[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2013018160A1 - Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix - Google Patents

Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2013018160A1
WO2013018160A1 PCT/JP2011/067468 JP2011067468W WO2013018160A1 WO 2013018160 A1 WO2013018160 A1 WO 2013018160A1 JP 2011067468 W JP2011067468 W JP 2011067468W WO 2013018160 A1 WO2013018160 A1 WO 2013018160A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
evaluation
value
data
statistical
survey
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/JP2011/067468
Other languages
English (en)
Japanese (ja)
Inventor
光一 矢野
Original Assignee
アクアエンタープライズ株式会社
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by アクアエンタープライズ株式会社 filed Critical アクアエンタープライズ株式会社
Priority to PCT/JP2011/067468 priority Critical patent/WO2013018160A1/fr
Publication of WO2013018160A1 publication Critical patent/WO2013018160A1/fr

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING OR CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00—Commerce
    • G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a technology for trading systems for products and services using a computer, and in particular, when there are a plurality of compatible products and services, provides information related to the difference in values as judgment materials to a user.
  • the present invention relates to an effective technology applied to a value evaluation support system and a value evaluation support program.
  • the value of a specific evaluation target is calculated and evaluated from parametric data (data assuming a specific distribution such as a normal distribution with respect to the distribution of the population) using a dedicated system or program. That is also done.
  • Patent Document 1 describes a system for quantitatively evaluating a corporate brand value by statistical calculation (average, variance, trend, etc.) using parametric data such as sales. Yes.
  • Patent Document 2 describes a system that calculates an evaluation value indicating the value of an evaluation target article based on a deviation in the number of appearances of words included in the evaluation target article.
  • Patent Document 3 describes a system that quantitatively evaluates the value of a photovoltaic power generation facility based on performance values such as the amount of solar radiation and power generation cost.
  • Patent Document 4 Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 10-260995 (Patent Document 4) inputs rank data provided by a plurality of testers to a plurality of samples, and a Friedman test for determining the consistency of the input rank data. If it is determined that there is a significant difference in the consistency of rank data, Wilcoxon's signed rank sum test is performed to determine the rank relationship of each sample.
  • a rank evaluation system is described that quantifies and clarifies significant differences in relationships.
  • the difference in value among the individual products etc. exists in various viewpoints, and the value evaluation standard varies depending on the user to be evaluated. Accordingly, for example, a method in which the user estimates the value of a product or the like extracted by a search or the like by a product trading system cannot be judged with high accuracy. Therefore, in reality, the user may understand the original value of the purchased product at the time of use rather than at the time of purchase. For example, when using it, the user notices that the product was worse than expected. There is also a case.
  • the computer system it is possible to use the computer system to calculate, evaluate and present the value difference of the product, etc., so that the user can use it as a judgment material for selection when purchasing the product.
  • the evaluation criteria (indicators) for the value of products and the like vary depending on the user, and there are some that are greatly influenced by human senses such as appearance, satisfaction, and likability.
  • Some of these indicators include, for example, metric values according to normal distribution, count values according to binomial distribution, defect number data according to Poisson distribution, and classification data and rank data with unknown distribution. To do.
  • Patent Document 4 it is conceivable to calculate / evaluate the difference in the value of goods etc. by statistical calculation using nonparametric data.
  • the technique described in Patent Document 4 and the like it is possible to surely perform statistical calculation, but the disclosure is only up to the point of obtaining statistical calculation result information, and how to obtain the obtained information. It is not disclosed up to the point of use / utilization. That is, the prior art is merely a statistical calculation system. For example, based on information on the difference in value of products obtained as a result of statistical calculation, what kind of recommendation is recommended when a user selects a product, etc. It does not disclose specific contents of subsequent useful information processing such as whether to go and support.
  • an object of the present invention is to enable a user to more accurately, accurately, and easily determine a difference in value of goods and services that are widely sold and sold at the time of purchase. It is to provide a value evaluation support system and a value evaluation support program that support the above.
  • a value evaluation support system provides statistics on a difference in value between a plurality of survey objects whose values are represented by one or more evaluation indexes including ambiguous data.
  • a value evaluation support system having a value evaluation server that determines a significant difference and outputs a determination result, and a user terminal connected to the value evaluation server via a network, having the following features It is.
  • the value evaluation server receives an input of evaluation data that is an evaluation result of the value for each evaluation index related to each survey target, and stores the evaluation data in an evaluation history database, and the use An evaluation history information acquisition unit that extracts the evaluation data from the evaluation history database for each of the plurality of investigation targets selected based on conditions specified by the user via a user terminal Have.
  • rank data is calculated according to a predetermined procedure, and statistical significance between the respective survey targets is calculated by statistical calculation based on the rank data.
  • the statistical calculation unit to be determined and the statistical calculation result by the statistical calculation unit are combined with the information of the statistical calculation result, and are defined in advance based on the statistically significant difference information determined by the statistical calculation unit.
  • An evaluation result output unit that outputs the recommended information related to the determination criteria for the difference in value between the survey targets to the user terminal. is there.
  • the present invention can also be applied to a program that causes a computer to function as the above-described value evaluation support system.
  • (A), (b) is the figure which showed the example which represented the relationship between the average value and price of a significant evaluation index with respect to each investigation object in Embodiment 1 of this invention with the graph. It is the flowchart which showed the outline
  • Embodiment 2 of this invention For every investigation object in Embodiment 2 of this invention with a tabular form and a graph. It is the flowchart which showed the outline
  • the evaluation indicators that indicate the value of products that are widely sold and sold generally include, for example, appearance quality, initial quality, freshness, condition, performance, durability, reliability, rarity, satisfaction, popularity, and favorable sensitivity. There are various things such as comfort, name recognition, brand power, safety, and compliance rate.
  • indicators that indicate the value of products, etc. are indicators that are greatly influenced by human senses, such as appearance quality, satisfaction, and favorable sensitivity.
  • indicators such as the quality of service provided by flight attendants and the deliciousness of in-flight meals that may be taken into consideration when purchasing an air ticket have different evaluation criteria. For this reason, such a value index is not presented to the user in the air ticket trading system using a computer.
  • it is possible to make a reservation for the same seat on multiple competing routes, and to determine which ticket is more valuable if the prices are the same. The current situation is that it is not possible to provide appropriate information.
  • the value of goods, etc. is expressed by various types of indicators.
  • these indicators include metric values such as length according to normal distribution, count values such as defect rate according to binomial distribution, Poisson, etc.
  • parametric data such as count values such as the number of defects according to the distribution, and non-parametric data such as classification data and rank data whose distribution is unknown.
  • index data there are variations in the index data, as well as the reliability of the numerical value itself because the accuracy of the data measurement method is low.
  • the value evaluation support system is a non-standard method for handling rank data as a statistical processing technique.
  • Use parametric method Among many evaluation indexes, an evaluation index determined to have a significant difference by a test using a non-parametric method can be determined as a factor indicating a difference in value of a product or the like. Therefore, the total value of these factors is considered to indicate the difference in value of the product etc., and the user selects the product etc. more accurately from the relationship between the value difference and the price. It becomes possible.
  • the value evaluation support system since each user has various value standards, in the value evaluation support system according to an embodiment of the present invention, a significant evaluation index, price, It is recommended to select the most suitable product from the relationship. Also, users who place importance on insignificant evaluation indices are encouraged to select products etc. from price alone. In this way, the user evaluates the difference in the value of the product etc. based on the dialogue between the user and the computer, such as the presentation of the evaluation index that the user places importance on and the recommendation of the selection criteria for the optimum product etc. This provides a method for selecting optimal products and the like.
  • evaluation index data used for statistical calculation is obtained by conducting a questionnaire survey to users who use computer system trading after using, using or consuming goods or services. It can also be obtained by a questionnaire survey for a third party who does not use the product or the like or a seller who sells the product or the like.
  • a method other than a questionnaire may be used, and for example, it can be obtained by a questionnaire or an experience report.
  • the user inputs, for example, evaluation points (0 to 100 points) and the like for a plurality of evaluation indexes representing the value of the product or the like.
  • parametric data such as evaluation points are converted into rank data that is non-parametric data during statistical processing, and then a significant difference is determined.
  • the value evaluation support system uses a computer system as an example for buying and selling airline tickets, and when the airline tickets are bought and sold between a seller and a user, The difference in the value of each air ticket (airline company) that meets the conditions is evaluated, and based on this, a standard for selecting an airline company that purchases the airline ticket is recommended to the user.
  • the buying and selling of an air ticket is taken as an example, but the product to be sold is not limited to an air ticket, and the seller is naturally not limited to an airline.
  • an accommodation facility management company such as a hotel may sell accommodation services.
  • various products such as electrical appliances, automobiles, precious metals, daily goods clothes, and other various services are sold.
  • Wilcoxon's of two survey subjects is compared with one evaluation index (for example, satisfaction) to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant difference.
  • the test method shall be used.
  • Wilcoxon's signed rank test shall be used.
  • the Kruskal-Wallis test is used when comparing one evaluation index for three or more survey targets.
  • the Friedman test shall be used when comparing multiple evaluation indices for three or more survey targets.
  • FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an outline of a configuration example of a value evaluation support system 1 according to the first embodiment of the present invention.
  • the value evaluation support system 1 is configured such that a value evaluation server 10, a plurality of product etc. providing systems 20 (20a to 20d in the example of FIG. 1), and a user terminal 30 are connected to a network 40 and can communicate with each other. have.
  • the product etc. providing system 20 is an information processing system for sellers of products etc. to sell products etc. In this embodiment, for example, it is a computer system for selling airline tickets at each airline. is there.
  • the product etc. providing system 20 stores information for selling products etc. (air tickets) in a product etc. content database (DB) 201 (201a to 201d in the example of FIG. 1).
  • the product content DB 201 includes, for example, various information necessary for sales of products such as an airline name, departure place, departure time, arrival place, arrival time, seat number, model, price, passenger personal information, and the like.
  • the value evaluation server 10 is composed of a server device or the like that is operated and managed by a business operator or an information search service provider that mediates sales of goods and the like (air ticket) between a user and a seller (airline company). It is a computer system that stores information about users and sellers and information evaluated by users or sellers regarding products and the like. In addition, when a product or the like is traded between a user and a seller, information on the product etc. that meets the conditions specified by the user is collected from each product etc. providing system 20, and the difference in their values Based on this, a standard for selecting a product or the like (or a seller who sells the product or the like) is recommended to the user.
  • the value evaluation server 10 includes a server device having a general configuration. For example, a product etc. information acquisition unit 11, an evaluation history information acquisition unit 12, a statistical calculation unit 13, and an evaluation result output unit 14 implemented by a software program. And each part such as a questionnaire processing part 15.
  • Each of these units can be implemented as, for example, a web application that runs on a web server program (not shown).
  • the storage device such as an HDD or a memory on the value evaluation server 10 or the value evaluation server 10 can read the unit. It is stored in a storage medium such as an optical disk. You may hold
  • the value evaluation server 10 has data such as a seller DB 101, a user DB 102, a product etc. DB 103, an evaluation history DB 104, and a questionnaire DB 105, which are made up of databases and file tables.
  • the seller DB 101 is a table that holds information related to the seller (airline company) and the merchandise provision system 20 of the seller. For example, account information such as IDs and passwords used in the value evaluation support system 1, sales, etc. Various information such as a person's name, location and other attribute information, and seller's characteristic information (for example, in the case of an airline, information related to airports, hotels, land traffic, accident insurance, etc.) are included.
  • the information in the seller DB 101 is registered in advance by, for example, the administrator of the value evaluation server 10.
  • the user DB 102 is a table that holds information related to users, and includes, for example, various information such as account information such as IDs and passwords used in the value evaluation support system 1 and attribute information such as user names. .
  • the information in the user DB 102 is assumed to be registered in advance by each user or the administrator of the value evaluation server 10.
  • the product etc. DB 103 is a table that holds information related to the product etc. extracted from each product etc. providing system 20, for example, attribute information such as product name, model, spec, release date, price, product image, description, etc. Various information such as sentences is included.
  • the evaluation history DB 104 is a table that accumulates and holds information related to questionnaire results (value evaluation results) for products and the like evaluated and input by the user. For example, each question (evaluation index) of the questionnaire and Response results (evaluation data), response reception date (entry date), respondent (entrant), information on the respondent's user terminal 30, various information such as the product subject to the questionnaire, seller, manufacturer name, etc. Is included.
  • the questionnaire DB 105 is a table that holds information related to the contents of a questionnaire to be filled in when a user purchases or uses a product, for example, various questions associated with a product, a seller, or a manufacturer name. And various questions for entering information such as the respondent, the reply date, the information on the user terminal 30 of the respondent, and the like.
  • the information in the questionnaire DB 105 is registered in advance by the administrator of the value evaluation server 10 or the like.
  • the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 requests each product etc. providing system 20 based on the conditions specified by the user to obtain information on the relevant products etc., or from each product etc. providing system 20. A suitable product etc. is searched and extracted, and information relating to the obtained product etc. is stored in the product etc. DB 103.
  • the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 extracts, for each evaluation index, history information of corresponding evaluation data (questionnaire results) from the evaluation history DB 104 for each product held in the product etc. DB 103.
  • the statistical calculation unit 13 implements calculation formulas and algorithms for performing various statistical calculations including a non-parametric method, and calculates a difference in value for each product held in the product etc.
  • DB 103 This includes data such as various test tables and random number tables for performing statistical calculations. In mounting, for example, a statistical calculation function or various libraries included in an existing application program such as spreadsheet software can be used as appropriate.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 compiles and outputs the statistical results calculated and evaluated by the statistical calculation unit 13 and information on the value difference of the product, etc., and determines the selection criteria for the appropriate product etc. It is output to the user as recommended information related to selection criteria for products and the like.
  • the questionnaire processing unit 15 acquires the corresponding questionnaire information from the questionnaire DB 105 and presents it to the user to carry out the questionnaire.
  • evaluation information is input by acquiring information related to a questionnaire result (evaluation data) input by the user and storing it in the evaluation history DB 104.
  • the user terminal 30 is an information processing terminal that is operated by a user who purchases a product such as an airline ticket, and includes, for example, a personal computer, a mobile terminal such as a mobile phone or a smartphone. A digital TV, game machine, karaoke machine, or the like capable of bidirectional communication may be used.
  • the user terminal 30 can execute various functions by accessing a web server program (not shown) on the value evaluation server 10 or the product providing system 20 via a web browser (not shown), for example.
  • the network 40 is a communication network composed of, for example, a wired / wireless LAN (Local Area Network) line, a satellite line, a telephone line, an optical line, and the like. A typical example is the Internet network.
  • FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing an outline of an example of the flow of main processing in the value evaluation server 10.
  • an initial registration process for registering seller and user information is performed (S01).
  • the administrator or operator of the value evaluation server 10 may initially register such information with respect to each DB, or a seller who does not have a user ID used in the value evaluation support system 1 or uses it.
  • Initial registration may be performed when there is an access from a person.
  • registration information input to the DB such as personal information other than the user ID is received from the seller or user who performs registration, and after the information is officially registered in the DB, the user ID is issued. Register a password.
  • a price survey process is performed to obtain information including prices related to products that meet the conditions by inquiring each product etc. providing system 20 (S02).
