A method for dynamically allocating reviewers

Abstract

The present invention relates to the technical field of administrative approval systems, and specifically relates to a method for dynamically allocating reviewers, including the following steps: Step S1, establish a reviewer database and a task label database; Step S2, add corresponding task type labels when initiating a review task; Step S3, when the review task reaches the designated reviewer, judge the availability of the designated reviewer. If the designated reviewer is available, maintain the original review process. If the designated reviewer is unavailable, proceed to Step S4; Step S4, screen reviewers from the reviewer database as alternative reviewers; Step S5, calculate the priority scores of each alternative reviewer; Step S6, select the alternative reviewer with the highest priority score to replace the designated reviewer. This solves the problem in the prior art that most process approvals adopt the method of fixed reviewers, and when the reviewer is unable to perform their duties or unable to perform their duties in a timely manner, the entire approval process may be suspended or delayed.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of administrative approval systems, and particularly relates to a method for dynamically allocating reviewers. Background Art

[0002] In many companies and organizations, various tasks and operations require multi-level approvals. In traditional approval processes, certain personnel are usually fixedly designated as reviewers. This leads to situations where when these reviewers are unable to perform their duties or are unable to perform their duties in a timely manner due to personal matters such as taking leave, going on business trips, or other factors, the entire approval process may be suspended or delayed. Therefore, a system that can dynamically adjust the approval process according to the actual availability status of reviewers is needed. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method for dynamically allocating reviewers, which solves the problem in the prior art that in most process approvals, fixed reviewers are used, and when the reviewers are unable to perform their duties or are unable to perform their duties in a timely manner, the entire approval process may be suspended or delayed.

[0004] To solve the above technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solutions:

[0005] A method for dynamically allocating reviewers includes the following steps: Step S1, establishing a reviewer database and a task tag database; Step S2, when initiating a review task, adding corresponding task type tags from the task tag database; Step S3, when the review task reaches the predetermined reviewer, judging the availability of the predetermined reviewer through a multi-source fusion module. If the predetermined reviewer is available, maintain the original review process and let the predetermined reviewer conduct the review. If the predetermined reviewer is unavailable, proceed to Step S4; Step S4, based on the task type tags of the current review task, screening reviewers from the reviewer database that match the task type tags and have a load rate < 70% as alternative reviewers; Step S5, calculating the priority score of each alternative reviewer obtained in Step S4 through the formula P = w1*S + w2*(1 - L) + w3*A, where S is the skill match degree, L is the real-time load rate, A is the historical accuracy rate, and w1, w2, w3 are weight coefficients; Step S6, selecting the alternative reviewer with the highest priority score to replace the predetermined reviewer.

[0006] A further technical solution is that the multi-source fusion module includes a heartbeat monitoring unit, a load calculation unit, and a positioning unit. The heartbeat monitoring unit sends heartbeat packets every 5 minutes using the UDP protocol, and if there is no response for 5 consecutive times, it is determined to be offline; the load calculation unit is used to calculate the load rate of the auditor; the positioning unit is used to determine the location of the auditor; when a predetermined auditor meets one or more of the unavailable conditions, it is determined that the predetermined auditor is unavailable. The unavailable conditions include that the predetermined auditor is in an offline state, the load rate of the predetermined auditor is greater than 95%, and the location of the predetermined auditor deviates from the preset location by more than 1 kilometer.

[0007] An even further technical solution is that the positioning unit uses GPS positioning or Beidou positioning.

[0008] An even further technical solution is that the auditor database includes the auditor's name, position, contact information, skill parameter set, and positioning information. The skill parameter set includes a personnel professional field label, a skill level label, a historical audit accuracy label, an online status label, and a current load rate label; the task type label includes a task professional field label and a task level label; in step S4, when screening auditors that match the task type label from the auditor database, it is done by matching the task professional field label with the personnel professional field label, and the skill level label with the task level label.

[0009] An even further technical solution is that the formula for calculating the real-time load rate L of the auditor is L = Q / (V * T + ε), where V is the average processing rate of the auditor, T is the window duration of the auditor, and ε is a smoothing coefficient to prevent division by zero error, with a default value of 0.01.

