Worker Evaluation System for Confirmation Control
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing systems lack a mechanism to effectively impose additional confirmation on workers with low evaluations, leading to incomplete operations and unclear responsibility for failures in collaborative construction and installation tasks.
Innovation Solution
An information processing method that acquires evaluation values for workers, outputs confirmation information with more items for lower evaluations, determines if an operation is completed based on confirmation results, and decreases the evaluation of responsible workers when failures are attributed to others, thereby imposing additional confirmations.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If no additional confirmation is imposed on workers, then the operation process is simple and fast, but operational quality and reliability deteriorate due to incomplete operations by low-evaluation workers
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by differentiating the confirmation process based on worker evaluation levels. High-evaluation workers receive standard confirmation procedures, while low-evaluation workers are subjected to additional confirmation steps. This targeted approach enhances reliability for critical operations performed by less experienced workers without adding unnecessary complexity to the overall system.
Solution Approach 2:
The confirmation process dynamically adapts based on the worker's evaluation level. The system automatically adjusts the number of confirmation items required, increasing scrutiny for low-evaluation workers and maintaining efficiency for high-evaluation workers. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction by making the process complexity variable rather than fixed.
2Reliability
If additional confirmation is imposed on all workers, then operational quality improves, but productivity decreases due to increased confirmation burden
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements local quality by applying additional confirmation requirements only to low-evaluation workers rather than all workers. This selective approach ensures operational quality is enhanced where most needed while maintaining productivity for experienced workers who do not require additional confirmation steps.
Solution Approach 2:
The system applies partial action by implementing additional confirmation steps only for a subset of workers (those with low evaluation levels) rather than universally. This partial application of the confirmation mechanism achieves the necessary quality improvement without imposing excessive burdens on the entire workforce.
3Measurement precision
If failure causes are not clearly attributed, then the evaluation system is simple, but responsibility assignment becomes unclear and ineffective
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements feedback by systematically collecting confirmation results and using them to determine failure causes. When operations fail, the system traces back through the confirmation records to identify whether the issue originated from the current worker or a previous worker, enabling precise responsibility attribution. This feedback loop enhances measurement precision without requiring complex external analysis systems.
Solution Approach 2:
The system performs preliminary action by recording confirmation results during the operation process itself, rather than requiring separate post-failure analysis. This preliminary documentation of each confirmation step enables automatic cause attribution when failures occur, improving responsibility assignment accuracy without adding complex retrospective analysis procedures.
4Reliability
If more confirmation items are required for low-evaluation workers, then operational quality improves, but the time required for operation increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by concentrating additional confirmation requirements specifically on low-evaluation workers rather than uniformly across all workers. This targeted approach ensures that time is invested in enhancing accuracy where most needed, while experienced workers maintain their faster workflow without additional confirmation burdens.
Solution Approach 2:
The confirmation process dynamically adjusts its stringency based on worker evaluation levels. Low-evaluation workers encounter more confirmation items that take additional time, while high-evaluation workers experience a streamlined process. This dynamic adaptation balances the trade-off between accuracy and time loss by applying stricter controls only where necessary.
Data Source
AI summary
An information processing apparatus outputs on the basis of an evaluation value for a first worker confirmation information of ordering a first worker to perform a confirmation as to whether a first operation is normally completed, the confirmation information including more confirmation items as the evaluation value is lower; determines on the basis of confirmation result information indicative of a result of the confirmation whether the first operation is normally completed; determines, when the first operation is determined to be not normally completed, on the basis of the confirmation result information whether a cause due to which the first operation is not normally completed lies in a second operation by a second worker different from the first operation; and decreases an evaluation value for the second worker when the cause is determined to lie in the second operation.