  • historical information of past value evaluation is extracted and statistically processed, thereby statistically determining whether or not there is a significant difference in the value of these products.
  • a selection criterion for an appropriate product or the like is determined based on the result, and a value evaluation process recommended to the user is performed (S03).
  • a questionnaire survey on the value of the purchased product etc. is performed, and an evaluation history information recording process for recording information related to the result is performed (S04). The process ends.
  • FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing an outline of an example of the flow of the price survey process (step S02 in FIG. 2) in the value evaluation server 10.
  • a user who wants to purchase a product etc. operates a homepage screen such as a Web browser on the user terminal 30, a service menu screen, a standby screen, etc., and accesses the value evaluation server 10 to make a usage request.
  • Perform (S201).
  • the value evaluation server 10 Upon receiving the use request, the value evaluation server 10 outputs a menu screen for selecting or inputting a product or the like to the user terminal 30 by the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 or the like (S202).
  • FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a menu screen for the user to select or input a product or the like.
  • a site for purchasing a ticket for using a transportation means is taken as an example.
  • the user selects a desired transportation means such as an airplane, a ship, a train, etc. from a pull-down menu of the transportation means.
  • the name of the company or organization having the selected means of transportation is displayed in the pull-down menu of the transportation facility name, and the user selects the target company or organization.
  • the flight name of the selected company or group is displayed in the pull-down menu, and the user selects the target flight.
  • Travel options are displayed on the pull-down menu for items such as round trip, one-way, and round trip, and are selected by the user. For example, if the user selects a round trip, as shown in the example of FIG. 4, whether the departure place (departure airport), departure date, departure time, and arrival place (arrival airport) for the outbound route and the return route are selected from the pull-down menu. A field to be specified by direct input is displayed. When tour is selected as the travel mode, it is possible to input a plurality of routes such as routes 1, 2, 3,.
  • Fare class can be selected from the pull-down menu such as first, business, economy, etc., and the number of travelers can be selected from the pull-down menu or directly enter the desired number.
  • Search options include search options such as non-stop flights and cheapest order.For example, if you select non-stop flights, only non-stop flights will be searched, and if you select the cheapest order, the search results will be displayed in order from the cheapest. Is displayed. It is possible to select multiple options. When no option is selected, for example, flights other than non-stop flights are displayed in order from the highest to the lowest.
  • the user terminal 30 requests the value evaluation server 10 for information such as a product that satisfies the condition ( S203).
  • the value evaluation server 10 transmits a search request for a product or the like satisfying the condition to the product etc. providing system 20 of all the sellers registered in advance by the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 (S204). ).
  • the merchandise providing system 20 of each seller that has received the search request extracts information on the merchandise that satisfies the condition from the merchandise content DB 201 and responds to the value evaluation server 10 (S205).
  • the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 of the value evaluation server 10 is configured to be able to directly access the product etc. content DB 20 of each product etc. providing system 20, and the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 meets the conditions. May be directly searched and extracted.
  • the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 that has acquired or extracted information on the product etc. that meets the conditions stores the acquired product etc. information in the product etc. DB 103 (S206), and ends the price survey process.
  • the product information stored in the product etc. DB 103 includes, for example, departure place (departure airport), departure date, scheduled departure time, arrival place (arrival airport), arrival date, estimated arrival time, required time, aircraft name, model It includes items such as airline name, flight number, number of remaining seats, number of remaining seats, meal menu, passenger information input form, and fare.
  • departure place departure airport
  • departure date scheduled departure time
  • arrival place arrival airport
  • arrival date estimated arrival time
  • required time aircraft name
  • model model
  • the above-described transportation means searching method is a known means that has already been carried out by airline ticket sales etc. on the Internet, and the same method can be used in this embodiment.
  • FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing an outline of an example of the flow of value evaluation processing (step S03 in FIG. 2) in the value evaluation server 10.
  • the value evaluation server 10 is each survey object extracted in the price survey process of FIG. 3 by the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 (that is, each product acquired in step S206 of FIG. 3).
  • the evaluation history information is extracted from the evaluation history DB 104 (S301).
  • the evaluation history information is information in which the purchaser's evaluation for each survey target (product or the like) is recorded, and is information recorded in the evaluation history DB 104 in an evaluation history information recording process (step S04 in FIG. 2) described later. Therefore, the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 searches the evaluation history information recorded in the evaluation history DB 104 in the past, thereby evaluating the evaluation history associated with each product acquired in step S206 of FIG. Information will be extracted.
  • Evaluation history information is evaluation information evaluated by a user who purchased a product after purchasing, using, or consuming the product, and includes various evaluation indexes.
  • Evaluation indicators include, for example, overall satisfaction, comfort, luxury of in-flight meals, attitudes of cabin attendants, ease of use of in-flight audio, etc., satisfaction of video / music provided, etc. It is.
  • Each evaluation index is expressed by, for example, evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • the value evaluation server 10 determines whether or not the number of survey targets is 2 or more (S302), and if it is less than 2, the process directly proceeds to step S340.
  • the number of survey targets is the number of types of airline tickets acquired in step S206 of FIG. 3 in the case of the present embodiment, and one type of all airlines in step S205 of FIG.
  • the number of airlines may be used in place of the number of types of airline tickets (that is, the survey target may be each airline).
  • step S302 when the number of investigation targets is 2 or more, next, a loop process for repeatedly performing the process for each of all the evaluation indexes included in the evaluation history information acquired in step S301 is started.
  • each loop process first, the number of data of evaluation indexes to be processed in the loop is counted for each investigation object, and it is determined for each investigation object whether or not it is equal to or more than a preset lower limit value (S303). If it is less than the lower limit, it is determined that there is no significant difference because there is not enough data for the evaluation index, and the process proceeds to the next evaluation index in a loop process.
  • the lower limit value is a value obtained by adding two or more numbers to the number of data generally determined that sufficient accuracy cannot be obtained at the time of statistical calculation, and does not exceed the upper limit value described later. Set a value (eg 6).
  • step S303 If it is determined in step S303 that the number of data for all survey targets is equal to or greater than the lower limit value, it is next determined whether or not each counted data number is equal to or less than a preset upper limit value (S304).
  • the upper limit value for example, a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the minimum number that is generally recognized to be equivalent to the number of populations (the number of populations) (for example, 600,000) is set. If the number of data is less than or equal to the upper limit value, the process proceeds to step S306 with all data as processing targets (that is, all data is extracted as samples).
  • the upper limit number of data is extracted as a sample in order from the latest data among the target evaluation index data (S305), and the process proceeds to step S306.
  • the sample is extracted in order from the latest one, but other extraction methods may be used.
  • the upper limit number is used as the number to be extracted, an appropriate number can be appropriately determined as long as it is a number equal to or less than the upper limit number (and a number equal to or greater than the lower limit value).
  • step S306 a random number table or the like held in advance in the value evaluation server 10 is used, and the target evaluation index is smaller than a predetermined number, for example, the number of data extracted from the sample data extracted for each survey target.
  • a number of (lower limit value-1) or more data is randomly extracted as samples (S306).
  • the method of extracting the sample for statistical calculation is not limited to the method of steps S303 to S306, but instead, for example, the number of evaluation index data to be processed in each loop processing is counted for each survey target. Randomly extract the number of data less than the counted data and less than the minimum number recognized as a population and more than the statistically inferior accuracy from the counted data by survey target It is also possible. In this method, if the number of counted data is less than the minimum value that can be recognized as a population, the sample is substantially a random extraction from the sample, and the counted number of data is greater than or equal to the minimum value that is recognized as a population. Is essentially a random extraction from the population. Thus, if two samples with different extraction sources are equally treated as randomly extracted samples and used for statistical calculation, the statistical accuracy may be lowered.
  • the value evaluation server 10 uses the statistical calculation unit 13 to perform a statistical process for performing a predetermined statistical calculation on the processing target data of the target evaluation index to determine a significant difference between the evaluation indexes (S320).
  • 6 and 7 are flowcharts showing an overview of an example of the flow of statistical processing in step S320 of FIG.
  • the statistical calculation unit 13 first determines whether or not the number of survey targets is 2 (S3201). When the number of survey targets is not 2 (that is, the number of survey targets is 3 or more), as will be described later, an estimation regarding each population is performed by Kruskal-Wallis test. On the other hand, when the number of objects to be investigated is two, the two populations are estimated by the Wilcoxon test.
  • FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of the evaluation indices for each of the two survey targets.
  • the evaluation data conversion rules (hereinafter referred to as “evaluation”) defined in the table shown in the example of FIG. Satisfaction level (0 to 100 points), which is an evaluation index that has been converted (hereinafter may be described as “evaluation data conversion”) based on “data conversion rules”) Has been. That is, the evaluation points in FIG. 8 are evaluation points for use in the analysis by statistical calculation.
  • the evaluation data conversion rule defined in the definition table in FIG. 28 for example, “100 ⁇ (Original evaluation score) "is converted.
  • FIG. 8 shows an example in which data of the same value does not exist for all the evaluation data.
  • the minimum value of the number n i of evaluation data possessed by each survey object is a predetermined threshold (for example, it is determined whether it is less than 15) (S3203).
  • the threshold 15
  • the rank in the set of the entire evaluation data for each evaluation data and the sum (rank rank) of the ranks for each survey target are calculated (S3204).
  • information on ranks and rank sums calculated for each evaluation data is also written in the table.
  • the amount of W is calculated based on the ranking data (S3205).
  • the rank sum of the survey targets with the smaller number of evaluation data among the survey targets is set as the W amount.
  • the rank sum 25 of the airline 2 is set as the W amount.
  • the rank sum of any one of the survey targets is the W amount. It is not always necessary to use the sum of ranks of the survey targets with the smaller number of evaluation data as the amount of W, and the rank sum of the survey targets with the larger number may be used. In this case, not W amount but W ′ amount is described.
  • the lower limit value W L ( ⁇ / 2) and the upper limit value W U ( ⁇ / 2) of the predetermined significance level ⁇ are identified from the Wilcoxon test table held in advance by the statistical calculation unit 16 and the like.
  • step S3206 based on the comparison result in step S3206, it is determined whether or not there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3207), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • W L ( ⁇ / 2) ⁇ W amount ⁇ W U ( ⁇ / 2)
  • W amount ⁇ W L ( ⁇ / 2) or W U it is determined that there is a significant difference.
  • step S3210 and later described below may be performed instead of the process of step S3206 and subsequent steps.
  • step S3203 if the minimum value of the number of evaluation data is greater than or equal to the threshold (15) in step S3203, the rank of each evaluation data and the rank sum for each survey target are calculated by the same process as in steps S3204 and S3205 described above. Then, the amount of W is calculated (S3208, S3209). Further, the u 0 amount is calculated by the following equation (S3210).
  • FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating another example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of the evaluation indices for each of two survey targets.
  • the evaluation data conversion is performed for the two airlines (airlines 1 and 2) to be investigated based on the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. Satisfaction as an evaluation index is indicated by evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • the rank calculated about each evaluation data and the information of the rank sum for every investigation object are written together in the table
  • the limit value u ( ⁇ ) is specified from the predetermined significance level ⁇ of the normal distribution table held in advance by the statistical calculation unit 16 or the like, and the obtained u ( ⁇ ) and u 0 obtained in step S3210.
  • the normal distribution table includes a type that handles one-side rejection area and a type that handles both-side rejection areas. In the present embodiment, the normal distribution table that handles the latter-side rejection areas is used.
  • the normal distribution table includes a type for obtaining a significance point (limit value) from the significance level ⁇ and a type for obtaining a significance probability (P value) from the absolute value of the u 0 quantity.
  • the former table is used for comparison.
  • the latter table is used when calculating the P value in the selection of supplementary explanation items to be described later.
  • step S3211 it is determined whether or not there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3212), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • the rank of each evaluation data is calculated in the same manner as in steps S3204 and S3208 described above (S3213). Since the same rank is calculated, an average rank is assigned to the same rank (S3214). The average rank is also called an intermediate rank.
  • the average rank is calculated by the equation ⁇ (a + 1) + (a + t j ) ⁇ / 2.
  • a is the previous rank of the same rank
  • j is a group number when the ranks of evaluation data groups having the same rank are numbered in ascending order.
  • T j is the number of evaluation data of the j-th group.
  • FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of evaluation indexes for two survey targets.
  • satisfaction that is an evaluation index obtained by performing evaluation data conversion based on the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. Degrees are indicated by evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • FIG. 10 shows an example in the case where data of the same value exists among all the evaluation data, and the rank calculated for each evaluation data and the information of the rank sum for each survey target are also shown in the table. .
  • the average rank of the group ranked first is 1.5
  • the average rank of the group ranked fifth is 6.
  • the table of FIG. 10 also shows the average rank including these calculation results and the rank sum information.
  • the amount of W is calculated by the same processing as in steps S3205 and S3209 described above. For distinction, this is referred to as W * amount (S3215). Further, the u 0 * amount is calculated by the following equation. (S3216).
  • the limit value u ( ⁇ ) is specified from the predetermined significance level ⁇ in the normal distribution table by the same processing as in step S3211 described above, and u ( ⁇ ) obtained is obtained, and u 0 * obtained in step S3216.
  • the absolute value of the quantity is compared (S3217). Next, based on the comparison result in step S3217, it is determined whether or not there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3218), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • a predetermined threshold for example, m ⁇ 5, which is generally considered to be inferior in the accuracy of statistical calculation
  • a predetermined threshold for example, m ⁇ 5, which is generally considered to be inferior in the accuracy of statistical calculation
  • the maximum value of the ratio ⁇ t j / (m + n) ⁇ of the number t j of evaluation data in each group and the total number of data m + n is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (for example, the maximum that the statistical calculation accuracy is generally inferior)
  • value ⁇ 0.7 it is not necessary to perform statistical calculation because sufficient accuracy cannot be ensured. In this case, it may be determined that there is no significant difference because there is not enough data.
  • a message such as “There is not enough data and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference as a result” may be added. Further, after executing the statistical calculation, for example, a message such as “the accuracy of the result of the statistical calculation is not high” may be added.
  • step S3201 in FIG. 6 If the number of survey objects in step S3201 in FIG. 6 is 3 or more, the process proceeds to FIG. 7 to perform Kruskal-Wallis test. First, as in step S3202 in FIG. It is determined whether there is an evaluation data having the same value in the entire set (S3219 in FIG. 7). Instead of determining the presence or absence of the same value, the presence or absence of the same rank may be determined for the rank data calculated from the evaluation data by the process described later.
  • FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of evaluation indices for each of three survey targets.
  • satisfaction that is an evaluation index obtained by performing evaluation data conversion on the three airlines (airlines 1 to 3) to be investigated based on the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. 28 described later. Degrees are indicated by evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • FIG. 11 shows an example of the case where there is no data having the same value for all evaluation data. In this case, the total number N of evaluation data in each survey target is less than a predetermined threshold (for example, 15). It is determined whether or not (S3220).
  • the minimum value n MIN is specified for the number n i of the evaluation data of each investigation target (S3221). Then, it is judged whether the investigation with evaluation data for the number above the minimum value n MIN of the specified number of data in step S3221 (S3222).
