CN110633891A - System and method for evaluating performance of service provider - Google Patents
System and method for evaluating performance of service provider Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN110633891A CN110633891A CN201910721424.XA CN201910721424A CN110633891A CN 110633891 A CN110633891 A CN 110633891A CN 201910721424 A CN201910721424 A CN 201910721424A CN 110633891 A CN110633891 A CN 110633891A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- index
- evaluation
- service provider
- judgment matrix
- project
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status 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 status listed.)
- Pending
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR 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
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR 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
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management
- G06Q10/103—Workflow collaboration or project management
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention provides a system and a method for evaluating performance of a service provider, wherein the system comprises: the service provider selection module is used for selecting a service provider and the item type provided by the corresponding service provider; the index system construction module is used for constructing at least three layers of index systems aiming at the project types, wherein each index system comprises a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer; the index judgment matrix module selects the numerical values in any layer in the index system to carry out pairwise comparison to construct an index judgment matrix, and measures the relative importance among the indexes in the project according to the index judgment matrix; the consistency checking module is used for checking the accuracy of the index judgment matrix constructed by the index judgment matrix module and obtaining the weight value of each index in the project; and the score module is used for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider according to the obtained weight value and obtaining an evaluation result. By means of a big data mining analysis technology, mass data values in systems such as ECP and ERP are fully played, and performance evaluation work of service providers is innovatively developed.
Description
Technical Field
The invention belongs to the field of data analysis, and particularly relates to a system and a method for evaluating performance of a service provider.
Background
The service provider plays an important role in providing services such as technology, information consultation, service and solution and the like in national power grid company service providers, and the national power grid company service providers comprise service providers of engineering design, engineering construction, engineering supervision, engineering construction and the like, power grid operation and maintenance service, information system service and the like. The service providers directly promote the development and construction of national power grid companies, and in recent years, with the economic development, the service providers are carelessly managed, a large number of service providers with poor service quality, disordered service management, high service cost and the like are generated in the group of the service providers, and the service providers directly influence the economic development of the national power grid companies.
The evaluation of the performance of the service provider is the evaluation performed by the contract party A on the performance of the contract party B according to the contract relationship and the content, and is one of the direct and effective means for engineering management as the consideration of the performance. A performance evaluation index system which has comprehensive content and rich connotation and embodies the process management idea is the basis for establishing a performance evaluation mechanism.
In the traditional performance management of the performance, most of supporting documents provided by a service provider are simple satisfaction questionnaires in the process of performing and reviewing, the evaluation conclusion is generally 'excellent or good' or 'satisfactory or unsatisfactory', the evaluation index is simple, and quantitative comparison is difficult. And the performance evaluation work of project units often flows in forms, the connection between the evaluation process and the project implementation process is not tight enough, and the evaluation result is not effectively applied. Meanwhile, there is no effective application approach in service performance management with respect to the specific flow of the service provider's poor performance behavior processing and the closed-loop application in bid evaluation.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide a system and a method for evaluating the performance of a service provider, which fully play the value of mass data in systems such as ECP (engineering, planning and planning) and ERP (enterprise resource planning) by means of a big data mining analysis technology, innovatively develop the performance evaluation work of the service provider, reduce the influence of artificial subjective evaluation and improve the overall level of management of a medium-grade supplier; the knowledge map technology is utilized to construct a service provider relation topological map with different specialties, real-time monitoring of the service provider performing process is realized, timely guidance is conducted and the service provider is cultured to actively attach importance to the back-end performing service aiming at the abnormal performing contract and the service provider, and a benign closed-loop mechanism of purchase-performing-evaluation is formed.
