Evaluation method, electronic equipment, storage medium and program product

Abstract

The invention provides an evaluation method, electronic equipment, a storage medium and a program product, relates to the technical field of communication, and is used for evaluating the autonomous controllable level of an evaluation object. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring respective evaluation data of an evaluation object at different evaluation indexes; the evaluation index is an index influencing the autonomous controllable ability of the evaluation object; different evaluation indexes correspond to different weight values; and determining an evaluation score of the evaluation object at least according to a preset evaluation standard, the evaluation data and the weight value corresponding to the evaluation index, the evaluation score being used for representing the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the field of communication technology, and in particular to an evaluation method, electronic equipment, storage medium and program product. Background Art

[0002] With the advancement of "new infrastructure", the research and development and application of independent and controllable products are becoming more and more important. By enhancing the independent and controllable capabilities of the industrial chain, the rapid development of the information and innovation industry will be promoted. Independent research and development of chips is the core, and enterprises are gradually reducing their dependence on foreign technology and products. At the same time, in various fields, the process of replacing information and innovation applications is actively carried out, and domestic products are gradually replacing imported products. Especially in the telecommunications industry, independent research and development of key chips is crucial, and their performance directly affects the safety and reliability of equipment. In the future, technological progress and the improvement of the industrial chain will further promote the widespread application of independent and controllable products.

[0003] However, there is currently a lack of evaluation on the level of independent control of products such as memory, network cards, switching and forwarding chips, BMC chips, etc. involved in general and special equipment in various industries. Summary of the invention

[0004] The present application provides an evaluation method, an electronic device, a storage medium and a program product for evaluating the autonomous controllability level of an evaluation object.

[0005] In a first aspect, the present application provides an evaluation method, including: obtaining evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators; the evaluation indicators are indicators that affect the autonomous controllability of the evaluation object; different evaluation indicators correspond to different weight values; the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined based on at least preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators; the evaluation score is used to characterize the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object.

[0006] It is understandable that this application is based on the evaluation indicators that affect the autonomous controllability of the evaluation object, obtains the evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators, and determines the evaluation score that characterizes the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object according to the obtained evaluation data, the weights corresponding to the evaluation indicators and the preset evaluation standards. In this way, this application provides an autonomous controllability level evaluation method that can accurately evaluate the autonomous controllability level. Among them, this application selects different weight values ​​for different evaluation indicators to more accurately reflect the importance of different evaluation indicators in the evaluation method, thereby improving the accuracy of the evaluation score.

[0007] A possible implementation method is to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, including: determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator according to the preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data; the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to represent the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator; based on the weight value of each evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object.

[0008] Another possible implementation method is that the evaluation indicators are divided into different categories, and different categories correspond to different category weights; the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined at least based on the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, including: determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object based on the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators and the category weights corresponding to the categories of the evaluation indicators.

[0009] Another possible implementation method is to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and category weights corresponding to the categories of the evaluation indicators, including: calculating the evaluation score according to the following formula:

[0010] Wherein, n represents the category of the evaluation indicator, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation criteria and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

[0011] Another possible implementation method is that different categories include at least one of the following: enterprise autonomy and controllable capability assessment indicators, technology autonomy and controllable capability assessment indicators, and supply chain sustainability assessment indicators.

[0012] Another possible implementation method is that the evaluation indicators include first-level evaluation indicators and second-level evaluation indicators, and the first-level evaluation indicators have a higher degree of influence on the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object than the second-level evaluation indicators; the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to preset evaluation standards, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, including: when the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicators meets the preset evaluation standards corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicators, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to the preset evaluation standards, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators.

[0013] Another possible implementation method is to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, including: inputting the evaluation data into the autonomous controllable level evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is used to determine the evaluation score reflecting the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object based on the evaluation data of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is obtained by training a preset model based on training samples, and the preset model is constructed based on preset evaluation criteria and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and the training samples are composed of historical evaluation data and historical evaluation scores of the evaluation indicators.

[0014] In the second aspect, the present application provides an evaluation device, including a communication module and a processing module, the communication module is used to obtain the evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators; the evaluation indicators are indicators that affect the autonomous controllable capabilities of the evaluation object; different evaluation indicators correspond to different weight values; the processing module is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object based on at least preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators; the evaluation score is used to characterize the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object.

[0015] In a possible implementation method, the processing module is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator based on preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data; the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to represent the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator; based on the weight value of each evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object.

