for each of the multiple related parts included in the identified group of related parts and for supply suppliers that have previously supplied the target parts. The weights of each of the multiple supply capability evaluation indicators are calculated based on the relative ranking of the current evaluation value of each of the supply capability evaluation indicators within the group of related parts, and the weights are calculated based on the calculated relative ranking. Based on the aforementioned target part identification information, the names of candidate suppliers from whom the target part can be purchased are identified. For each of the identified candidate suppliers, The evaluation score for each of the multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated by determining the evaluation value for each of one or more predetermined evaluation items for evaluating each evaluation indicator, and the relative ranking of the evaluation level among the multiple candidate suppliers is calculated based on the calculated evaluation value for each of the multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators. The system calculates evaluation scores for each of the multiple soundness evaluation indicators, including three evaluation indicators: financial, social risk, and governance. It calculates evaluation values ​​for one or more predetermined evaluation items used to evaluate each evaluation indicator, calculates the relative ranking of the evaluation levels among the multiple candidate suppliers based on the calculated evaluation values, and calculates the relative ranking based on the calculated relative ranking. The sum of the products of the evaluation index weights and evaluation index scores for multiple supply capacity evaluation indicators is calculated as the supply capacity score. The system performs a score calculation process that calculates a health score by summing the scores of each of the multiple health evaluation indicators, The aforementioned evaluation values ​​include two types of evaluation values: a numerical evaluation value corresponding to the evaluation item, and a regulatory evaluation value indicating the ratio of the number of compliance requirements already met by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory requirements corresponding to the evaluation item. The aforementioned score calculation process is: Based on the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value, the relative ranking of the evaluation value of the aforementioned numerical value among multiple candidate suppliers is calculated, and an evaluation score is calculated such that the value increases in proportion to the height of the calculated relative ranking. Based on the evaluation values ​​of the aforementioned regulations, an evaluation score is calculated such that its value increases in proportion to the ratio of the number of regulations already satisfied by the candidate supplier to the number of mandatory regulations. Using the calculated evaluation score, the evaluation index score is calculated. Sourcing support program.

Images