This study investigated the process evaluation of robot development projects. We propose a quantitative method to evaluate whether the projects advanced to the social experiment phase and analyze their causes of failure. With the proposal analysis method, proposals for future similar developments were submitted across six development projects by staff members in accordance with their actual experience. By analyzing the amounts of proposals classified into phases, categories, and factors, the issues that occurred during each process could be identified. These issues consisted of delays, unclear specifications, and confusion with regard to the organizational structure. The proposed method was suitable for robot development projects with very short time spans such as support robots for disaster victims and guide robots for guests of the Olympic Games.

1. [1] Robotics group, mechanical engineering committee, Science council of Japan, “Integrated Method to Solve Social Problems with Robotics and Advanced Research,” 22nd Proposal, pp. 6-8, 2014 (in Japanese).
2. [2] “PMBOK 3rd edition,” 2004.
3. [3] “ISO9000.” https://www.iso.org/standard/45481.html [accessed September 1, 2017]
4. [4] Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan “Project Evaluation Tool,” http://sec.ipa.go.jp/ [accessed September 1, 2017]
5. [5] “T-Plan: the Fast Start to Technology Roadmapping,” Cambridge University, 2009.
6. [6] S. Yamado et al., “Proposal of Quantitative Projects Evaluation Model and Cases Applied,” J. of the Society of Project Management, Vol.12, No.4, 2010 (in Japanese).
7. [7] N. Adachi, K. Hirano, H. Hikita, A. Yamanaka, and M. Tanaka, “Quality Management Activities for Agile Development and Its Evaluation,” J. of the Society of Project Management, Vol.13, Issue 2, pp. 24-29, 2011 (in Japanese).
8. [8] T. Moriya, A. Yamada, and T. Ishikawa, “Deployment of Quantitative Project Management in Toshiba Group,” Toshiba Review, Vol.64, No.10, 2009 (in Japanese),
9. [9] H. Sano, S. Yumitori, H. Shindo, Y. Kusakabe, H. Ida, and T. Kitada, “Development of Follow Up Survey and Evaluation Systems for R&D Projects,” J. of Project Management, Vol.7, Issue 4, pp. 26-31, 2005 (in Japanese).
10. [10] S. Asano, M. Wada, T. Sato, and H. Hosaka, “Evaluation Method of Refugee Assistance Robots by the Dada Accumulated in Social Experiments,” J. of the Robotics Society of Japan, Vol.34, No.7, pp. 278-483, 2016.
11. [11] K. Hiekata, “Knowledge Accumulation by Social Experiments Database,” JSAI Second Class Conf., 2014 (in Japanese).
12. [12] S. Asano, M. Wada, T. Sato, and H. Hosaka, “Proposal Analysis Method to Evaluate the Process of Robot Development Project with Social Experiments,” J. of the Robotics Society of Japan, Vol.25, No.10, pp. 750-755, 2017.
13. [13] MHLW Japan, “Development Handbook for Welfare Goods and Robots,” pp. 13-15, 2014.
14. [14] http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ [accessed September 1, 2017]
15. [15] “PMBOK GUIDE 5^th Edition,” Project Management Institute, Inc., 2013.
16. [16] “Reports on disaster related death on The Great East Japan Earthquake,” Reconstruction Agency of Japan, p. 1, 2012 (in Japanese).
17. [17] T. Sato and S. Asano, “R&D on Refugee Assistance Robotics in Minami-Souma,” RSJ Conf. 2015, 2M1-01, 2015 (in Japanese).
18. [18] M. Wada et al., “Development of Refugee Assistance robot with Active Caster,” RSJ Conf. 2015, 2M1-04, 2015 (in Japanese).
19. [19] T. Yamaguchi et al., “Social Robotics System for Disaster Prevention of Daily and Disaster Site,” RSJ Conf. 2015, 2M1-05, 2015 (in Japanese).
20. [20] H. Morishita et al., “Virtual Together-Living System,” RSJ Conf. 2015, 2M2-05, 2015 (in Japanese).