In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides the following technical solutions:
the service provider performance evaluation system comprises:
the service provider selection module is used for selecting a service provider and the item type provided by the corresponding service provider;
the index system construction module is used for constructing at least three layers of index systems aiming at the project types, wherein each index system comprises a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer;
the index judgment matrix module selects the numerical values in any layer in the index system to carry out pairwise comparison to construct an index judgment matrix, and measures the relative importance among the indexes in the project according to the index judgment matrix;
the consistency checking module is used for checking the accuracy of the index judgment matrix constructed by the index judgment matrix module and obtaining the weight value of each index in the project;
and the score module is used for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider according to the obtained weight value and obtaining an evaluation result.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, an index system is correspondingly constructed for three phases of a project, namely a project preparation period, a project construction period and a project completion period, wherein the project preparation period and the project completion period are evaluated once, and the project construction period is evaluated at least twice.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the total amount of the items in the items, the historical evaluation condition and the quantity of the items are taken as the item indexes and are included in a service assessment and evaluation system.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the index data in the index system is processed into numerical data, and the numerical data is discretized at the same time.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the continuous index variable is normalized using the maximum-minimum normalization or Z-score normalization method.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the evaluation results are classified into four categories, with excellent corresponding scores of 98-100, good corresponding scores of 85-95, generally corresponding scores of 70-85, and poor corresponding scores of less than 70.
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the facilitator refers to engineering construction, grid operation, and other integrated facilitators that incorporate two-stage bidding purchases by the company and contract.
The method for evaluating the performance of the service provider comprises the following steps:
establishing an index system according to the evaluation object, determining the evaluation index, and dividing the evaluation index into 3 layers: a target layer, a criterion layer, a scheme layer;
constructing pairwise comparison judgment matrix C ═ (C)ij)n×nWhereinIs provided with cij＞0；cij＝1/cjiWherein i ═ j ═ 1, 2.., n., cijRepresentation of performance versus service provider composite valuation ciTo cjRelative importance value of;
calculating index weight to satisfy CW ═ λmaxThe characteristic root and the characteristic vector of W, regularizing the characteristic vector, and obtaining a regularized characteristic vector W [ W ]1，w2，...，wn]TAs the weighted value of the index of the level to the index X belonging to the level;
checking consistency to obtain lambdamaxThen, the consistency of the judgment matrix is checked, and the deviation consistency index CI is compared with the average random consistency index RI to obtain the checkA coefficient CR, when CR is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is called to have satisfactory consistency, otherwise, the judgment matrix is adjusted;
and finally, the comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider: 100-index corresponds to weight value of index.
In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a 1-9 proportion scaling method is adopted, cji1/cij is adopted, and 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are taken as the scales cij to respectively indicate that the importance degrees of ci and cj are equally important, slightly important, more important, strongly important and extremely important compared with the two indexes; the values of cij 2, 4, 6 and 8 represent the median values of the two adjacent decision scales.
Through the technical scheme, the invention has the technical effects that:
the invention adopts an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as an optimal algorithm for evaluating performance of a service provider, and the core idea of the algorithm is to introduce a measure theory on the basis of establishing a clear hierarchical structure to decompose complex problems, quantize the judgment of people by using relative scale through pairwise comparison, establish corresponding judgment matrixes layer by layer, solve the weight of the judgment matrixes, and finally calculate the comprehensive weight of ordered evaluation objects.
The algorithm has the advantages that: 1) the quantification and the qualification are combined, and the application range is wide; 2) the artificial experience and the data distribution condition are integrated, so that the method is suitable for the problem of high industrial specialty; 3) and taking the evaluation object as a system, and making a decision according to the decomposition, comparison, judgment and comprehensive thinking.
Drawings
Fig. 1 is a block diagram of the overall structure of the present invention.
Fig. 2 is an evaluation indication table of a distribution network construction service provider according to the present invention.
FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of the discretization process of the present invention.
Fig. 4 is a detailed system block diagram of embodiment 3 of the present invention.
FIG. 5 is a table indicating the decision matrix of the present invention.
FIG. 6 is a schematic table of the standard values of the average random consensus indicator RI according to the present invention.
Detailed Description
The present invention will be described in further detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.
