Patent Application
20250020678
The present invention relates to a validation device, a validation method and a validation program for validating an analysis device.
After an analysis device is introduced, it is necessary to validate whether the analysis device behaves normally (see Patent Document 1, for example). Such validation includes validating each analysis unit of an analysis device satisfying the specification at the time of installation and validating each analysis unit of the analysis device satisfying defined performance. Generally, validation of an analysis device is executed when a technician such as a field engineer (hereinafter referred to as a performer) inspects each analysis unit in regard to an inspection item. Further, the performer creates a report that mentions a result of inspection, etc.
Since a large number of inspection items are included in the above-mentioned validation, it is cumbersome to execute an inspection manually in regard to each of the inspection items. Therefore, validation is desirably automated. In the validation device of the Patent Document 1, an inspection in regard to part of the inspection items can be automated. However, in a case where validation is automated, whether the same inspection as the inspection to be executed manually has been executed properly cannot be easily confirmed, and reliability of validation is lowered. In this manner, a reduction in time and labor for validation conflicts with maintenance of reliability of validation, and it is not easy to meet both of the requirements.
An object of the present invention is to provide a validation device, a validation method and a validation program that enable maintenance of reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating an analysis device.
In this validation device, the inspection item for the analysis unit is specified. The correspondence relationship between the inspection item and the operator code assigned to each operator of the analysis unit is acquired. The operation commands assigned to the operators to be operated for execution of an inspection of the analysis unit are sequentially transmitted to the analysis unit based on the inspection item and the correspondence relationship. The request command requesting transmission of screen information representing a screen to be displayed in the display panel is transmitted to the analysis unit. The screen information transmitted by the analysis unit in response to the request command is acquired. The screen responding to the behavior of the analysis unit is displayed in the display panel of the analysis unit.
With this configuration, it is not necessary for the performer who manages the inspection of the analysis unit to manually perform at least part of work for inspecting the analysis unit. This reduces time and labor for validating the analysis device. Further, the performer can identify that operation commands are sequentially received by the analysis unit and the procedure for inspecting the analysis unit proceeds in response to the received operation commands, by viewing the transition of screens displayed in the display panel of the analysis unit. Therefore, whether the same inspection as the inspection to be executed manually has been executed properly can be easily confirmed. As a result, it is possible to maintain reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating the analysis device.
In this case, a next operation command is transmitted to the analysis unit while it is confirmed that an operator corresponding to each operation command has been operated. Thus, even in a case where a response from the analysis unit is delayed, a series of operation commands can be transmitted to the analysis unit easily and sequentially while an operator is being operated.
With this validation method, it is not necessary for the performer who manages the inspection of the analysis unit to execute at least part of manual work for inspecting the analysis unit. This reduces time and labor for validating the analysis device. Further, the performer can identify that operation commands are sequentially received by the analysis unit and the procedure for inspecting the analysis unit proceeds in response to the received operation commands, by viewing the transition of screens displayed in the display panel of the analysis unit. Therefore, whether the same inspection as the inspection to be executed manually has been executed properly can be easily confirmed. As a result, it is possible to maintain reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating the analysis device.
With this validation program, it is not necessary for the performer who manages the inspection of the analysis unit to execute at least part of manual work for inspecting the analysis unit. This reduces time and labor for validating the analysis device. Further, the performer can identify that operation commands are sequentially received by the analysis unit and the procedure for inspecting the analysis unit proceeds in response to the received operation commands, by viewing the transition of screens displayed in the display panel of the analysis unit. Therefore, whether the same inspection as the inspection to be executed manually has been executed properly can be easily confirmed. As a result, it is possible to maintain reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating the analysis device.
It is possible to maintain reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating the analysis device.
A validation device, a validation method and a validation program according to embodiments of the present invention will be described below in detail with reference to the drawings.
The analysis control device 10 is constituted by a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 12, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 13, a storage 14, an operation unit 15, a display 16 and an input output I/F (interface) 17. The CPU 11, the RAM 12, the ROM 13, the storage 14, the operation unit 15, the display 16 and the input output I/F 17 are connected to a bus 18. The CPU 11, the RAM 12 and the ROM 13 constitute the validation device 1.
The RAM 12 is used as a work area for the CPU 11. A system program is stored in the ROM 13. The storage 14 includes a storage medium such as a hard disc or a semiconductor memory. The validation program is stored in the storage 14. The validation program may be stored in a storage medium different from the storage 14. The CPU 11 executes the validation program stored in the storage 14 or the like on the RAM 12, whereby a validation process is executed. Details of the validation process will be described below. Further, device information and conversion information, described below, are stored in the storage 14.
