Drawing model design quality evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The invention provides a drawing model design quality evaluation method and device, electronic equipment and a storage medium. The method comprises the steps of obtaining problem type distribution data in a historical project, classifying different problem types and setting corresponding weights, establishing a score deduction standard of a single problem based on the problem types and influence degrees, and generating a problem type weight system; obtaining audit question data in the project, performing classification according to different question types, performing statistics on the number of each class of questions, and performing score deduction calculation on the questions according to a question type weight system to obtain a single-item score deduction value and a question total score deduction value; and calculating a personnel coefficient, calculating a comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design according to the problem total deduction score and the personnel coefficient, and evaluating the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score. According to the method, the weight of the problem type can be finely divided, the reference of the evaluation score is improved, and the difference of design quality is comprehensively reflected.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of drawing model design, and in particular to a drawing model design quality assessment method, device, electronic device and storage medium. Background Art

[0002] During the design phase of a construction project, the quality assessment of drawing model design is an important part of ensuring the smooth progress of the project. The quality of design is directly related to the efficiency and quality of subsequent construction. Therefore, the assessment of drawing models plays a key role. Traditional design quality assessment methods usually rely on offline audits or simplified scoring mechanisms. However, these methods have significant limitations and cannot meet the current needs of complex construction projects for efficient and accurate assessment.

[0003] Among the existing technical solutions, some online collaborative review platforms have been applied to the evaluation of drawing model design quality. Through online collaborative review, such platforms allow project participants to review design results such as CAD drawings and BIM models, summarize the problems found during the review process, and finally form a design quality scoring result. Although such platforms have improved the review efficiency to a certain extent, the following problems still exist in the process of evaluating design quality:

[0004] The weight division of problem types is not precise: the existing technology cannot accurately distinguish the impact of different problem types on the overall quality of the project, resulting in the inability to reflect the severity of the problem through reasonable weight setting, which affects the accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0005] Lack of reference: The existing evaluation scores lack specificity and cannot provide effective improvement suggestions for project participants. It is difficult for participants to make specific design optimization decisions based on the scoring results.

[0006] Unable to fully reflect differences in design quality: Existing methods are insufficient in reflecting quality differences among different design solutions and are unable to conduct detailed analysis of evaluation results at different design stages or for multiple batches of projects, limiting the ability to optimize project design details. Summary of the invention

[0007] In view of this, the embodiments of the present application provide a drawing model design quality assessment method, device, electronic device and storage medium to solve the problems existing in the prior art of imprecise weight division of problem types, lack of reference and inability to fully reflect design quality differences.

[0008] In a first aspect of an embodiment of the present application, a method for evaluating the quality of a drawing model design is provided, including: obtaining problem type distribution data in historical projects, classifying different problem types and setting corresponding weights, establishing a deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generating a problem type weight system; based on an online collaborative review platform, obtaining review problem data in the project, classifying them according to different problem types, counting the number of problems in each type, and calculating deductions for the problems according to the problem type weight system to obtain a single deduction value and a total deduction value for the problem; setting an interval coefficient for the number of people participating in the review according to the number of people participating in the review, and calculating a corresponding personnel coefficient according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, and the complexity and role label of the project; calculating a comprehensive quality score for the drawing model design of the project according to the total deduction value for the problem and the personnel coefficient, and evaluating the drawing model design of the project according to the comprehensive quality score.

[0009] According to a second aspect of an embodiment of the present application, a drawing model design quality assessment device is provided, including: an acquisition module, configured to acquire problem type distribution data in historical projects, classify different problem types and set corresponding weights, establish a deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generate a problem type weight system; a classification module, configured to acquire review problem data in a project based on an online collaborative review platform, classify the problem data according to different problem types, count the number of problems in each type, and deduct the problems according to the problem type weight system to obtain a single deduction value and a total deduction value for the problem; a calculation module, configured to set an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review according to the number of people participating in the review, and calculate a corresponding personnel coefficient according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project, and the role label; an assessment module, configured to calculate a comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design according to the total deduction value of the problem and the personnel coefficient, and assess the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score.

[0010] According to a third aspect of an embodiment of the present application, an electronic device is provided, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the steps of the above method are implemented when the processor executes the computer program.

[0011] According to a fourth aspect of an embodiment of the present application, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, which stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the above method are implemented.

[0012] At least one of the above technical solutions adopted in the embodiments of the present application can achieve the following beneficial effects:

[0013] By obtaining the distribution data of problem types in historical projects, classifying different problem types and setting corresponding weights, establishing the deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generating a problem type weight system; based on the online collaborative review platform, obtaining the audit problem data in the project, classifying according to different problem types, counting the number of problems in each category, and calculating the deduction for the problems according to the problem type weight system, obtaining the single deduction value and the total deduction value for the problem; according to the number of people participating in the review, setting the interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review, and calculating the corresponding personnel coefficient according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, and the complexity and role label of the project; according to the total deduction value of the problem and the personnel coefficient, calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design, and evaluating the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score. This application can finely divide the weights of problem types, improve the reference of evaluation scores, and fully reflect the differences in design quality. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0014] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present application. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying any creative work.

[0015] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of a drawing model design quality assessment method provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0016] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the process of generating the question type weight system provided in the embodiment of the present application;

[0017] Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of the structure of a cooling demand prediction device provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0018] Figure 4 It is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0019] In the following description, specific details such as specific system structures, technologies, etc. are provided for the purpose of illustration rather than limitation, so as to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments of the present application. However, it should be clear to those skilled in the art that the present application may also be implemented in other embodiments without these specific details. In other cases, detailed descriptions of well-known systems, devices, circuits, and methods are omitted to prevent unnecessary details from obstructing the description of the present application.