Example 1:
as shown in fig. 1, the performance evaluation system for performing business, includes: a service provider selection module 100, configured to select a service provider and a type of item provided by the corresponding service provider;
for example, the service provider is XX electric power engineering limited company in south of Henan province, Shaanxi XX electric power engineering limited company, and the like, and the corresponding project type is an engineering construction service provider (project), a power grid operation service or other comprehensive services.
The index system building module 200 is used for building at least three layers of index systems aiming at the project types, wherein each index system comprises a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer;
the index judgment matrix module 300 is used for selecting the numerical values in any layer in the index system to carry out pairwise comparison to construct an index judgment matrix, and determining the relative importance among the indexes in the project according to the index judgment matrix;
the consistency checking module 400 is used for checking the accuracy of the index judgment matrix constructed by the index judgment matrix module and obtaining the weight value of each index in the project;
and the score module 500 is used for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider according to the obtained weight value and obtaining an evaluation result.
The service provider in the scheme refers to engineering construction, power grid operation and other comprehensive service providers which are brought into two-stage bidding purchase of the company and contract.
As shown in fig. 2, taking the distribution network construction service provider as an example, the evaluation may be performed from a plurality of angles, including but not limited to project preparation evaluation, project construction evaluation, as-built evaluation, and total amount of project evaluation, historical evaluation, and number of projects.
Taking a distribution network construction project as an example, a service project is graded by a service administration department according to a project grading rule of a project made by a service provider, total deduction values of all indexes are obtained in a deduction mode according to evaluation indexes, standard values, evaluation contents, grading standards and the like in the project preparation period, the construction period and the completion period, the construction period is evaluated for multiple times, the maximum value of the evaluation result is obtained, and finally the evaluation values in the three stages are summarized to obtain the final score of the project through a percentage calculation scheme.
The system is based on an ERP system development framework, and adds a software function achievement for researching a company service provider default evaluation system. Architecture for developing, deploying, and managing complex problems associated with enterprise solutions is simplified through a unified development framework. And meets the need for application functions that require high availability, high reliability, and scalability without much expense.
And (3) expanding the strategy: the newly added application function of the system is based on an ERP system development framework, and the system function can be easily expanded. The system adopts an interface-oriented programming mode, and ensures that the realization methods of all the classes can be flexibly expanded. And aiming at the provided external service interface, secondary development programming can be carried out.
The system of the invention has higher performance and reliability:
(1) the system ordinary query service is that under the condition that a single application server concurrently transmits 50 users, the response time of a simple page is less than 3s, and the response time of a list page is less than 5 s;
(2) under the condition of bearing the maximum concurrent user number and continuously operating for 2 hours, the system operates stably, the service failure rate does not exceed 0.1 percent, and the average occupancy rate of a CPU is lower than 60 percent;
(3) and under the condition that 40% of the maximum concurrent user number continuously runs for 8 hours, the system runs stably, the service failure rate does not exceed 0.1%, and the average occupancy rate of the CPU is lower than 60%.
Example 2:
the evaluation method based on the system specifically comprises the following steps:
firstly, establishing a hierarchical structure; on the basis of in-depth analysis of practical problems, relevant factors are decomposed into a plurality of layers from top to bottom according to different attributes, and the factors of the same layer are subordinate to or have influence on the factors of the upper layer, and simultaneously dominate or are influenced by the factors of the lower layer. The top layer is the target layer, usually only 1 factor, the bottom layer is usually the scheme or object layer, there may be one or several layers in the middle, usually the criterion or index layer. When there are too many criteria (e.g., more than 9) sub-criteria layers should be further decomposed.
Then constructing a judgment matrix; starting from the level 2 of the hierarchical model, a pairwise comparison matrix is constructed using pairwise comparison and 1-9 comparison scales for the same level of factors subordinate to (or affecting) each factor in the previous level, up to the lowest level.