[0016] Another possible implementation method is to divide the evaluation indicators into different categories, and different categories correspond to different category weights. The processing module is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator, and the category weight corresponding to the category of the evaluation indicator.

[0017] In another possible implementation, the processing module is specifically configured to calculate the evaluation score according to the following formula: Wherein, n represents the category of the evaluation indicator, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation criteria and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

[0018] Another possible implementation method is that different categories include at least one of the following: enterprise autonomy and controllable capability assessment indicators, technology autonomy and controllable capability assessment indicators, and supply chain sustainability assessment indicators.

[0019] Another possible implementation method is based on the fact that the evaluation indicators include first-level evaluation indicators and second-level evaluation indicators. The first-level evaluation indicators have a higher degree of influence on the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object than the second-level evaluation indicators. The processing module is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators when the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicators meets the preset evaluation criteria corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicators.

[0020] Another possible implementation method is that the processing module is specifically used to input the evaluation data into the autonomous controllable level evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is used to determine the evaluation score reflecting the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object based on the evaluation data of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is obtained by training a preset model based on training samples, and the preset model is constructed based on preset evaluation standards and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and the training samples are composed of historical evaluation data and historical evaluation scores of the evaluation indicators.

[0021] In a third aspect, the present application provides an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory stores instructions executable by the processor; when the processor is configured to execute the instructions, the electronic device implements the method of the first aspect above.

[0022] In a fourth aspect, the present application provides a computer-readable storage medium, which includes: computer software instructions; when the computer software instructions are executed in an electronic device, the electronic device implements the method of the first aspect above.

[0023] In a fifth aspect, the present application provides a computer program product, which includes a computer program; when the computer program runs in an electronic device, the electronic device implements the method of the first aspect.

[0024] The beneficial effects of the second to fifth aspects mentioned above refer to the corresponding description of the first aspect and will not be repeated here. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0025] Figure 1 An evaluation system diagram of an evaluation method provided for this application;

[0026] Figure 2 A flowchart of an evaluation method provided for this application;

[0027] Figure 3 A schematic diagram of another evaluation method provided for this application;

[0028] Figure 4 A flowchart of another evaluation method provided for this application;

[0029] Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the composition of an evaluation device provided in this application;

[0030] Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in this application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0031] An evaluation method provided by the present application will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0032] The term "and / or" in this article is merely a description of the association relationship of associated objects, indicating that three relationships may exist. For example, A and / or B can mean: A exists alone, A and B exist at the same time, and B exists alone.

[0033] The terms "first" and "second" and the like in the specification and drawings of this application are used to distinguish different objects, or to distinguish different processing of the same object, rather than to describe a specific order of objects.

[0034] In addition, the terms "including" and "having" and any variations thereof mentioned in the description of the present application are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusions. For example, a process, method, system, product or device that includes a series of steps or units is not limited to the listed steps or units, but may optionally include other steps or units that are not listed, or may optionally include other steps or units that are inherent to these processes, methods, products or devices.

[0035] It should be noted that, in the embodiments of the present application, words such as "exemplary" or "for example" are used to indicate examples, illustrations or descriptions. Any embodiment or design described as "exemplary" or "for example" in the embodiments of the present application should not be interpreted as being more preferred or more advantageous than other embodiments or designs. Specifically, the use of words such as "exemplary" or "for example" is intended to present related concepts in a specific way.

[0036] In order to facilitate the clear description of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, in the embodiments of the present application, words such as "first" and "second" are used to distinguish between identical items or similar items with basically the same functions and effects. Those skilled in the art can understand that words such as "first" and "second" do not limit the quantity and execution order.

[0037] In the description of the present application, unless otherwise specified, “plurality” means two or more.

[0038] The evaluation method has been widely used in many industries and fields, including communications, computers, automotive electronics, industrial automation, medical electronics and home appliances. Key areas such as finance have taken the lead in carrying out the process of replacing ICT applications with localized products, gradually replacing imported products. In the past two years, the transportation and communications industries have also gradually started or carried out related work on a small scale. In the communications industry, ICT application replacement involves the selection and replacement of general-purpose equipment and special-purpose equipment, and the autonomous controllability of the entire equipment is highly dependent on the autonomous controllability of key chips. However, there is currently no evaluation method for chip-level related products.

[0039] In response to the above technical problems, this application provides an evaluation method, the idea of ​​which is to obtain the evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators, and determine the evaluation score representing the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at least based on the obtained evaluation data, the weights corresponding to the evaluation indicators and the preset evaluation standards. The evaluation score can intuitively and accurately show the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object. In addition, this application selects different weight values ​​for different evaluation indicators to more accurately reflect the importance of different evaluation indicators in the evaluation method, thereby improving the accuracy of the evaluation score.

