CN114862258A - Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium - Google Patents
Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN114862258A CN114862258A CN202210589990.1A CN202210589990A CN114862258A CN 114862258 A CN114862258 A CN 114862258A CN 202210589990 A CN202210589990 A CN 202210589990A CN 114862258 A CN114862258 A CN 114862258A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- supplier
- item
- evaluation
- score
- suppliers
- 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
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 203
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 118
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 100
- 238000012797 qualification Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 87
- 238000004590 computer program Methods 0.000 claims description 12
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 230000004931 aggregating effect Effects 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 abstract description 2
- 238000003466 welding Methods 0.000 description 109
- 238000007689 inspection Methods 0.000 description 21
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 12
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 11
- 238000007726 management method Methods 0.000 description 8
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 7
- 210000003484 anatomy Anatomy 0.000 description 5
- 239000010953 base metal Substances 0.000 description 5
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000002360 preparation method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000001681 protective effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- 238000012795 verification Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000009471 action Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000008520 organization Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000005498 polishing Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000000275 quality assurance Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000002224 dissection Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000006872 improvement Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000004806 packaging method and process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000004886 process control Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000012549 training Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000010923 batch production Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000011324 bead Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000007547 defect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000428 dust Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012854 evaluation process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008570 general process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000010438 heat treatment Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003384 imaging method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000008676 import Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000011229 interlayer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000007769 metal material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004321 preservation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003908 quality control method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002994 raw material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000007619 statistical method Methods 0.000 description 1
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
-
- 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
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/04—Manufacturing
-
- Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSS-REFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
- Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
- Y02P—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF GOODS
- Y02P90/00—Enabling technologies with a potential contribution to greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions mitigation
- Y02P90/30—Computing systems specially adapted for manufacturing
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Manufacturing & Machinery (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The application discloses a supplier evaluation method, a supplier evaluation system, a supplier evaluation device and a supplier evaluation medium, which are applied to the field of supplier management. The scheme is applied to a processor, and the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process of the supplier are evaluated respectively to obtain a first evaluation result and a second evaluation result; and then evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers. In the method, the capability of the supplier can be evaluated from two aspects of the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process corresponding to the supplier, and a computer algorithm is used, so that a large amount of manpower is not wasted, the use of the manpower can be reduced to a certain extent, the problems of low efficiency and high error rate caused by manual operation can be solved, the speed of order distribution of the welded parts is ensured, and the quality safety of the welded parts is improved.
Description
Technical Field
The present application relates to the field of supplier management, and in particular, to a supplier evaluation method, system, device, and medium.
Background
The composition of a train requires hundreds of thousands of welded components, a significant portion of which are purchased at the supplier, and the supplier needs to be evaluated in the prior art to ensure the quality of the welded components. Due to the extremely large number of suppliers involved and the dynamic changes of the supplier's capability with the continuous perfection of the supplier's welding system and the continuous change of the welding project, the difficulty is increased for the effective evaluation of the suppliers. In addition, in the prior art, the capability of the supplier is mainly evaluated by manpower, and due to the fact that workload is large, evaluation efficiency is low, error rate is high, the capability of the supplier cannot be effectively evaluated, orders of welding parts cannot be rapidly and reasonably distributed according to the capability of the supplier, and great hidden danger is brought to quality safety of the welding parts.
Disclosure of Invention
The application aims to provide a supplier evaluation method, a supplier evaluation system, a supplier evaluation device and a supplier evaluation medium, which can evaluate the capacity of a supplier from two aspects of the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process corresponding to the supplier, and use a computer algorithm, so that a large amount of manpower is not required to be wasted, the use of the manpower can be reduced to a certain extent, the problems of low efficiency and high error rate caused by manual operation can be solved, and the speed of order allocation of welded parts is ensured and the quality safety of the welded parts is improved.
In order to solve the above technical problem, the present application provides a supplier evaluation method, applied to a processor, including:
evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
and evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grades of the suppliers.
Preferably, the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier is performed to obtain a first evaluation result, which includes:
dividing the basic qualification of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding first items;
respectively evaluating the first items of the supplier to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the first items one by one;
according to the plurality of first item point evaluation results, the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier is realized, and the first evaluation result is obtained;
evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result, comprising:
dividing the project process of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding second item points;
respectively evaluating the second item points of the supplier to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one;
and realizing the evaluation of the project process of the supplier according to the plurality of second project point evaluation results to obtain the second evaluation result.
Preferably, the evaluating the plurality of first items of the supplier respectively to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the plurality of first items one to one, includes:
according to the grade of each first item of the supplier, scoring each first item to obtain a first item score;
according to a plurality of first item point evaluation results, realizing the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier, and obtaining the first evaluation result, wherein the evaluation comprises the following steps:
summarizing the first item scores to obtain a basic qualification score of the supplier;
respectively evaluating the second item points of the suppliers to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one, wherein the second item point evaluation results comprise
According to the grade of each second item point of the supplier, scoring each second item point to obtain a second item point score;
the evaluation of the project process of the supplier is realized according to the plurality of second project point evaluation results, and the second evaluation result is obtained;
and summarizing the second item point scores to obtain the project process score and the process score of the supplier.