Then calculating the characteristic vector of the matrix to determine the relative importance of each element, namely the hierarchical single ordering, and carrying out consistency check;
and calculating the maximum characteristic root and the corresponding characteristic vector of each paired comparison array, and performing consistency check by using the consistency index, the random consistency index and the consistency ratio. If the test is passed, the feature vector (after normalization) is the weight vector: if not, the comparison matrix needs to be reconstructed. And calculating a combined weight vector of the lowest layer to the target, and performing combined consistency check according to a formula, wherein if the combined weight vector passes the check, the decision can be made according to a result expressed by the combined weight vector, otherwise, the model needs to be considered again or the paired comparison array with a larger consistency ratio needs to be reconstructed.
And finally, calculating the weight of each level index relative to the total target, namely the total level sequence, and finally realizing the comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the service provider.
Specifically, the method for evaluating the performance of the service provider comprises the following steps:
firstly, establishing an index system according to an evaluation object, determining the evaluation index according to the evaluation object, and classifying the evaluation index to form a hierarchical structure, wherein the general hierarchical structure is divided into 3 layers: target layer, criterion layer, scheme layer.
In the second step, two-by-two comparison judgment matrix C is constructed (C)ij)n×n. Using a 1-9 scale, cij indicates the relative importance of ci to cj, and has cji1/cij, and the scale cij takes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to respectively indicate that ci is equally important, slightly important, more important, and,Strongly important, extremely important; the values of cij 2, 4, 6 and 8 represent the median values of the two adjacent decision scales.
And thirdly, calculating the index weight. I.e. the calculation satisfies CW ═ λmaxThe characteristic root and the characteristic vector of W, regularizing the characteristic vector, and obtaining a regularized characteristic vector W [ W ]1，w2，...，wn]TAs element X of this level1，X2，...，XnThe weight value for its membership element X.
The fourth step of consistency check, thus obtaining lambdamaxAnd then, the consistency of the judgment matrix needs to be checked, the deviation consistency index CI is compared with the average random consistency index RI to obtain a check coefficient CR, when CR is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is called to have satisfactory consistency, otherwise, the judgment matrix is adjusted.
In the index data, considering that the index data is calculated in the hierarchical analysis algorithm model and should be processed into numerical data recognizable by a machine, discretization processing needs to be performed on the index parameter, and a processing result is shown in fig. 4.
Furthermore, considering the magnitude of the indexes, continuous index variables need to be standardized to remove the influence of the dimension on the evaluation result.
Here, the accumulated amount of the evaluation project, the construction project part construction _ average value, the construction project part resource allocation _ average value, the project operation condition _ average value, the project management promotion _ average value, the safety management _ average value, the quality management _ average value, the technical management _ average value, the progress management _ average value, the completion management _ average value, the bad behavior _ average value, and the project evaluation score _ average value need to be standardized by the following maximum and minimum standardization or Z-score standardization methods.
Maximum minimum normalized formula:
X*＝(x-x.min)/(x.max-x.min)
z-score normalization formula:
X*＝(x-μ)/δ
namely, it is
Example 3:
based on the description of embodiment 2, this embodiment 3 gives a specific implementation scheme.
The method comprises the steps of applying an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to carry out comprehensive evaluation on performance of a service provider, layering evaluation problems, decomposing the problems into an evaluation scheme layer (the bottommost layer), a criterion layer (a middle layer) and a target layer (the highest layer) according to the problem properties and a total target, determining the weight of an evaluation factor by utilizing the importance of the lower layer to the upper layer, and carrying out qualitative and quantitative analysis decisions on the basis.
Accordingly, the general steps of determining the weight of the evaluation index of the service provider are as follows:
firstly, establishing a hierarchical structure; then constructing a judgment matrix; then calculating the characteristic vector of the judgment matrix to determine the relative importance of each element, namely the hierarchical single ordering, and carrying out consistency check; and finally, calculating the weight of each level index relative to the total target, namely the total level sequence, and finally realizing the comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the service provider.
According to the situation of an evaluation object, the complex problem is decomposed into components, the components are divided into a plurality of groups according to different attributes to form different layers, and the hierarchical structure of the layers and the dependency relationship of indexes are illustrated in a block diagram form.