The operation unit 15 is an input device such as a keyboard, a mouse or a touch panel. The display 16 is a display device such as a liquid crystal display device. A performer, described below, can provide various instructions to the validation device 1 using the operation unit 15. The display 16 displays an execution screen for the validation process to be executed by the validation device 1, and so on. The input output I/F 17 is connected to the analysis device 20.
The analysis device 20 is a liquid chromatograph or a gas chromatograph, for example, and includes analysis units 21 such as a pump, an autosampler, a column oven, a detector and a system controller.
As shown in
As the inspection items for a pump, initialization, a firmware version, a liquid sending stability, a pressure limiter, accuracy of flow rate and a leak sensor and so on are included. As the inspection items for an autosampler, initialization, a firmware version, a basic behavior, a leak sensor, accuracy of set temperature of a sample cooler, accuracy of injection rate and so on are included. As the inspection items for a column oven, a firmware version, a temperature adjustment function, a gas sensor, a leak sensor and so on are included. As the inspection items for a detector, initialization, a firmware version, lamp energy, a lamp lighting time, accuracy of wavelength, a leak sensor and so on are included.
Normally, a technician such as a field engineer (hereinafter referred to as a performer) manually executes an inspection of each analysis unit 21. Specifically, the performer performs a predetermined operation on an operator ‘a’ of an analysis unit 21 to be inspected. In this case, a screen for executing an inspection in regard to a desired inspection item is displayed in the display panel b. After operating an analysis unit 21 as necessary, the performer operates one or more operators ‘a’ for executing an inspection in regard to the inspection item.
In the example of
The above-mentioned operation is repeated in regard to other inspection items, whereby the inspection of the analysis unit 21 ends. Thereafter, the performer creates a report that mentions a result of inspection, the name of the performer, inspection execution date and time, etc. in regard to a predetermined analysis unit 21.
The validation device 1 sequentially transmits an operation command for operating one or more operators ‘a’ to be operated for execution of an inspection of each analysis unit 21 and a request command for requesting transmission of screen information representing a screen to be displayed in the display panel b. In this case, the same screens as the screens displayed at the time of a manual inspection are sequentially displayed in the display panel b. Thus, the analysis unit 21 can be inspected while whether the same inspection as the manual inspection has been executed appropriately is presented to the performer or the like. Behavior of the validation device 1 will be described below.
At a point t1 in time, the validation device 1 generates an operation command for operating an operator ‘a’ of the analysis unit 21 based on an inspection item for the analysis unit 21 and conversion information stored in the storage 14. The conversion information is the information that represents the correspondence relationship between an inspection item and an operator code assigned to each operator ‘a’ of the analysis unit 21 and is unique to each type of an analysis unit 21. Further, the validation device 1 transmits the generated operation command to the analysis unit 21.
At a point t2 in time, the analysis unit 21 operates the operator ‘a’ in response to the operation command received from the validation device 1. Thus, the screen displayed in the display panel b of the analysis unit 21 is updated. At a point t3 in time, the validation device 1 generates a request command and transmits the generated request command to the analysis unit 21. At a point t4 in time, in response to the request command received from the validation device 1, the analysis unit 21 transmits the screen information representing the screen being displayed in the display panel b to the validation device 1.
The validation device 1 confirms that the operator ‘a’ is operated at the point t2 in time based on the screen information received from the analysis unit 21 at the point t4 in time. Here, in a case where a simulation screen 50 of
Further, the validation device 1 determines whether the inspection of the analysis unit 21 in regard to all of the inspection items has ended based on the screen information. In a case where the inspection of the analysis unit 21 in regard to all of the inspection items has not ended, the validation device 1 returns to the process executed at the point t1 in time. The process executed at the points t1 to t4 in time is repeated until the inspection of an analysis unit 21 in regard to a predetermined inspection item ends. Further, the analysis unit 21 may be manually operated by the performer before the point t1 in time.
In the present example, in a case where not receiving the screen information from the analysis unit 21 in a certain period of time (ten seconds, for example) after transmitting the request command, the validation device 1 discards the request command and retransmits the same request command. Further, in a case where receiving screen information not responding to the request command, the validation device 1 ignores the screen information.
Specifically, it is considered that the validation device 1 transmits a first request command to the analysis unit 21 at the point t3 in time. Here, suppose that the analysis unit 21 transmits the screen information responding to the first request command to the validation device 1 at the point t4 in time which is twelve seconds after the point t3 in time, that is, a period of time longer than 10 seconds has elapsed from the point t3 in time.
