Evaluation system and evaluation method for safety responsibility insurance service mechanism

Abstract

The evaluation system comprises a service efficiency evaluation index module, a service efficiency evaluation standard module and an insurance institution evaluation standardization module, the service efficiency evaluation index module is used for screening the requirements of laws and regulations and regulations, acquiring data from government supervision units, insurance companies and enterprises, and extracting indexes influencing the safety responsibility insurance service efficiency from the requirements and the data; in conclusion, the evaluation method provided by the invention can enhance the attention degree of the insurance service institution on the safety responsibility insurance work, and supervise and urge the insurance service institution to check weak links in the work of the insurance service institution according to the evaluation method; in addition, the evaluation standard is beneficial for the competent department to supervise the responsibility insurance, the competent department can supervise and manage the responsibility insurance service work of the insurance institution according to the evaluation standard, it is ensured that the insurance service institution carries out business according to regulations, and the healthy development of the responsibility insurance market is ensured.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention belongs to the technical field of insurance institution evaluation, and in particular relates to an evaluation system and an evaluation method for an occupational liability insurance service institution. Background Art

[0002] At present, there are few insurance institution evaluation systems for the service efficiency of a single insurance type at home and abroad. The existing evaluation of insurance institutions is mostly aimed at the comprehensive situation of insurance institutions in terms of operation and finance. Production safety liability insurance (abbreviated as safety liability insurance) is a commercial insurance promoted by the state that is mandatory or encouraged to be insured. Different from general property insurance, the safety liability insurance service agency will provide accident prevention services to the insured units, such as safety risk identification, assessment, safety evaluation, and safety production accident hazard investigation, etc., to help enterprises find risk hazards, improve safety management level, and reduce the probability of accidents. At present, the evaluation content based on safety liability insurance in my country is mostly to evaluate the safety production process of the insured enterprise, and rarely to evaluate the insurance institution.

[0003] In addition, the guiding documents for the popularization and promotion of the occupational liability insurance system are still at the top-level design level, and the detailed normative standards for the various entities and elements involved in the promotion and market operation of the occupational liability insurance system have not yet been unified. Therefore, in order to further improve the quality of occupational liability insurance services of insurance institutions, effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of insured enterprises, and give full play to the accident prevention function of occupational liability insurance, it is necessary to construct an insurance institution evaluation method based on the effectiveness of occupational liability insurance services. Summary of the invention

[0004] The present invention aims to provide an evaluation system and method for an occupational liability insurance service agency to solve the above-mentioned technical problems.

[0005] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions:

[0006] An evaluation system for an occupational liability insurance service institution includes a service efficiency evaluation index module, a service efficiency evaluation standard module and an insurance institution evaluation standardization module;

[0007] The service performance evaluation index module is used to screen the requirements of laws, regulations and rules, and obtain data from government regulatory agencies, insurance companies and enterprises, extract indicators that affect the service performance of occupational liability insurance from the requirements and data, use the OSM model to determine the overall framework of the indicator system, and use the pyramid principle to classify and stratify the indicators;

[0008] A service performance evaluation standard module, connected to the service performance evaluation index module, is used to construct an index weight algorithm model for the classified and layered indexes using a hierarchical analysis method, and to evaluate the weight ranking of the indexes according to the degree of importance, and then to conduct quantitative analysis and comparison;

[0009] The insurance institution evaluation standardization module is connected to the service performance evaluation index module, and is used to obtain the weight of each indicator through the service performance evaluation standard module, and to perform standardized scoring on each indicator, so as to evaluate the insurance institution based on the service performance of the liability insurance.

[0010] A method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service agency comprises the following steps:

[0011] S1. Construct a service effectiveness evaluation index system;

[0012] Based on the OSM model, the pyramid principle is used for overall sorting. By clarifying the internal relationship of indicators at each level, the logical consistency and comprehensiveness of the evaluation process are ensured. Different evaluation indicators and cycles are determined for insurance institutions at different levels according to their scale and business characteristics, and all evaluation indicators are ensured to comply with relevant national laws, regulations and industry standards.