The service provider performance comprehensive evaluation model takes preprocessed data such as construction project part construction _ average value, construction project part resource configuration _ average value, project operation condition _ average value, project management promotion _ average value, safety management _ average value, quality management _ average value, technical management _ average value, progress management _ average value, completion management _ average value, bad behavior _ average value, project quantity and the like as model input variables.
Comparing every two influencing factors of the criterion layer and the scheme layer according to relative importance and empirical knowledge to give a qualitative judgment matrix, and constructing a judgment matrix C (C) of the criterion layer and the index layerij)n×nThe method has the following characteristics:
Therefore, the judgment matrix C is called (C)ij)n×nIs a positive and inverse matrix, cijRepresentation of performance versus service provider composite valuation ciTo cjRelative importance value of.
The service provider index judgment matrix represents a judgment matrix constructed by comparing two by two according to the relative importance between each index, as shown in fig. 5, for the construction item part construction _ average value, the construction item part resource allocation _ average value, the project operation condition _ average value, the project management promotion _ average value, the safety management _ average value, the quality management _ average value, the technical management _ average value, the progress management _ average value, the completion management _ average value, the bad behavior _ average value, the accumulated amount of money of the evaluation-participating projects, the historical evaluation condition and the quantity of projects:
hierarchical ordering and consistency check
1) Calculating approximate eigenvector and maximum eigenvalue of judgment matrix
Carrying out normalization processing on each row of elements of the judgment matrix by adopting a sum-product method, wherein the processed elements are as follows:
after normalization processing, each column is added according to rows as follows:
to vector (omega)1，ω2，...，ωn)TNormalization treatment:
obtain a vector (ω1，ω2，...，ωn)TThe vector is the approximate solution of the feature vector.
The maximum eigenvalue may be expressed as:
calculating the characteristic vector and the characteristic value of the judgment matrix by the formula to obtain a normalized characteristic vector, wherein the maximum characteristic root is as follows:
ω
＝(0.087，0.045，0.036，0.073，0.09，0.132，0.115，0.1486，0.121，0.027，0.09，0.103，0.0224)
λmax＝13.7958
2) consistency check and judge
And aiming at the importance judgment matrix of the performance evaluation index of the service provider, after solving the maximum characteristic root lambda and the characteristic vector W of the judgment matrix, carrying out consistency check for ensuring the logic correctness. And (4) performing satisfactory consistency check on the judgment matrix according to an analytic hierarchy process, wherein n is 13 because the judgment matrix has 13 indexes, and the RI standard value RI corresponding to the lookup table is 1.56.
And comparing the CI with the random consistency index RI to obtain a check coefficient CR, wherein the calculation formula is as follows.
Where CR is 0.0425 < 0.1, the decision matrix passes the satisfactory consistency test.
Calculating the maximum characteristic value and the characteristic vector of the server performance index importance judgment matrix, checking that the judgment matrix meets the consistency requirement, wherein the characteristic vector after normalization is omega, namely the weight of each index, and finally, the server performance comprehensive evaluation score is as follows:
where CR is 0.0425 < 0.1, the decision matrix passes the satisfactory consistency test.
Calculating the maximum characteristic value and the characteristic vector of the server performance index importance judgment matrix, checking that the judgment matrix meets the consistency requirement, and finally obtaining the server performance comprehensive evaluation score by taking the characteristic vector after normalization as the weight of each index:
score is 100- (construction item part construction _ average value ω;)1
+ construction project resource allocation _ average value ω2
+ item start-up condition _ mean ω3
+ project management promotion _ mean ω4
+ safety management _ mean value ω5
+ quality management _ mean value ω6
+ technique management _ mean value ω7
+ progress management _ mean ω8
+ completion management _ mean value ω9
+ bad behavior _ mean ω10)
+ cumulative amount of item ω11
+ historical evaluation cases ω12
+ number of items ω13
The project accumulated amount, the historical evaluation condition and the project quantity index are bonus values of the indexes; omegaiThe Score is a component of the feature vector, and the Score obtained finally is a comprehensive evaluation Score of the performance of the service provider.