Preferably, aggregating a plurality of said first endpoint scores to obtain a base qualification score for said supplier comprises:
determining the weight of each first item point according to the importance degree of each first item point and a first preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
calculating a base qualification score of the supplier according to each first item point score and the corresponding weight;
summarizing the second item point scores to obtain item process scores of the supplier item processes, wherein the item process scores comprise:
determining the weight of each second item point according to the importance degree of each second item point and a second preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
and calculating the project process scores of the suppliers according to each second project point score and the corresponding weight.
Preferably, the evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers includes:
obtaining the total score of the supplier according to the basic qualification score of the supplier and a first preset weight occupied by the basic qualification, and according to the project process score of the supplier and a second preset weight occupied by the project process;
and grading the suppliers according to the total scores of the suppliers.
Preferably, the evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers includes:
adding or dividing the basic qualification score and the project process score by two to obtain a total score of the supplier;
the basic qualification score and the project process score are differentiated to obtain a score difference value;
and grading the suppliers according to the total scores and the score difference values.
Preferably, after dividing the basic qualification of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding first items and dividing the project process of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding second items, the method further comprises:
selecting a plurality of first item points and a plurality of second item points as preset key item points;
when the first item points are evaluated respectively and the second item points are evaluated respectively, whether the preset key item points meet requirements is judged;
if not, directly rating the supplier as the lowest level.
In order to solve the above technical problem, the present application further provides a supplier evaluation system, including:
the basic qualification evaluation unit is used for evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
the process evaluation unit is used for evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
and the grade evaluation unit is used for evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers.
In order to solve the above technical problem, the present application further provides a supplier evaluation apparatus, including:
a memory for storing a computer program;
a processor for implementing the steps of the supplier evaluation method described above when storing a computer program.
In order to solve the above technical problem, the present application further provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the supplier evaluation method described above.
The application provides a supplier evaluation method which is applied to the field of supplier management. The scheme is applied to a processor, and the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process of the supplier are evaluated respectively to obtain a first evaluation result and a second evaluation result; and then evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers. In the method, the capability of the supplier can be evaluated from two aspects of the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process corresponding to the supplier, and a computer algorithm is used, so that a large amount of manpower is not wasted, the use of the manpower can be reduced to a certain extent, the problems of low efficiency and high error rate caused by manual operation can be solved, the speed of order distribution of the welded parts is ensured, and the quality safety of the welded parts is improved.
The present application also provides a supplier evaluation system, apparatus and computer-readable storage medium, which have the same advantages as the above-described supplier evaluation method.
Drawings
In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present application, the drawings needed for the embodiments will be briefly described below, and it is obvious that the drawings in the following description are only some embodiments of the present application, and that other drawings can be obtained by those skilled in the art without inventive effort.
FIG. 1 is a schematic flow chart of a supplier evaluation method provided herein;
FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a model for supplier welding assurance capability evaluation provided in the present application;
FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram of the category of items classified by evaluators for suppliers according to the present application;
FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating evaluation results of a supplier provided by the present application;
FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating a supplier evaluation method according to the present disclosure;
FIG. 6 is a block diagram of a supplier evaluation system provided herein;
fig. 7 is a block diagram of a supplier evaluation apparatus according to the present application.
Detailed Description
The core of the application is to provide a supplier evaluation method, a supplier evaluation system, a supplier evaluation device and a supplier evaluation medium, which can evaluate the capability of a supplier from two aspects of the basic qualification of the supplier and the project process corresponding to the supplier, and use a computer algorithm, thereby not wasting a large amount of manpower, reducing the use of the manpower to a certain extent, solving the problems of low efficiency and high error rate caused by manual operation, further ensuring the speed of order allocation of welded parts and improving the quality safety of the welded parts.
In order to make the objects, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the drawings in the embodiments of the present application, and it is obvious that the described embodiments are some embodiments of the present application, but not all embodiments. All other embodiments, which can be derived by a person skilled in the art from the embodiments given herein without making any creative effort, shall fall within the protection scope of the present application.
Referring to fig. 1, fig. 1 is a schematic flowchart illustrating a supplier evaluation method applied to a processor, including:
s11: evaluating the basic qualification of a supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
specifically, the assessment method for the supplier is divided into two categories, one of which is a basic qualification, the basic qualification is the system guarantee capability for the completeness evaluation of the welding system of the supplier,
as a preferred embodiment, the basic qualification of the supplier is evaluated to obtain a first evaluation result, which includes:
dividing the basic qualification of a supplier into a plurality of corresponding first items;
respectively evaluating a plurality of first items of a supplier to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the first items one by one;
realizing the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier according to the plurality of first item evaluation results to obtain a first evaluation result;
referring to fig. 2 and fig. 3, fig. 2 is a model schematic diagram of supplier welding guarantee capability evaluation provided by the present application, and fig. 3 is a schematic diagram of item categories classified by an evaluator of the supplier provided by the present application.