In this case, the validation device 1 discards the first request command and retransmits a second request command that is the same as the first request command to the analysis unit 21 ten seconds after the point t3 in time. Two seconds after that, the validation device 1 receives the screen information responding to the first request command from the analysis unit 21. Thus, the validation device 1 proceeds to the process executed at the point t4 in time. Thereafter, the validation device 1 may receive the screen information responding to the second request command from the analysis unit 21. Even in this case, the validation device 1 ignores the screen information as the screen information does not correspond to the request command.
With this configuration, even in a case where a response from the analysis unit 21 is delayed, the validation device 1 can receive the screen information from the analysis unit 21. Further, a plurality of screen information pieces are prevented from being received in response to a same request command.
The performer can select a desired analysis device 20 among the analysis devices 20 displayed in the device display field 32 using the operation unit 15. In a case where an analysis device 20 is selected, one or more analysis units 21 included in the analysis device 20 are displayed in the unit display field 33. Further, one or more execution buttons 33a respectively corresponding to the one or more analysis units 21 are displayed in the unit display field 33.
The performer can operate the start button 34 using the operation unit 15. In this case, all of the analysis units displayed in the unit display field 33 are to be inspected, and an inspection of all of the analysis units 21 displayed in the unit display field 33 in regard to inspection items is started. Alternatively, the performer can operate an execution button 33a corresponding to a desired analysis unit 21 using the operation unit 15. In this case, an analysis unit 21 corresponding to an operated execution button 33a is to be inspected, and an inspection of the analysis unit 21 in regard to an inspection item is started.
Further, in the unit display field 41, one or more execution buttons 41a respectively corresponding to the one or more analysis units 21 are displayed. The performer operates an execution button 41a corresponding to a desired analysis unit 21 using the operation unit 15, thereby being able to individually instruct the validation device 1 to interrupt or retry an inspection of the analysis unit 21 in regard to an inspection item. Further, in the example of
As shown in the item of progress in the unit display field 41 of
For example, a system controller is used to control the other analysis units 21 among the plurality of analysis units 21. Therefore, an inspection of the system controller is preferably executed first. Further, an autosampler among the plurality of analysis units 21 behaves after behavior conditions of the other analysis units 21 are determined. Therefore, an inspection of the autosampler is preferably executed last. Inspections of the plurality of analysis units 21 except for specific analysis units 21 such as the system controller and the autosampler may be executed simultaneously and in parallel.
After the inspections of all of the analysis units 21 to be inspected end, a report showing the results of inspections is created automatically.
The CPU 11 of
First, the device information acquirer A acquires designated device information among the device information stored in the storage 14 (step S1). In the initial screen 30 displayed in the display 16 of
The order determiner C determines the order of inspections of the analysis units 21 based on priority levels included in the device information acquired in the step S1. The unit specifier D specifies an analysis unit 21 to be inspected among the analysis units 21 included in the device information acquired in the step S1 based on the order determined in the step S3.
The item specifier E specifies an inspection item for the analysis unit 21 specified in the step S4 based on the device information acquired in the step S1 (step S5). The processes from the step S5 to the below-mentioned step S16 for a plurality of analysis units 21 having the same priority level are executed simultaneously and in parallel.
Next, the operation command transmitter F generates an operation command based on the correspondence relationship on the basis of the conversion information acquired in the step S2 and the inspection item specified in the step S5 and transmits the generated operation command to the analysis unit 21 (step S6). Subsequently, the request command transmitter G generates a request command for requesting screen information and transmits the generated request command to the analysis unit 21 (step S7). The screen information acquirer H determines whether the screen information responding to the request command transmitted in the step S7 has been received from the analysis unit 21 in a certain period of time (step S8).
In a case where the screen information is not received in the certain period of time by the screen information acquirer H, the request command transmitter G determines whether to end transmission of a request command (step S9). Here, in a case where the steps S7 to S9 and the below-mentioned step S10 are executed a predetermined number of times, the request command transmitter G determines to end transmission of a request command. In a case where ending transmission of a request command, the request command transmitter G interrupts an inspection and proceeds to the step S14.
In a case where not ending transmission of a request command, the request command transmitter G discards the request command transmitted in the step S7 (step S10) and returns to the step S7. In this case, in the step S7, the request command transmitter G retransmits a request command to the analysis unit 21.
In a case where the screen information is received in the certain period of time by the screen information acquirer H in the step S8, it is confirmed that the transmission command transmitted in the step S6 is received by the analysis unit 21 specified in the step S4. Here, in a case where a simulation screen 50 of
Next, the screen information acquirer H determines whether an inspection in regard to an inspection item has ended based on the screen information (step S11). In a case where the inspection in regard to the inspection item has not ended, the operation command transmitter F determines whether to interrupt the inspection temporarily (step S12). Here, in a case where the performer manually operates the analysis unit 21 during the inspection in regard to the inspection item, the operation command transmitter F determines to interrupt the inspection temporarily.