The structure and the evaluation method of the embodiment 1 and the embodiment 2 are utilized to construct a service provider performance analysis and evaluation system, which comprises seven parts of service provider performance evaluation analysis of engineering construction type projects, service provider performance evaluation analysis of engineering supervision type projects, service provider performance evaluation analysis of engineering design type projects, general evaluation of other service providers, general evaluation of power grid operation service providers, evaluation of information system service providers and basic support:
1) and (3) performing evaluation analysis by engineering construction project service providers, aiming at the main network and distribution network construction projects: construction project part construction, construction resource allocation, construction planning management, management promotion, project management, safety management, quality management, construction cost management, completion and technical management evaluation analysis.
2) And (3) performing evaluation analysis of the project supervision project service provider, aiming at the main network project and the distribution network supervision project: project department construction, resource allocation, planning management, project management, safety management, quality management, cost management, completion and technical management evaluation analysis.
3) Performing evaluation analysis of engineering design project service providers: designing a class project aiming at a main network and a distribution network: preliminary design, construction drawing design, field service, design change and construction drawing design evaluation analysis.
4) Other service providers generally evaluate and analyze, and the evaluation items can be divided into: the evaluation of the prior period can be researched and approved, the evaluation of the investigation service, the evaluation of the consultation service and the evaluation of the large transportation service.
5) The general evaluation analysis of the power grid operation and maintenance service provider can be divided into the following evaluation items: the method comprises the following steps of power transmission and transformation operation and maintenance, maintenance service evaluation, power distribution operation and maintenance, maintenance service evaluation, production auxiliary facility operation and maintenance, and maintenance service evaluation.
6) The evaluation analysis of the information system service provider can be divided into the following items aiming at the evaluation items: and evaluating the services such as science and technology, management and consultation, insurance, fire fighting, audit, logistics property and the like.
7) And (3) supporting a foundation: and (4) regularly maintaining the project information to an ERP system service evaluation module according to the evaluation detailed rules of the service provider project designed by the performance evaluation of the service provider, and ensuring that the service provider project evaluation can be smoothly carried out.
By the system, the past performance of the facilitator is quantitatively evaluated, and the system is applied to a new bidding purchasing process, so that the service quality and level of the facilitator can be effectively reflected, the subjective judgment of experts is reduced, the objectivity and scientificity of review are improved, the risk of a manual intervention bidding process is reduced, the bidding purchasing quality is further improved, and the development of engineering service bidding purchasing specifications is promoted.
The foregoing is a more detailed description of the invention in connection with specific preferred embodiments, and it is not intended that the invention be limited to the specific details set forth herein. For those skilled in the art to which the present invention pertains, several simple deductions or substitutions can be made without departing from the inventive concept, and all of them should be considered as belonging to the protection scope of the present patent.
Claims (9)
1. The service provider performance evaluation system is characterized by comprising:
the service provider selection module is used for selecting a service provider and the item type provided by the corresponding service provider;
the index system construction module is used for constructing at least three layers of index systems aiming at the project types, wherein each index system comprises a target layer, a criterion layer and a scheme layer;
the index judgment matrix module selects the numerical values in any layer in the index system to carry out pairwise comparison to construct an index judgment matrix, and measures the relative importance among the indexes in the project according to the index judgment matrix;
the consistency checking module is used for checking the accuracy of the index judgment matrix constructed by the index judgment matrix module and obtaining the weight value of each index in the project;
and the score module is used for obtaining a comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider according to the obtained weight value and obtaining an evaluation result.
2. The facilitator performance evaluation system of claim 1, wherein an index system is established for three stages of a project, including project preparation time, construction time and completion time, wherein the preparation time and completion time are evaluated once, and the construction time is evaluated at least twice.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the total amount of items in the item, historical evaluation conditions, and quantity of items are included as item indicators in a service assessment system.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein index data in the index system is processed into numerical data, and the numerical data is discretized.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the continuous index variables are normalized by a maximum-minimum normalization or a Z-score normalization.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the evaluation results are classified into four categories, with a score of 98-100 for excellent correspondence, a score of 85-95 for good correspondence, a score of 70-85 for general correspondence, and a score of less than 70 for poor correspondence.