  • a minimum number of evaluation data is randomly extracted from the evaluation data of the survey object using a random number table or the like held in advance in the value evaluation server 10 (S3223).
  • the number n i of evaluation data for each survey target is unified to the minimum value n MIN .
  • step S3224 the rank in the set of the entire evaluation data for each evaluation data and the sum (rank sum) of the ranks for each survey target are calculated (S3224).
  • information on ranks and rank sums calculated for each evaluation data is also written in the table.
  • the KW amount is calculated by the following equation (S3225).
  • i is an integer from 1 to the number of survey targets k
  • R i is the sum of ranks in each survey target.
  • the number of evaluation data of the investigation object unified to a predetermined significance level ⁇ , the number of investigation objects k, and the minimum value A significant point kw ( ⁇ ) corresponding to n MIN is specified, and the obtained kw ( ⁇ ) is compared with the KW amount calculated in step S3225 (S3226).
  • the processing in steps S3221 to S3223 in FIG. 7 is not necessary, and the number of evaluation data for each survey target
  • the KW amount can be calculated in step S3225 without unifying the minimum values.
  • significant point kw (alpha) is significance level alpha, chosen from those corresponding to the survey number k and evaluation data number n i of each study.
  • the Kruskal-Wallis test table includes a type that obtains a significant point (limit value) from the number k of survey targets, the number of data n MIN or ni , and the significance level ⁇ , the number of survey targets k, and the number of data n MIN.
  • a significance probability (P value) from the n i and the KW amount, but the former test table is used for comparison here. The latter test table is used when calculating the P value in the selection of supplementary explanation items to be described later.
  • step S3226 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3227), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • step S3220 in FIG. 7 when the total number N of data is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (for example, 15), the rank of each evaluation data and the rank sum for each survey target are calculated by the same processing as in steps S3224 and S3225 described above.
  • a predetermined threshold for example, 15
  • the rank of each evaluation data and the rank sum for each survey target are calculated by the same processing as in steps S3224 and S3225 described above.
  • the KW amount S3228, S3229.
  • FIG. 12 is a diagram showing another example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of the evaluation indices for each of three survey targets.
  • satisfaction is an evaluation index obtained by performing evaluation data conversion for the three airlines (airlines 1 to 3) to be investigated based on the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. Degrees are indicated by evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • FIG. 12 is a diagram showing another example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of the evaluation indices for each of three survey targets.
  • the obtained ⁇ 2 ( ⁇ , ⁇ ) is compared with the KW amount calculated in step S 3229 (S 3230).
  • the chi-square distribution table includes a type that obtains a significant point (limit value) from a degree of freedom ⁇ and a significance level ⁇ , and a significance probability (P value) from statistically calculated values such as the degree of freedom ⁇ and the amount of KW.
  • the former test table is used for comparison here.
  • the latter test table is used when calculating the P value in the selection of supplementary explanation items to be described later.
  • step S3230 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3231), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • step S3232 If there is an evaluation data having the same value in step S3219 in FIG. 7, the ranking of each evaluation data is calculated (S3232) as in steps S3224 and S3228 described above, and the evaluation data having the same value is further calculated. Since the same rank is calculated, an average rank is assigned to the same rank by the same process as step S3214 in FIG. 6 (S3233).
  • FIG. 13 is a diagram showing another example in which a significant difference is determined by statistical calculation from the values of evaluation indexes for each of three survey targets.
  • the satisfaction is an evaluation index obtained by performing evaluation data conversion on the three airlines (airlines 1 to 3) to be investigated based on the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. Degrees are indicated by evaluation points (0 to 100 points).
  • FIG. 13 shows an example in the case where data of the same value exists among all the evaluation data, and the rank calculated for each evaluation data and the information of the rank sum for each survey target are also shown in the table. .
  • the average rank of the group ranked third is 4, and the average rank of the group ranked seventh is 7. 5
  • the table of FIG. 13 also shows the average rank including these calculation results and the rank sum information.
  • the KW amount is calculated by the same processing as in steps S3225 and S3229 described above. For distinction, this is described as KW * amount (S3234). Further, the KW ′ amount is calculated by the following equation. (S3235).
  • j is an integer from 1 to the number g of evaluation data groups having the same rank.
  • KW ′ amount 1.48 from the equation 5.
  • step S3236 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3237), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • the number of survey targets k in the Kruskal-Wallis test with the same value or the minimum value n MIN of the number of evaluation data n i of each survey target is less than a predetermined threshold (for example, generally the accuracy of statistical calculation is When k ⁇ 3, which is considered inferior, or the minimum value n MIN ⁇ 6), it is not necessary to perform statistical calculation because sufficient accuracy cannot be secured. In this case, it may be determined that there is no significant difference because there is not enough data.
  • a message such as “There is not enough data and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference as a result” may be added. Further, after executing the statistical calculation, for example, a message such as “the accuracy of the result of the statistical calculation is not high” may be added.
  • step S320 in FIG. 5 When the statistical processing in step S320 in FIG. 5 is completed through the above processing, the series of processing in steps S303 to S320 is repeated for the next evaluation index by loop processing in the processing flow in FIG.
  • the loop processing is terminated, and then it is determined whether all the evaluation indexes have a significant difference (whether there is a significant evaluation index). (S307) If it cannot be said that all the evaluation indices are significantly different (there is no significant evaluation index), the process proceeds to step S340.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 can compare the price of the product etc. with the value of the significant evaluation index for each survey target. Is created (S308).
  • FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example in which the price of a product and a significant evaluation index are represented in a tabular format for each survey target.
  • a significant difference is determined for each index in the evaluation history information recorded in the evaluation history DB 104 by the statistical processing in step S320.
  • An example is shown in which there is a significant difference in indicators (“quality of AV equipment”, “attitude of CA”, “luxury of meals”).
  • the price of the ticket on the desired route and the average value of the evaluation points of each evaluation index in the evaluation history information are displayed in a list so that they can be compared.
  • the average value for example, the evaluation in the table of FIG.
  • a value obtained by performing inverse conversion based on an evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. 28 described later that is, an average value of values of original evaluation data that is not subjected to evaluation data conversion
  • FIG. 14 shows a case where the evaluation index is a metric value called an evaluation point.
  • the evaluation index is not a metric value but a count value such as a probability or the number of defects, before calculating the average value.
  • a conversion for approximating the measured value may be performed.
  • logit transformation or inverse sine transformation can be used for probability
  • square root transformation or logarithmic transformation can be used for the number of defects. Since the percentage (probability) or the number of defects follows a binomial distribution or a Poisson distribution, respectively, data may be converted to a normal distribution. Thereby, it can be regarded as data according to a normal distribution like the measurement value.
  • the percentage can be normalized by using a logit transform or an inverse sine transform after being expressed as a probability.
  • P is a probability
  • L (P) is a logit.
  • the inverse sine transformation is represented by Sin ⁇ 1 ⁇ P.
  • the square root transformation is represented by ⁇
  • the logarithmic transformation is represented by ln ⁇ .
  • ⁇ is the number of defects. If x and n in x / n (where x is the total number of occurrences or defects and n is the number of trials or the number of trials) are known, continuous correction is performed as a data conversion formula. Add to the normal approximation better.
  • FIG. 15 is a diagram showing an example of a graph representing the relationship between the average value of the significant evaluation index and the price for each survey target.
  • FIG. 15A shows an example in which each airline is represented as a radar chart with three evaluation indexes and prices as axes.
  • the values after the evaluation data conversion are ranked by processing such as step S3204 in FIG. Later averages may be used. For example, an average value of ranks in the table of FIG. 11 can be used.
  • the values of the three significant evaluation indices are all evaluation points, and the unit or sign of the values are indicated by the same value evaluation standard. Either of the average values of ranks may be used. However, when the value of the evaluation index is not indicated by the same value evaluation standard (for example, two evaluation points and one defect number), an average value rank is used.
  • the evaluation data is an original evaluation point that is not subjected to evaluation data conversion
  • it is necessary to convert the evaluation data in ascending order because the evaluation is performed in descending order with respect to the original evaluation point.
  • 100 points are ranked first (ranked minimum value) and 0 points are ranked lowest (ranked maximum value), so the center side in the radar chart of FIG. Since it becomes a point, it converts in order to correct
  • the scale display of the radar chart may be changed from ascending to descending order.
  • the ranking is performed in ascending order with respect to the original number of defects that does not perform evaluation data conversion.
  • the scale display of is the same as the ranking of the evaluation points, when displaying the value of the number of defects on the radar chart, the scale display is reversed from that of the evaluation points (that is, the same scale display as that of the ranking).
  • the scale display of the radar chart can be determined using a table in which rules for ranking for each evaluation index are determined in advance as shown in FIG.
  • FIG. 15 (b) shows an example in which the relationship between the average value of the evaluation points for each of the three evaluation indices for each airline and the price is shown in a scatter diagram.
  • the horizontal axis is the evaluation point average value by survey object and the vertical axis is the price, and the relationship between the average evaluation point value by survey object and the price ($) shown in FIG. 14 is shown.
  • the average value by evaluation target for the evaluation score average value of each evaluation index that became significant can be interpreted as the total value by evaluation target of the evaluation index that became significant. This is considered to indicate a difference in value.
  • Note that other statistical values such as a median value or a mode value may be used in place of the average value of the evaluation points (or the rank in which the evaluation points are ranked) and the average value of the evaluation points by survey object.
  • the average value and the average value of the evaluation indices for each survey target Is considered appropriate.
  • the interval scale indicates, for example, a numerical value having no absolute zero point such as the year and the temperature in degrees Celsius
  • the proportional scale indicates, for example, a numerical value having an absolute zero point, such as length or absolute temperature.
  • the median ranking and the median ranking of the evaluation index by survey object are appropriate. Therefore, the statistical calculation unit 13 determines whether or not the evaluation index that has become significant from the evaluation index numerical type is the same type by using a table as shown in FIG. 28 described later. May be determined whether or not is an interval or proportional, and a process of selecting a suitable statistical value may be performed.
  • the value evaluation server 10 determines whether or not there are a plurality of significant evaluation indexes (S309). If there are no more than one, proceed to step S340. When there are a plurality of evaluation indexes that are significant, the statistical calculation unit 13 determines whether there is a statistically significant difference directly between the survey targets from the statistical values after the evaluation data conversion for the evaluation data of these evaluation indexes. A process for determining a significant difference between survey targets to be comprehensively determined is performed (S330).
  • the statistical calculation unit 13 calculates all of the survey target i (i is an integer from 1 to the number of survey targets k) and a significant evaluation index j (j is an integer from 1 to the number m of the significant evaluation indexes). It is determined whether or not the number k to be investigated is 2 for the combination (S3301). When the number of survey targets is 2, as will be described later, Wilcoxon signed rank test is performed. On the other hand, if the number of survey targets is not 2 (that is, the number of survey targets is 3 or more), Friedman test is performed.
  • the statistical value of the value after the evaluation data conversion in each survey target is ranked for each evaluation index (S3302). For example, when the evaluation index is an evaluation score, the average value of the scores after the evaluation data conversion is ranked. In addition, when the scale level of evaluation data is neither an interval scale nor a proportional scale, other statistical values such as a median value may be appropriately used instead of the average value.
  • step S3303 it is determined whether or not the number k to be investigated is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (for example, 5) (S3304).
  • a predetermined threshold for example, 5
  • the FR amount is calculated by the following formula (S3305).
  • i is an integer of 1 to survey the number k
  • R i is the rank sum for each evaluation index in each study.
  • FIG. 18 is a diagram illustrating an example in which a significant difference between three survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • three significant evaluation indices quality of AV equipment”, “attitude of CA”, “luxury of meal” for the three airlines under investigation (airlines 1 to 3)
  • the average value of the evaluation points after conversion of the evaluation data is shown.
  • the limit value fr ( ⁇ ) specified by the predetermined significance level ⁇ , the number k of survey targets, and the number m of significant evaluation indexes is specified from the Friedman test table held in advance by the statistical calculation unit 16 or the like.
  • the obtained fr ( ⁇ ) is compared with the FR amount calculated in step S3305 (S3306).
  • the Friedman test table includes the number of survey targets k, the number m of significant evaluation indexes, and the type that obtains a significant point (limit value) from the significance level ⁇ , the number of survey targets k, and the number of significant evaluation indexes.
  • the latter test table is used when calculating the P value in the selection of supplementary explanation items to be described later.
  • step S3306 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3307), and the inter-survey target significant difference determination process is terminated.
  • FR amount ⁇ fr ( ⁇ ) it is determined that there is a significant difference when FR amount ⁇ fr ( ⁇ )
  • FR amount ⁇ fr ( ⁇ ) 6 ⁇
  • FIG. 19 is a diagram illustrating an example in which a significant difference between five survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • a significant evaluation indicator (“quality of AV equipment”, “attitude of CA”, “luxury of meal”) for the five airlines (airlines 1 to 5) to be surveyed The average value of the evaluation points after conversion of the evaluation data is shown.
  • the rank calculated for the average value of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion in each survey target for each evaluation index, and information on the rank sum obtained by summing the ranks for each survey target are also shown.
  • the obtained ⁇ 2 ( ⁇ , ⁇ ) is compared with the FR amount calculated in step S3308 (S3309).
  • step S3309 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3310), and the inter-survey target significant difference determination process is terminated.
  • FIG. 20 is a diagram illustrating another example in which a significant difference between three survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • three significant evaluation indicators (“quality of AV equipment”, “attitude of CA”, “luxury of meal”) for the three airlines under investigation (airlines 1 to 3)
  • the average value of the evaluation points after conversion of the evaluation data is shown.
  • rank information calculated for the average value of evaluation points after conversion of evaluation data in each survey target is written together for each evaluation index.
  • the average rank of this group is 1.5.
  • the table in FIG. 20 also includes information on the average rank including the calculation result and rank sum obtained by summing up the average rank for each survey target.
  • the FR * amount is calculated by the following equation. (S3312).
  • FR is the FR value obtained by the equation (6), wherein the calculated information rank sum obtained by summing the average rank as R i.
  • j is an integer from 1 to the number m of significant evaluation indexes
  • i is an integer of the number e j of different ranks in the average rank data of the 1st to j-th evaluation indexes.
  • FR * amount 1.27 from Equation 7 above.
  • step S3314 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3314), and the inter-survey target significant difference determination process is terminated.
  • FR * amount ⁇ ⁇ 2 ( ⁇ , ⁇ ) it is determined that there is a significant difference when FR * amount ⁇ ⁇ 2 ( ⁇ , ⁇ ), and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference when FR * amount ⁇ 2 ( ⁇ , ⁇ ). judge.
  • FR * amount 1.27)
  • ⁇ 2 (2,0.05) 5.99 ⁇ Judge that you can not say. That is, it is determined that there is no significant difference in value in the graph of FIG.
  • the product of the number of survey targets k and the number m of significant evaluation indices in the Friedman test with the same rank is less than a predetermined threshold (for example, less than 30 which is generally considered to be inferior in accuracy of statistical calculations). It is not necessary to perform statistical calculation because it is impossible to secure a high accuracy. In this case, it may be determined that there is no significant difference because there is not enough data.
  • a message such as “There is not enough data and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference as a result” may be added. Further, after executing the statistical calculation, for example, a message such as “the accuracy of the result of the statistical calculation is not high” may be added.