Specifically, the two categories are decomposed separately in the present application, and preferably, the evaluation of the basic qualification can be divided into 10 categories, specifically: organization, system and mechanism, welding materials, enterprise certification, welding responsibility, welder and welding operator, welding equipment, assembly welding tool, inspector and subcontractor. Specifically, each class is evaluated to achieve an evaluation of the underlying qualification.
Specifically, 10 classes are divided into 42 first items, and the first items of specific basic qualification capacity are as follows:
(1) organization mechanisms: the reasonable organization regulates the work responsibility of each department and the responsibility of the welding supervisor to directly take charge of the manager representative and issue the mission book of the welding responsibility personnel to the manager representative.
(2) The system mechanism class: the management of the welding process is standard, the element management and control are comprehensive, a normalized personnel qualification guarantee and capability improvement mechanism is established, a material selection type purchasing and claiming quality tracing mechanism, a process verification mechanism for covering all joints of a product, a normalized internal inspection mechanism, an internal inspection team in a special industry, a normalized internal inspection report are established, and whether the problem is closed in time or not is judged.
(3) Welding materials: the technical specification of purchasing welding raw materials, the welding wire type selection and purchasing technical specification are formulated, and the technical specification of purchasing welding protective gas is formulated.
(4) Enterprise authentication class: and welding and authenticating through EN15085 to obtain an authentication certificate, wherein the enterprise address of the certificate covers all working areas of suppliers, the enterprise authentication level conforms to the authentication level specified in the drawing, a certificate welding responsible person is consistent with an enterprise appointed book, the certificate is in the valid period, annual review and certificate change review, a certificate welding method coverage product, a certificate material group coverage product, a certificate welding thickness coverage product and a certificate joint type coverage product.
(5) Welding responsibility human: the welding supervision system has at least 1 IWE/CWI and is an enterprise official employee, has at least 1 IWS and is an enterprise official employee, is configured with qualified and experienced welding supervision, and periodically updates welding professional knowledge.
(6) Welders and welding operators: having at least 2 international welders and being business official employees, having at least 2 operators and being business official employees, having at least 2 four-party shares registered welders, the welding operator being regularly trained.
(7) Welding equipment: the welding equipment configuration meets the requirements of product welding, the welding equipment entering factory and overhaul passing capability verification is carried out, and the inspection, maintenance and maintenance records of the welding equipment are provided.
(8) Assembling and welding tools: the welding tool configuration meets the requirements of product assembly welding, the welding tool is newly manufactured and overhauled to pass tool verification, and the inspection and maintenance records of the welding tool are provided.
(9) The inspection personnel class: VT inspectors with ISO 9712 qualifications, the number of inspectors meeting the product inspection requirements, the inspectors regularly performing capacity improvement and training, and the welding operators regularly performing special training.
(10) And (4) sub-packaging business classes: the welding qualification of the subcontractor meets the welding requirement of the supplied products, the subcontractor belongs to a qualified supplier of four shares, and the welding quality of the subcontractor products is tracked and controlled.
S12: evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
specifically, the evaluation method of the supplier is divided into two categories, namely evaluation of the supplier based on project process capability, specifically, the project process of the supplier is to verify the realization capability of the supplier process preparation and the welding product through implementation of a specific welding product project.
As a preferred embodiment, the evaluation of the project process of the supplier is performed to obtain a second evaluation result, which includes:
dividing project processes of a supplier into a plurality of corresponding second item points;
respectively evaluating a plurality of second item points of the supplier to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one;
and realizing the evaluation of the project process of the supplier according to the evaluation results of the plurality of second project points to obtain a second evaluation result.
Specifically, the two categories are decomposed separately in the present application, and preferably, the evaluation of the basic qualification can be divided into 11 categories, specifically: planning preparation, welding personnel conformance, equipment tool security, material management and control, field files, environmental safety, process control, unqualified product treatment, field inspection, product dissection and quality management and control. Specifically, each class is evaluated to enable evaluation of the project process.
Specifically, the 11 types are divided into 78 second items, and the second items of the specific project process are as follows:
(1) planning preparation: requiring evaluation: performing welding requirement evaluation and responding to contract requirements; and (4) technical evaluation: carrying out welding technology evaluation and meeting design requirements; welding drawings: the drawing authentication grade meets EN15085-2 standard, the joint quality grade meets EN15085-3 requirement, the joint inspection grade meets EN15085-3 requirement, the joint groove detail meets EN15085-3 requirement, the welding method specified by the product welding drawing is reasonable, and the drawing is signed and checked according to the flow and by IWE; the process design comprises the following steps: the method comprises the following steps of developing a welding process design by using an informatization system, achieving weld detail based on a product operation unit, meeting product requirements by a welding process procedure (WPS), meeting product requirements by a welding process assessment (PQR), meeting product requirements by qualifications of welders and operators, finishing welding a working test piece and meeting standard requirements, finishing polishing the working test piece and meeting the standard requirements, and compiling a product process file and a general process procedure; and (3) checking and planning: compiling a test inspection plan meeting the product requirements, and compiling a first article identification and batch inspection report template.