[0020] It should be understood that the various steps described in the method implementation of the present application can be performed in different orders and / or performed in parallel. In addition, the method implementation may include additional steps and / or omit the steps shown. The scope of the present application is not limited in this respect.

[0021] Construction projects - residential formats During the design phase, the construction party will set up nodes such as joint review of construction drawings and organize multiple centralized review, organize all parties involved in the project to adopt a joint review method using an online collaborative review platform, conduct online review of design results such as design CAD drawings and BIM models, and annotate them to form drawing and model review issues, and then conduct a comprehensive assessment of the quality of drawings and models after summarizing them. This includes whether there are significant design errors in the design process of two-dimensional drawings and three-dimensional models, whether there are non-compliance with review specifications and corporate standards, whether there are errors, omissions, or whether the expression results meet the construction party's requirements and expectations.

[0022] An important evaluation method in the drawing model quality assessment work is to classify the project review issues generated in the collaborative review platform into problem types, assign different weight scores to different problem types, and then summarize and comprehensively count the scores to obtain the scores. That is, to evaluate the design quality of drawing models based on the type scores of online review issues.

[0023] The difficulty of drawing model design quality assessment lies in the refinement of different weight allocation systems for different problem types, how to fully and systematically calculate and reflect the rationality of drawing model design quality assessment scores. How to reflect whether the drawing model design quality assessment scores are referenceable; how to fully reflect the design quality differences reflected by different measurement scores; whether the detailed reasons for the design quality evaluation can be further analyzed.

[0024] During the design phase of a construction project, the quality assessment of drawing model design is a key link to ensure the smooth progress of the project. Traditional drawing model design quality assessment methods have some problems, such as the inability to finely divide the weights of problem types, lack of reference, and inability to fully reflect the differences in design quality. Therefore, a more effective method is needed to solve these problems and improve the accuracy and reference of drawing model design quality assessment.

[0025] In the prior art, some online collaborative review platforms are used for drawing model design quality assessment. These platforms allow project participants to conduct online review of design results such as design CAD drawings and BIM models through online collaboration. Then, by summarizing the review issues and conducting a comprehensive assessment, the drawing model quality score is obtained. However, the prior art solutions still have the following disadvantages:

[0026] 1) Inaccurate weight division of question types: Existing technologies are often unable to accurately divide the weights of different question types, resulting in inaccurate evaluation results.

[0027] 2) Lack of reference: The evaluation scores of existing methods lack reference and cannot provide project participants with targeted improvement directions.

[0028] 3) Unable to fully reflect differences in design quality: Existing methods are insufficient in reflecting differences in design quality and are unable to fully analyze and explain the design quality issues behind different measurement scores.

[0029] In view of the problems existing in the above-mentioned prior art, this application proposes a drawing model design quality assessment method based on an online collaborative review platform, which can solve the problems of the prior art. Specifically, this application aims to achieve a fine division of problem type weights by combing the business process of the collaborative review platform and improving the indicator calculation, so as to ensure that the evaluation scores have higher accuracy and reference. At the same time, this application is committed to fully reflecting the different responses of different measurement scores to design quality, so as to better analyze and explain design quality issues.

[0030] Through these improvements, this application aims to provide a more effective, accurate and reference-based drawing model design quality assessment method to improve the quality and efficiency of the design phase of construction projects. This application will comprehensively reflect the rationality of the comprehensive assessment of drawing model design quality based on online drawing review issues through a series of complete indicator calculations, such as combing the business process of the collaborative drawing review platform, distinguishing the business attributes of different drawing review stages, solidifying the problem type weight coefficient system, setting the adjustment coefficient of the role label of the reviewer, and adjusting the interval of the number of people involved in the drawing review.

[0031] This application is mainly divided into three steps. Calculate the single weight system of the problem type of the benchmark project residential business project type, establish a summary measurement system, assign adjustment coefficients and make rational evaluations. Each step will specifically define the relevant calculation indicators and their calculation methods to judge and analyze the rationality of the single-point deduction system of the problem type of the residential business project type, the total number of problems, and the adjustment coefficient (personnel coefficient) reduced by the number of reviewers.

[0032] The contents of the technical solution of the present application are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments.

[0033] Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the process of the drawing model design quality assessment method provided in the embodiment of the present application. Figure 1 As shown, the drawing model design quality assessment method may specifically include:

[0034] S101, obtaining the problem type distribution data of historical projects, classifying different problem types and setting corresponding weights, establishing the deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generating a problem type weight system;

[0035] S102, based on the online collaborative review platform, obtain the review problem data in the project, classify them according to different problem types, count the number of problems in each category, and calculate the deduction points for the problems according to the problem type weight system to obtain the single deduction point value and the total deduction point value of the problem;

[0036] S103, according to the number of people participating in the review, an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review is set, and according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project and the role label, a corresponding personnel coefficient is calculated;

[0037] S104, calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design according to the total deduction value of the problem and the personnel coefficient, and evaluating the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score.

[0038] In some embodiments, obtaining the distribution data of question types in historical projects, classifying different question types and setting corresponding weights include:

[0039] The problem type distribution data is extracted from the relevant data of historical projects. According to the problem type distribution data, the types of drawing review problems in historical projects are classified, and the weight values ​​of various types of problems are preliminarily set to generate a preliminary problem type weight system.