[0040] The embodiments provided in this application are described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.

[0041] See also Figure 1 , is an evaluation system diagram of an evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present application. For example, Figure 1 As shown, the evaluation system 100 includes: a front-end device 110 and a back-end server 120 .

[0042] The front-end device 110 is used to obtain respective evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators.

[0043] Exemplarily, the front-end device 110 is used to receive respective evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators input by the user.

[0044] In some embodiments, the front-end device 110 may send the received evaluation data to the back-end server 120 .

[0045] Exemplarily, the front-end device 110 is a terminal, such as a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a wearable device, a vehicle-mounted device, an augmented reality (AR) / virtual reality (VR) device, a laptop computer, an ultra-mobile personal computer (UMPC), a netbook, a personal digital assistant (PDA), etc.

[0046] The backend server 120 is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators.

[0047] In some embodiments, the back-end server 120 is also used to receive the evaluation data sent by the front-end device 110, and obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object through the autonomous controllable level evaluation model.

[0048] In some embodiments, the backend server 120 can receive the autonomous controllability level assessment model trained by the model training device.

[0049] In some embodiments, the backend server 120 may train a preset model based on historical evaluation data and historical evaluation scores to obtain a trained autonomous controllability level evaluation model.

[0050] Exemplarily, the backend server 120 may be a server, such as a server cluster consisting of multiple servers, or a single server, or a computer, or a processor or processing chip in a server or computer.

[0051] It should be noted that the system architecture described in the embodiments of the present application is for the purpose of more clearly illustrating the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, and does not constitute a limitation on the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of the present application. A person of ordinary skill in the art can know that with the evolution of the system architecture, the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of the present application are also applicable to similar technical problems.

[0052] See also Figure 2 , is a flow chart of an evaluation method provided in an embodiment of the present application. The evaluation method provided in the present application can be performed as follows: Figure 1 The evaluation system shown is implemented as Figure 2 As shown, the above evaluation method specifically includes the following steps S201-S202.

[0053] S201, obtaining respective evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators.

[0054] Among them, the evaluation indicators are indicators that affect the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object.

[0055] Exemplarily, the evaluation indicators of the evaluation object may include different evaluation indicators, which are considered according to the actual situation and are not limited here. For example, the evaluation indicators may include at least one of the following: nature of the enterprise, source of funds, nationality of the legal person, enterprise qualifications, enterprise honors, operating status, R&D location, proportion of scientific research personnel, proportion of scientific research investment, management system, ownership of core intellectual property rights, number of intellectual property rights owned, key R&D tools, R&D materials, R&D management, R&D restrictions, R&D cooperation, independent R&D ratio, product materials, legal risks, supply chain risks, supply chain stability, product sales, manufacturing production lines, material acquisition capabilities, risk emergency response capabilities and service response capabilities.

[0056] It can be understood that the selection of different evaluation indicators makes the evaluation method provided in this application more comprehensive, reduces the limitations on the evaluation object, and increases the applicable scope and accuracy of the evaluation method.

[0057] In some embodiments, different evaluation indicators correspond to different weight values.

[0058] It should be noted that the selection of weight values ​​can be changed according to actual conditions and is not limited here.

[0059] Exemplarily, it is assumed that the evaluation indicators include: enterprise nature, source of funds, legal person nationality, enterprise qualifications, enterprise honors, operating status, R&D sites, proportion of scientific research personnel, proportion of scientific research investment and management system. Among them, the weight value corresponding to the nature of the enterprise can be 20%, the weight value corresponding to the legal person nationality can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the enterprise qualifications can be 20%, the weight value corresponding to the enterprise honors can be 5%, the weight value corresponding to the operating status can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the R&D sites can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the proportion of scientific research personnel can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the proportion of scientific research investment can be 10%, and the weight value corresponding to the management system can be 5%.

[0060] Exemplarily, it is assumed that the evaluation indicators include: ownership of core intellectual property rights, number of intellectual property rights, key R&D tools, R&D materials, R&D management, R&D restrictions, R&D cooperation, independent R&D ratio and product materials. Among them, the weight value corresponding to the ownership of core intellectual property rights can be 20%, the weight value corresponding to the number of intellectual property rights can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the key R&D tools can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the R&D materials can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the R&D management can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the R&D restrictions can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the R&D cooperation can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the independent R&D ratio can be 10%, and the weight value corresponding to the product materials can be 10%.