  • a statistical significance difference between two survey targets (for example, airlines A and B) among the survey targets that become significant may be determined. Such a determination is also performed on the other two combinations in the survey target that become significant, and for example, a significant difference between all combinations of the two airlines is determined.
  • the data used at this time is the data used in the Friedman test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test described later is performed. Based on this result, it is possible to determine a significant difference between two specific survey targets among the survey targets determined to have a significant difference by the Friedman test. Can be provided.
  • FIG. 21 is a diagram showing an example in which a significant difference between two survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • the average value of the evaluation points after conversion of the evaluation data of the seven evaluation indexes for the two airlines (airlines 1 and 2) to be investigated is shown.
  • the absolute value of the difference between the average values of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion between the two airlines calculated in step S3315 and the positive / negative information of the difference are also shown.
  • information on the rank calculated in step S3316 for the absolute value of the difference is also shown.
  • the WS amount is calculated (S3320).
  • the WS + amount and the WS ⁇ amount are respectively calculated based on the rank order of the difference values and the positive / negative information of the differences obtained in steps S3315 and S3316 of FIG.
  • the WS + amount is a sum of ranks obtained by summing the ranks of the evaluation indexes calculated in steps S3315 and S3316, and the difference between the average values of the evaluation points is positive.
  • the WS ⁇ amount is the average value of the evaluation points.
  • t L ( ⁇ / 2) given by a predetermined significance level ⁇ and N number was specified from the Wilcoxon signed rank test table held in advance by the statistical calculation unit 16 or the like, and obtained.
  • t U (P) is a value obtained by the equation N (N + 1) / 2 ⁇ t L (P), P is a significance level assigned to the limit value, and in the example of FIG. Equivalent to.
  • Wilcoxon signed rank test tables There are two types of Wilcoxon signed rank test tables: a type for obtaining a significant point (limit value) from N number and significance level ⁇ , and a type for obtaining a significance probability (P value) from N number and WS amount. For comparison, the former test table is used. The latter test table is used when calculating the P value in the selection of supplementary explanation items to be described later.
  • step S3321 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3322), and the statistical processing is terminated.
  • t L ( ⁇ / 2) ⁇ WS amount ⁇ t U ( ⁇ / 2)
  • ( ⁇ / 2) ⁇ WS amount it is determined that there is a significant difference.
  • step S3319 in FIG. 17 when the number N of absolute values of the differences is not zero, the WS amount is calculated (S3323).
  • the WS + amount is the WS amount.
  • the u 0 amount is calculated by the following equation (S3324).
  • FIG. 22 is a diagram illustrating another example in which a significant difference between two survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • the average value of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion of 25 evaluation indexes is shown for the two airlines (airlines 1 and 2) to be surveyed, as in FIG. Yes.
  • the absolute value of the difference between the average values of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion between the two airlines calculated in step S3315 and the positive / negative information of the difference are also shown.
  • information on the rank calculated in step S3316 for the absolute value of the difference is also shown.
  • the limit value u ( ⁇ ) is specified from the predetermined significance level ⁇ of the normal distribution table held in advance by the statistical calculation unit 16 or the like, and the obtained u ( ⁇ ) is obtained in step S3324.
  • step S3325 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the survey targets (S3326), and the inter-survey target significant difference determination process is terminated.
  • FIG. 23 is a diagram illustrating another example in which a significant difference between two survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of a significant evaluation index.
  • the average value of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion of the seven evaluation indexes is shown for the two airlines (airlines 1 and 2) to be investigated.
  • the absolute value of the difference between the average values of the evaluation points after the evaluation data conversion between the two airlines calculated in step S3315 and the positive / negative information of the difference are also shown.
  • information on the rank calculated in step S2316 for the absolute value of the difference is also shown.
  • the WS + amount is calculated as the WS amount by the same method as in step S3323.
  • these are described as WS + * amount and WS * amount, respectively (S3328).
  • WS + * amount 20.5
  • WS * amount 20.5
  • the u 0 * amount is calculated by the following equation. (S3329).
  • j is an integer from 1 to the number g of evaluation index groups having the same rank.
  • WS * amount 20.5
  • the total number N of evaluation indexes whose difference is not zero 7
  • u 0 * amount 1.10 from Equation 10.
  • the limit value u ( ⁇ ) is specified from the predetermined significance level ⁇ of the normal distribution table by the same processing as in step S3325 described above, and u ( ⁇ ) obtained is obtained and u 0 * obtained in step S3329.
  • the absolute value of the quantity is compared (S3330).
  • step S3330 it is determined whether or not there is a significant difference between survey targets (S3331), and the inter-survey target significant difference determination process is terminated.
  • a predetermined threshold for example, less than 25, which is generally considered to be inferior in statistical calculation accuracy. Since sufficient accuracy cannot be secured, statistical calculation may not be performed. In this case, it may be determined that there is no significant difference because there is not enough data.
  • a message such as “There is not enough data and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference as a result” may be added. Further, after executing the statistical calculation, for example, a message such as “the accuracy of the result of the statistical calculation is not high” may be added.
  • step S330 statistical calculation for comprehensively determining whether or not there is a significant difference between survey targets using the statistical value after the evaluation data conversion of the evaluation index determined to have a significant difference in step S320.
  • the statistical calculation is performed based on the data including the statistical value after the evaluation data conversion of the evaluation index that cannot be said to have a significant difference, and the overall significant difference between the survey targets is determined. It may be. Alternatively, the difference in value between the survey targets may be evaluated based only on information about the evaluation index determined to have a significant difference without performing the processing.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 specifies the statistical result including the graph to be provided to the user and the comment information attached thereto, and the product obtained in step S206 of FIG. A result output process is performed by attaching to the content information (S340).
  • FIG. 24 is a flowchart showing an outline of an example of the flow of the result output process in step S340 of FIG.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 first determines the statistical results for each evaluation index in step S320 of FIG. 5 and the table or graph created in step S308, the result of the significant difference determination between the survey targets in step S330, and the sufficient Since there is no significant number of data, information on the result of the significant difference determination without statistical calculation is specified (S3401).
  • the evaluation index that becomes significant is, for example, an evaluation index that is determined to have a significant difference in the statistical processing in step S320 of FIG. There is a significant difference in the number of evaluation data, etc., such as an evaluation index (for example, “the accuracy of the result of this statistical calculation is not high”) It is also possible to use a non-added one).
  • step S3409 a comment that recommends selecting a product or the like only by price (that is, selecting a product or the like with a low price) is selected (S3409).
  • a comment for example, “We recommend that you select a cheap product that is not statistically different in value. (If the number of products and services to be compared is 1, "We recommend the product.)”
  • step S3402 if there is a significant evaluation index, it is determined whether the number is 1 (S3403). If there is one significant evaluation index, it is determined whether the user attaches importance to the significant evaluation index (S3404). For this, for example, a screen for inquiring the user via the user terminal 30 may be output and an answer may be input, or in advance when selecting or inputting a product or the like in step S203 of FIG. You may make it designate the evaluation index to attach importance.
  • step S3404 if the user attaches importance to one evaluation index that is significant, the user selects a comment that recommends selecting a product with a low price and a high evaluation of the significant evaluation index (S3410). .
  • the user selects a comment that recommends selecting a product with a low price and a high evaluation of the significant evaluation index (S3410).
  • the evaluation index that the customer emphasizes is highly evaluated and the price in the lower right area of the graph is high. It is recommended to select a service.
  • step S3404 If it is determined in step S3404 that the user does not place importance on one evaluation index that has become significant, it is further determined whether or not an evaluation index other than the evaluation index is emphasized (S3405).
  • an evaluation index other than the evaluation index similarly to step S3404, for example, a screen for inquiring the user via the user terminal 30 may be output and an answer may be input, or a product or the like is selected / input in step S203 of FIG. It is also possible to specify an evaluation index to be prioritized when performing the process.
  • step S3405 If it is determined in step S3405 that the user attaches importance to an evaluation index that is not significant, the process proceeds to step S3409 described above to select a comment that recommends a product with a low price. Alternatively, it may be recommended that the evaluation and price of an insignificant evaluation index emphasized by the user are shown as reference information and a product or the like is selected at the user's discretion.
  • An example of a comment in this case is, for example, “If the evaluation index that the customer places importance on is statistically not significantly different between the target products / services, As long as it is used as a reference indicator in the selection of products and services, "
  • step S3405 If it is determined in step S3405 that the user does not attach importance to any evaluation index that is not significant, the process proceeds to step S3410 described above, and a product with a low price and a high evaluation of a significant evaluation index (see FIG. 15B).
  • a comment that recommends that you select a product or the like plotted in the lower right area.
  • “Since an evaluation index having a statistically significant difference was found between the target products / services, a product / service in the lower right area of the graph that has a high evaluation and a low price is selected. It is recommended that the message "
  • step S3403 it is determined whether the user places importance on any of the evaluation indexes that become significant as in step S3404 (S3406).
  • a screen for inquiring the user via the user terminal 30 may be output and an answer may be input, or a product or the like is selected / input in step S203 of FIG. It is also possible to specify an evaluation index to be prioritized when performing the process.
  • step S3406 if any of the evaluation indexes that the user has made significant is valued, a product with a low price and a high evaluation (evaluation point average value is high) for the evaluation index emphasized by the user is selected.
  • a comment recommended to be selected is selected (S3411). Specifically, for example, in the radar chart centered on the price and each evaluation index as shown in FIG. 15A created in step S308 of FIG. It is recommended to select products with high average values and low prices. As a comment, for example, “Since it can be said that there is a statistically significant difference in the evaluation index that the customer emphasizes, select a product / service with a high average evaluation score and a low price on the radar chart. It ’s recommended that you do this. ”
  • step S3406 If it is determined in step S3406 that neither of the evaluation indexes that have become significant is emphasized by the user, it is further determined whether or not the evaluation indexes other than the evaluation index that has become significant are emphasized (S3407).
  • a screen for inquiring the user via the user terminal 30 may be output and an answer may be input, or a product or the like is selected / input in step S203 of FIG. It is also possible to specify an evaluation index to be prioritized when performing the process.
  • step S3407 If it is determined in step S3407 that the user attaches importance to an evaluation index that is not significant, the process proceeds to step S3409 described above, and a comment that recommends that a product or the like with a low price is selected. Alternatively, it may be recommended that the evaluation and price of an insignificant evaluation index emphasized by the user are shown as reference information and a product or the like is selected at the user's discretion.
  • An example of a comment in this case is, for example, “If the evaluation index that the customer places importance on is statistically not significantly different between the target products / services, As long as it is used as a reference indicator in the selection of products and services, "
  • step S3407 If it is determined in step S3407 that the user does not place importance on any evaluation index that is not significant, the result of the comprehensive significant difference determination between the survey targets in step S330 in FIG. It is determined whether or not there is a significant difference (S3408). If there is a significant difference overall, the process proceeds to step S3410 described above, and a comment that recommends that a product or the like with a low price and a high evaluation of a significant evaluation index is selected. That is, for example, it is recommended to select a product or the like plotted in the lower right area in the graph shown in FIG.
  • step S3408 If it is determined in step S3408 that there is no comprehensive difference between the survey targets, the process proceeds to step S3409, and a comment that recommends a product with a low price is selected.
  • the statistical result information including the graph as shown in FIG. 15 and the selected comment are collected in a predetermined format, and the result Information is transmitted and output to the user terminal 30 together with information such as the product acquired in step S206 of FIG. 3 (S3412).
  • the user can refer to and check the result of the value evaluation of the product etc. (step of FIG. 5) S310).
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 inquires about the evaluation index information to be emphasized to the user via the user terminal 30 and comments as necessary. Although selected, a program for executing a result output process and selecting a comment may be transmitted as a client program to the user terminal 30 and processed locally on the user terminal 30 side.
  • FIG. 25 is a diagram illustrating an example of a table expressing the determination contents of the result output process. Users can grasp the recommended content as selection criteria for products, etc., by referring to a combination of such judgment patterns in a tabular format and statistical results. It is possible to select a product or the like more accurately after understanding the overall image of the selection criteria.
  • a comment for recommending relative value judgment to the user may be added.
  • An example of such a comment is, “Value evaluation data is inherently non-parametric data, and thus may not accurately represent a difference in values. It is recommended to make a reasonable decision ”.
  • the user when the user determines a product to be purchased or the like, the user refers to and confirms the result output by the value evaluation server 10 by the above-described series of processing, so that the statistical data existing between the survey targets can be obtained.
  • the evaluation index having a significant difference, the average value of the evaluation points, and the price can be grasped at the same time, and the relationship between the value of the product etc. and the price can be recognized more accurately.
  • other evaluation indexes having no significant difference can be excluded from the value determination indexes of products and the like, and the value of products and the like can be grasped more clearly and simply.
  • the quality of AV equipment there are three significant evaluation indexes: the quality of AV equipment, the attitude of CA, and the luxury of meals.
  • users who place emphasis on indicators other than these three value indicators are not significant, and therefore between airlines 1 to 3 Then, it can be considered that there is no big difference, and it becomes possible to select based on the price alone.
  • the average score of the three evaluation indices is calculated for each airline. From the graph as shown in FIG. 15B in which the numerical value obtained by simple averaging and the price are compared, the relationship between the value of the product and the price can be grasped. In the graph of FIG. 15B, it can be seen that the products and the like in the high-value and low-price area (the lower right area of the graph) are generally bargain products.
  • the horizontal axis is a value obtained by simply averaging the evaluation score average values of the indicators that became significant for each survey target, and it cannot be said that the accuracy is high as a value indicator. Therefore, in the significant difference determination process between the survey targets in step S330 of FIG. 5, there is a statistically significant difference directly between the survey targets from the average value of the evaluation data converted of the plurality of significant evaluation indexes. Whether or not is comprehensively determined. If it cannot be said that there is a significant difference overall, it is recommended not to use the graph but to select products by price alone, and if there is a significant difference, it is recommended to select products by referring to the graph.
  • step S330 the significant difference determination process between investigation object of step S330 is performed when there are a plurality of evaluation indexes that are significant by the determination in step S309, and when there is one significant index, step S320 is performed. This is not done because it can be substituted with the result of significant difference determination in the statistical processing. However, it may be carried out when the significant difference between the survey targets is comprehensively determined by performing the significant difference determination process between the survey targets in step S330 including the evaluation index that is not significant in step S320.
  • FIG. 26 is a flowchart showing an outline of an example of the flow of the evaluation history information recording process (step S04 in FIG. 2) in the value evaluation server 10.
  • the user outputs information indicating the relationship between the price difference between the value of the product such as the graph and the price, the statistical result, the product information, and the like,
  • the recommended method for selecting a product or the like is referred to or confirmed via the user terminal 30 to determine a product or the like to be purchased.
  • the user uses the user terminal 30 to make a payment for the product, etc., for which purchase has been decided by a predetermined method such as Internet banking, credit card, electronic money, etc.
  • the user terminal 30 inputs necessary information such as information related to the payment such as the option made, and transmits the purchase payment information related to the determined product to the value evaluation server 10 (S401).