(2) Welder compliance: the on-site welding supervision is carried out to carry out normalized inspection, the qualification capability of on-site operators meets the actual welding requirement, registered welders correctly wear the chest cards and the arm hoops, the qualification of the registered welders meets the post requirement, and the qualification capability of on-site inspectors meets the actual inspection requirement.
(3) Equipment tool security: the functional state of the welding equipment meets the welding requirement, the welding equipment is effectively maintained regularly, instruments and meters of the welding equipment meet the operation requirement through metering verification and the functional precision of the welding tool, and the welding tool is effectively maintained regularly.
(4) Material management and control: the method comprises the following steps of orderly stacking base metals, clearly marking the base metals, issuing the base metals, realizing traceability of acceptance, proving that the base metals have complete and standard quality assurance, rechecking and reporting the base metals by a third party, meeting the relevant requirements of a welding system for the storage environment of welding materials, issuing the welding materials, controlling the acceptance, recording and traceability, marking the welding materials with clear quality assurance and packaging intact before use, warehousing the welding materials with standard quality assurance marking and CE certificate, rechecking the welding materials and providing a third party report, proving that the protective gas has components and providing inspection records.
(5) Field file: distributing welding drawings according to operation units in a welding production field, distributing welding line details according to operation units in the welding production field, distributing operation rules according to operation units in the welding production field, distributing effective WPS according to operation units in the welding production field, and effectively transmitting change notice to relevant welding files in the field
(6) And (3) environmental safety: the welding workshop is provided with a special temperature/humidity adjusting device, the temperature and humidity of the workshop are monitored and recorded in the welding process, the temperature and humidity of the welding process meet the requirements of relevant standards, the welding operation avoids the external environment influencing the welding, the welding operation areas of different metal materials are mutually independent, a protective screen is arranged between each welding station of the welding workshop, and the welding worker is provided with proper and enough welding protective measures.
(7) And (3) process control: preparing before welding, namely, whether a welding rod is placed in an oven (a heat preservation cylinder) to be dried before welding, whether the part to be welded before welding is effectively cleaned of oil stains and oxides, whether the joint preparation before welding meets the WPS specified requirement, whether the preheating temperature before welding is controlled and has detailed process records; controlling in welding: the surface of a multi-pass welding bead is checked and cleaned before the next welding, the interlayer temperature is controlled in the multi-pass welding process, the welding process parameters are consistent with the WPS parameter range, and the welding sequence is consistent with the operation rules and the working diagram; controlling after welding: welding black dust and splashing are effectively removed after welding, polishing is completed strictly according to polishing rules after welding, operation rules are executed and recorded after welding, heat treatment execution rules are executed and recorded after welding, and transportation and storage of weldments can avoid collision damage.
(8) Treatment of unqualified products:
and the yielding reception of the unqualified product is processed according to the flow, special regulations are made for welding and repairing the unqualified product, and the repairing process and the state of the unqualified product are recorded.
(9) And (3) field inspection: the inspection equipment and the measuring tool are in an effective state, effective inspection operation procedures are distributed on site, and the first product identification realizes the full inspection, the inspection process is carried out according to the inspection instruction, and the inspection report specification of the product batch production is realized.
(10) Product dissection: placing a product anatomy real object on a production site, carrying out anatomy according to the anatomy planning requirement, analyzing the anatomy result, issuing a report, formulating a solution to the problem found by the anatomy, and carrying out closed-loop management on the formulated solution.
(11) Quality control: and performing imaging recording on the internal welding seam which cannot be checked after welding, performing statistical analysis on the defects, and recording.
S13: and evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grades of the suppliers.
And combining the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result obtained based on the basic qualification and project process evaluation to obtain an evaluation result for the supplier, wherein the specific evaluation result can be but is not limited to the grade of the supplier.
It should be noted that, the acquisition of all the first and second items of the supplier may be to automatically call or import a certain file (the file stores the first and/or second items corresponding to the supplier) according to the requirement, or to manually input a plurality of first and/or second items. Wherein the first item and the second item may be updated based on changes in the basic qualification capability of the provider and changes in the welding project being delivered, and if an update exists, the provider is evaluated based on the most recent first item or second item.
The mode of updating the first item and the second item may be a manual input update or a system automatic update, and the application is not limited herein.