[0040] Specifically, this embodiment proposes an evaluation method based on historical project data acquisition and classification of problem types. The core step of this method is to extract the distribution data of problem types from the data in historical projects, classify them and set weights to form a reasonable deduction system, and finally provide a basis for the quality evaluation of drawing model design.

[0041] First, the distribution data of problem types related to drawing model design are extracted from the relevant data of historical projects. Specifically, multiple data can be obtained from the historical records of residential projects, including the review questions generated during the review process and the classification results of these questions. By summarizing these data, the frequency and distribution of various types of problems in past projects can be clarified, laying the foundation for subsequent classification and weight setting.

[0042] Furthermore, based on the problem type distribution data extracted from historical projects, these problems are classified in detail. The classification criteria are based on the impact of the problem on the design quality, the frequency of the problem, and the difficulty of solving the problem in history. After the classification is completed, the initial weight setting is performed for each type of problem. This initial weight system is manually set based on empirical data to ensure that the importance of different problem types can be reflected in the weight value.

[0043] Furthermore, in order to further verify the rationality of the preliminary classification and weight system, several sampled residential business projects were selected and compared with the calculation results of historical measurement projects. In this process, the measurement results of historical projects were used as a comparison benchmark to ensure that the analysis of the current project has reference and data support. For each sampled project, based on its specific problem type distribution and weight system, the deduction calculation is performed one by one. The formation of this deduction system has been manually delineated and adjusted by rules to ensure that the deduction for each problem type is reasonable and has practical guiding significance.

[0044] Furthermore, in the specific implementation process, the scope of review and audit issues is framed through the online collaborative review platform. The determination of the scope of review issues depends on the different project stages. The system determines the phased batch scope of review according to the project initialization parameters. Through this framing process, it is ensured that every issue generated during the review process can be classified and included in the evaluation system.

[0045] Furthermore, the classification operation is further locked according to the problem type in the project. The process may include the following steps: when the project is initialized, the phased batch scope of the review is first determined; then, the system specifies the personnel involved in the review according to the role labels of the project team (such as designer, engineer, project manager, etc.), and locks the specific review problem sample library; then, the system exhaustively enumerates all the review problems in the sample library to ensure that all possible design problems are included in the evaluation system.

[0046] Furthermore, after the problem is exhaustively listed, the system summarizes the problem types through comprehensive calculation. First, the problems generated by different batches and different roles are classified and calculated. Then, combined with the initially set problem type weight system, the final score calculation is performed on the problems to generate the deduction results of the current project.

[0047] Through the method of the present embodiment, it is possible to accurately evaluate the design quality of the drawing model of the current project based on the data of the historical projects. In this process, the reasonable use of historical data, the fine division of classification weights and the systematic summary calculation all ensure the reliability and reference of the evaluation results.

[0048] In some embodiments, a deduction standard for a single question is established based on the question type and impact, and a question type weight system is generated, including:

[0049] Determine the single deduction standard corresponding to each problem type according to the weight of the problem type and the processing results of the corresponding problems in historical projects; based on the preliminary problem type weight system and the single deduction standard, compare and verify the measured data of the current project with the measured data of the historical projects, and adjust the preliminary problem type weight system and the single deduction standard according to the comparison and verification results to generate the final problem type weight system.

[0050] Specifically, this embodiment proposes a drawing model design quality assessment method that establishes a single problem deduction standard based on problem type and impact, which is used to generate a weight system for problem types. This embodiment mainly forms an accurate deduction system and finally generates a weight system by analyzing the problem distribution and processing results in historical projects and combining the actual situation of the current project.

[0051] First, according to the distribution of problem types and processing results in historical projects, a single deduction standard corresponding to each problem type is determined. Specifically, the system analyzes the review data of historical projects, extracts the problem types that appear more frequently, and sets a preliminary deduction standard based on their impact on the overall design quality of the project. For example, some problem types that seriously affect the design quality may be set with a higher deduction standard, while minor problems may be set with a lower deduction standard.

[0052] Furthermore, after determining the deduction criteria for each type of problem, the system will generate a preliminary problem type weight system based on these data. The system will collect statistics on the distribution of problems in historical residential projects and assign corresponding weights based on the degree of impact of different problem types on project quality.

[0053] Furthermore, in order to verify the rationality of the preliminary weighting system, the data of the current project was selected for measurement and compared with the measurement results of the historical projects. Through this process, it is possible to evaluate whether the distribution of problem types in the current project is similar to that of the historical projects, and whether the existing deduction criteria can accurately reflect the differences in design quality.

[0054] During this process, the system calculates each item according to the following steps:

[0055] Project staging: Divide the project into different stages and calculate deductions based on the progress of each stage.

[0056] Batch total: The system will merge the audit question data of each batch to form a comprehensive deduction result for a batch.

[0057] Question type classification: Classify and calculate by question type. The deduction result of each question type will be merged into the total deduction of that question type.

[0058] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the problem type weight system generation process provided by the embodiment of the present application. Figure 2As shown in the figure, the process goes through the calculation steps of "Summary Table", "Project Phase", "Batch (Multiple Types)", and "Question Type (Multiple Types)" in sequence. By calculating the total of different stages and batches of the project, the system generates the total deduction points for each project and finally generates the question type weight system.

[0059] According to the results of the comparison and verification, the initially set weight system and deduction criteria are adjusted. After multiple iterations, a problem type weight system that can accurately reflect the quality of the current project design is finally generated. This system can not only be used for the evaluation of the current project, but also as a standard for the evaluation of subsequent projects to ensure the reference and consistency of the system evaluation.

[0060] Through the method of this embodiment, the system can accurately set the deduction standard for the problem type based on historical data and generate a weight system for design quality assessment. This process ensures the accuracy of the assessment results and provides a scientific and reasonable quality assessment method with strong reference for project participants.

