Determination assistance device and determination assistance method

Abstract

This determination assistance device comprises: a quality information collection unit configured to collect, for each of a plurality of user sets affected by one failure among a plurality of failures occurring in a network service, quality information necessary for calculating a first value and a second value related to the network service; a calculation unit configured to calculate, for each of the plurality of user sets, the first value and the second value on the basis of the quality information; and an output unit configured to output information indicating the priority order of the plurality of user sets for handling the failure, based on the first value and the second value. The first value for a certain user set is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in the user set, and the second value for the certain user set is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in the user set among all terminals using the network service. Accordingly, determination of a handling order of the plurality of user sets affected by the failure of the network service is assisted.

Description

Decision support device and decision support method

[0001] The present invention relates to a decision support device and a decision support method.

[0002] Services that provide high quality on mobile networks are emerging (for example, Patent Document 1).

[0003] In such services, it is assumed that corporate users (user groups) using the service will report problems if they feel that the expected quality is not being met. Therefore, it is important for service providers to monitor whether the communication quality meets the requirements.

[0004] Japanese Patent Publication No. 2012-169956 Japanese Patent Publication No. 2014-138403

[0005] When the operator receives reports of problems from multiple corporate users, they determine the order of response based on the following factors, but the order of response does not necessarily correspond to the degree of impact on the corporate users.

[0006] - Users involved in matters of human life, such as fire departments and police; infrastructure organizations and government agencies; users with priority response options; and large-scale users. Note that while information regarding the degree of impact is provided at the time of reporting, the actual extent of the impact—whether it is a complete outage or partial—will only be determined after the outage has been resolved.

[0007] Therefore, if the impact on network quality for corporate users can be quantitatively understood at the time of reporting, it can be expected that the operator's intended response will be taken, such as prioritizing outages that cause greater deterioration in communication quality or outages that affect a larger number of terminals.

[0008] The present invention has been made in view of the above points, and aims to support the determination of the correspondence order of multiple user sets affected by network service failures.

[0009] To solve the above problem, the decision support device includes: a quality information collection unit configured to collect quality information necessary for calculating a first value and a second value related to the network service for each of a plurality of user groups affected by one of a plurality of failures occurring in the network service; a calculation unit configured to calculate the first value and the second value for each of the plurality of user groups based on the quality information; and an output unit configured to output information indicating the priority of the plurality of user groups for responding to the failure, based on the first value and the second value, respectively, wherein the first value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in that user group, and the second value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in that user group out of all terminals using the network service.

[0010] This can help determine the order in which to address the needs of multiple users affected by network service outages.

[0011] This figure shows an example of the system configuration in the first embodiment. This figure shows an example of the hardware configuration of the decision support device 10 in the first embodiment. This figure shows an example of the functional configuration of the decision support device 10 in the first embodiment. This figure shows a specific example of quality information.

[0012] Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. Figure 1 is a diagram showing an example of a system configuration in the first embodiment. In Figure 1, the decision support device 10 is connected to the quality estimation device 20 via a network.

[0013] The quality estimation device 20 is a device that acquires or estimates, end-to-end, the information necessary for the decision support device 10 to calculate the quality of network services (hereinafter referred to as "quality information") for each corporate user using network services (e.g., mobile network services) provided by a telecommunications carrier using the core network N1.

[0014] The core network N1 is connected to the terminals (UEs), base stations, and user servers of each corporate user (corporate users A and B in Figure 1). Each terminal may connect to the core network N1 wirelessly via a base station. Each terminal communicates with the user server using the network services provided through the core network N1. The user server is a computer that implements the online services that the corporate user provides to each terminal, and may be provided for each corporate user.

[0015] The decision support device 10 is one or more computers that, when multiple corporate users report multiple network service failures, calculates an estimated value of the network service quality due to the impact of each reported failure (hereinafter referred to as "estimated quality") based on quality information obtained from the quality estimation device 20, and compares the estimated quality to help determine the priority of responses to each reported failure.

[0016] A corporate user may be a group of multiple users who use network services within their company, or a user who provides some kind of service to a group of multiple external end users using network services. In the former case, the terminals related to the corporate user are multiple terminals used by employees, etc., belonging to the corporation, and in the former case, the terminals related to the corporate user are multiple terminals used by multiple end users.