7. The system for evaluating the performance of the facilitator of any one of claims 1-6, wherein the facilitator refers to engineering construction, power grid operation and other integrated facilitators who incorporate two-stage bidding procurement of companies and contract.
8. The method for evaluating the performance of the facilitator is characterized by comprising the following steps of:
establishing an index system according to the evaluation object, determining the evaluation index, and dividing the evaluation index into 3 layers: a target layer, a criterion layer, a scheme layer;
constructing pairwise comparison judgment matrix C ═ (C)ij)n×nWherein
Is provided with cij＞0；cij＝1/cjiWherein i ═ j ═ 1, 2.., n., cijRepresentation of performance versus service provider composite valuation ciTo cjIs relatively heavyA key value;
calculating index weight to satisfy CW ═ λmaxThe characteristic root and the characteristic vector of W, regularizing the characteristic vector, and obtaining a regularized characteristic vector W [ W ]1，w2，...，wn]TAs the weighted value of the index of the level to the index X belonging to the level;
checking consistency to obtain lambdamaxThen, the consistency of the judgment matrix is checked, the deviation consistency index CI is compared with the average random consistency index RI to obtain a check coefficient CR, when CR is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix is called to have satisfactory consistency, otherwise, the judgment matrix is adjusted;
and finally, the comprehensive evaluation score of the performance of the service provider: 100-index corresponds to weight value of index.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein a 1-9 scaling method is adopted, wherein cji1/cij is provided, and 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are respectively used for scaling cij to indicate that the importance of ci and cj is equal, slightly, more, strongly, extremely or extremely important; the values of cij 2, 4, 6 and 8 represent the median values of the two adjacent decision scales.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201910721424.XA CN110633891A (en) | 2019-08-06 | 2019-08-06 | System and method for evaluating performance of service provider |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201910721424.XA CN110633891A (en) | 2019-08-06 | 2019-08-06 | System and method for evaluating performance of service provider |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN110633891A true CN110633891A (en) | 2019-12-31 |
Family
ID=68969285
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201910721424.XA Pending CN110633891A (en) | 2019-08-06 | 2019-08-06 | System and method for evaluating performance of service provider |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN110633891A (en) |
Cited By (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111915166A (en) * | 2020-07-16 | 2020-11-10 | 北京邮电大学 | Method and device for determining group activity |
| CN112257265A (en) * | 2020-10-22 | 2021-01-22 | 国网河北省电力有限公司石家庄供电分公司 | Power transformer service life prediction method based on health index and unequal-interval gray model |
| CN112529378A (en) * | 2020-11-30 | 2021-03-19 | 株洲千金药业股份有限公司 | Enterprise management efficiency evaluation system and method based on intelligent identification |
| CN112561240A (en) * | 2020-11-25 | 2021-03-26 | 青岛国信建设投资有限公司 | Construction project contractor performance credit evaluation method and system |
| CN113312537A (en) * | 2021-06-22 | 2021-08-27 | 中山大学 | Evaluation index calculation method for service reliability of search engine |
| CN113516537A (en) * | 2021-07-21 | 2021-10-19 | 吉林财经大学 | O2O takeout catering performance recommendation system and method |
| CN114091791A (en) * | 2022-01-21 | 2022-02-25 | 科大智能物联技术股份有限公司 | Improved DEA-based AHP logistics performance evaluation method |
| CN115017364A (en) * | 2022-06-28 | 2022-09-06 | 天翼数字生活科技有限公司 | Method, device, equipment and medium for evaluating contribution degree of video service data area |
Citations (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN109801002A (en) * | 2019-03-01 | 2019-05-24 | 国家电网有限公司 | O&M overhauls the transformer supplier comprehensive performance evaluation method under visual angle |
-
2019