On the basis of the above-described embodiment:
as a preferred embodiment, the evaluating the plurality of first items of the supplier respectively to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the plurality of first items one to one, includes:
according to the grade of each first item of the supplier, scoring each first item to obtain a first item score;
the method comprises the following steps of realizing the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier according to a plurality of first item evaluation results to obtain first evaluation results, wherein the first evaluation results comprise:
summarizing the first item points to obtain a basic qualification score of a supplier;
respectively evaluating a plurality of second item points of the suppliers to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one, wherein the second item point evaluation results comprise
According to the grade of each second item point of the supplier, scoring each second item point to obtain a second item point score;
the evaluation of the project process of the supplier is realized according to the evaluation results of the second project points to obtain a second evaluation result;
and summarizing the second item point scores to obtain the item process score of the item process of the supplier.
Specifically, the specific implementation manner of evaluating the first item point and the second item point of the above division may be, but is not limited to, by way of scoring. Specifically, each item is scored, and then the first item scores of all the first items are integrated to obtain a first evaluation result of the basic qualification, that is, the basic qualification score. And integrating the second item point scores of all the second item points to obtain a second evaluation result of the project process, namely the process score.
Specifically, the manner of scoring each first item point and each second item point may be: the point is scored as 1 (the item is judged to meet the requirement), the point is scored as 0.5 (the item part is judged to meet the requirement), and the point is scored as 0 (the item is judged to not meet the requirement).
Therefore, the evaluation on the two aspects of the basic qualification and the project process can be realized by scoring each item point, and the realization mode is simple and reliable.
As a preferred embodiment, aggregating the plurality of first item scores to obtain a base qualification score for the supplier comprises:
determining the weight of each first item point according to the importance degree of each first item point and a first preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
calculating the basic qualification score of the supplier according to each first item point score and the corresponding weight;
summarizing the second item point scores to obtain item process scores of the supplier item processes, wherein the item process scores comprise:
determining the weight of each second item point according to the importance degree of each second item point and a second preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
and calculating the item process score of the supplier according to each second item point score and the corresponding weight.
Furthermore, the number of the first item points divided on the basic qualification aspect and the second item points divided on the project process is more, wherein the first item points and the second item points comprise some item points with higher relative importance degree and some item points with lower relative importance degree. If all the items are evaluated with the same evaluation criteria, the evaluation results obtained for the supplier may be inaccurate.
Therefore, in the present application, different weights are set for each first term point and each second term point according to the degree of importance, and specifically, the higher the degree of importance is, the higher the corresponding weight is. Specifically, the way of setting the corresponding weight for each item point is as follows: determining the weight of each first item point according to each first item point and the first preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation, and determining the weight of each second item point according to each second item point and the second preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation.
Specifically, referring to fig. 1, for 42 assessment terms of qualification capability assessment, each assessment term is scored according to the provider condition, and a corresponding weight is set according to the importance degree of each term, and a specific implementation manner of performing quantitative classification on the corresponding weight may be: weights 3 (important term points), 2 (general term points), 1 (basic term points).
As a preferred embodiment, after dividing the basic qualification of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding first items and dividing the project process of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding second items, the method further comprises:
selecting a plurality of first item points and a plurality of second item points as preset key item points;
when the plurality of first item points are evaluated respectively and the plurality of second item points are evaluated respectively, whether the preset key item points meet the requirements or not is judged;
if not, the grade of the supplier is directly rated as the lowest grade.
Further, it is considered that there may be an extremely important item among all the first and second items, whether or not the satisfaction of which is directly related to the evaluation level to the supplier. Therefore, when the corresponding weight is set for the importance degree of each item in the application, the method further includes: KO item (preset key item point).
At this time, in the process of evaluating each first item point and each second item point, whether the preset key item points meet the requirements is judged, if yes, the step of evaluating other non-preset key item points is carried out, and if not, the grade of the supplier is directly divided into the lowest grade.
Specifically, when the preset key points are scored, if the preset key points do not meet the requirements, the total evaluation score of the supply flashes is directly divided into 0 score, so that the grade of the supplier is the lowest grade.
Specifically, when all of the KO items satisfy the requirement, the specific way of obtaining the basic qualification score by multiplying the score of each first item point by the corresponding weight may be: the score of each first item is multiplied by the corresponding weight of the item, the product of each first item is accumulated and then divided by the sum of the weights, and the final result is multiplied by 100 to be the percentage score of the capability evaluation of the basic qualification, namely the basic qualification score, and the specific formula is as follows:
f1 in this formula: a qualification capability assessment score (percent) for the base qualification (base qualification score);
n: a first number of items;
an: the evaluation score of the nth first item point;
pn: the weight of the nth first item point.