[0017] Figure 2 shows an example of the hardware configuration of the decision support device 10 in the first embodiment. The decision support device 10 in Figure 2 includes a drive device 100, an auxiliary storage device 102, a memory device 103, a processor 104, and an interface device 105, etc., which are all interconnected by bus B.

[0018] The program that enables processing in the decision support device 10 is provided on a recording medium 101 such as a CD-ROM. When the recording medium 101 containing the program is set in the drive device 100, the program is installed from the recording medium 101 to the auxiliary storage device 102 via the drive device 100. However, the program does not necessarily have to be installed from the recording medium 101; it may also be downloaded from another computer via a network. The auxiliary storage device 102 stores the installed program as well as necessary files and data.

[0019] The memory device 103 reads and stores a program from the auxiliary storage device 102 when a program startup command is received. The processor 104 is either a CPU or a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), or both a CPU and a GPU, and executes functions related to the decision support device 10 according to the program stored in the memory device 103. The interface device 105 is used as an interface for connecting to a network.

[0020] Figure 3 shows an example of the functional configuration of the decision support device 10 in the first embodiment. In Figure 3, the decision support device 10 has a quality information collection unit 11, a calculation unit 12, and an output unit 13. Each of these units is realized by processing that one or more programs installed in the decision support device 10 cause the processor 104 to execute.

[0021] The quality information collection unit 11 periodically acquires (collects) quality information necessary for calculating estimated quality from the quality estimation device 20.

[0022] The calculation unit 12 calculates an estimated quality based on quality information for each corporate user affected by one of several failures occurring in the network service, and determines the priority of the response to each reported failure by comparing the estimated quality.

[0023] The output unit 13 outputs (notifies) the operator of information indicating the determination result by the calculation unit 12.

[0024] The calculation unit 12 will be described in further detail below. In the present embodiment, the calculation unit 12 calculates two types of estimated quality: estimated user quality and estimated network quality. Each value is defined to be 100% when there is no influence on quality, and 0% when the network service cannot be used at all.

[0025] The estimated user quality is a value based on the degree of influence of a network service failure on the quality of the network service for each corporate user, and the estimated user quality of a certain corporate user X is defined by the following formula (1).

[0026] 1-(n Ｘ / N Ｘ ×(1-TP Ｘ / TTP)×T Ｘ / T) (%) --- (1) Further, the estimated network quality is a value based on the degree of influence of the failure reported by the corporate user X on the quality of the network service across the entire network, and is defined by the following formula (2).

[0027] 1-(n Ｘ / N×(1-TP Ｘ / TTP)×T Ｘ / T) (%) --- (2) The meanings of each parameter are as follows.

[0028] T: a time range for evaluating the influence time on each corporate user (hereinafter referred to as "influence evaluation time"), which is set by an operator. For example, when the operator wants to evaluate the most recent 24 hours, the influence evaluation time is 24, and when the operator wants to evaluate the most recent one week, the influence evaluation time is 168.

[0029] T Ｘ : the elapsed time from the time when a failure affecting the corporate user X occurs to the time when quality information is acquired (hereinafter referred to as "failure duration"), which is used for calculating the estimated quality by the quality information collection unit 11. The time when a failure affecting the corporate user X occurs is set, for example, by an operator. The time when the quality information collection unit 11 acquires the quality information can be obtained from the quality information collection unit 11.

[0030] N: the number of all terminals or users using network services (hereinafter referred to as "number of terminals in the network").

[0031] N Ｘ : the number of terminals or users using network services at corporate user X (hereinafter referred to as "number of user terminals"). That is, the number of user terminals N Ｘ is the number of terminals related to corporate user X among the number of terminals in the network N. In addition, the number of user terminals N Ｘ is an example of a user set.

[0032] n Ｘ : among the number of user terminals N Ｘ , it is the number of terminals or users affected by the failure related to the notification (hereinafter referred to as "number of affected terminals"). When the number of user terminals N Ｘ is 100 units, and 50 of them have a situation where connection is difficult, the number of affected terminals is 50.

[0033] TP Ｘ : the average value of end-to-end estimated throughput (TP) from each terminal related to corporate user X (each terminal related to the number of user terminals N Ｘ ) to the user server. The calculation of the estimated throughput can be performed using known techniques.