  • the value evaluation server 10 Upon receiving the purchase settlement information, the value evaluation server 10 transfers a copy of the purchase settlement information to the product providing system 20 of the sales destination of the target product or the like (S402).
  • the product etc. providing system 20 that has received the purchase settlement information performs sales and settlement processing on the target product etc. based on the contents of the received purchase settlement information, and transmits the processing result including the sales settlement information to the value evaluation server 10. (S403).
  • the sales settlement information includes, for example, the contents of the target product, seller information, sales amount, purchased user information, and the like.
  • the value evaluation server 10 Upon receiving the sales settlement information, the value evaluation server 10 confirms that the target product etc., price, and other sales conditions are the same for the sales settlement information and the purchase settlement information received in step S402. Further, the questionnaire processing unit 15 specifies and extracts information on a questionnaire for inputting an evaluation for the target product or the like from the questionnaire DB 105 (S404).
  • the contents of the questionnaire may include, for example, a plurality of uniform question items corresponding to any product. However, in this case, all respondents may not be able to fill in an appropriate answer to a special question focused on individual products, or no answer may be entered. If these are used for statistical calculations, accuracy will be reduced. Result. Further, in the determination process of the lower limit value in step S303 in FIG. 5 (and step S6201 in FIG. 32 in the second embodiment to be described later), value index data less than the lower limit value is increased, which increases the calculation load of the computer and the calculation speed. To slow down. Therefore, it is desirable that the contents of the questionnaire include a plurality of suitable question items in association with the type of product or the like.
  • the questionnaire processing unit 15 transmits the extracted questionnaire information and the sales settlement information received from the product providing system 20 to the user terminal 30 (S405).
  • the information to be transmitted may include help information related to a questionnaire input method and the like.
  • the user terminal 30 receives the information and outputs it to the user, so that the user inputs, uses, uses, or consumes the purchased product, etc., and then inputs an evaluation of the product, etc. into the questionnaire can do.
  • the input time of the questionnaire may be before or during use, use, consumption, etc., as long as it is a timing at which the purchased products can be evaluated appropriately.
  • the inputted questionnaire information is transmitted from the user terminal 30 to the value evaluation server 10 (S406).
  • the value evaluation server 10 extracts the contents of the questionnaire input by the questionnaire processing unit 15 and records it in the evaluation history DB 104 in association with the product etc. as evaluation information for the target product etc. (S407).
  • the questionnaire processing unit 15 transmits the questionnaire again to the user terminal 30 when the questionnaire input result cannot be received even after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the transmission of the questionnaire in step S405. You may ask for a reminder.
  • a questionnaire file in which the contents of a question and an answer column for evaluating each evaluation index are described is transmitted from the value evaluation server 10 to the user terminal 30, and the user
  • the file can be configured to be returned to the value evaluation server 10.
  • an HTML that displays the contents of the question on a web browser (not shown) on the user terminal 30 and receives input answer data
  • the questionnaire information may be configured as a file or the like. Further, a configuration may be adopted in which a questionnaire is conducted by telephone, FAX, mail, etc., and an answer content is input to the evaluation history DB 104 of the value evaluation server 10 by an operator or the like.
  • FIG. 27 is a diagram showing an example of the contents of a questionnaire presented to the user.
  • a questionnaire input screen is displayed on the Web browser on the user terminal 30 and the response content input by the user is acquired.
  • a method for inputting evaluation data etc., for example, a method of directly inputting numerical values such as evaluation points and satisfaction within a predetermined range (such as “0 to 100”), or a suitable expression (representing the degree and state)
  • Method of selecting an evaluation by selecting a radio button corresponding to a phrase, numerical range, etc. a method of directly inputting a count value such as the number of defects or a probability, a method of directly inputting a measurement value such as time or length, etc. Is included.
  • the meanings of the numerical values are different for each evaluation index, for example, 80 evaluation points (points) and 80 measurement values (minutes, etc.). Therefore, for example, when analyzing statistical calculation or the like in the processing of steps S320 and S330 in FIG. 5, evaluation data conversion is performed to convert the evaluation index into a value having a unified magnitude relationship with respect to value. Further, when calculating the rank, a unified rank is calculated for the value after the evaluation data conversion.
  • ascending order is used in which the order is given in ascending order of values.
  • the original evaluation data in the present embodiment, by performing inverse conversion of the evaluation data conversion, etc.
  • FIG. 28 is a diagram showing an example of a table in which evaluation data conversion rules and ranking rules are defined for each type of numerical value of the evaluation index.
  • the evaluation data conversion rule a method of converting the evaluation data in association with each type of evaluation index is defined. For example, since the numerical value originally inputted to the questionnaire takes a value of 0 to 100, for example, if the conversion formula of “100 ⁇ (original evaluation score value)” is used as the evaluation data conversion rule, the original evaluation score When the point is 80, the converted value is 20. When the evaluation data conversion rule is “10 times”, the original value is multiplied by 10. In the case of “no conversion”, the original values are ranked as they are without conversion. In the case of “sign inversion”, the original value is inverted by multiplying the sign of the converted value by ( ⁇ 1) or the like.
  • the ranking rules are defined in association with each type of evaluation index.
  • the ascending order is a rule in which the smallest value among the numerical values entered in the questionnaire is ranked first
  • the descending order is a rule in which the largest value among the numerical values entered in the questionnaire is ranked first.
  • the value evaluation server 10 holds the information of such a table in the form of a file or the like in advance, so that the statistical calculation unit 13 is based on, for example, a unified ranking rule (ascending order in the present embodiment).
  • a rule is defined for each evaluation index numerical type, but there are also cases where the same type has different rules. For example, some measured values are not necessarily in ascending order. For example, the waiting time (minutes) from the completion of boarding at the departure airport to the actual takeoff is higher in evaluation value as the value is smaller and is in ascending order. Even with the same count value, the pass rate is in descending order, but the defect rate is in ascending order. Therefore, rules are defined for each evaluation index.
  • a product sold at a retail store such as a supermarket is purchased and settled by a user at home via the Internet, and the product is actually received at the store or delivered to the user by a sales agent.
  • the value of goods and services is influenced by retail stores and sales agents. Therefore, in the present embodiment, the business operators involved in the sales of these products are targeted for investigation.
  • an evaluation index indicating value satisfaction with retailers and sales agents, i.e. satisfaction with all products sold by retailers and sales agents or all services performed, is an example. Instead, a more specific evaluation index such as the freshness of the product may be used.
  • the present invention can also be applied to other combinations such as a manufacturer and a retail store, or a retail store and its sales products.
  • two groups of a survey target group A for example, retail store 1, 2, etc And a survey target group B (for example, sales agent 1, 2,8) Each having a plurality of survey targets.
  • a survey target group A for example, retail store 1, 2,
  • a survey target group B for example, sales agent 1, 2,
  • one evaluation index is compared for each combination of survey targets between survey target groups, and it is determined whether there is a statistically significant difference between the survey targets.
  • three or more survey target groups exist for example, two survey target groups selected based on conditions specified by the user can be targeted.
  • the Friedman test described above is used.
  • FIG. 29 is a diagram showing an outline of a configuration example of the value evaluation support system according to the second embodiment of the present invention.
  • the value evaluation support system 1 basically has the same configuration as the system configuration of the first embodiment shown in FIG.
  • the seller having the product providing system 20 (20a, b in the example of FIG. 29) and the product content DB 201 (201a, b in the example of FIG. 29) is a retail store such as a supermarket.
  • the sales agent has a plurality of sales agent systems 21 (21a, b in the example of FIG. 29), which is an information processing system for providing a product sales agent service on behalf of the supermarket. Yes.
  • Each sales agent system 21 stores information for performing sales agent in the agent content DB 211 (211a, b in the example of FIG. 29).
  • the value evaluation server 10 basically has the same functional blocks as the functional blocks of the first embodiment shown in FIG.
  • the seller DB 101 is a table that holds information related to the seller (supermarket) and the merchandise providing system 20 of the seller. For example, the seller DB, the name of the person in charge, the address, the telephone number, the FAX number, This includes personal information such as an e-mail address, user ID, and password, and sales information such as payment terms.
  • the user DB 102 is a table that holds information related to users. For example, name, age, date of birth, address, gender, telephone number, FAX number, e-mail address, ID used in the value evaluation support system 1 And personal information such as account information such as passwords.
  • a list of retailers and sales agents that the user wants to request for quotations a list of priorities for requesting sellers / representatives with a priority order, a request for quotations schedule that indicates the user's plan to request a quotation, and usage
  • Purchased product history that shows the actual purchase history of the user, list of requested products that the user wants to request a quote for, quote request service list that lists the agency services that the user wants to request for a quote, and value for the user
  • a comparative value evaluation index used for comparison, purchase information such as a payment method, and the like are included.
  • the product etc. DB 103 is a table that holds information related to the product etc. extracted from each product etc. providing system 20, for example, product name, grade, number of pieces, contents, production area, product image, description, etc. Information etc. are included.
  • information related to the sales agent is added to the contents of the evaluation history DB 104 and the questionnaire DB 105 in the first embodiment.
  • the value evaluation server 10 further includes an agent DB 106.
  • the agent DB is a table that holds information related to the sales agent and the sales agent system 21 of the sales agent. For example, the sales agent name, address, telephone number, person in charge name, telephone number, FAX number, Personal information such as e-mail address, account information such as ID and password used in the value evaluation support system 1, contents and conditions of agency services, service information such as range, time zone, handling amount, sales information such as payment conditions, etc. Is included.
  • FIG. 30 is a flowchart showing an overview of an example of the flow of main processing in the value evaluation server 10.
  • an initial registration process for registering information of a seller, a sales agent, and a user is performed (S05).
  • an administrator, an operator, or the like may initially register these pieces of information in each DB of the value evaluation server 10, or a seller who does not have a user ID used in the value evaluation support system 1 or a sales agent.
  • Initial registration may be performed when there is an access from a user or a user.
  • the seller information including personal information other than the user ID
  • the registration information input to the DB of the sales agent information or the user information is received, After these information is formally registered in the DB, a user ID is issued and a password is registered.
  • the quotation request seller / agent priority order list, and the quotation request commodity list information including the price related to the target product for the quotation request, It is obtained by inquiring the product providing system 20 or each sales agent system 21 and obtaining statistical information by extracting evaluation history information about the target investigation object (seller and sales agent) from the evaluation history DB 104.
  • a price / value survey process is performed to survey (S06).
  • S07 we conduct a survey on the value of purchased products, etc., sellers, and sales agents for users who select and purchase products, sellers, and sales agents, and record information related to the results
  • the evaluation history information recording process is performed (S07), and the series of processes is terminated.
  • FIG. 31 is a flowchart showing an overview of an example of the flow of price / value survey processing (step S06 in FIG. 30) in the value evaluation server 10.
  • the value evaluation server 10 uses the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 according to the estimate request schedule for each user by periodically referring to the information of the estimate request schedule registered in the user DB 102 by each user.
  • the estimate request process is automatically started (S601). Instead of automatic activation based on the quotation request schedule, the user may manually request a quotation request from the value evaluation server 10 via the user terminal 30, and may be activated as a trigger.
  • the product etc. information acquiring unit 11 specifies the seller and the sales agent registered in the quotation request seller / representative priority list registered in the user DB 102 by the target user as the survey target (S602). ).
  • the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 extracts evaluation data related to the evaluation index associated with the investigation target specified in step S602 from the evaluation history DB 104 (S603).
  • the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 extracts evaluation data related to the evaluation index associated with the investigation target specified in step S602 from the evaluation history DB 104 (S603).
  • the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 extracts evaluation data related to the evaluation index associated with the investigation target specified in step S602 from the evaluation history DB 104 (S603).
  • the evaluation history information acquisition unit 12 extracts evaluation data related to the evaluation index associated with the investigation target specified in step S602 from the evaluation history DB 104 (S603).
  • FIG. 32 is a flowchart showing an overview of an example of the flow of matrix creation processing in step S620 of FIG.
  • the statistical calculation unit 13 first starts a loop process that repeats the process for each of all combinations of the two types of survey targets (seller and sales agent) identified in step S602. .
  • each loop process first, the number of evaluation data (satisfaction with the combination of the seller and the sales agent) to be processed in the loop is counted, and a predetermined lower limit is set. It is determined whether or not the value is greater than or equal to the value (S6201). If it is less than the lower limit value, the process proceeds to the process for the next combination to be investigated in the loop process.
  • the lower limit value a minimum number (for example, 2) that can be randomly extracted, which will be described later, is set.
  • step S6201 If it is determined in step S6201 that the number of data is greater than or equal to the lower limit, it is next determined whether the number of data is less than or equal to a preset upper limit (S6202).
  • the upper limit value is, for example, a value obtained by subtracting 1 from the minimum number that is generally recognized as the number of populations (the number of populations), as in step S304 of FIG. 5 of the first embodiment. (For example, 600,000) is set. If the number of data is less than or equal to the upper limit value, the process advances to step S6204 for all data as processing targets. On the other hand, if the number of data exceeds the upper limit, the upper limit several pieces of data are extracted from the latest evaluation data in order from the latest, and are processed (S6203), and the process proceeds to step S6204.
  • step S6204 a predetermined number is randomly extracted from the data to be processed using a random number table or the like previously stored in the value evaluation server 10 (S6204). That is, a predetermined number of evaluation data of 1 or more and (the number of evaluation data to be processed ⁇ 1) or less is randomly extracted. Note that if the number of data is less than the lower limit in step S6201, random extraction cannot be performed in this step, and as a result, the number of data extraction is zero (ie, missing data) for the survey target combination. Become. Thereafter, the process proceeds to the process for the next combination to be investigated in a loop process.
  • a matrix table of evaluation data for two types of survey targets is created (S6205).
  • the value converted by the evaluation data conversion rule shown in FIG. 28 is used as the evaluation data used in the matrix table.
  • the average value of these evaluation data is set at a corresponding position on the matrix table.
  • Other statistical values such as a median value and a mode value may be used instead of the average value. If there is one randomly extracted value after evaluation data conversion, the value of the evaluation data is set at a corresponding position on the matrix table. If random data cannot be extracted and the data is missing, the missing data (for example, a NULL value) is set at a corresponding position on the matrix table.
  • step S6205 the number of missing data is counted for each row and column of the matrix table created in step S6205 (S6206).
  • step S6206 it is determined whether or not there is missing data in the result counted in step S6206 (S6207). If there is missing data, the row or column with the most missing data in the matrix table (sales agent or seller). Is deleted (S6208). At this time, if there are a plurality of corresponding rows or columns, the row or column corresponding to the seller or sales agent having a low priority is deleted.
  • the priority order for the seller and the sales agent is determined based on the quotation request seller / agent priority list registered in the user DB 102 in the initial registration process in step S05 of FIG.
  • 33 and 34 are diagrams showing an example of deleting a row or column with missing data from the matrix table of the combination of the seller and the sales agent created in step S6205 of FIG.
  • an example of the order in which rows or columns with missing data are deleted in a matrix table composed of combinations of seven sellers (sellers A to G) and seven sales agents (agents a to g) Shows about.
  • the upper table of FIG. 33 shows an example of the matrix table created in step S6205 of FIG. 32.
  • the representatives ag are each row, the sellers Ag are each column, and the rows and columns are shown.