[0013] S2. Determine the service performance evaluation criteria, including the determination of evaluation index weights and evaluation criteria scores;

[0014] Determination of evaluation index weights: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to each index to ensure logical consistency among the indicators;

[0015] Determination of evaluation standard scores: For indicators with a large amount of historical data, the Gaussian curve is used to determine the standard interval; for indicators with missing data, the standard score is determined based on industry standards and research results;

[0016] S3. Calculate the insurance institution evaluation score; the insurance institution evaluation score includes the insurance institution dynamic score and the insurance institution static score;

[0017] Dynamic score of insurance institutions: a weighted average based on a short evaluation cycle, with the weight coefficient being the ratio of the number of insured enterprises of each branch to the number of insured enterprises of the insurance institution;

[0018] Insurance institution static rating: based on the average rating of each branch in the short evaluation cycle and the annual rating, the weight coefficients are a, b, and c respectively;

[0019] S4. Determine the rating level: Based on the final score, the insurance agency's evaluation results are divided into four levels:

[0020] Category A institutions: score ≥90, with comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance at the leading level in the industry;

[0021] Category B institutions: 75≤score<90, with overall liability insurance service capabilities at an upper-middle level in the industry;

[0022] Category C institutions: 60≤score<75, the comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance are at the lower-middle level in the industry;

[0023] Category D institution: score <60, comprehensive service capability of occupational liability insurance does not meet the standards.

[0024] Furthermore, the service effectiveness evaluation index system in step S1 includes management capability indicators and professional capability indicators. The management capability indicators include service management, team management, file management, system management, service entrustment management, and information construction and management; the professional capability indicators include market promotion, underwriting services, claims services, and accident prevention services.

[0025] Furthermore, the specific steps for determining the evaluation index weight in step S2 are:

[0026] S21. Construct a hierarchical model and determine the target layer, criterion layer and solution layer;

[0027] S22, compare the indicators at each level in pairs, and use Santy's "1-9 scale method" to determine the importance and construct a judgment matrix;

[0028] S23. Ensure the rationality of the judgment matrix and the scientific and reasonable weight distribution through consistency test.

[0029] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: the present invention relates to an evaluation method for insurance institutions based on the service efficiency of occupational liability insurance, which not only makes up for the lack of evaluation of insurance institutions based on the service efficiency of a single insurance type, but also makes up for the lack of evaluation of insurance institutions based on occupational liability insurance; the present invention is based on existing regulatory requirements and specifications, the results of existing occupational liability insurance data analysis, and extensive on-site survey feedback, and adopts descriptive statistical analysis, hierarchical analysis method, Gaussian curve fitting and other data analysis methods to systematically and objectively evaluate the service efficiency of various insurance institutions; and the service efficiency evaluation index system comprehensively evaluates the service efficiency of insurance institutions at different stages such as underwriting, claims settlement, and accident prevention from the aspects of management ability and professional ability, and determines different evaluation indicators and evaluation cycles for insurance institutions at different levels (for example, branches and sub-branches are at different levels), which not only comprehensively reflects the service quality of the whole process, but also has the characteristics of "occupancy liability insurance"; the present invention can comprehensively, systematically, objectively and targetedly evaluate the occupational liability insurance service efficiency of insurance institutions. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0030] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention are described clearly and completely below. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of them. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0031] The present invention is further described in detail below in conjunction with embodiments.