Specifically, when all of the KO items satisfy the requirement, the specific way of obtaining the project process by multiplying the score of each second item point by the corresponding weight may be: the score of each second item is multiplied by the weight corresponding to the item, the product of each second item is accumulated and then divided by the sum of the weights, and the final result is multiplied by 100 to be the percentage score of the basic qualification capability evaluation, namely the project process score, and the specific formula is as follows:
in this formula F2: project process oriented capability assessment scores (percentile) (process scores);
m: a second number of evaluation points;
bm: the evaluation score of the mth item;
and Qm: weight of mth item point.
In conclusion, the basic qualification score and the process score can be obtained through the method in the application, and the implementation mode is simple and reliable.
As a preferred embodiment, the evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers includes:
obtaining a total score of the supplier according to the basic qualification score of the supplier and a first preset weight occupied by the basic qualification, and according to the project process score of the supplier and a second preset weight occupied by the project process;
the suppliers are ranked according to their total scores.
Furthermore, considering that the importance degrees of the basic qualification and the project process are different, different weights are set for the basic qualification and the project process, then the total scores of the suppliers are obtained according to the respective scores and the corresponding weights, and the grades are divided for the suppliers according to the obtained total scores.
As a preferred embodiment, the evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers includes:
adding or dividing the basic qualification fraction and the project process fraction by two to obtain a total score of the supplier;
the basic qualification fraction and the project process fraction are differentiated to obtain a fraction difference value;
and grading the suppliers according to the total scores and the score difference.
Specifically, when the two aspects of the basic qualification and the project process are the same in importance degree, that is, the two weights account for half of each, the total score obtained from the suppliers in this embodiment is: the base qualification score and the project process score are added or added divided by two. When the suppliers are graded, the grades of the suppliers are graded not only according to the total grades of the suppliers, but also according to the difference value of the basic qualification grade and the project process grade, so that the reliability of the evaluation of the suppliers is improved.
Specifically, refer to fig. 4, fig. 4 is a schematic diagram of an evaluation result of a supplier provided in the present application, and also refer to table 1, where table 1 is a schematic diagram of an evaluation result of a supplier.
TABLE 1 evaluation results of suppliers are shown schematically
As shown in FIG. 4 and Table 1, in one embodiment, the grades of suppliers include four grades of good, medium and bad, the total score of the suppliers is 95-100 (including 95), and the difference between F1 and F2 is not large, and the grades are rated as class 1 suppliers and good; the total score of the suppliers is 95-100 (including 95), and the difference between F1 and F2 is large, the suppliers are rated as class 1 suppliers, and the grades are good; the total score of the suppliers is 85-95 (including 85, not including 95), and the difference between F1 and F2 is not great, the suppliers are rated as class 2 suppliers, and the grades are good; the total score of the suppliers is 85-95 (including 85, not including 95), and the difference between F1 and F2 is large, the suppliers are rated as 3 types of suppliers, and the grades are medium; the total score of the suppliers is 0-85 (including 0, excluding 85), and the difference between F1 and F2 is not great, the suppliers are rated as 3 types of suppliers, and the grades are medium; the total score of the suppliers is 0-85 (excluding 85), and the difference between F1 and F2 is large, and the suppliers are rated as 4 types of suppliers and the grades are poor.
The specific implementation manner of determining whether the difference between F1 and F2 is large may be, but is not limited to: judging whether the difference between the basic qualification score and the project process score is larger than a preset threshold value, if so, judging that the difference is larger, namely the difference between F1 and F2 is larger; otherwise, the difference is determined to be not large, i.e., the difference between F1 and F2 is large.
Further, the present application describes a specific embodiment herein:
referring to fig. 5, fig. 5 is a detailed flowchart of a supplier evaluation method provided in the present application.
(1) Logging in the system, and selecting a supplier to be evaluated;
(2) aiming at a supplier to be evaluated, evaluating the supplier from two aspects of basic qualification and project process;
(3) respectively updating the basic conditions of the suppliers according to the change of the basic qualification of the suppliers to be evaluated and the change of the welding items, and directly entering the step (4) if the basic conditions of the suppliers are not updated;
(4) and judging whether the KO item (key item point) does not meet the requirement or not according to each item point of the supplier, if so, directly setting the total score of the supplier to be 0, and finishing the evaluation process. If not, respectively scoring each first item point and each second item point, and obtaining a total score of the supplier according to the first item point score, the second item point score and the weight corresponding to each first item point and each second item point;
(5) the data process the supplier's assessment results based on the total score, combined with the matrix classification in table 1. The evaluation results of the suppliers include evaluation scores, evaluation categories (1 type, 2 type, 3 type and 4 type), supplier evaluation (text part) and evaluation grades (good and poor).
Referring to fig. 6, fig. 6 is a block diagram of a supplier evaluation system provided in the present application, where the system includes:
the basic qualification evaluation unit 61 is used for evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
the process evaluation unit 62 is used for evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
and a grade evaluation unit 63, configured to evaluate the supplier according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result, so as to obtain a grade of the supplier.
For the introduction of the supplier evaluation system, please refer to the above embodiments, which are not described herein again.