  • Each combination (combination of each seller and sales agent) has an average value of satisfaction after conversion of evaluation data for these.
  • the priorities in the table are priorities for sellers and sales agents set in the quotation request seller / agent priority list registered in the user DB 102. In the example of FIGS. 33 and 34, the priority is set in order from the first place for the sales agent and the entire seller (row and column).
  • the matrix table also includes information on the number of missing data in each row and each column counted in step S6206 in FIG.
  • step S6208 A table obtained by counting the number of missing data in step S6206 of FIG. 32 with respect to the deleted matrix table is shown in the lower table of FIG.
  • a table obtained by counting the number of missing data in the deleted matrix table is shown in the upper table of FIG.
  • a table in the middle of FIG. 34 shows the number of missing data counted in the deleted matrix table.
  • the matrix table of the deleted result is shown in the lower part of FIG. Since there is no missing data in this matrix table, this is the final matrix table.
  • the order of priority is set in order from the first place for the sales agent and the seller (row and column) as a whole, but each sales agent and each seller (each row and each column). ) May be set individually in order from the first. That is, the priority order may be set in order from the first place for each sales agent, and the priority order may be set in order from the first place for each seller.
  • the sales agent (row) and the seller (column) may have the same value with the lowest priority. Come. Therefore, in this case, one row or column is selected according to a predetermined rule set in advance.
  • a rule such as deleting sellers (columns) preferentially (treating sellers with lower priority than agents) is set, and in the initial registration process of step S05 in FIG.
  • the information is registered in advance in the user DB 102, for example, by adding the information to the estimate request seller / agent priority list.
  • step S6207 if there is no missing data (has been lost), that is, if all the rows and columns with missing data have been deleted, the deleted columns and rows (seller or sales agent).
  • the deletion rate is calculated, and it is determined whether or not the deletion rate is less than a predetermined threshold (S6209).
  • the deletion rate is a percentage of the number of columns or rows deleted in the matrix table divided by the number of columns or rows before deletion. Alternatively, a percentage obtained by dividing the total of deleted columns and rows by the total of columns and rows before deletion may be used.
  • the predetermined threshold is a percentage at which the minimum number of survey targets to be evaluated can be secured.
  • step S6209 half of the number of sellers or sales agents registered in the quotation request seller / agent priority list of the user DB 102 A value indicating 50% is used. If the deletion rate is less than the threshold value in step S6209, the matrix creation process ends. In this case, Friedman's test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test is performed in the statistical processing in step S630 in FIG.
  • the statistical calculation unit 13 is equal to or higher than the lower limit value of the number of data used for the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Wilcoxon test (for example, the lower limit value similar to that set in step S303 in FIG. 5 of the first embodiment).
  • the number S of survey targets having the number of data is counted for each survey target group (S6210). Specifically, among the survey targets extracted in step S603 of FIG. 31, the number of items whose total number of evaluation index data possessed by the survey target is equal to or greater than the above lower limit value is counted.
  • step S6210 it is determined whether or not the number of survey targets in the corresponding survey target group in the matrix table from which all missing values are deleted is less than the number S of survey targets calculated in step S6210 (S6211). If it is less than S, the matrix creation process ends. In this case, for each survey target that is counted in step S6210, for example, a predetermined number of samples are extracted by the process shown in steps S304 to S306 in FIG. The Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon test is performed in the statistical processing of S630.
  • step S6211 if the number of survey targets in the corresponding survey target group in the matrix table from which all missing values are deleted in step S6211 is greater than or equal to the number S of survey targets calculated in step S6210, the table is further displayed on the matrix table. It is determined whether there is data, that is, whether there are any remaining rows or columns (S6212). If there is data on the matrix table, that is, if there are remaining rows or columns, the matrix processing is terminated. In this case, Friedman test or Wilcoxon signed rank test is performed in the statistical processing in step S630 in FIG.
  • step S6212 If there is no data on the matrix table in step S6212, that is, if all the rows and columns of the matrix table have been deleted by the series of processing in steps S6206 to S6208, a message to stop the processing is displayed.
  • the data is output to the user terminal 30, and the entire process is terminated (S6213). Examples of such messages include a message such as "Cannot be calculated due to lack of recorded data. Please review the contents of the quotation request seller / substitute priority list and request a quotation again.” can do.
  • the user terminal 30 notifies the user by outputting the message by screen display or voice.
  • the matrix creation process may be ended, and the process may proceed to an estimate request in step S604 in FIG.
  • the statistical processing in step S630 after the request for quotation in step S604 in FIG. 31 is not performed, the statistical result regarding the value evaluation is not output to the user.
  • An estimate request is transmitted to (S604).
  • the quote request to be transmitted is, for example, the product etc. information acquisition unit 11 based on the quote request product list or the quote request service list registered in advance in the user DB 102 in the initial registration process in step S05 of FIG. Can be created.
  • the product etc. providing system 20 or the sales agent system 21 to which the quotation request is transmitted have an interface for accepting the quotation request online, a file including the contents of the quotation request is transmitted. Instead, an estimate request may be input automatically or manually using the interface.
  • FIG. 35 is a diagram showing an example of an estimate request transmitted to the seller's product etc. providing system 20.
  • each item for which an estimate request is made is set in the estimate request item list registered in the user DB 102 in advance.
  • attribute information of the target product such as the product name, production area, grade, and size
  • purchase information such as the planned number of purchases and the planned purchase date and time are set.
  • the scheduled purchase date and time may be specified by a relative date and time such as “after the estimated date and time”, for example, instead of the absolute date and time.
  • FIG. 36 is a diagram showing an example of an estimate request transmitted to the sales agent system 21.
  • identification information such as IDs of sales agents and users to which a quote request is transmitted, based on contents set in a quote request service list registered in advance in the user DB 102.
  • Information such as the purchase date / time, delivery date / time, and delivery destination, and a list of sellers to be subjected to the agency service are set.
  • the IDs and names of the sellers and sales agents are set based on the contents registered in the seller DB 101 and the agent DB 106.
  • the purchase date / time and delivery date / time are not specified by the absolute date / time, for example, relative to each other such as “after XX hours after the estimated date / time” or “after XX hours after the purchase date / time”. It may be specified by date and time. Further, the list of sellers may be limited to the seller who has transmitted the request for quotation in step S604 of FIG.
  • the product providing system 20 or the sales agent system 21 that has received the request for quotation specifies the target product from the content of the request for quotation, and includes the price of the target product or agent service from the product content DB 201 or the agent content DB 211. Is extracted and transmitted to the value evaluation server 10 as an estimate (S605).
  • the processing may be manually performed by a seller or a sales agent.
  • the merchandise provision system 20 of the seller who has received the quote request identifies the target product etc. from the contents of the quote request, and extracts price and inventory information of the merchandise etc. from the merchandise content DB 201. . Thereafter, based on the planned number of purchases specified in the estimate request and the unit price extracted from the product etc. content DB 201, a subtotal, an estimated total amount, a consumption tax, and the like are calculated. In addition, information such as sales products that are not subject to estimation, advertisements / sale / feature products, products selected based on the purchase history of the target user, and the like are attached and transmitted to the value evaluation server 10 as an estimate.
  • the selection of the product based on the purchase history may be performed using the purchase information of the user in the past recorded in the product etc. content DB 201, or the value evaluation server 10 uses the product information acquisition unit 11 to provide the product etc. providing system.
  • the product selected using the purchased product history information in the user DB 102 may be added to the quote request in advance.
  • FIG. 37 is a diagram showing an example of an estimate created by the seller's product etc. providing system 20.
  • the information of the estimate request in FIG. 35 received from the value evaluation server 10 and information such as the number of items for sale, unit price, subtotal, estimated total amount (bold frame in the figure) Item) is added for estimation.
  • the product providing system 20 does not add information to the column of the planned purchase number and purchase date and time of unquoted products.
  • the sales agent system 21 of the sales agent who has received the quotation request specifies the content of the sales agent service of the agent or the like acting on the basis of the content of the quotation request, and extracts the corresponding service fee from the agent content DB 211. Based on the extracted information, the content of the portion related to the charge (the item in the thick frame in the figure) is supplemented to the content of the request for quotation in FIG. 36 received from the value evaluation server 10, and the value evaluation server 10 is estimated. Send to.
  • the value evaluation server 10 transmits an estimate request to the product etc. providing system 20 or the sales agent system 21 in step S604 to obtain an estimate, while the statistical calculation unit 13 creates the matrix table created in step S620.
  • Statistical processing is performed to test whether there is a significant difference for each of the above survey targets (seller and sales agent) (S630).
  • the statistical calculation method is the same as that in FIGS. 16 and 17 of the first embodiment when the Friedman test or Wilcoxon signed rank test is performed. That is, when comparing a plurality of evaluation indexes for three or more survey targets, the same as the Friedman test performed in step S3302 and subsequent steps in FIG. 16, and for the two survey targets, Wilcoxon performed in step S3315 and subsequent steps in FIG. This is the same as the signed rank test.
  • FIG. 38 is a diagram showing an example in which a significant difference between two types of survey target groups each having five survey targets is determined by statistical calculation from the value of the evaluation index.
  • the evaluation data is converted into a matrix table of combinations of five sellers (sellers A to E) and five sales agents (agents a to e) to be investigated. Average values of satisfaction (0 to 100 points) are shown.
  • the sales agent group is calculated, and in the middle right table, the seller group is calculated with respect to the ranking calculated for the average value of satisfaction after conversion of the evaluation data (same sales agent).
  • FIG. 38 shows an example in which the Friedman test is performed on both the seller and the sales agent.
  • FIG. 38 shows an example in the case where there is no same rank in the ranks calculated for the survey target.
  • the FR amount is calculated by the same process as step S3308 in FIG.
  • the number of survey targets for example, the number of sellers
  • k 5
  • the number of evaluation data in each survey target for example, the number of sales agents for the seller
  • the FR amount is 10.72 in the case of determining the significant difference between the agents in the left table.
  • the FR amount 3.20.
  • step S3310 of FIG. 16 it is determined whether there is a significant difference between the investigation targets based on the comparison result, and the statistical process is terminated.
  • each survey target in a survey target group different from the survey target group subjected to the significant difference test corresponds to each evaluation index in the first embodiment.
  • the number k of the investigation objects to be tested for significance is 1, the statistical calculation is not performed, and it is determined that there is no significant difference because there is no investigation object to be compared.
  • a message such as “There is no investigation target to be compared, and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference as a result” may be added.
  • the Wilcoxon signed rank test is used as a significant difference test between any two survey subjects in the survey target group that becomes significant as in the first embodiment. You may go further.
  • the significance test is performed by the same processing as the statistical processing shown in FIGS. 6 and 7 of the first embodiment. That is, when comparing three or more survey targets, a significant difference test is performed by the same process as the Kruskal-Wallis test performed in step S3219 and subsequent steps in FIG. For the two survey targets, a significant difference test is performed by the same process as the Wilcoxon signed rank test performed in step S3202 and subsequent steps in FIG. In addition, when performing the same statistical calculation for the two types of survey target groups, it is performed for each group.
  • FIG. 39 is a diagram showing an example of combinations of test means when the deletion rate exceeds the threshold and the number S of survey targets is larger than the number of survey targets in the matrix table after all missing values are deleted.
  • the row and column in the initial matrix table created in step S6205 the number (the number of surveyed) S p and a series of steps S6206 ⁇ S6208 Survey with the number of survey targets S a in the matrix table after deleting rows and columns with missing data by processing, the deletion rate calculated in step S6209, and the number of data greater than or equal to the predetermined lower limit calculated in step S6210
  • the method of the test corresponding to the combination of the number S of objects is shown.
  • the threshold value of the deletion rate in step S6209 in FIG. 32 is 50%, for the combination of the number of survey targets before and after deletion of rows and columns with missing data in the matrix table.
  • the corresponding Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon test is shown.
  • the deletion rate is greater than or equal to the threshold in step S6209 in FIG. 32, and the number of survey targets in the matrix table after deletion of rows and columns with missing data is smaller than S in step S6211. In some cases, it can be determined whether to perform Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon test.
  • step S6209 to S6211 of FIG. 32 is not provided, and it is also possible to perform dedicated processing for the Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed rank test, or the Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon test, respectively. is there.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 receives the product etc. from the merchandise providing system 20 of the seller or the sales agent sales agent system 21 that transmitted the request for quotation in step S ⁇ b> 604.
  • Estimate information including information on the price, inventory, etc., and based on this information and the result of statistical calculation in step S630, the price and value for each survey target (evaluated based on the target evaluation index)
  • a table or graph in which the values can be compared is created (S606).
  • the rank of the statistical value of the value after the evaluation data conversion, the statistical value of the value before the conversion of the evaluation data, or the statistical value of the value after the conversion of the evaluation data can be used. .
  • step S630 If there is insufficient information in the received estimate information, or if the estimate information is not received within a predetermined time, the row or column including the sender (seller or sales agent) of the estimate is changed to the step of FIG. Delete from the matrix table created in S620, and re-execute the statistical processing in step S630. Then, the graph creation of step S606 is performed. In order to avoid re-execution of such statistical processing, the value evaluation server 10 targets the sender of the estimated information included in the matrix table created in step S620 after receiving the estimated information in step S605. As described above, the statistical processing in step S630 may be performed.
  • FIG. 40 is a diagram showing an example of the relationship between the price (estimated price) and the value (value evaluated based on the target evaluation index) for each survey target in a tabular format and a graph.
  • estimated price information and evaluation indices are obtained.
  • This shows an example in which information on the sum of ranks based on (degree) (for example, the rank sum shown in the middle table of FIG. 38) is represented in a table format.
  • the table also includes information on the significant difference between the survey targets determined by the statistical processing in step S630 in FIG. 31 and information on the presence or absence of graph display. Note that the graph may be created only when it is determined that there is a significant difference between the survey targets.
  • FIG. 40B since it is determined that there is a significant difference in evaluation index between sellers in FIG. 40A, this is based on price (estimated price) and value (target evaluation index (satisfaction)).
  • the example shows the relationship of (evaluated value) in a scatter diagram.
  • the estimated price is on the vertical axis
  • the value of the sum of ranks based on the satisfaction after the evaluation data conversion is on the horizontal axis.
  • a scatter diagram for the two survey targets may be shown.
  • a scatter diagram of one three-dimensional for example, the estimated price is Z-axis, the seller's rank sum value is the X-axis, the sales agent rank sum value is the Y-axis) for the two survey target groups is shown. Also good.
  • FIG. 41 is a flowchart showing an overview of an example of the flow of the result output process in step S640 of FIG.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 first identifies the result of the statistical processing in step S630 or the information of the table or graph created in step S606, and based on these, there is a significant difference in evaluation index between sellers. It is determined whether or not (S6401).
  • step S6401 if there is a significant difference in evaluation index between sellers, the price is low and the value of the rank sum is small, that is, the seller with the highest degree of satisfaction and the highest evaluation (FIG. 41 (b).
  • the comment that recommends the selection of sellers plotted in the lower left area in the graph shown in FIG. 6) is selected from those defined in advance (S6402).
  • a comment in this case for example, a message such as “It is recommended to select a seller in the lower left area of the graph that is highly evaluated and cheap because there is a significant difference between sellers” be able to.