[0034] TTP Ｘ : it is the estimated throughput targeted by corporate user X when using network services, and is set for each corporate user by the operator, for example.

[0035] Among the above parameters, the number of terminals in the network N, the number of user terminals N Ｘ , the number of affected terminals n Ｘ and the estimated throughput TP Ｘ are included in the quality information acquired by the quality information collecting unit 11 for each reporting corporate user, and each value is a value at the time of acquiring said quality information.

[0036] As is clear from the meaning of each parameter, estimated user quality (Equation (1)) is an example of a first value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in the user set, and estimated network quality is an example of a second value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in the user set among all terminals using the network service.

[0037] The calculation unit 12 calculates the estimated user quality for each corporate user who submitted a report, using formula (1), based on the quality information acquired by the quality information collection unit 11 and the parameters set by the operator, and further calculates the estimated network quality using formula (2).

[0038] Next, the calculation unit 12 sorts the corporate users who submitted the reports in order of their estimated user quality and estimated network quality, from closest to 0% (i.e., in ascending order of estimated quality).

[0039] The output unit 13 outputs information indicating the priority order of the declarations, based on the sorting results calculated by the calculation unit 12, to the operator. The output method is not limited to a specific means, but may include sending an email or displaying it on a display device.

[0040] The following will provide specific examples to illustrate this point.

[0041] [Assumptions for the specific example] Assume that there are two corporate users using the network service: Corporate User A and Corporate User B.

[0042] Both users have a target throughput TTP of 100 Mbps.

[0043] Two separate failures occurred simultaneously for each of the two users, and 12 hours have passed since the failures began. In other words, the failure duration is T. Ａ = Duration of Disability T Ｂ = 12.

[0044] The operator should consider the most recent 24-hour period to determine priority actions. In other words, the impact assessment time T = 24.

[0045] - Quality information acquired by the quality information collection unit 11 for each user (number of affected terminals n) Ｘ Number of user terminals N Ｘ Estimated throughput TPＸ The results are shown in Figure 4. For convenience, Figure 4 also includes the values ​​of other parameters necessary for calculating the estimated quality.

[0046] Since only corporate users A and B are using the network service, the number of terminals N in the network is equal to the number of user terminals N of corporate users A and B. Ｘ The total number of units is 1100 (see Figure 4).

[0047] [Calculation of estimated user quality in a specific example] Based on the above assumptions, the calculation unit 12 calculates the estimated user quality for corporate user A and corporate user B as follows.

[0048] Corporate User A: 1 - {(500 / 1000) × (1 - 50 / 100) × (12 / 24)} = 87.5 (%) Corporate User B: 1 - {(80 / 100) × (1 - 20 / 100) × (12 / 24)} = 68.0 (%) Since the estimated user quality of Corporate User A > the estimated user quality of Corporate User B, the calculation unit 12 prioritizes Corporate User B and then Corporate User A in terms of estimated user quality, and determines that Corporate User B is the user to be prioritized.

[0049] [Calculation of estimated network quality in a specific example] Based on the above assumptions, the calculation unit 12 calculates the estimated network quality for corporate user A and corporate user B as follows.

[0050] Corporate User A: 1 - {(500 / 1100) × (1 - 50 / 100) × (12 / 24)} = 88.6 (%) Corporate User B: 1 - {(80 / 1100) × (1 - 20 / 100) × (12 / 24)} = 97.1 (%) Since the estimated network quality of Corporate User A is less than the estimated network quality of Corporate User B, the calculation unit 12 prioritizes Corporate User A and then Corporate User B in terms of estimated network quality, and determines that Corporate User A is the user to be prioritized.

[0051] [Notification by Output Unit 13 in a Specific Example] The output unit 13 outputs the above determination result by the calculation unit 12 to the operator. Specifically, the output unit 13 outputs information indicating that, from the perspective of estimated user quality, corporate user B is a user that should be handled preferentially, and from the perspective of estimated network quality, corporate user A is a user that should be handled preferentially.

[0052] Upon receiving such output, the operator determines the order of responses according to their own intentions. If the operator intends to prioritize responding to the issues that have a greater impact on individual users, they may decide to start with corporate user B. On the other hand, if the operator intends to prioritize responding to the issues that have a greater impact on the entire network, they may decide to start with corporate user A.