- 2019-08-06 CN CN201910721424.XA patent/CN110633891A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN109801002A (en) * | 2019-03-01 | 2019-05-24 | 国家电网有限公司 | O&M overhauls the transformer supplier comprehensive performance evaluation method under visual angle |
Cited By (8)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111915166A (en) * | 2020-07-16 | 2020-11-10 | 北京邮电大学 | Method and device for determining group activity |
| CN112257265A (en) * | 2020-10-22 | 2021-01-22 | 国网河北省电力有限公司石家庄供电分公司 | Power transformer service life prediction method based on health index and unequal-interval gray model |
| CN112561240A (en) * | 2020-11-25 | 2021-03-26 | 青岛国信建设投资有限公司 | Construction project contractor performance credit evaluation method and system |
| CN112529378A (en) * | 2020-11-30 | 2021-03-19 | 株洲千金药业股份有限公司 | Enterprise management efficiency evaluation system and method based on intelligent identification |
| CN113312537A (en) * | 2021-06-22 | 2021-08-27 | 中山大学 | Evaluation index calculation method for service reliability of search engine |
| CN113516537A (en) * | 2021-07-21 | 2021-10-19 | 吉林财经大学 | O2O takeout catering performance recommendation system and method |
| CN114091791A (en) * | 2022-01-21 | 2022-02-25 | 科大智能物联技术股份有限公司 | Improved DEA-based AHP logistics performance evaluation method |
| CN115017364A (en) * | 2022-06-28 | 2022-09-06 | 天翼数字生活科技有限公司 | Method, device, equipment and medium for evaluating contribution degree of video service data area |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| CN110633891A (en) | System and method for evaluating performance of service provider | |
| Mi et al. | An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method | |
| Yu et al. | An approach for green supplier selection in the automobile manufacturing industry | |
| Zeng et al. | Intuitionistic fuzzy social network hybrid MCDM model for an assessment of digital reforms of manufacturing industry in China | |
| Cheng et al. | Contractor selection using the analytic network process | |
| Park | Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete | |
| Ak et al. | Occupational health, safety and environmental risk assessment in textile production industry through a Bayesian BWM-VIKOR approach | |
| CN111754116B (en) | Credit evaluation method and device based on label portrait technology | |
| Zha et al. | A hybrid MCDM method using combination weight for the selection of facility layout in the manufacturing system: a case study | |
| Sriram et al. | A review on multi-criteria decision-making and its application | |
| Hwang et al. | A bid decision-making model in the initial bidding phase for overseas construction projects | |
| Liao et al. | Benchmarking project level engineering productivity | |
| Zhang et al. | Safety Assessment in Road Construction Work System Based on Group AHP‐PCA | |
| CN113095931A (en) | Post-loan risk monitoring method and device and computer equipment | |
| Prasetyo et al. | Criteria analysis, weight and priority for handling bridges in Kudus District using AHP and Promethee II methods | |
| CN112288269A (en) | Regional power distribution network equipment asset investment scheme evaluation method and system | |
| Wang et al. | A decision model for information systems outsourcing: using a multicriteria method | |
| CN114493208A (en) | Method and device for evaluating engineering project full life cycle, electronic equipment and medium | |
| Zheng et al. | A hybrid approach for evaluating faulty behavior risk of high‐risk operations using ANP and evidence theory | |
| Sheikhalishahi et al. | Maintenance scheduling optimization in a multiple production line considering human error | |
| Ajalli et al. | Evaluation and ranking the resilient suppliers with the combination of decision making techniques | |
| Schmid et al. | A structured comparison of the corporate information security maturity level | |
| CN116402528A (en) | Power data processing system | |
| Purba et al. | Decision Making for Optimal Marketing Strategy: A Case Study in E-Commerce | |
| Jamshidnejad | Project Portfolio Selection Based on Risk Index |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| RJ01 | Rejection of invention patent application after publication | ||
| RJ01 | Rejection of invention patent application after publication |
Application publication date: 20191231 |