[0061] In some embodiments, deductions are calculated for questions according to a question type weight system to obtain individual deductions and a total deduction for the question, including:

[0062] Based on the online collaborative review platform, the review problem data of the current project is collected, and all problems are classified and counted according to the problem type weight system;

[0063] According to the single deduction standard for each type of question in the question type weight system, obtain the single deduction value corresponding to each question type;

[0064] Based on the results of classification statistics, determine the number of questions in each category. According to the number of questions in each category and the corresponding individual deduction values, calculate the total deductions for each category of questions. Sum up the total deductions for different types of questions to get the total deduction value for the questions.

[0065] Specifically, this embodiment also proposes a method for calculating deductions for review issues in drawing model design based on a problem type weight system, which is used to evaluate the design quality of the project. The method collects review problem data through an online collaborative drawing review platform, and classifies and deducts these issues in combination with a preset weight system, and finally obtains the total deduction value of the problem, which reflects the rationality of the design quality.

[0066] First, based on the online collaborative review platform, the review problem data in the current project is collected. The system will collect data on all review problems generated within the specified time period, including various problems in the design drawings and BIM models. In the review platform, each problem is automatically assigned a label to indicate its problem type to ensure that subsequent classification and calculation can be completed accurately. These problem labels are required fields during the review process, and the system automatically classifies and counts the problems based on these labels.

[0067] Furthermore, based on the set problem type weight system, the system assigns a corresponding single deduction standard to each problem type. This standard is based on the experience of historical project data and can accurately reflect the impact of each type of problem on the overall design quality of the project. For example, serious design errors will be set with a higher single deduction value, while minor expression problems will be deducted less.

[0068] Furthermore, the deduction value for a single question is calculated: the deduction value for each type of question is fixed in advance, and the system automatically extracts the single deduction value corresponding to the question type from the weight system after classification.

[0069] Audit question count: After the system classifies the questions according to the labels, it counts the number of occurrences of each question type (i.e., the number of audit questions). This statistical process is based on the full audit data to ensure the accuracy of the number of questions.

[0070] Furthermore, based on the aforementioned single deduction criteria and the statistical results of the audit questions, the system calculates the total number of deductions for each type of question. The calculation formula is: total deductions = single question deductions × number of audit questions. For each type of question, the system will apply this formula to calculate deductions. For example, if a certain type of question appears 10 times and its single deduction value is 5 points, then the total number of deductions for this type of question is 50 points.

[0071] Furthermore, after calculating the total number of deductions for each type of problem, the system aggregates the total number of deductions for all types of problems to obtain the total deduction value for the overall problem of the project. This total deduction value is the key result of the entire project design quality assessment, reflecting the overall severity of the problems exposed in the design phase of the project.

[0072] Furthermore, in order to ensure that the deduction results are of reference value and reasonable, the system will conduct further verification. Specifically, the deduction calculation results will be compared with historical projects, and the design quality score of the current project will be analyzed based on the experience evaluation model to see whether it is reasonable. The system will calculate and compare the following factors:

[0073] Question type weight coefficient system: Check the rationality of the weight of each question type to ensure that the weight distribution of the deduction calculation is in line with reality.

[0074] Adjustment coefficient of reviewer role label: Taking into account the role weights of different reviewers in the review process, the review results are appropriately adjusted.

[0075] Adjustment of the number of participants in the review: The overall evaluation results will be reasonably adjusted based on the actual number of participants in the review. The more reviewers there are, the more comprehensive the design problems may be, and the deduction results will be more accurate.

[0076] Finally, the system outputs the individual deduction results of various problems and the total deduction results of the project, and generates a quality score report for the drawing model design. Through this report, project participants can clearly understand the quality of the design and make corresponding adjustments and improvements to the design based on the results.

[0077] Through the above method of this embodiment, this embodiment can automatically and accurately classify and calculate the deduction points for the problems in the project design by combining the online review platform and historical project experience data. Finally, the total deduction point value generated by the system is used to comprehensively reflect the design quality of the project and provide a reference and reasonable evaluation result.

[0078] In some embodiments, according to the number of people participating in the review, an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review is set, and according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project and the role label, the corresponding personnel coefficient is calculated, including:

[0079] Count the number of people involved in the review and determine the role label of each person involved in the review;

[0080] According to the number of people participating in the review, the corresponding interval adjustment coefficient is matched, where the interval coefficient is divided into multiple intervals according to the number of people participating in the review;

[0081] The interval coefficient is adjusted according to the complexity of the project, and the complexity adjustment coefficient of the project is determined. The personnel coefficient is calculated based on the number of people involved in the review, the interval coefficient and the complexity adjustment coefficient.

[0082] Specifically, this embodiment also proposes a method for calculating the personnel coefficient based on the number of people involved in the review and the complexity of the project, which is used to evaluate the rationality of the impact on the review personnel when evaluating the design quality of the drawing model. By comprehensively considering the number of people involved in the review, role labels, and project complexity, the corresponding personnel coefficient is finally calculated and applied to the overall quality review score.

[0083] First, the system counts the reviewers of the current project and determines the number of people involved in the review. The headcount covers all relevant personnel who have actually participated in the review of project drawings or models within the specified time period. In addition, the system assigns corresponding role labels to each reviewer based on their actual responsibilities. For example, roles such as review experts, project managers, and designers may have different review weights, which will have different impacts on the evaluation results.