[0032] A specific embodiment of the evaluation system for occupational liability insurance service institutions provided by the present invention is as follows:

[0033] An evaluation system for an occupational liability insurance service institution includes a service efficiency evaluation index module, a service efficiency evaluation standard module and an insurance institution evaluation standardization module;

[0034] The service performance evaluation index module is used to screen the requirements of laws, regulations and rules, and obtain data from government regulatory agencies, insurance companies and enterprises, extract indicators that affect the service performance of occupational liability insurance from the requirements and data, use the OSM model to determine the overall framework of the indicator system, and use the pyramid principle to classify and stratify the indicators;

[0035] A service performance evaluation standard module, connected to the service performance evaluation index module, is used to construct an index weight algorithm model for the classified and layered indexes using a hierarchical analysis method, and to evaluate the weight ranking of the indexes according to the degree of importance, and then to conduct quantitative analysis and comparison;

[0036] The insurance institution evaluation standardization module is connected to the service performance evaluation index module, and is used to obtain the weight of each indicator through the service performance evaluation standard module, and to perform standardized scoring on each indicator, so as to evaluate the insurance institution based on the service performance of the liability insurance.

[0037] A method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service agency comprises the following steps:

[0038] S1) Construct a service effectiveness evaluation index system;

[0039] Use the OSM model to clarify the evaluation objectives, strategies and measurements, form a general framework of evaluation indicators, and use the pyramid principle to organize the indicator system to ensure that the upper-level indicators can summarize the lower-level indicators, and that the indicators at the same level are independent of each other and have comprehensive coverage. By clarifying the internal relationship between indicators at each level, the logical consistency and comprehensiveness of the evaluation process are guaranteed. For insurance institutions at different levels (for example, branches or sub-branches), different evaluation indicators and cycles are determined according to their scale and business characteristics, and it is ensured that all evaluation indicators comply with relevant national laws, regulations and industry standards. Generally, branches can be divided into short evaluation cycles and long evaluation cycles (for example, short evaluation cycles are monthly or quarterly evaluations, and long evaluation cycles are annual evaluations), and different evaluation indicators are determined according to the cycles. Generally, the long evaluation cycle does not exceed one year.

[0040] The above-mentioned service effectiveness evaluation index system includes management capability index and professional capability index. The management capability index includes service management, team management, file management, system management, service entrustment management, and information construction and management.

[0041] Service management: Whether the insurance service agency has established a complete service system, including customer service processes, emergency management, customer complaint mechanism, etc.

[0042] Team management: including team building, personnel training, team collaboration efficiency, and management leadership.

[0043] File management: Complete and effective management of files including insured unit information, accident records, and claims information.

[0044] System management: Whether the insurance institution has clear and standardized operating systems to ensure compliance of various business processes.

[0045] Information construction and management: whether information systematization management is realized, such as electronic archives, information sharing platforms, etc.

[0046] Professional capability indicators include market promotion, underwriting services, claims services, and accident prevention services;

[0047] Market promotion: including the insurance agency's market promotion efforts for occupational liability insurance and whether it promotes services to potential customers in a targeted manner.

[0048] Underwriting services: whether the insurance institution conducts comprehensive assessment and risk management of the insured unit during the underwriting process.

[0049] Claims service: The transparency, timeliness and efficiency of the claims process ensure that the interests of participating enterprises are not harmed.

[0050] Accident prevention services: whether effective accident prevention suggestions and measures are provided, and whether the company is assisted in preventing accidents through data monitoring, risk assessment and other means.

[0051] S2. Determine the service performance evaluation criteria, including the determination of evaluation index weights and evaluation criteria scores;

[0052] (1) Determination of evaluation index weights: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to each index to ensure logical consistency among the indexes. Specifically, a hierarchical structure model is first constructed to determine the target layer, criterion layer, and solution layer. Then, the indicators at each level are compared pairwise, and the importance is determined using Santy's "1-9 scale method" to construct a judgment matrix. Finally, a consistency test is performed to ensure the rationality of the judgment matrix and the scientific and reasonable weight allocation.

[0053] The hierarchical model is established based on the internal logical relationship of each target element, and is generally divided into the target layer, the criterion layer, and the program layer; the construction of this model only needs to determine the weight of each indicator.