[0061] Exemplarily, it is assumed that the evaluation indicators include: legal risk situation, supply chain risk situation, supply chain stability situation, product sales situation, manufacturing production line situation, material acquisition capability, risk emergency response capability, and service response capability. Among them, the weight value corresponding to the legal risk situation can be 20%, the weight value corresponding to the supply chain risk situation can be 20%, the weight value corresponding to the supply chain stability situation can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the product sales situation can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the manufacturing production line situation can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the material acquisition capability can be 10%, the weight value corresponding to the risk emergency response capability can be 10%, and the weight value corresponding to the service response capability can be 10%.

[0062] It is understandable that the importance of different evaluation indicators in the evaluation method often varies. By assigning different weights to different indicators, the accuracy of the evaluation method can be improved. At the same time, the setting of the corresponding weight values ​​can be changed according to actual needs, which increases the flexibility of the evaluation method.

[0063] S202: Determine an evaluation score of the evaluation object based at least on the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators.

[0064] Among them, the evaluation score is used to represent the level of autonomy and controllability of the evaluation object.

[0065] Exemplarily, the above step S202 has the following implementation:

[0066] Implementation method 1:

[0067] like Figure 3 As shown, the above step S202 can be implemented as follows: determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators.

[0068] Exemplarily, the above-mentioned determination of the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators can be implemented as the following steps:

[0069] Sa1. Determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator based on the preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data.

[0070] The evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to indicate the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator.

[0071] In some embodiments, for the evaluation indicators: nature of the enterprise, source of funds, nationality of the legal person, enterprise qualifications, enterprise honors, operating status, R&D location, proportion of scientific researchers, proportion of scientific research investment and management system, ownership of core intellectual property rights, number of intellectual property rights, key R&D tools, R&D materials, R&D management, R&D restrictions, R&D cooperation, independent R&D ratio, product materials, legal risks, supply chain risks, supply chain stability, product sales, manufacturing production lines, material acquisition capabilities, risk emergency response capabilities and service response capabilities. The preset evaluation standards can refer to Table 1:

[0072]

[0073]

[0074]

[0075]

[0076]

[0077] Exemplarily, the evaluation score corresponding to each evaluation indicator is obtained according to the preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data in Table 1. The preset evaluation criteria may be changed according to actual conditions and are not limited here.

[0078] Sa2. Based on the weight value of each evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is determined.

[0079] Exemplarily, the evaluation score of the evaluation object satisfies the following formula (1):

[0080]

[0081] Wherein, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation criteria and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

[0082] Exemplarily, the autonomous controllability level of each evaluation indicator is determined by the evaluation score corresponding to each evaluation indicator and the weight value corresponding to each evaluation indicator, and the autonomous controllability level of each evaluation indicator is added together to obtain the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object.

[0083] It is understandable that by presetting evaluation indicators, we can clearly understand the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object in different evaluation indicators, which will facilitate the subsequent targeted improvements of the evaluation object, determine the evaluation scores, and simplify the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object into comparable evaluation scores, which will facilitate the comparison and selection of evaluation objects with high autonomous and controllable capabilities.

[0084] Implementation method 2:

[0085] The evaluation indicators are divided into different categories, and different categories correspond to different category weights.

[0086] Based on this, Figure 4 As shown, the above step S202 can be implemented as follows: determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and category weights corresponding to the categories of the evaluation indicators.

[0087] Exemplarily, the above-mentioned determination of the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and category weights corresponding to the categories of the evaluation indicators can be implemented as the following steps:

[0088] Sc1. Determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator based on the preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data.

[0089] The evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to indicate the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator.

[0090] In some embodiments, the preset evaluation criteria can refer to Table 1, which will not be described in detail here.

[0091] Sc2. For the evaluation indicators of the target category in at least one category of evaluation indicators, based on the weight value of the evaluation indicator of each target category, the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator of the target category, determine the total evaluation score of the evaluation object at the evaluation indicator of the target category.

[0092] The target category is any one of at least one type of evaluation indicators.

[0093] Exemplarily, the calculation formula for the total evaluation score at the evaluation index of the target category can refer to the above formula (1), which will not be repeated here.

[0094] In some embodiments, the different categories include at least one of the following:

[0095] Enterprise independent and controllable capability assessment indicators, technology independent and controllable capability assessment indicators, and supply chain sustainability assessment indicators.