Referring to fig. 7, fig. 7 is a block diagram of a supplier evaluation apparatus provided in the present application, the apparatus including:
a memory 71 for storing a computer program;
a processor 72 for implementing the steps of the supplier evaluation method described above when storing a computer program.
For the introduction of the supplier evaluation system, please refer to the above embodiments, which are not described herein again.
In order to solve the above technical problem, the present application further provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored, and the computer program, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the supplier evaluation method described above. For the introduction of the computer-readable storage medium, reference is made to the above embodiments, which are not repeated herein.
It is further noted that, in the present specification, relational terms such as first and second, and the like are used solely to distinguish one entity or action from another entity or action without necessarily requiring or implying any actual such relationship or order between such entities or actions. Also, the terms "comprises," "comprising," or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements does not include only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitation, an element defined by the phrase "comprising an … …" does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises the element.
The previous description of the disclosed embodiments is provided to enable any person skilled in the art to make or use the present application. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the generic principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the application. Thus, the present application is not intended to be limited to the embodiments shown herein but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.
Claims (10)
1. A supplier evaluation method, applied to a processor, comprising:
evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
and evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grades of the suppliers.
2. The supplier evaluation method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result comprises:
dividing the basic qualification of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding first items;
respectively evaluating the first items of the supplier to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the first items one by one;
realizing the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier according to the first item evaluation results to obtain a first evaluation result;
evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result, comprising:
dividing the project process of the supplier into a plurality of corresponding second item points;
respectively evaluating the second item points of the supplier to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one;
and realizing the evaluation of the project process of the supplier according to the evaluation results of the second project points to obtain a second evaluation result.
3. The supplier evaluation method according to claim 2, wherein evaluating a plurality of the first items of the supplier, respectively, to obtain a plurality of first item evaluation results corresponding to the plurality of the first items one to one, comprises:
according to the grade of each first item of the supplier, scoring each first item to obtain a first item score;
according to a plurality of first item point evaluation results, realizing the evaluation of the basic qualification of the supplier, and obtaining the first evaluation result, wherein the evaluation comprises the following steps:
summarizing the first item scores to obtain a basic qualification score of the supplier;
respectively evaluating the second item points of the suppliers to obtain a plurality of second item point evaluation results corresponding to the second item points one by one, wherein the second item point evaluation results comprise
According to the grade of each second item point of the supplier, scoring each second item point to obtain a second item point score;
the evaluation of the project process of the supplier is realized according to the plurality of second project point evaluation results, and the second evaluation result is obtained;
and summarizing the second item point scores to obtain the project process scores of the suppliers.
4. The supplier evaluation method of claim 3, wherein aggregating a plurality of the first endpoint scores to obtain a base qualification score for the supplier comprises:
determining the weight of each first item point according to the importance degree of each first item point and a first preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
calculating a base qualification score of the supplier according to each first item point score and the corresponding weight;
summarizing the second item point scores to obtain item process scores of the supplier item processes, wherein the item process scores comprise:
determining the weight of each second item point according to the importance degree of each second item point and a second preset importance degree-weight corresponding relation;
and calculating the project process scores of the suppliers according to each second project point score and the corresponding weight.
5. The supplier evaluation method of claim 3, wherein evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grades of the suppliers comprises:
obtaining the total score of the supplier according to the basic qualification score of the supplier and a first preset weight occupied by the basic qualification, and according to the project process score of the supplier and a second preset weight occupied by the project process;
and grading the suppliers according to the total scores of the suppliers.
6. The supplier evaluation method of claim 3, wherein evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grades of the suppliers comprises:
adding or dividing the basic qualification score and the project process score by two to obtain a total score of the supplier;
the basic qualification score and the project process score are differentiated to obtain a score difference value;
and grading the suppliers according to the total scores and the score difference values.
7. The supplier evaluation method according to any one of claims 2 to 6, further comprising, after dividing the basic qualifications of the supplier into a corresponding plurality of first terms and dividing the project processes of the supplier into a corresponding plurality of second terms:
selecting a plurality of first item points and a plurality of second item points as preset key item points;
when the first item points are evaluated respectively and the second item points are evaluated respectively, whether the preset key item points meet requirements is judged;
if not, directly rating the supplier as the lowest level.
8. A supplier evaluation system, comprising:
the basic qualification evaluation unit is used for evaluating the basic qualification of the supplier to obtain a first evaluation result;
the process evaluation unit is used for evaluating the project process of the supplier to obtain a second evaluation result;
and the grade evaluation unit is used for evaluating the suppliers according to the first evaluation result and the second evaluation result to obtain the grade of the suppliers.
9. A supplier evaluation apparatus, comprising:
a memory for storing a computer program;
a processor for implementing the steps of the supplier evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 when storing a computer program.