[0084] Furthermore, after determining the number of people involved in the review, the system will select the appropriate interval adjustment coefficient based on the pre-set interval division. The interval coefficient division is set according to different ranges of people, and the specific intervals include:

[0085] A interval: When the number of people involved in the review is nx or more, the highest interval coefficient is matched;

[0086] B interval: the number of people is between n1 and n2;

[0087] C interval: the number of people is between n2 and n3;

[0088] D interval: the number of people is between n3 and n4;

[0089] E interval: When the number of participants is less than n4, the lowest interval coefficient is matched.

[0090] If the number of people participating in the review is less than a preset minimum number (such as n people), the system will judge that the quality of the review is insufficient and no points will be awarded for the quality review.

[0091] Through this division, the system can dynamically adjust the influence weight of the reviewers according to the number of participants. For example, more reviewers may mean that the review process is more comprehensive, so a higher interval adjustment coefficient is assigned.

[0092] Furthermore, the complexity of the project is a key factor affecting the reviewer coefficient. The system will assign a complexity adjustment coefficient to each project based on the specific design complexity of the project (such as building scale, technical requirements, etc.). Complex projects usually require more review efforts, so their corresponding coefficients will be higher than ordinary projects. The adjustment coefficient is a quantitative reflection of the project characteristics and design difficulty.

[0093] Furthermore, after determining the interval adjustment coefficient of the number of participants and the complexity adjustment coefficient of the project, the system will combine these parameters to calculate the final personnel coefficient. The calculation formula is: personnel coefficient = project complexity adjustment coefficient × interval coefficient / number of people involved in the review. This formula ensures that the impact of the reviewers can be reasonably adjusted by comprehensively considering the number of participants, complexity and interval coefficient. As the number of participants increases or the complexity of the project increases, the value of the personnel coefficient will change accordingly, thereby generating different weights on the quality assessment results.

[0094] Furthermore, after calculating the personnel coefficient, the system applies it to the final calculation of the quality audit score. The quality audit score is determined by deducting the total deduction points of the problem type, and the calculation formula is: quality audit score = basic score - (total deduction points of the problem type × personnel coefficient).

[0095] The total deduction for each problem type is a summary of the deductions for different types of problems. The introduction of the personnel coefficient enables the final quality review score to more reasonably reflect the participation of the reviewers and the complexity of the project. A higher personnel coefficient indicates that the reviewers are more involved or the project is more complex, so the impact of the deduction will be more significant.

[0096] Furthermore, after the calculation is completed, the system outputs the final quality review score, which reflects the overall quality of the project design. Through this result, the project management party can make more accurate design quality judgments and make corresponding improvements based on the score adjusted by the number of participants and project complexity.

[0097] Through the method of the above embodiment, the embodiment comprehensively considers the number of people involved in the review, the complexity of the project and the role label, sets the interval adjustment coefficient and the complexity coefficient, and finally calculates the personnel coefficient and applies it to the calculation of the project quality review score. This method ensures that the influence of the review personnel on the evaluation results is reasonably reflected, making the project quality evaluation more accurate and targeted.

[0098] In some embodiments, after calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design, the method further includes:

[0099] According to the historical scores and calculated scores of the sample projects, deviation indicators for evaluating rationality are configured, and the score difference rate of the current project is calculated in order to evaluate the deviation of the comprehensive quality score of the current project. The deviation indicators include regional differences and project score differences in different periods.

[0100] Specifically, this embodiment also proposes an evaluation method for rationality verification after calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design. This method evaluates whether the score of the current project is reasonable by configuring the deviation index, and especially analyzes the scores of different regions and multiple batches of projects to ensure the accuracy and reference of the evaluation results.

[0101] Furthermore, after the comprehensive quality score is calculated, the system will configure a deviation indicator for evaluating the rationality of the current project based on the score data of historical projects. The deviation indicator is used to evaluate the difference between the current project score and the historical project score, ensuring that the evaluation result reflects the actual design quality of the project.

[0102] Furthermore, if the current project involves multiple regions or areas, the system will further evaluate the differences between regions to ensure the consistency of the scores between different regions. The specific implementation method is: the system first summarizes the project scores of different regions and calculates the total score of each region; then, the system compares the score of the region where the current project is located with the project scores of other regions and calculates the regional difference.

[0103] The calculation of regional differences can help assess whether there are large deviations in the project scores of different regions and ensure the consistency of project scoring standards in different regions. If the regional differences exceed the preset reasonable range, the scoring standards may need to be adjusted to eliminate unreasonable differences in scores between different regions.

[0104] Furthermore, for projects with multiple batches of measurement results, the system will also reflect the changing trend of project design quality by comparing the scores of different periods. This part is particularly suitable for projects with a long design process and involving multi-stage reviews. If the score difference between batches is too large, it may indicate that the project design quality has changed significantly at some stage. The system will prompt that the weight coefficient or other evaluation parameters need to be re-evaluated to ensure the stability and accuracy of the score.

[0105] For example, if an item scores 80 points in the first batch and 90 points in the second batch, the difference is 10 points, and the system will evaluate whether the difference is within a reasonable range. If the difference is outside the expected range, the scoring parameters may need to be adjusted.

[0106] Through comprehensive analysis of deviation rate, regional difference and multi-batch score difference, the system can effectively determine whether the evaluation results of the current project are reasonable. If any deviation indicator exceeds the preset threshold, the system will prompt that further analysis is needed, which may include readjusting the weight coefficient, revising the scoring criteria, or even re-evaluating the design quality of the entire project. If all deviation indicators are within a reasonable range, the system will confirm the accuracy of the evaluation results and use the result as the final score of the project design quality.