[0096] For example, when the target category is the evaluation index of the enterprise's independent and controllable capabilities, the evaluation index of the target category may include: enterprise nature, source of funds, legal person nationality, enterprise qualifications, enterprise honors, operating status, R&D location, proportion of scientific research personnel, proportion of scientific research investment and management system. The total evaluation score of the evaluation object at the evaluation index of the target category satisfies the following formula (2):

[0097]

[0098] Among them, m represents the serial number of the evaluation index in the enterprise's autonomous and controllable capability evaluation index, A m It represents the evaluation score of the evaluation index with serial number m in the enterprise's independent and controllable ability evaluation index, a m It is the weight value of the evaluation index with serial number m in the enterprise's independent and controllable capability evaluation index.

[0099] For example, when the target category is the evaluation index of technological autonomy and controllability, the evaluation index of the target category may include: ownership of core intellectual property rights, number of intellectual property rights, key R&D tools, R&D materials, R&D management, R&D restrictions, R&D cooperation, independent R&D ratio, and product materials. The total evaluation score of the evaluation object at the evaluation index of the target category satisfies the following formula (3):

[0100]

[0101] Among them, j represents the serial number of the evaluation index in the evaluation index of technology autonomy and controllability. j represents the evaluation score of the evaluation index with serial number j in the evaluation index of technology autonomy and controllability, b j is the weight value of the evaluation indicator with serial number j in the evaluation indicators of technological autonomy and controllability.

[0102] For example, when the target category is supply chain sustainability evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicators of the target category may include: legal risk situation, supply chain risk situation, supply chain stability situation, product sales situation, manufacturing production line situation, material acquisition capability, risk emergency response capability, and service response capability. The total evaluation score of the evaluation object at the evaluation indicators of the target category satisfies the following formula (4):

[0103]

[0104] Among them, k represents the serial number of the evaluation index in the supply chain sustainability evaluation index of the target category, C k represents the evaluation score of the evaluation index with serial number k in the supply chain sustainability evaluation index, c k is the weight value of the evaluation index with serial number k in the supply chain sustainability evaluation index.

[0105] Sc3. Determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object based on the total evaluation score of the target object at each type of evaluation indicator and the category weight corresponding to each type of evaluation indicator.

[0106] Exemplarily, the evaluation score of the evaluation object satisfies the following formula (5):

[0107]

[0108] Wherein, n represents the category of the evaluation indicator, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation criteria and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

[0109] In some embodiments, it is assumed that the evaluation indicators are divided into three different categories of evaluation indicators. The three different categories may be enterprise autonomy and controllable capability evaluation indicators, technology autonomy and controllable capability evaluation indicators, and supply chain sustainability evaluation indicators.

[0110] For example, the category weights can be changed according to actual conditions and are not limited here. For example, the weight value of the enterprise autonomy and controllable capability evaluation index can be 30%, the weight value of the technology autonomy and controllable capability evaluation index can be 40%, and the weight value of the supply chain sustainability evaluation index can be 30%.

[0111] Based on this, the evaluation score can be expressed as follows:

[0112]

[0113] Among them, X represents the category weight value of the enterprise's independent and controllable capability evaluation index, Y represents the category weight value of the technology independent and controllable capability evaluation index, and Z represents the category weight value of the supply chain sustainability evaluation index.

[0114] It can be understood that classifying the evaluation indicators into different categories and determining the evaluation scores based on different categories increases the accuracy of the evaluation scores. Considering different dimensions, they can be flexibly combined according to actual conditions, making the evaluation method highly flexible and versatile.

[0115] Implementation method three:

[0116] The evaluation indicators include primary evaluation indicators and secondary evaluation indicators. The impact of primary evaluation indicators on the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object is higher than that of secondary evaluation indicators.

[0117] It should be noted that the setting of the first-level evaluation indicators and the second-level evaluation indicators is determined according to the importance of the evaluation indicators in actual conditions, and there is no limitation on the number of the first-level evaluation indicators and the second-level evaluation indicators, or on the classification of the evaluation indicators.

[0118] In some embodiments, the evaluation indicators may include: nature of the enterprise, source of funds, legal nationality, enterprise qualifications, enterprise honors, operating status, R&D sites, proportion of scientific researchers, proportion of scientific research investment and management system, among which the first-level evaluation indicator may be the nature of the enterprise.

[0119] Exemplarily, the preset assessment standard for the nature of an enterprise may be: the domestic capital holding ratio is not less than 50%. For an enterprise with a domestic capital holding ratio of less than 50%, the assessment score is directly zero.

[0120] Based on this, the above step S202 can be implemented as follows: when the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicator meets the preset evaluation standard corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to the preset evaluation standard, the evaluation data and the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator.