In a case where interrupting the inspection temporarily, the operation command transmitter F displays such a notice in the unit display field 41 of the execution screen 40 of
In a case where the inspection in regard to the inspection item ends in the step S11, the screen information acquirer H proceeds to the step S14. In the step S14, the result acquirer I acquires a result of inspection in regard to the inspection item specified in the step S5 (step S14). Here, in a case where the process proceeds from the step S11 to the step S14, the result of inspection in regard to the inspection item indicating whether the analysis unit 21 has “passed” or “failed” the inspection is acquired based on the screen information received in the step S8. On the other hand, in a case where the process proceeds from the step S9 to the step S14, the result of inspection in regard to the inspection item indicating the analysis unit 21 has “failed” the inspection is acquired.
Then, the result acquirer I determines whether the inspection can continue based on the acquired result of inspection (step S15). Here, in a case where the result of inspection of an analysis unit 21 having a high priority level is “failed,” it is determined that the inspection cannot continue. In a case where the inspection cannot continue, the result acquirer I proceeds to the step S18. In a case where the inspection can continue, the result acquirer I determines whether there is any other inspection item (step S16).
In a case where there is another inspection item, the result acquirer I returns to the step S5. In this case, the other inspection item for the same analysis unit 21 is specified in the step S5. In a case where there is no other inspection item, the result acquirer I determines whether there is any other analysis unit 21 (step S17). In a case where there is another analysis unit 21, the result acquirer I returns to the step S4. In this case, the other analysis unit 21 to be inspected is specified in the step S4. In a case where there is no other analysis unit 21, the result acquirer I proceeds to the step S18.
In the step S18, the report creator J creates a report 60 based on a result of inspection acquired in the step S14 (step S18) and ends the validation process. Here, in a case where the process proceeds from the step S17 to the step S18, the created report 60 mentions results of inspections of all of the analysis units 21 in regard to the inspection items included in the device information acquired in the step S1. On the other hand, in a case where the process proceeds from the step S15 to the step S18, the created report 60 does not mention a result of inspection of part of the analysis units 21 in regard to an inspection item.
In the validation device 1 according to the present embodiment, an inspection item for an analysis unit is specified by the item specifier E. The correspondence relationship between an inspection item and an operator code assigned to each operator ‘a’ of an analysis unit 21 is acquired by the correspondence relationship acquirer B. Operation commands assigned to operators ‘a’ to be operated for an inspection of an analysis unit 21 are sequentially transmitted to an analysis unit 21 by the operation command transmitter F based on an inspection item and a correspondence relationship. A request command requesting transmission of screen information representing a screen to be displayed in the display panel b is transmitted to an analysis unit 21 by the request command transmitter G. The screen information transmitted by an analysis unit 21 in response to a request command is acquired by the screen information acquirer H.
Each time an operation command is transmitted to an analysis unit 21 by the operation command transmitter F, a next request command is transmitted to the analysis unit 21 by the request command transmitter G. Further, each time an operation command transmitted by the operation command transmitter F is received by an analysis unit 21, a screen displayed in the display panel b is updated based on the received operation command.
With this configuration, it is not necessary for the performer who manages an inspection of an analysis unit 21 to manually perform at least part of work for inspecting the analysis unit 21. This reduces time and labor for validating the analysis device 20. Further, the performer can identify that operation commands are sequentially received by an analysis unit 21 and the procedure for inspecting the analysis unit 21 proceeds in response to the received operation commands, by viewing the transition of screens displayed in the display panel b of the analysis unit 21. Therefore, whether the same inspection as the inspection to be executed manually has been executed properly can be easily confirmed. As a result, it is possible to maintain reliability of validation while reducing time and labor for validating the analysis device 20.
Further, a next operation command is transmitted to an analysis unit 21 while it is confirmed that an operator ‘a’ corresponding to each operation command has been operated. Thus, even in a case where a response from an analysis unit 21 is delayed, a series of operation commands can be transmitted to the analysis unit 21 easily and sequentially while an operator ‘a’ is being operated.
While the validation device 1 includes the result acquirer I and the report creator J in the above-mentioned embodiment, the present invention is not limited to this. In a case where the performer identifies a result of inspection and creates a report manually, a validation device 1 does not have to include a result acquirer I or a report creator J.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/278,554, filed on Mar. 22, 2021, which is a PCT US National Phase of PCT/JP2018/035957 filed on Sep. 27, 2018, the disclosures of each are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 17278554 | Mar 2021 | US |
| Child | 18897733 | US |