[0107] In some embodiments, according to the historical scores and calculated scores of the sample projects, a deviation index for evaluating rationality is configured, and the score difference rate of the current project is calculated so as to evaluate the deviation of the comprehensive quality score of the current project, including:

[0108] Count the project scores of multiple regions, compare the total project scores of different regions with the calculated scores of the current region, and calculate the regional difference. The regional difference is used to represent the score differences between regions.

[0109] Compare and analyze the evaluation scores of the same project in different batches, and calculate the difference in project scores in different periods. The difference in project scores in different periods is used to represent the changes in project design quality;

[0110] When the regional difference or the difference in project scores in different periods exceeds the corresponding threshold, the comprehensive quality score of the current project will be marked as an abnormal item.

[0111] Specifically, this embodiment also provides a method for configuring deviation indicators based on historical scores and calculated scores to evaluate whether the comprehensive quality score of the current project is reasonable. This method ensures the accuracy of the project quality assessment results by calculating the score difference rate, regional difference, and score difference in different periods, and marks abnormal situations.

[0112] First, the system calculates the score difference rate based on the historical scores of the sample projects and the calculated scores of the current project. The score difference rate reflects the difference between the current project score and the historical project score, and is used to evaluate the rationality of the current project score. The calculation formula is: score difference rate (%) = (historical project score - current project calculated score) / current project calculated score × 100%.

[0113] The purpose of this step is to detect whether the current project's score deviates significantly from the historical project's score. By calculating the score difference rate, if the deviation rate exceeds a preset threshold range (e.g., ±10%), the system will consider that the current project's score may be abnormal.

[0114] Furthermore, if the project is distributed in multiple regions, the system will calculate the regional difference based on the project scores of different regions. The specific implementation process is as follows: the system counts the scores of multiple projects in each region and calculates the total score of the region; compares the calculated score of the region where the current project is located with the total score of projects in other regions to calculate the score difference. The calculation formula is: Regional difference = total score of multiple projects in the region - current region calculated score.

[0115] By calculating the regional difference, the system can detect whether there is an unreasonable deviation in the project scores of different regions. If the regional difference exceeds the preset threshold, the system will mark the comprehensive quality score of the current project as an abnormal item, indicating that there may be inconsistent scoring standards or evaluation errors in the region.

[0116] Furthermore, for the same project, the system will also evaluate the changing trend of the project design quality by comparing the evaluation scores of different periods (i.e. different batches). The specific implementation process is as follows: the system compares the scores of the same project in the nth batch and the n-1th batch, and calculates the difference between the two evaluations. The calculation formula is: project score difference = nth batch project calculated score - n-1th batch project calculated score.

[0117] The project score difference is used to characterize the changes in the project design quality in multiple batches of evaluation. If the difference is large, the system will prompt that the design quality has changed significantly, and it may be necessary to further adjust the weight coefficient or other evaluation parameters to ensure the stability of the scoring results.

[0118] Furthermore, the system sets reasonable thresholds for the score difference rate, regional difference, and multi-batch project score difference. When the difference of any indicator exceeds the threshold range, the system will automatically mark the overall quality score of the current project as an abnormal item. This mark helps project participants to promptly identify potential scoring issues and make subsequent adjustments.

[0119] For example, the system can set a threshold of ±10% for the score difference rate. If the score of the current project differs from that of the historical project by more than 10%, the project will be marked as abnormal. Similarly, similar thresholds will be set for regional differences and multi-batch score differences to detect abnormal scoring.

[0120] Through the above calculations and difference comparisons, the system fully verifies the rationality of the current project's score. If all differences are within a reasonable range, the system confirms that the current project's score is reasonable and outputs the final quality assessment report. If there are any abnormal marks, the system will further prompt the user that it may be necessary to review each stage of the project's scoring, or adjust the corresponding weights and evaluation criteria.

[0121] Through the above method of this embodiment, this embodiment can effectively detect whether the project score is reasonable by calculating the score difference rate, regional difference and multi-batch score difference, and timely mark abnormal situations by setting thresholds. In this way, the system ensures that the evaluation results of different projects and regions are consistent and referenceable, and helps project participants to make timely corrections and adjustments to projects with abnormal scores.

[0122] The following is an embodiment of the device of the present application, which can be used to execute the embodiment of the method of the present application. For details not disclosed in the embodiment of the device of the present application, please refer to the embodiment of the method of the present application.

[0123] Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the structure of the cooling demand prediction device provided in the embodiment of the present application. Figure 3 As shown, the cooling demand prediction device comprises:

[0124] The acquisition module 301 is configured to acquire the problem type distribution data in the historical projects, classify different problem types and set corresponding weights, establish the deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generate a problem type weight system;

[0125] The classification module 302 is configured to obtain the audit problem data in the project based on the online collaborative review platform, classify the problems according to different problem types, count the number of problems in each category, and calculate the deduction points for the problems according to the problem type weight system to obtain the single deduction points and the total deduction points for the problems;

[0126] The calculation module 303 is configured to set an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review according to the number of people participating in the review, and calculate a corresponding personnel coefficient according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project, and the role label;

[0127] The evaluation module 304 is configured to calculate the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design according to the total deduction value of the problem and the personnel coefficient, and evaluate the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score.

[0128] In some embodiments, Figure 3 The acquisition module 301 extracts problem type distribution data from relevant data of historical projects, classifies the types of drawing review problems in historical projects according to the problem type distribution data, and preliminarily sets weight values ​​for various types of problems to generate a preliminary problem type weight system.