10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that a computer program is stored on the computer-readable storage medium, which computer program, when being executed by a processor, carries out the steps of the supplier evaluation method according to one of the claims 1 to 7.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210589990.1A CN114862258A (en) | 2022-05-27 | 2022-05-27 | Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210589990.1A CN114862258A (en) | 2022-05-27 | 2022-05-27 | Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN114862258A true CN114862258A (en) | 2022-08-05 |
Family
ID=82640571
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202210589990.1A Pending CN114862258A (en) | 2022-05-27 | 2022-05-27 | Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN114862258A (en) |
Citations (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN107045674A (en) * | 2017-03-31 | 2017-08-15 | 北京国电通网络技术有限公司 | Supplier evaluation method based on quantifiable indicator system |
| CN111861234A (en) * | 2020-07-24 | 2020-10-30 | 北京合众伟奇科技有限公司 | Method for evaluating comprehensive service capability of electric energy meter supplier |
| CN111898274A (en) * | 2020-08-03 | 2020-11-06 | 苏州热工研究院有限公司 | Method for evaluating manufacturing capability of supplier process |
| CN113537701A (en) * | 2021-06-04 | 2021-10-22 | 中国航天标准化研究所 | Equipment supplier performance capability comprehensive evaluation method based on risk thinking |
| JP2022035965A (en) * | 2020-08-20 | 2022-03-04 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Intelligent supplier managing system and intelligent supplier managing method |
-
2022
- 2022-05-27 CN CN202210589990.1A patent/CN114862258A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (5)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN107045674A (en) * | 2017-03-31 | 2017-08-15 | 北京国电通网络技术有限公司 | Supplier evaluation method based on quantifiable indicator system |
| CN111861234A (en) * | 2020-07-24 | 2020-10-30 | 北京合众伟奇科技有限公司 | Method for evaluating comprehensive service capability of electric energy meter supplier |
| CN111898274A (en) * | 2020-08-03 | 2020-11-06 | 苏州热工研究院有限公司 | Method for evaluating manufacturing capability of supplier process |
| JP2022035965A (en) * | 2020-08-20 | 2022-03-04 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Intelligent supplier managing system and intelligent supplier managing method |
| CN113537701A (en) * | 2021-06-04 | 2021-10-22 | 中国航天标准化研究所 | Equipment supplier performance capability comprehensive evaluation method based on risk thinking |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| US5737494A (en) | Assessment methods and apparatus for an organizational process or system | |
| Juran | Japanese and Western quality: A contrast in methods and results. | |
| Lee et al. | Survey on ISO 9000 quality management system implementation in Hong Kong | |
| CN114862258A (en) | Supplier evaluation method, system, device and medium | |
| Turgunov et al. | Principles of assessment and management of quality systems in industrial enterprises | |
| Alejandrino et al. | Audit pattern optimization in service industry using six sigma methodology | |
| Sabur | Total Quality Management as a Tool for Decision Making | |
| Aribowo et al. | Program Designing the Improvement of Excavator’s Maintenance Team Competencies (Case Study in a Sandstone Mine Company PT XYZ) | |
| Gonzales-Romero et al. | Production management model based on Lean and DDMRP tools to increase the rate of project compliance in manufacturing SMEs in the metalworking sector | |
| Donovan | Improve Business Results | |
| Cieśla | Complaint management system in building material factory | |
| Al-Rubaye | Assessment of the quality of a construction organization in the world | |
| Rosiawan et al. | Activity-based management as economic effect measurement for implementing ISO 9001: 2015 clause | |
| Škůrková et al. | Implementation of the QRQC Method as a Quick Response to Reduce the Number of Non-Conforming Pieces in an Industrial Enterprise | |
| Pîrvu et al. | Research On Establishing Correlations Between The Requirements Of EN ISO 9001: 2015 And EN ISO 3834-2: 2021 Standards For Welded Structure Manufacturing Organizations | |
| Mahto et al. | Improvements in Product Quality and Productivity through Pragmatic Analysis of Working Environment in Engineering Industries | |
| Helmold | Cost of Quality (COQ) | |
| Mitreva et al. | Methodology for design and implementation of the TQM (Total Quality Management) system in automotive industry companies in Macedonia | |
| Melkamu et al. | Assessment and Identification of Major Common Causes of Poor Quality Products Through 80/20 Principle and Cost of Poor Quality in Garment Sectors | |
| Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek et al. | Maintenance Management Issues in the Process of Supplier Assessment | |
| Putra | Defect Analysis Using Pdca (Plan-do-check-action) and Fmea (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) on Cabinets of Up (Upright Piano)(Case Study: Final Check and Repair Up–Pt. Yamaha Indonesia) | |
| Manual | MAGM | |
| Juneau | The Basics of ISO 9001 | |
| Araujo | Using NHPP to Evaluate QMS Reliability Growth | |
| Ong | The Impact of Quality Management System Implementation: A Case Study of Metal Processing and Trading In Malaysia |
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 |