  • step S6401 if there is no significant difference in evaluation index between sellers, a comment that recommends that a seller be selected only by price (that is, a seller with a low estimated price) is selected (S6403).
  • the comment can be, for example, a message such as “There is no statistical difference in value and it is recommended to select an inexpensive seller”.
  • a comment is selected for the sales agent on the basis of the information on the significant difference in the evaluation index by the same processing as the above steps S6401 to S6403 (S6404 to S6406).
  • a comment to be presented to the user is selected by the above-described series of processing, the result of processing without performing statistical calculation due to statistical information including a table or graph as shown in FIG. .
  • the selected comment, and the received estimate information are collected in a predetermined format, and transmitted and output as result information to the user terminal 30 (S6407), and the result output process is terminated.
  • step S6401 a step of determining based on information emphasized by the user can be added between steps S6401 and S6402 or between S6404 and S6405.
  • step S6401 a step of determining whether or not the user attaches importance to a significant difference between sellers can be added. If it is important, the process proceeds to step S6402. If it is not important, the process proceeds to step S6403.
  • the information that is emphasized by the user may be stored in the user DB 102 at the time of user information registration in the initial registration process of S05 in FIG.
  • the requested program may be attached and transmitted, and the information may be obtained by local processing in the user terminal 30.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 selects a comment.
  • a program for executing a result output process and selecting a comment is It may be transmitted to the user terminal 30 as a client program and processed locally on the user terminal 30 side.
  • FIG. 42 is a diagram illustrating an example of a table expressing the determination contents of the result output process. Users can grasp the recommended content as a selection criterion for sellers or sales agents by referring to a combination of such judgment patterns in a tabular format and statistical results. It is possible to select a seller or a sales agent more accurately after understanding the overall picture of recommended selection criteria.
  • the user terminal 30 outputs the result information including the statistical result and the comment output from the value evaluation server 10 by screen display or voice, so that the user can receive the result of the value evaluation between the survey targets.
  • Reference / confirmation is made (S607).
  • a message prompting reconfirmation of a product or service to be estimated and determination of a purchased product may be displayed.
  • it is determined whether or not the content of the estimation target by the user has been modified by the user (S608).
  • the user has made corrections such as adding a product other than the target product of the request for quotation as a purchased product, etc., recalculate the estimate contents and correct the estimated total amount, etc. (S609).
  • the user terminal 30 recalculates the fields such as “subtotal” and “total charge”. Accordingly, the contents of the estimated price in the statistical result table or graph presented to the user shown in FIG. 40 may be updated.
  • the recalculation process may be performed by the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 that has received a recalculation request from the user terminal 30, or the user terminal 30 may be executed by a client program or spreadsheet software. Local processing may be performed on the side.
  • the estimated purchase date and time of the unquoted product accepts the date and time after the estimated purchase date and time of the estimate request product, and if it is not the same as the estimated purchase date and time of the estimate request product, it is temporarily stored in the estimate request schedule of the user DB 102. Then, a temporary automatic quotation request process may be activated a predetermined time before the scheduled purchase date and time. At this time, target quotation request commodity information is also temporarily stored in the quotation request commodity list of the user DB 102 and associated with the date and time. After the temporary automatic quotation request process is activated, the temporary storage information is deleted from the user DB 102.
  • step S ⁇ b> 608 if there is no correction to the content of the estimation target by the user, the user can determine the final estimation content or the content of the comment recommending the statistical result and selection criteria by the value evaluation server 10.
  • the sales agent who purchases the merchandise or the like or requests the sales agent service is determined (S610).
  • step S07 of FIG. 30 The processing flow of the evaluation history information recording process in step S07 of FIG. 30 is substantially the same as the processing flow shown in FIG. 26 of the first embodiment. That is, in step S610 of FIG. 31, the user selects the relationship between the value and price of the seller and the sales agent and the seller and the sales agent that are output by the value evaluation server 10 in advance. Information on recommended methods and the like are referred to and confirmed via the user terminal 30, and a combination of a seller and a sales agent is selected and a product to be purchased is determined.
  • the user uses the user terminal 30 to make a payment for the product, etc., for which purchase has been decided by a predetermined method such as Internet banking, credit card, electronic money, etc.
  • the user terminal 30 inputs necessary information such as information relating to payment, such as the option that has been selected, and transmits the purchase payment information related to the selected seller, sales agent, and the determined product to the value evaluation server 10. (S401).
  • the value evaluation server 10 Upon receiving the purchase settlement information, the value evaluation server 10 transfers a copy of the purchase settlement information to the merchandise provision system 20 of the seller selected by the user and the sales agency system 21 of the selected sales agent. (S402).
  • the product provision system 20 and the sales agent system 21 that have received the purchase settlement information perform sales and settlement processing on the target product based on the contents of the received purchase settlement information, and value evaluation is performed on the processing result including the sales settlement information. It transmits to the server 10 (S403).
  • the sales settlement information includes, for example, the contents of the target product, information on the seller and the sales agent, the sales amount, and information on the user who has purchased.
  • the value evaluation server 10 that has received the sales settlement information from both the merchandise providing system 20 of the target seller and the sales agent system 21 of the target sales agent, the sales settlement information and the purchase settlement information received in step S402. Confirm that the target product, price, and other sales conditions are the same. Further, the questionnaire processing unit 15 specifies and extracts information on a questionnaire for inputting evaluations on the target seller and sales agent (or products sold by them) from the questionnaire DB 105 (S404). This questionnaire can be obtained by adding a question item related to a sales agent to the one shown in the example of FIG. 27 of the first embodiment, for example. The questionnaire preferably includes a plurality of questions associated with the type of seller, sales agent, product, or the like.
  • the questionnaire processing unit 15 transmits the extracted questionnaire information and the sales settlement information received from the product providing system 20 and the sales agent system 21 to the user terminal 30 (S405).
  • the information to be transmitted may include help information related to a questionnaire input method and the like.
  • the user terminal 30 receives the information and outputs it to the user, so that the user can receive the product or the like purchased from the sales agent according to the information, Evaluations for agents, purchased products, etc. can be entered into the questionnaire.
  • the inputted questionnaire information is transmitted from the user terminal 30 to the value evaluation server 10 (S406).
  • the value evaluation server 10 extracts the contents of the questionnaire input by the questionnaire processing unit 15 and evaluates it as evaluation information for the target seller, sales agent, purchased product, etc. Record in the history DB 104 (S407).
  • the questionnaire processing unit 15 transmits the questionnaire again to the user terminal 30 when the questionnaire input result cannot be received even after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the transmission of the questionnaire in step S405. You may ask for a reminder.
  • various methods can be used for exchanging questionnaire information between the value evaluation server 10 and the user (user terminal 30).
  • a questionnaire file in which the contents of a question and an answer column for evaluating each evaluation index are described is transmitted from the value evaluation server 10 to the user terminal 30, and the user
  • the file can be configured to be returned to the value evaluation server 10.
  • an HTML that displays the contents of the question on a web browser (not shown) on the user terminal 30 and receives input answer data
  • the questionnaire information may be configured as a file or the like. Further, a configuration may be adopted in which a questionnaire is conducted by telephone, FAX, mail, etc., and an answer content is input to the evaluation history DB 104 of the value evaluation server 10 by an operator or the like.
  • the number of survey target groups related to the evaluation of value is set to 1, so there is no need for a matrix table for two types of survey target groups, and therefore significant without reducing the number of survey targets.
  • the difference can be tested. For example, whether or not there is a statistically significant difference between sellers by randomly extracting and ranking a predetermined number of information evaluated by each user for each of a plurality of sellers and performing statistical calculations Can be determined. Further, by performing the same calculation for each user, a significant difference between users can be determined.
  • the conditions such as the number of data necessary for the calculation are the same as those described in the first embodiment.
  • the Kruskal-Wallis test or the Wilcoxon test is used in a situation where the two companies (the seller and the sales agent) mutually affect the value of the evaluation index as in the example of the present embodiment described above. And the evaluation data obtained for each combination of survey targets (between two operators) in the matrix table cannot be statistically calculated. Therefore, the statistical accuracy is compared to the Friedman test or Wilcoxon signed rank test. It will be inferior.
  • the value evaluation support system has the same configuration and function as the value evaluation support system 1 according to the first or second embodiment, and further uses evaluation for statistical calculation. It has a function of selecting an appropriate supplementary explanation for the result of the statistical calculation from the combination of the property of the data and the information related to the statistical calculation, and outputting and notifying it via the user terminal 30.
  • This supplementary explanation can be output when the evaluation result output unit 14 of the value evaluation server 10 outputs the processing result to the user terminal 30, for example.
  • a client program that performs such processing may be transmitted to the user terminal 30 and an appropriate supplementary explanation may be selected and displayed by local processing on the user terminal 30 side. Thereby, even when there is no knowledge about statistical calculation, the user can understand easily and in detail about the degree of reliability of the statistical result output by the value evaluation server 10.
  • FIG. 43 to 44 are diagrams showing examples of supplementary explanation setting tables that hold supplementary explanation contents corresponding to combinations of properties of evaluation data used for statistical calculation and statistical calculation information.
  • FIG. 43 is a diagram showing an example of a part in the supplementary explanation setting table that defines the property of the evaluation data and the combination of statistical calculation information for each of a plurality of investigation objects (survey objects A, B,).
  • the nature of the evaluation data in each survey target is defined by items such as the number of samples of evaluation data, the number of abnormal values, the acquisition period, the number of evaluators, as shown in the figure.
  • the number of abnormal values indicates, for example, the number of evaluation data outside the range of a predetermined threshold (for example, average value of evaluation data ⁇ 4 ⁇ , etc.).
  • the number of evaluators indicates, for example, the number of persons who have evaluated the evaluation index (provided evaluation data). In the first embodiment and the second embodiment described above, this corresponds to the number of writers who have filled in an answer to the questionnaire that is the basis for obtaining the evaluation data.
  • acquisition period indicates the period of the entry date entered by the entrant in the questionnaire.
  • the nature of evaluation data used for statistical calculation is defined for each survey target.
  • the evaluation data included in one survey target may be a value determined by a combination of a plurality of evaluation indexes or other survey targets.
  • the target evaluation data for example, a value that compares the values for each combination with another evaluation index or another survey target and that most deteriorates the accuracy of statistical calculation is used.
  • the number of samples is the number of data in the combination with the smallest number of data among the plurality of combinations of the survey target A.
  • the number of abnormal values the number of abnormal values in the combination having the largest number of abnormal values among a plurality of combinations of the investigation target A is used.
  • the acquisition period the acquisition period in the combination having the shortest data acquisition period among the plurality of combinations of the survey target A is used.
  • the number of evaluators uses the number of evaluators in the combination having the smallest number of evaluators among the plurality of combinations of the survey target A.
  • Statistic calculation information is information on values and conditions used for statistical calculation, and is defined by items such as significance level, test method, P value range, average rank, approximate distribution, as shown in the figure.
  • the P value is not a type for obtaining a significant point (limit value) when using various test tables or distribution tables in statistical calculation, but P value (significant). It is a numerical value specified using a test table or a distribution table of a type for obtaining a probability.
  • the P value is specified from the FR amount, the number k of survey targets, and the number m of significant evaluation indexes using a Friedman test table of a type for obtaining the P value.
  • the P value is specified from the FR amount and the degree of freedom ⁇ using a chi-square distribution table of a type for obtaining the P value.
  • the range of the P value is shown as a percentage.
  • the average rank indicates information on whether or not the average rank used when the evaluation data has the same value or the same rank in step S3214 in FIG.
  • the approximate distribution indicates information on whether or not the approximate distribution used when the number of data is large or the average ranking is used, such as a chi-square distribution or a normal distribution.
  • No. 1 is sequentially applied from 1 for each combination pattern of the evaluation data property and statistical calculation information for each survey target. Can be identified.
  • FIG. 44 is a diagram showing an example of a part in the supplementary explanation setting table that defines the contents of the supplementary explanation corresponding to the combination of the evaluation data property and the statistical calculation information for each survey target.
  • the contents of supplementary explanations such as comments, conclusions, and advice to be presented to the user are defined.
  • the contents of each supplementary explanation are expressed by symbols (C1, D1, A1, etc.) instead of the explanatory text, and the specific explanatory text may be held as another table or data.
  • FIG. 45 is a diagram showing an example of a table defining a pattern of explanatory text for supplementary explanation.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 performs step S340 in FIG. 5 or step S640 in FIG.
  • the statistical calculation information in the statistical calculation in steps S320 and S330 and step S630 in FIG. 31 and the nature of the evaluation data used for the test are specified.
  • the contents of each item of the supplementary explanation are extracted from the supplementary explanation setting table shown in FIGS. 43 and 44 and the table defining the explanatory text pattern of the supplementary explanation of FIG. .
  • the content of the extracted supplementary explanation is transmitted to the user terminal 30 together with the result of the statistical processing or the like in step S340 of FIG. 5 or step S640 of FIG.
  • step S401 in FIG. 26 the user refers to the explanatory text such as comments, conclusions, and advice in the supplementary explanation transmitted from the value evaluation server 10 via the user terminal 30 when determining the product to be purchased. To do. This makes it possible to understand the degree of reliability of the statistical calculation results and to make a purchase decision more accurately.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 selects the contents of supplementary explanation for each test, The user is notified of the result of the test and the corresponding supplementary explanation. Thereby, the user can grasp
  • the process of selecting supplementary explanation can be made to correspond to various tests in the first and second embodiments.
  • corresponding supplementary explanation items may be extracted from the statistical calculation information obtained by the test and the nature of the evaluation data used for the test.
  • it may be performed after the Friedman test, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Wilcoxon test.
  • a supplementary explanation can be selected by the same method as described above after the statistical calculation.
  • the evaluation result output unit 14 may perform processing such as directly selecting recommended products instead of selecting supplementary explanations. For example, instead of selecting the supplementary explanation of “D8” in the example of FIG. 45, the product having the highest value and the lowest price shown in FIG. 15B is specified, and this information is used as the recommended product. You may transmit to the terminal 30. Alternatively, both the supplementary explanation of “D8” and the information on the specified product may be transmitted to the user terminal 30. Thereby, the user can be notified of the statistically most valuable product or the like. Further, for example, in the result output process of step S340 in FIG. 5, by notifying the user of the product specified when performing the process of step S3410 or S3411 in FIG. 24, the optimal product etc. for the user is recommended. can do.
  • various evaluation indexes indicating the value of a product or the like are presented in the first to third embodiments of the present invention.
  • an evaluation index having a statistically significant difference By presenting an evaluation index having a statistically significant difference to the user, it is possible to exclude an evaluation index having no significant difference from the judgment materials at the time of purchasing the product. Thereby, it is possible to support the determination of the difference in value when the user purchases a product or the like, and to improve the value determination power.
  • the statistical calculation is performed directly on the nonparametric data. It is possible to improve the accuracy of statistical calculation by solving the above problem.
  • the parametric data is statistically calculated as non-parametric data, whereby all evaluation indexes can be evaluated by a unified calculation method and criteria. Therefore, if a significant difference is determined for all necessary evaluation indexes, it is possible to determine a difference in value existing between products and the like.