[0129] In some embodiments, Figure 3 The acquisition module 301 determines the single deduction standard corresponding to each question type according to the weight of the question type and the processing results of the corresponding questions in the historical projects; based on the preliminary question type weight system and the single deduction standard, the measurement data of the current project is compared and verified with the measurement data of the historical projects, and the preliminary question type weight system and the single deduction standard are adjusted according to the comparison and verification results to generate the final question type weight system.

[0130] In some embodiments, Figure 3The classification module 302 is based on the online collaborative review platform, collects the review problem data of the current project, and classifies and counts all the problems according to the problem type weight system; obtains the single deduction value corresponding to each problem type according to the single deduction standard for each type of problem in the problem type weight system; determines the number of each type of problem based on the results of the classification statistics, calculates the total deduction value for each type of problem according to the number of each type of problem and the corresponding single deduction value, and summarizes the total deduction value for different types of problems to obtain the total deduction value for the problem.

[0131] In some embodiments, Figure 3 The calculation module 303 counts the number of people participating in the review and determines the role label of each person participating in the review; matches the corresponding interval adjustment coefficient according to the number of people participating in the review, wherein the interval coefficient is divided into multiple intervals according to the number of people participating in the review; adjusts the interval coefficient according to the complexity of the project, and determines the complexity adjustment coefficient of the project; calculates the personnel coefficient according to the number of people participating in the review, the interval coefficient and the complexity adjustment coefficient.

[0132] In some embodiments, Figure 3 After calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design, the evaluation module 304 configures a deviation index for evaluating rationality based on the historical scores and calculated scores of the sample projects, and calculates the score difference rate of the current project in order to evaluate the deviation of the comprehensive quality score of the current project, wherein the deviation index includes regional differences and project score differences in different periods.

[0133] In some embodiments, Figure 3 The evaluation module 304 counts the project scores of multiple regions, compares the total project scores of different regions with the calculated scores of the current region, and calculates the regional differences, which are used to characterize the score differences between regions; compares and analyzes the evaluation scores of the same project in different batches, calculates the project score differences of different periods, and the project score differences of different periods are used to characterize the changes in project design quality; when the regional differences or the project score differences of different periods exceed the corresponding threshold, the comprehensive quality score of the current project is marked as an abnormal item.

[0134] Figure 4 Schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device 4 provided in the embodiment of the present application. Figure 4 As shown, the electronic device 4 of this embodiment includes: a processor 401, a memory 402, and a computer program 403 stored in the memory 402 and executable on the processor 401. When the processor 401 executes the computer program 403, the steps in the above-mentioned method embodiments are implemented. Alternatively, when the processor 401 executes the computer program 403, the functions of the modules / units in the above-mentioned device embodiments are implemented.

[0135] Exemplarily, the computer program 403 may be divided into one or more modules / units, which are stored in the memory 402 and executed by the processor 401 to complete the present application. The one or more modules / units may be a series of computer program instruction segments capable of completing specific functions, which are used to describe the execution process of the computer program 403 in the electronic device 4.

[0136] The electronic device 4 may be a desktop computer, a notebook, a PDA, a cloud server, or other electronic device. The electronic device 4 may include, but is not limited to, a processor 401 and a memory 402. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that Figure 4 It is only an example of the electronic device 4 and does not constitute a limitation of the electronic device 4. It may include more or fewer components than shown in the figure, or a combination of certain components, or different components. For example, the electronic device may also include input and output devices, network access devices, buses, etc.

[0137] The processor 401 may be a central processing unit (CPU), or other general-purpose processors, digital signal processors (DSP), application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, discrete hardware components, etc. A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor or the processor may be any conventional processor, etc.

[0138] The memory 402 may be an internal storage unit of the electronic device 4, for example, a hard disk or memory of the electronic device 4. The memory 402 may also be an external storage device of the electronic device 4, for example, a plug-in hard disk, a smart media card (SMC), a secure digital (SD) card, a flash card, etc. equipped on the electronic device 4. Further, the memory 402 may also include both an internal storage unit and an external storage device of the electronic device 4. The memory 402 is used to store computer programs and other programs and data required by the electronic device. The memory 402 may also be used to temporarily store data that has been output or is to be output.

[0139] The technicians in the relevant field can clearly understand that for the convenience and simplicity of description, only the division of the above-mentioned functional units and modules is used as an example for illustration. In practical applications, the above-mentioned function allocation can be completed by different functional units and modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional units or modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. The functional units and modules in the embodiment can be integrated in a processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated in one unit. The above-mentioned integrated unit can be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of software functional units. In addition, the specific names of the functional units and modules are only for the convenience of distinguishing each other, and are not used to limit the scope of protection of this application. The specific working process of the units and modules in the above-mentioned system can refer to the corresponding process in the aforementioned method embodiment, which will not be repeated here.

[0140] In the above embodiments, the description of each embodiment has its own emphasis. For parts that are not described or recorded in detail in a certain embodiment, reference can be made to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0141] Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the units and algorithm steps of each example described in conjunction with the embodiments applied for herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are performed in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Professional and technical personnel can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered to be beyond the scope of this application.

[0142] In the embodiments provided in the present application, it should be understood that the disclosed devices / computer equipment and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the device / computer equipment embodiments described above are only schematic. For example, the division of modules or units is only a logical function division. There may be other division methods in actual implementation. Multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed. Another point is that the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed can be through some interfaces, indirect coupling or communication connection of devices or units, which can be electrical, mechanical or other forms.

[0143] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separated, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, that is, they may be located in one place or distributed on multiple network units. Some or all of the units may be selected according to actual needs to achieve the purpose of the solution of this embodiment.