[0054] The model construction first needs to construct a judgment matrix, which is a pairwise comparison of all factors, and uses Santy's "1-9 scale method" to determine the relative importance of two factors after comparison. The meaning of Santy's "1-9 scale method" is shown in Table 1, so as to construct the corresponding judgment matrix A = (a ij ) n×n , where a ij Represents element A i and A j Compare and get the relative importance value, and a ij with a ji They are reciprocals of each other.

[0055] Table 1 Meaning of Santy’s “1-9 scale”

[0056] Scale meaning 1 Indicates that two elements have the same importance. 3 Indicates that one element is slightly more important than the other. 5 Indicates that one element is significantly more important than the other. 7 Indicates that one element is more important than the other. 9 Indicates that one element is extremely more important than the other. 2，4，6，8 2, 4, 6, 8 are the medians of the above adjacent judgments reciprocal Indicates the importance of comparing the corresponding two factors in the order of swapping

[0057] In order to determine whether there is a logical error in the judgment matrix, a consistency test is required. The test formula is as follows:

[0058]

[0059] Among them, n is the number of all elements at the same level, λmax is the maximum characteristic root of the judgment matrix, RI is the random consistency index (RI value is determined according to the n value, Table 2), when CR is less than 0.1, it is considered that the importance of the element is reasonable, the inconsistency of the constructed judgment matrix is ​​within the allowable range, and the judgment matrix is ​​valid. Otherwise, the judgment matrix is ​​invalid and the importance of the element needs to be adjusted.

[0060] Table 2 Random consistency index value table

[0061] project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.59

[0062] (2) Determination of evaluation standard scores: For indicators with a large amount of historical data, the Gaussian curve is used to determine the standard range; for indicators with missing data, the standard scores are determined based on industry standards and research results. The evaluation standard scores must cover the specific quality requirements of each service to ensure that participating enterprises obtain efficient and reliable occupational liability insurance services.

[0063] S3. Calculate the insurance institution evaluation score; the insurance institution evaluation score includes the insurance institution dynamic score and the insurance institution static score;

[0064] Dynamic score of insurance institutions: a weighted average based on a short evaluation cycle (such as monthly or quarterly), with the weight coefficient being the ratio of the number of insured enterprises of each branch to the number of insured enterprises of the insurance institution;

[0065] Insurance institution static rating: based on the average rating of each branch in the short evaluation cycle and the annual rating, the weight coefficients are a, b, and c respectively;

[0066] S4. Determine the rating level: Based on the final score, the insurance agency's evaluation results are divided into four levels:

[0067] Category A institutions: score ≥90, with comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance at the leading level in the industry;

[0068] Category B institutions: 75≤score<90, with overall liability insurance service capabilities at an upper-middle level in the industry;

[0069] Category C institutions: 60≤score<75, the comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance are at the lower-middle level in the industry;

[0070] Category D institution: score <60, comprehensive service capability of occupational liability insurance does not meet the standards.

[0071] This embodiment also provides a computer device, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores at least one computer program that can be run on the processor, and when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service agency are implemented.

[0072] This embodiment also provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service agency are implemented.

[0073] Specific implementation cases:

[0074] The evaluation cycle of this case is the annual evaluation in 20xx and the monthly evaluation from January to October 20xx. The evaluation objects are five occupational liability insurance underwriting entities, namely Company A, Company B, Company C, Company D, and Company E, and three branches of each insurance institution.

[0075] 1. Constructing a service effectiveness evaluation index system:

[0076] This evaluation index system is based on the requirements of my country's laws, regulations and rules, the results of existing occupational liability insurance data analysis, and extensive on-site survey feedback. The OSM model determines the overall framework of the index system, and uses the pyramid principle to sort out the overall system, screening out the monthly evaluation index system of each district insurance branch (Table 3), the annual evaluation index system of each district insurance branch (Table 4) and the annual evaluation index system of each insurance branch (Table 5). Among them, the monthly evaluation index system of each district insurance branch includes 2 first-level indicators, 4 second-level indicators, and 10 third-level indicators; the annual evaluation index system of each district insurance branch includes 2 first-level indicators, 6 second-level indicators, and 14 third-level indicators; the annual evaluation index system of each insurance branch includes 2 first-level indicators, 6 second-level indicators, and 16 third-level indicators.