  • a statistically significant difference between sellers is determined by using a Wilcoxon signed rank test or a Friedman test to determine a significant difference from a combination of a statistically significant evaluation index and multiple sellers. And provide information to support the seller's choice.
  • the user can receive recommendation of an appropriate selection criterion such as a product from the combination with the calculated statistical result by showing the evaluation index that the user attaches importance to the value evaluation server 10.
  • an evaluation index of the value of a product etc. affected by two types of businesses (for example, a seller and a sales agent) (the influence of the two businesses is entangled)
  • the evaluation index data by the two types of combinations do not exist in many combinations, the Kruskal-Wallis test is used to make a significant difference, but the accuracy is slightly inferior to the Friedman test, but the value for more survey subjects It can be evaluated and can be judged accurately, clearly and easily.
  • the significant difference existing between any two operators is determined by Wilcoxon signed rank test or Wilcoxon test.
  • the significant difference between the operators in all combinations can be further determined.
  • the user can receive the recommendation of the operator's selection criteria from the combination with the calculated statistical result by indicating the type of the operator that the user attaches importance to the value evaluation server 10.
  • the properties and statistics of evaluation data used for statistical calculation An appropriate supplementary explanation for the result of the statistical calculation is selected and notified from the combination with the information related to the calculation.
  • the user can easily and in detail understand the degree of reliability of the statistical result.
  • the recommended product etc. using the selected supplementary explanation information, it is possible to recommend a product that is statistically most valuable to the user or optimal for the user.
  • the present invention is not limited to this.
  • the value of a survey object whose value is expressed by an evaluation index such as sensory evaluation data where the data itself is ambiguous (large variation) or an evaluation index where data is ambiguous due to low measurement accuracy.
  • an evaluation index such as sensory evaluation data where the data itself is ambiguous (large variation) or an evaluation index where data is ambiguous due to low measurement accuracy.
  • surveys of products, services, brands, companies, political parties, talents, characters, mascots, etc. and surveys on the value evaluated by evaluation indexes with many ambiguous data such as popularity, support rate, and favorableness.
  • the present invention can be applied to a system that performs prediction and the like.
  • evaluation data accumulated for each survey target for a certain evaluation index is extracted, converted into rank data, and then statistically significant difference is determined.
  • the Wilcoxon test is used for comparison between two persons, and the Kruskal-Wallis test is used for three or more persons.
  • Wilcoxon's signed rank test is performed. Use Friedman's test for more than 3 persons. Using the obtained test result, a comment or the like set in advance is selected and a survey result is created.
  • a prediction based on various evaluation indices for example, even when predicting CD ranking or land value, etc., it is possible to test the significant difference between survey subjects and create a prediction result. it can.
  • the robot CPU may be applied to a system that converts a person's emotion into rank data, causes the robot CPU to statistically calculate the difference in emotion, and selects an action to be taken by the robot. it can. More specifically, for example, the loudness of a person's speaking voice is measured and recorded multiple times in advance, and compared with the loudness of the voice measured and recorded multiple times at the present time, the human emotion is valued. Can be implemented as a program.
  • n MIN when the number of evaluation data n MIN ⁇ 15, W amount ⁇ W L ( ⁇ ) when the W amount consists of a past sample, and W amount ⁇ W when the W amount consists of the current sample. If U ( ⁇ ), it is determined that the current voice is stronger at the significance level ⁇ . Further, n MIN if the case of ⁇ 15 or have the same value, the W content is u 0 weight ⁇ when consisting of past samples ⁇ -u (2 ⁇ ) ⁇ , u 0 when the W content consists current sample When the amount ⁇ u (2 ⁇ ), it is determined that the current voice is stronger at the significance level ⁇ .
  • the present invention can be applied to a program that analyzes an image or video of an indefinite person or an object and determines whether or not a predetermined condition is met. For example, for cells with normal shape and cancer cells with slightly distorted shape, the shape such as the diameter of the cell is measured and stored from multiple angles, and is expressed by the shape between the cancer cell and the normal cell. It can be determined whether there is a significant difference in value.
  • a Wilcoxon signed rank test is used to determine whether or not there is a difference in shape of the cells at the significance level ⁇ (that is, whether or not cancer cells can be distinguished by shape) and set in advance. You can select the conclusions of the survey you have made.
  • the length measured and recorded several times in the past and the length measured and recorded several times in the past are converted into rank data, and Wilcoxon test is used. Compare. Thereby, it is possible to determine whether or not the current length of the lips in the horizontal direction is longer (whether or not a person is smiling).
  • the number of survey targets number of people
  • record the length for each survey target (people) and tense current or past
  • rank average length for each combination. Conversion to data may be performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. This evaluates the difference in value represented by the horizontal length of the lips (the degree to which multiple people are smiling). For example, whether or not the audience was smiling at a performance such as a comedy or a laugh. It is also possible to determine whether or not you are pleased.
  • Parametric data such as the degree of distortion of the shape of the cancer cell and the horizontal length of the lips when a person is smiling, even if an image measurement device with high measurement accuracy is used, the measurement object itself varies greatly. If the statistical calculation is performed as it is, the determination accuracy may decrease. In such a case, by using the mechanism as shown in the first to third embodiments of the present invention, by converting these parametric data into rank data that is nonparametric data, statistical calculation is performed. Reasonable and appropriate statistical significance can be determined.
  • the evaluation index is not particularly limited as long as it can represent the value of the product or the like.
  • various indicators such as a nominal scale, an order scale, an interval scale, or a proportional scale can be used.
  • the nominal scale includes, for example, three colors of red, blue, and yellow, which are the three primary colors of light, but these are noun information and do not represent the magnitude relationship.
  • a magnitude relationship is created in the order of blue, yellow, and red.
  • the radio button displays the color of the heater (stove) as blue (3), yellow (2), red (1), etc.
  • the evaluation of the value of the heating appliance can be performed as an evaluation index of “the effect of feeling warmth”.
  • processing procedure described in each of the above-described embodiments particularly processing related to statistical calculation (for example, statistical processing in step S320 in FIG. 5 or step S630 in FIG. 31 and between survey targets in step S330 in FIG. 5).
  • the processing procedure in the (significant difference determination process) is merely an example. Needless to say, as long as the same processing result can be obtained, optimization or the like by appropriately changing the order of some processes is possible.
  • steps S3204, S3208, and S3213 in FIG. 6 and steps S3224, S3228, and S3232 in FIG. 7 that are ranking processes are performed in the same manner.
  • the processing branches such as before step S3201 immediately after the start of statistical processing
  • the processing may be performed in common.
  • determination of the same rank is performed instead of determination of the same value.
  • steps S3305 and S3308 in FIG. 16 perform the same FR amount calculation processing. Therefore, these processings may be integrated and placed in common between steps S3303 and S3304. .
  • the value evaluation support system 1 includes a price survey process (for example, step S02 in FIG. 2) in which the value evaluation server 10 acquires information on a product such as a price, and the value of the product etc.
  • a price survey process for example, step S02 in FIG. 2
  • the value evaluation server 10 may be configured to cause a price survey process to be performed by another server (price survey process dedicated server not shown).
  • the server dedicated to price survey processing receives a request from the user, performs price survey processing, and requests the value evaluation server 10 to calculate value evaluation information regarding the specified product.
  • the value evaluation server 10 that has received the request identifies the target product or the like from the received request information, and performs value evaluation processing by the same processing as described above.
  • the processing result is returned together with the questionnaire information including the questionnaire entry request to the price survey processing dedicated server that transmitted the request.
  • the value evaluation server 10 receives the information that the user wrote in the questionnaire and sent it, records it in the evaluation history DB 104, and ends the evaluation history information recording process in step S04 of FIG.
  • the product etc. providing system 20 or the sales agent system 21 may have the function of the above-described price survey dedicated server, or may further have the function of the value evaluation server 10. Further, the product providing system 20, the sales agent system 21, and the value evaluation server 10 may have the functions of the user terminal 30, respectively.
  • a significance level is set in advance and the presence or absence of a significant difference is determined.
  • the degree of significant difference may be indicated depending on the size.
  • the P value is obtained by the above-described method. You may transmit to the user terminal 30 with the message to the effect of determining with it being small.
  • a significance level is used as the threshold value for determination, it is possible to determine a significant difference as in the first to third embodiments.
  • the seller is not particularly limited as long as it is an entity capable of selling products and the like.
  • an entity other than a person Computer systems etc.
  • the sales agent is not particularly limited as long as it is an entity that can receive the product from the seller on behalf of the user and deliver it to the user.
  • subjects other than humans can be widely applicable when possible.
  • the user is not particularly limited as long as it is an entity capable of requesting a value evaluation survey.
  • an entity other than a person may be widely applicable.
  • the present invention can be used in a value evaluation support system and a value evaluation support program that provide information related to a difference in value as a judgment material to a user when there are a plurality of compatible products and services.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Finance (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne un système d'aide pour évaluation de prix qui permet à un utilisateur de juger de manière juste, exacte et simple la différence de prix d'une marchandise ou d'un service lors d'un achat; et qui possède un terminal utilisateur, et un serveur d'évaluation de prix déterminant une différence statistiquement significative quant à la différence de prix entre des objets étudiés, et entrant des résultats. Ce serveur d'évaluation de prix possède : une unité entrée d'informations d'évaluation qui reçoit des entrées de données d'évaluation relatives à chaque objet étudié, et les accumule dans une base de données d'historique d'évaluation; une unité d'acquisition d'informations d'historique d'évaluation qui extrait des données d'évaluation de la base de données d'historique d'évaluation pour chaque indication d'évaluation en ce qui concerne la pluralité d'objets étudiés choisie par l'utilisateur; une unité de calcul statistique qui détermine la différence statistiquement significative entre objets étudiés par un calcul statistique basé sur des données de hiérarchie établies selon un ordre prédéfini à partir des données d'évaluation extraites; et une unité de sortie de résultats d'évaluation qui sort au niveau du terminal utilisateur des informations de recommandation relatives à des critères de jugement concernant la différence de prix choisis à partir des informations sur la différence statistiquement significative entre objets étudiés par association avec des informations relatives aux résultats du calcul statistique.
PCT/JP2011/067468 2011-07-29 2011-07-29 Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix WO2013018160A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2011/067468 WO2013018160A1 (fr) 2011-07-29 2011-07-29 Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/JP2011/067468 WO2013018160A1 (fr) 2011-07-29 2011-07-29 Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2013018160A1 true WO2013018160A1 (fr) 2013-02-07

Family

ID=47628733

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/JP2011/067468 WO2013018160A1 (fr) 2011-07-29 2011-07-29 Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2013018160A1 (fr)

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2017217242A1 (fr) * 2016-06-15 2017-12-21 ソニー株式会社 Dispositif et procédé de traitement d'informations et programme
CN114723335A (zh) * 2022-05-16 2022-07-08 交通运输部规划研究院 一种海上监管救助飞机服务效能评价方法
JP2023138099A (ja) * 2022-03-18 2023-09-29 株式会社Ｎｔｔファシリティーズ 換気システムおよび制御装置

Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2001188796A (ja) * 1999-12-28 2001-07-10 Toshiba Corp データ分析システム及びデータ分析方法並びにプログラムを記録したコンピュータ読み取り可能な記録媒体
JP2003108824A (ja) * 2001-09-28 2003-04-11 Ota Mitsue 選択検討支援システム
JP2007102668A (ja) * 2005-10-07 2007-04-19 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd 統計比較処理装置
JP2008217283A (ja) * 2007-03-02 2008-09-18 Otsuka Sensory Laboratories Co Ltd 評価情報収集方法及びサーバ

Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2001188796A (ja) * 1999-12-28 2001-07-10 Toshiba Corp データ分析システム及びデータ分析方法並びにプログラムを記録したコンピュータ読み取り可能な記録媒体
JP2003108824A (ja) * 2001-09-28 2003-04-11 Ota Mitsue 選択検討支援システム
JP2007102668A (ja) * 2005-10-07 2007-04-19 Fuji Xerox Co Ltd 統計比較処理装置
JP2008217283A (ja) * 2007-03-02 2008-09-18 Otsuka Sensory Laboratories Co Ltd 評価情報収集方法及びサーバ

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
MASAHIKO ISHINO ET AL.: "The proposal about the recommendation system of the goods by a customer's attribute", IPSJ SIG NOTES, vol. 2005, no. 53, 27 May 2005 (2005-05-27), pages 37 - 42 *

Cited By (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO2017217242A1 (fr) * 2016-06-15 2017-12-21 ソニー株式会社 Dispositif et procédé de traitement d'informations et programme
JPWO2017217242A1 (ja) * 2016-06-15 2019-04-04 ソニー株式会社 情報処理装置、情報処理方法、及び、プログラム
JP2023138099A (ja) * 2022-03-18 2023-09-29 株式会社Ｎｔｔファシリティーズ 換気システムおよび制御装置
JP7685964B2 (ja) 2022-03-18 2025-05-30 株式会社Ｎｔｔファシリティーズ 換気システムおよび制御装置
CN114723335A (zh) * 2022-05-16 2022-07-08 交通运输部规划研究院 一种海上监管救助飞机服务效能评价方法

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US11748345B2 (en) Apparatuses, methods and systems for a lead generating hub
Melián-González et al. Predicting the intentions to use chatbots for travel and tourism
US12236461B2 (en) Matching support device, matching support system, and program
US10268653B2 (en) Goal-oriented user matching among social networking environments
Alshibly Customer perceived value in social commerce: An exploration of its antecedents and consequences
US20110289161A1 (en) Apparatuses, Methods and Systems For An Intelligent Inbox Coordinating HUB
US20200258027A1 (en) Methods and systems for controlling a display screen with graphical objects for scheduling
US20110289009A1 (en) Apparatuses, methods and systems for an activity tracking and property transaction facilitating hub
KR102651407B1 (ko) 빅데이터를 활용한 시장성 분석 및 사업화방법론 분석 시스템
AU2014200389B2 (en) Behavior management and expense insight system
JP6417002B1 (ja) 生成装置、生成方法及び生成プログラム
US20170337601A1 (en) Monetization of interactive network-based information objects
WO2022090999A1 (fr) Système de diagnostic de dispositif électronique de seconde main avec caractéristiques de facilitation de vente et de fonctionnement
JP2019032827A (ja) 生成装置、生成方法及び生成プログラム
WO2013018160A1 (fr) Système et programme d'aide pour évaluation de prix
JP4361235B2 (ja) 商品仕様および関連顧客情報の収集システム
Şanlıöz-Özgen et al. Direct online booking competence of five-star hotels: Model development on web/mobile sites
JP7735776B2 (ja) 情報処理装置、情報処理方法、およびプログラム
Singh et al. A conceptual study of service quality, tourist satisfaction and revisit intention
TW201702971A (zh) 不動產自售的使用者設備及系統
JP7718411B2 (ja) 情報処理装置、情報処理方法および情報処理プログラム
Mansurova Some issues of Big Data application in modeling business processes of e-business systems
JP7574946B2 (ja) 情報処理装置、情報処理方法、およびプログラム
JP7656309B1 (ja) 購入権付与者決定方法、購入権付与者決定プログラム及び購入権付与者決定システム
JP2003346013A (ja) オークション方法、オークションシステム及びサーバ

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 11870342

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 11870342

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: JP