[0121] Alternatively, the above-mentioned step S202 can also be implemented as follows: when the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicator meets the preset evaluation criteria corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data, the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator, and the category weight corresponding to the category of the evaluation indicator.

[0122] It can be understood that setting first-level evaluation indicators can improve the efficiency of the evaluation method by setting up first-level evaluation indicators and second-level evaluation indicators. When the evaluation indicators do not meet the first-level evaluation indicators, the corresponding evaluation scores can be directly obtained, shortening the entire evaluation cycle and improving the timeliness and reliability of the evaluation method.

[0123] Implementation method 4:

[0124] The above step S202 can be implemented as follows: inputting the evaluation data into the autonomous controllability level evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object.

[0125] Among them, the autonomous controllability level assessment model is used to determine an assessment score reflecting the autonomous controllability level of the assessment object based on the assessment data of the assessment object.

[0126] Among them, the autonomous controllable level assessment model is obtained by training the preset model based on training samples. The preset model is constructed based on the preset assessment standards and weight values ​​corresponding to the assessment indicators. The training samples are composed of historical assessment data and historical assessment scores of the assessment indicators.

[0127] For example, an autonomous controllable level assessment model is built, and the historical assessment data and historical assessment scores of the assessment indicators are used to train the autonomous controllable level assessment model, so that the autonomous controllable level assessment model can finally calculate the assessment score of the assessment object through the input assessment data. The historical assessment score can be a score obtained based on a simulation experiment or a score determined based on human experience.

[0128] It is understandable that the autonomous controllability level assessment model can automatically and efficiently obtain intuitive and accurate assessment scores, can clearly identify the shortcomings and weak links of the assessment object in terms of autonomous controllability, provide targeted guidance for the subsequent research and development of the assessment object, and promote technological innovation and industrial upgrading.

[0129] In some embodiments, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is based on a percentage system, with the highest score being 100 points. For the evaluation object that fails the first-level evaluation indicator, the evaluation score is zero. Different score intervals correspond to different levels of autonomy and controllability of the evaluation object. The establishment of the score interval changes according to the actual situation and is not limited here.

[0130] For example, if the evaluation object's evaluation score is greater than or equal to 90 points, it is of the excellent type, has a high degree of autonomous controllable capabilities, can avoid the impact of external technology blockades and sanctions, masters advanced process technologies and equipment, and can achieve high-speed and high-efficiency production.

[0131] For example, if the evaluation score of the evaluation object is greater than or equal to 80 points and less than 90 points, the evaluation object's autonomous controllability is prioritized. It has a high level of autonomous controllability, but may still rely on a small amount of external technical intellectual property rights. It can independently develop and produce, but some technologies need to be purchased externally. Product performance, power consumption, etc. have reached the mainstream level of the industry and can meet most application requirements.

[0132] For example, if the evaluation score of the evaluation object is greater than or equal to 70 points and less than 80 points, the evaluation object's independent controllable capabilities are at the basic level. It has a certain foundation in independent control, but its overall strength and technical level are not high. It can independently develop and produce part of the evaluation object, but some intellectual property rights and key technologies need to rely on imports, and there may be certain limitations in product performance, power consumption, etc., which mainly meet the needs of mid- and low-end applications.

[0133] For example, if the assessment score of the assessment object is greater than or equal to 60 points and less than 70 points, the assessment object's independent and controllable capabilities are at the entry-level, and the assessment object has just started independent and controllable research and development and production. The technical level and production capacity are relatively weak, and most of the intellectual property rights and key technologies need to rely on imports. The assessment object is mainly engaged in preliminary research and development and small-scale production to meet specific application requirements.

[0134] For example, if the assessment score of the assessment object is less than 60 points, the assessment object's autonomous and controllable capabilities are at the exploration level. It is still in the exploration stage of the assessment object's autonomous and controllable capabilities and has not yet formed a complete R&D and production system. It mainly conducts technology accumulation and talent training to lay the foundation for subsequent development.

[0135] It can be understood that the evaluation method provided in this application is applicable to different types of evaluation objects. The evaluation scores can better reflect the supply chain resilience and security level of the evaluation objects. By determining the evaluation scores of different categories, it can better guide the research and development of technologies and products, and guide equipment users to choose evaluation objects with more autonomous, controllable, safe and reliable capabilities.