[0077] Table 3 Monthly evaluation indicators of insurance branches in each district

[0078]

[0079]

[0080] Table 4 Description of annual evaluation indicators of insurance branches in each district

[0081]

[0082]

[0083]

[0084]

[0085] Table 5 Description of annual evaluation indicators of each insurance branch

[0086]

[0087]

[0088]

[0089]

[0090] 2. Determine the service effectiveness evaluation criteria.

[0091] 1) Determination of evaluation index weights

[0092] Table 6 Monthly evaluation index judgment matrix of insurance branches in each district

[0093]

[0094] Through calculation, we get λmax=10.04, and the RI in the table is 1.49, so CR is 0.003. Therefore, the judgment matrix of the monthly evaluation index of the insurance branch companies in each district passes the consistency test. The monthly evaluation index weights of the insurance branch companies in each district are shown in Table 7:

[0095] Table 7 Monthly evaluation indicators and scoring values ​​of insurance branches in each district

[0096]

[0097] Table 8 Annual evaluation index judgment matrix of insurance branches in each district

[0098]

[0099] Through calculation, we get λmax=12, and the RI in the table is 1.54, so CR is 0. Therefore, the annual evaluation index judgment matrix of each district insurance branch passes the consistency test. The annual evaluation index weights of each district insurance branch are shown in Table 9:

[0100] Table 9 Annual evaluation indicators and scoring values ​​of insurance branches in each district

[0101]

[0102]

[0103] Table 10 Annual evaluation index judgment matrix of each insurance branch

[0104]

[0105] Through calculation, we get λmax=10.12, and the RI in the table is 1.49, so the CR is 0.009, so the annual evaluation index judgment matrix of each insurance branch passes the consistency test. The annual evaluation index weights of each insurance branch are shown in Table 11:

[0106] Table 11 Annual evaluation indicators and scoring values ​​of each insurance branch

[0107]

[0108] 2) Determination of evaluation criteria scores

[0109] Table 12 Monthly evaluation standards for insurance branches in each district

[0110]

[0111]

[0112] Table 13 Annual evaluation standards for insurance branches in each district

[0113]

[0114]

[0115]

[0116] Table 14 Annual evaluation standards for each insurance branch

[0117]

[0118]

[0119] III. Determination of Insurance Institution Evaluation Grade

[0120] According to the above evaluation method, the performance of the insurance institution's occupational liability insurance service is evaluated based on statistical data and information provided by the insurance institution. The evaluation results of the insurance institution are shown in Table 15, examples of the branch's monthly evaluation results are shown in Tables 16 and 17, examples of the branch's annual evaluation results are shown in Table 18, and examples of the sub-branch's annual evaluation results are shown in Table 19.

[0121] Table 15 Insurance institution evaluation results

[0122]

[0123] Table 16 Example of monthly evaluation results of branch companies

[0124]

[0125] Table 17 Example of monthly evaluation results of branch companies (continued)

[0126]

[0127] Table 18 Examples of Annual Evaluation Results of Branch Companies

[0128]

[0129]

[0130] Table 19 Example of annual evaluation results of branches

[0131]

[0132] The case study shows that the annual evaluation and scoring of insurance branches as well as the monthly and annual evaluation and scoring of insurance branches can be completed according to the evaluation standards, which shows that the evaluation standards are operational; and the service quality of insurance companies can be ranked and graded through evaluation, which shows that the evaluation results are comparable. Among them, the monthly evaluation can reflect the short-term fluctuations of each evaluation indicator, and the annual evaluation can reflect the overall service situation of the insurance institution.