[0144] In addition, each functional unit in each embodiment of the present application may be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit may exist physically separately, or two or more units may be integrated into one unit. The above-mentioned integrated unit may be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of software functional units.

[0145] If the integrated module / unit is implemented in the form of a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the present application implements all or part of the processes in the above-mentioned embodiment method, and can also be completed by instructing the relevant hardware through a computer program. The computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and the computer program can implement the steps of the above-mentioned various method embodiments when executed by the processor. The computer program may include computer program code, which may be in source code form, object code form, executable file or some intermediate form. Computer-readable media may include: any entity or device capable of carrying computer program code, recording medium, U disk, mobile hard disk, disk, optical disk, computer memory, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electric carrier signal, telecommunication signal and software distribution medium, etc.

[0146] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present application, rather than to limit them. Although the present application has been described in detail with reference to the aforementioned embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that they can still modify the technical solutions described in the aforementioned embodiments, or make equivalent replacements for some of the technical features therein. These modifications or replacements do not deviate the essence of the corresponding technical solutions from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, and should all be included in the protection scope of the present application.

Claims

1. A drawing model design quality assessment method, characterized in that: include: Obtain the problem type distribution data in historical projects, classify different problem types and set corresponding weights, establish the deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generate a problem type weight system; Based on the online collaborative review platform, the review problem data in the project is obtained, classified according to different problem types, the number of problems in each category is counted, and the problems are deducted according to the problem type weight system to obtain the single item deduction value and the total problem deduction value; According to the number of people participating in the review, an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review is set, and according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project and the role label, a corresponding personnel coefficient is calculated; According to the total deduction points of the problems and the personnel coefficient, a comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design is calculated, and the project drawing model design is evaluated according to the comprehensive quality score.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The obtaining of the problem type distribution data in the historical projects, classifying different problem types and setting corresponding weights includes: The problem type distribution data is extracted from the relevant data of the historical project, and the types of drawing review problems in the historical project are classified according to the problem type distribution data, and the weight values ​​of each type of problem are preliminarily set to generate a preliminary problem type weight system.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that The deduction standard for a single question is established based on the question type and impact, and a question type weight system is generated, including: Determine the single deduction standard corresponding to each question type according to the weight of the question type and the processing results of the corresponding questions in the historical projects; based on the preliminary question type weight system and the single deduction standard, compare and verify the measured data of the current project with the measured data of the historical projects, and adjust the preliminary question type weight system and the single deduction standard according to the comparison and verification results to generate the final question type weight system.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The deduction calculation for the question according to the question type weight system to obtain the single deduction value and the total deduction value of the question includes: Based on the online collaborative review platform, the review problem data of the current project is collected, and all problems are classified and counted according to the problem type weight system; According to the single deduction standard for each type of question in the question type weight system, obtain the single deduction value corresponding to each question type; Based on the results of classification statistics, the number of questions in each category is determined. According to the number of questions in each category and the corresponding individual deduction values, the total deductions for each category of questions are calculated. The total deductions for different types of questions are summarized to obtain the total deduction value for the questions.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that According to the number of people participating in the review, the interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review is set, and according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project and the role label, the corresponding personnel coefficient is calculated, including: Count the number of people involved in the review and determine the role label of each person involved in the review; According to the number of people participating in the drawing review, a corresponding interval adjustment coefficient is matched, wherein the interval coefficient is divided into multiple intervals according to the number of people participating in the drawing review; The interval coefficient is adjusted according to the complexity of the project, and the complexity adjustment coefficient of the project is determined. The personnel coefficient is calculated according to the number of people involved in the drawing review, the interval coefficient and the complexity adjustment coefficient.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that After calculating the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design, the method further includes: According to the historical scores and calculated scores of the sample projects, a deviation index for evaluating rationality is configured, and the score difference rate of the current project is calculated so as to evaluate the deviation of the comprehensive quality score of the current project, wherein the deviation index includes regional differences and project score differences in different periods.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that The configuration of a deviation index for evaluating rationality based on the historical scores and calculated scores of the sample projects, and the calculation of the score difference rate of the current project, so as to evaluate the deviation of the comprehensive quality score of the current project, includes: Count the project scores of multiple regions, compare the total project scores of different regions with the calculated scores of the current region, and calculate the regional difference, which is used to characterize the score differences between the regions; Compare and analyze the evaluation scores of the same project in different batches, and calculate the difference in project scores in different periods. The difference in project scores in different periods is used to characterize the changes in project design quality; When the regional difference or the difference in project scores in different periods exceeds a corresponding threshold, the comprehensive quality score of the current project is marked as an abnormal item.

8. A drawing model design quality assessment device, characterized in that: include: An acquisition module is configured to acquire problem type distribution data in historical projects, classify different problem types and set corresponding weights, establish a deduction standard for a single problem based on the problem type and impact, and generate a problem type weight system; The classification module is configured to obtain the audit problem data in the project based on the online collaborative review platform, classify them according to different problem types, count the number of problems in each category, and calculate the deduction points for the problems according to the problem type weight system to obtain the single deduction point value and the total deduction point value of the problem; A calculation module is configured to set an interval coefficient of the number of people participating in the review according to the number of people participating in the review, and calculate a corresponding personnel coefficient according to the interval coefficient, the number of people participating in the review, the complexity of the project, and the role label; The evaluation module is configured to calculate the comprehensive quality score of the project drawing model design according to the total deduction value of the problem and the personnel coefficient, and evaluate the project drawing model design according to the comprehensive quality score.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that: When the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 are implemented.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 are implemented.

Images