[0136] It can be seen that the above mainly introduces the solution provided by the embodiment of the present application from the perspective of the method. In order to achieve the above functions, the embodiment of the present application provides a hardware structure and / or software module corresponding to each function. It should be easily appreciated by those skilled in the art that, in combination with the modules and algorithm steps of each example described in the embodiment disclosed herein, the embodiment of the present application can be implemented in the form of hardware or a combination of hardware and computer software. Whether a function is executed in the form of hardware or computer software driving hardware 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 exceed the scope of the present invention.

[0137] The embodiment of the present application can divide the functional modules of the evaluation device according to the above method example. For example, each functional module can be divided according to each function, or two or more functions can be integrated into one processing module. The above integrated module can be implemented in the form of hardware or in the form of software functional modules. Optionally, the division of modules in the embodiment of the present application is schematic and is only a logical function division. There may be other division methods in actual implementation.

[0138] In some embodiments, the present application further provides an evaluation device, which may include one or more functional modules for implementing the evaluation method of the above method embodiment.

[0139] For example, Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the composition of an evaluation device provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 5 As shown, the evaluation device 800 includes: a communication module 801 and a processing module 802 .

[0140] In some embodiments, the communication module 801 is used to obtain the respective evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators; the evaluation indicators are indicators that affect the autonomous controllability of the evaluation object; different evaluation indicators correspond to different weight values; the processing module 802 is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object based on at least the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators; the evaluation score is used to characterize the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object.

[0141] In other embodiments, the processing module 802 is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator based on preset evaluation criteria and evaluation data; the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to represent the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator; based on the weight value of each evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object.

[0142] In some other embodiments, based on the evaluation indicators being divided into different categories, different categories correspond to different category weights, and the processing module 802 is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object based on preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data, weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and category weights corresponding to the categories of the evaluation indicators.

[0143] In some further embodiments, the processing module 802 is specifically configured to calculate the evaluation score according to the following formula: Wherein, n represents the category of the evaluation indicator, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation criteria and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

[0144] In some further embodiments, different categories include at least one of the following: enterprise autonomy and controllability evaluation index, technology autonomy and controllability evaluation index, and supply chain sustainability evaluation index.

[0145] In some other embodiments, based on the evaluation indicators including first-level evaluation indicators and second-level evaluation indicators, the first-level evaluation indicators have a higher degree of influence on the autonomous and controllable capabilities of the evaluation object than the second-level evaluation indicators, and the processing module 802 is specifically used to determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, evaluation data and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators when the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicators meets the preset evaluation criteria corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicators.

[0146] In some other embodiments, the processing module 802 is specifically used to input the evaluation data into the autonomous controllable level evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is used to determine the evaluation score reflecting the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object based on the evaluation data of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is obtained by training a preset model based on training samples, and the preset model is constructed based on preset evaluation standards and weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and the training samples are composed of historical evaluation data and historical evaluation scores of the evaluation indicators.

[0147] In the case of implementing the functions of the above-mentioned integrated modules in the form of hardware, the embodiment of the present invention provides a possible structural diagram of the electronic device involved in the above-mentioned embodiment. Figure 6As shown, the electronic device 900 includes: a processor 902 , a communication interface 903 , and a bus 904 . Optionally, the electronic device 900 may further include a memory 901 .

[0148] The processor 902 may be a processor that implements or executes various exemplary logic blocks, modules, and circuits described in conjunction with the disclosure of the present application. The processor 902 may be a central processing unit, a general-purpose processor, a digital signal processor, an application-specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, or other programmable logic devices, transistor logic devices, hardware components, or any combination thereof. It may implement or execute various exemplary logic blocks, modules, and circuits described in conjunction with the disclosure of the present application. The processor 902 may also be a combination that implements computing functions, such as a combination of one or more microprocessors, a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, and the like.

[0149] The communication interface 903 is used to connect with other devices via a communication network, such as Ethernet, wireless access network, wireless local area network (WLAN), etc.

[0150] The memory 901 may be a read-only memory (ROM) or other types of static storage devices that can store static information and instructions, a random access memory (RAM) or other types of dynamic storage devices that can store information and instructions, or an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), a disk storage medium or other magnetic storage device, or any other medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code in the form of instructions or data structures and can be accessed by a computer, but is not limited thereto.

[0151] As a possible implementation, the memory 901 may exist independently of the processor 902, and the memory 901 may be connected to the processor 902 via a bus 904 to store instructions or program codes. When the processor 902 calls and executes the instructions or program codes stored in the memory 901, the evaluation method provided in the embodiment of the present invention can be implemented.

[0152] In another possible implementation, the memory 901 may also be integrated with the processor 902 .