[0133] It should be noted that, in this article, terms such as "comprises", "includes" or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, so that a process, method, article or apparatus that includes a series of elements includes not only those elements, but also other elements not explicitly listed, or also includes elements inherent to such process, method, article or apparatus.

[0134] Although embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations may be made to the embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the present invention, and that the scope of the present invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. An evaluation system for occupational liability insurance service institutions, characterized by: It includes service effectiveness evaluation index module, service effectiveness evaluation standard module and insurance institution evaluation standardization module; The service performance evaluation index module is used to screen the requirements of laws, regulations and rules, and obtain data from government regulatory agencies, insurance companies and enterprises, extract indicators that affect the service performance of occupational liability insurance from the requirements and data, use the OSM model to determine the overall framework of the indicator system, and use the pyramid principle to classify and stratify the indicators; A service performance evaluation standard module, connected to the service performance evaluation index module, is used to construct an index weight algorithm model for the classified and layered indexes using a hierarchical analysis method, and to evaluate the weight ranking of the indexes according to the degree of importance, and then to conduct quantitative analysis and comparison; The insurance institution evaluation standardization module is connected to the service performance evaluation index module, and is used to obtain the weight of each indicator through the service performance evaluation standard module, and to perform standardized scoring on each indicator, so as to evaluate the insurance institution based on the service performance of the liability insurance.

2. A method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service agency, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1. Construct a service effectiveness evaluation index system; Based on the OSM model, the pyramid principle is used for overall sorting. By clarifying the internal relationship of indicators at each level, the logical consistency and comprehensiveness of the evaluation process are ensured. Different evaluation indicators and cycles are determined for insurance institutions at different levels according to their scale and business characteristics, and all evaluation indicators are ensured to comply with relevant national laws, regulations and industry standards. S2. Determine the service performance evaluation criteria, including the determination of evaluation index weights and evaluation criteria scores; Determination of evaluation index weights: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to assign weights to each index to ensure logical consistency among the indicators; Determination of evaluation standard scores: For indicators with a large amount of historical data, the Gaussian curve is used to determine the standard interval; for indicators with missing data, the standard score is determined based on industry standards and research results; S3. Calculate the insurance institution evaluation score; the insurance institution evaluation score includes the insurance institution dynamic score and the insurance institution static score; Dynamic score of insurance institutions: a weighted average based on a short evaluation cycle, with the weight coefficient being the ratio of the number of insured enterprises of each branch to the number of insured enterprises of the insurance institution; Insurance institution static rating: based on the average rating of each branch in the short evaluation cycle and the annual rating, the weight coefficients are a, b, and c respectively; S4. Determine the rating level: Based on the final score, the insurance agency's evaluation results are divided into four levels: Category A institutions: score ≥90, with comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance at the leading level in the industry; Category B institutions: 75≤score<90, with overall liability insurance service capabilities at an upper-middle level in the industry; Category C institutions: 60≤score<75, the comprehensive service capabilities of occupational liability insurance are at the lower-middle level in the industry; Category D institution: score <60, comprehensive service capability of occupational liability insurance does not meet the standards.

3. The evaluation method for an occupational liability insurance service institution according to claim 2, characterized in that: The service effectiveness evaluation index system in step S1 includes management capability indicators and professional capability indicators. Management capability indicators include service management, team management, file management, system management, service entrustment management, and information construction and management; professional capability indicators include market promotion, underwriting services, claims services, and accident prevention services.

4. The method for evaluating an occupational liability insurance service institution according to claim 3, characterized in that: The specific steps for determining the evaluation index weights in step S2 are: S21. Construct a hierarchical model and determine the target layer, criterion layer and solution layer; S22. Compare the indicators at each level in pairs, and use Santy's "1-9 scale method" to determine the importance and construct a judgment matrix; S23. Ensure the rationality of the judgment matrix and the scientific and reasonable weight distribution through consistency test.

Images