[0053] As described above, according to this embodiment, for multiple failures in a network service, the operator can be presented with a priority order based on two indicators: user-estimated quality, which indicates the impact on individual users, and network-estimated quality, which indicates the impact on the entire network. The operator can then choose the indicator that best suits their intentions from the two indicators to determine the order of response. Therefore, it is possible to support the determination of the order of response for multiple user groups affected by network service failures.

[0054] Next, a second embodiment will be described. The differences between the second embodiment and the first embodiment will be described. Points not specifically mentioned in the second embodiment may be the same as in the first embodiment.

[0055] In the second embodiment, the estimated user quality of corporate user X differs depending on whether or not corporate user X has a prescribed contract regarding network services. The prescribed contract is a contract that provides priority response in the event of a failure (hereinafter referred to as the "priority response option").

[0056] In this case, estimated user quality is defined as shown in equation (1') below.

[0057] 1 - {(n Ｘ / N Ｘ ) × (1 - TP Ｘ / TTP) × (T Ｘ (T) × P (%) ... (1') Here, P is a value corresponding to the rank of the priority response option, and the higher the rank (priority), the larger the value. For example, if there are three ranks for the priority response option, including not being subscribed, then P is 1, 2, or 3. 1 corresponds to not being subscribed, and 2 and 3 correspond to being subscribed. However, being subscribed to 3 is a higher rank than being subscribed to 2.

[0058] The following will provide a specific example. Assume that corporate user A is subscribed to the priority support option with P=3, while corporate user B is not subscribed (P=1). The other assumptions are the same as in the first embodiment.

[0059] In this case, the calculation unit 12 calculates the estimated user quality for corporate user A and corporate user B as follows.

[0060] Corporate User A: 1 - {(500 / 1000) × (1 - 50 / 100) × (12 / 24) × 3} = 62.5 (%) Corporate User B: 1 - {(80 / 100) × (1 - 20 / 100) × (12 / 24) × 1} = 68.0 (%) Since the estimated user quality of Corporate User A is less than the estimated user quality of Corporate User B, the calculation unit 12 prioritizes Corporate User A and then Corporate User B in terms of estimated user quality, and determines that Corporate User A is the user to be prioritized. The priority order differs from that of the first embodiment due to the priority response option.

[0061] Although the number of user terminals for corporate users was described above as an example of a user set, this embodiment may also be applied to user sets of other organizations.

[0062] Although embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, the present invention is not limited to these specific embodiments, and various modifications and changes are possible within the scope of the gist of the present invention as described in the claims.

[0063] 10 Decision support device 11 Quality information collection unit 12 Calculation unit 13 Output unit 20 Quality estimation device 100 Drive device 101 Recording medium 102 Auxiliary storage device 103 Memory device 104 Processor 105 Interface device B Bus

Claims

1. A decision support device comprising: a quality information collection unit configured to collect quality information necessary for calculating a first value and a second value relating to the network service for each of a plurality of user groups affected by one of a plurality of failures occurring in the network service; a calculation unit configured to calculate the first value and the second value for each of the plurality of user groups based on the quality information; and an output unit configured to output information indicating the priority of the plurality of user groups for responding to the failure, based on the first value and the second value, wherein the first value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in that user group, and the second value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals affected by the failure in that user group out of all terminals using the network service.

2. The decision support device according to claim 1, characterized in that the first and second values ​​for a certain user set are further values ​​based on the estimated throughput of terminals using the network service in that user set.

3. The decision support device according to claim 1, characterized in that the first value for a certain set of users differs depending on whether or not the set of users has entered into a predetermined contract with respect to the network service.

4. A decision support method characterized in that a computer executes the following steps: a quality information collection step for each of a plurality of user groups affected by one of a plurality of failures occurring in the network service, the quality information necessary for calculating a first value and a second value relating to the network service; a calculation step for each of the plurality of user groups, the quality information used to calculate the first value and the second value; and an output step for outputting information indicating the priority of the plurality of user groups for responding to the failure, based on the first value and the second value, respectively, wherein the first value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals in that user group affected by the failure, and the second value for a given user group is a value based on the proportion of terminals in that user group affected by the failure out of all terminals using the network service.

Images