[0153] The bus 904 may be an extended industry standard architecture (EISA) bus, etc. The bus 904 may be divided into an address bus, a data bus, a control bus, etc. For ease of representation, Figure 6 Only one thick line is used in the diagram, but this does not mean that there is only one bus or only one type of bus.

[0154] Through the description of the above implementation methods, technical personnel in the relevant field can clearly understand that for the convenience and simplicity of description, only the division of the above-mentioned functional modules is used as an example. In actual applications, the above-mentioned functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the service calling device can be divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above.

[0155] The embodiment of the present application also provides a computer-readable storage medium. All or part of the processes in the above method embodiments can be completed by computer instructions to instruct the relevant hardware, and the program can be stored in the above computer-readable storage medium. When the program is executed, it may include the processes of the above method embodiments. The computer-readable storage medium can be the memory or memory of any of the above embodiments. The above computer-readable storage medium can also be an external storage device of the above service calling device, such as a plug-in hard disk, a smart memory card (smart media card, SMC), a secure digital (secure digital, SD) card, a flash card (flash card), etc. equipped on the above service calling device. Further, the above computer-readable storage medium can also include both the internal storage unit of the above service calling device and an external storage device. The above computer-readable storage medium is used to store the above computer program and other programs and data required by the above service calling device. The above computer-readable storage medium can also be used to temporarily store data that has been output or is to be output.

[0156] An embodiment of the present application further provides a computer program product, which includes a computer program. When the computer program product is run on a computer, the computer is enabled to execute any one of the evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments.

[0157] The above are only specific implementations of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto, and any changes or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application should be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. An evaluation method, characterized in that: The method comprises: Obtaining respective evaluation data of the evaluation object at different evaluation indicators; the evaluation indicators are indicators that affect the autonomous controllable capabilities of the evaluation object; different evaluation indicators correspond to different weight values; The evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined at least based on a preset evaluation standard, the evaluation data and the weight value corresponding to the evaluation index; the evaluation score is used to characterize the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that Determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data, and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators includes: Determine the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator according to the preset evaluation standard and the evaluation data; the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator is used to represent the autonomous controllability level of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator; Based on the weight value of each evaluation indicator and the evaluation score of the evaluation object at each evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The evaluation indicators are divided into different categories, and the different categories correspond to different category weights; the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined at least according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data and the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator, including: The evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to a preset evaluation standard, the evaluation data, a weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator, and the category weight corresponding to the category of the evaluation indicator.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that The step of determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data, the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator, and the category weight corresponding to the category of the evaluation indicator comprises: The evaluation score is calculated according to the following formula: Wherein, n represents the category of the evaluation indicator, i represents the serial number of the evaluation indicator, and the evaluation score of each evaluation indicator is determined based on the preset evaluation standard and the evaluation data of each evaluation indicator.

5. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The different categories include at least one of the following: Enterprise independent and controllable capability assessment indicators, technology independent and controllable capability assessment indicators, and supply chain sustainability assessment indicators.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that The evaluation indicators include primary evaluation indicators and secondary evaluation indicators, and the impact of the primary evaluation indicators on the autonomous controllability of the evaluation object is higher than the impact of the secondary evaluation indicators on the autonomous controllability of the evaluation object; Determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data, and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators includes: When the evaluation data of the evaluation object at the first-level evaluation indicator meets the preset evaluation standard corresponding to the first-level evaluation indicator, the evaluation score of the evaluation object is determined according to the preset evaluation standard, the evaluation data and the weight value corresponding to the evaluation indicator.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that Determining the evaluation score of the evaluation object according to the preset evaluation criteria, the evaluation data, and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators includes: The evaluation data is input into the autonomous controllable level evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is used to determine the evaluation score reflecting the autonomous controllable level of the evaluation object based on the evaluation data of the evaluation object; wherein the autonomous controllable level evaluation model is obtained by training a preset model based on training samples, and the preset model is constructed based on the preset evaluation criteria and the weight values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators, and the training samples are composed of historical evaluation data and historical evaluation scores of the evaluation indicators.

8. An electronic device, characterized in that: The device comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is coupled to the memory; the memory is used to store computer instructions, and the computer instructions are loaded and executed by the processor to enable a computer device to implement the evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that: The computer-readable storage medium includes computer-executable instructions, and when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a computer, the computer is enabled to execute the evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer program product, characterized in that The computer program product comprises a computer program, and when the computer program is run on an electronic device, the electronic device is enabled to perform the evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images