[0010] An even further technical solution is that the formula for calculating the skill matching degree S of the auditor in step S5 is S = α * E + β * Z + γ * G, where E is the professional background score of the auditor, Z is the skill level score of the auditor, G is the work experience score of the auditor, and α, β, γ are weight coefficients, and the specific values of α, β, γ are dynamically adjusted according to the average load rate of all auditors.

[0011] A further technical solution is that the professional field labels of the personnel are (J1·d1, J2·d2, J3·d3), where J1, J2, and J3 are three different professional fields, namely Field 1, Field 2, and Field 3, and d1, d2, and d3 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d1, d2, and d3 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the professional field labels of the task are (J4·d4, J5·d5, J6·d6), where J4, J5, and J6 are three different professional fields, namely Field 3, Field 4, and Field 5, and d4, d5, and d6 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d4, d5, and d6 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the calculation method of the professional background score E of the auditor is E = d1*d4*M1 + d2*d5*M2 + d3*d6*M3. If J1 is the same as J4, then M1 = 1, otherwise M1 = 0; if J2 is the same as J5, then M2 = 1, otherwise M2 = 0; if J3 is the same as J6, then M3 = 1, otherwise M3 = 0.

[0012] A further technical solution is that the skill level label is Q1, the range of Q1 is an integer from 0 to 10, the task level label is Q2, the range of Q2 is an integer from 0 to 10, and the calculation formula of the skill level score Z of the auditor is Z = Q1 - Q2 + D, where D takes any value in the range of 0.01 - 0.99.

[0013] Suppose there are n auditors in total, and the load rate of each auditor is , then the average load rate of all auditors is ; α = 4*K1, β = 3*K2, γ = 3*K3, .

[0014] w1 > w2 > w3, and w1 + w2 + w3 = 1.

[0015] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: 1. With the help of the multi-source fusion module, it is possible to timely determine the availability of the predetermined auditor, so that when the predetermined auditor is unavailable, the auditor can be dynamically adjusted in time to perform the corresponding audit, thus avoiding the situation of work task card process; 2. By using the priority score to determine the selected alternative auditors, the optimal auditor can be selected from the alternative auditors to replace and perform the task audit, thus improving the accuracy of the task audit and reducing the occurrence of audit errors. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0016] Figure 1 It is a schematic flow framework diagram of a dynamic auditor allocation method of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0017] In order to make the objectives, technical solutions and advantages of the present invention more clear and understandable, the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are only used to explain the present invention and are not used to limit the present invention.

[0018] Figure 1 The following shows an embodiment of the present invention.

[0019] Embodiment:

[0020] A dynamic reviewer assignment method includes the following steps. Step S1: Establish a reviewer database and a task tag database. Step S2: When initiating a review task, add corresponding task type tags from the task tag database. Step S3: When the review task reaches the predetermined reviewer, use the multi-source fusion module to judge the availability of the predetermined reviewer. If the predetermined reviewer is available, maintain the original review process and let the predetermined reviewer conduct the review. If the predetermined reviewer is unavailable, enter Step S4. Step S4: Based on the task type tags of the current review task, screen reviewers from the reviewer database who match the task type tags and have a load rate < 70% as alternative reviewers. Step S5: Calculate the priority score of each alternative reviewer in Step S4 through the formula P = w1*S + w2*(1 - L) + w3*A, where S is the skill match degree, L is the real-time load rate, A is the historical accuracy rate, and w1, w2, and w3 are weight coefficients. Step S6: Select the alternative reviewer with the highest priority score to replace the predetermined reviewer.

[0021] The multi-source fusion module includes a heartbeat monitoring unit, a load calculation unit, and a positioning unit. The heartbeat monitoring unit uses the UDP protocol to send heartbeat packets every 5 minutes, and it is determined to be offline if there is no response for 5 consecutive times. Through this heartbeat detection mechanism based on the UDP protocol, the system can effectively monitor the online status of reviewers and provide accurate status information for the dynamic reviewer assignment method. The load calculation unit is used to calculate the load rate of reviewers. By calculating the load rate of each reviewer in real time, it is convenient to screen alternative reviewers. The positioning unit is used to determine the location of reviewers. When the predetermined reviewer meets one or more of the unavailable conditions, it is determined that the predetermined reviewer is unavailable. The unavailable conditions include that the predetermined reviewer is in an offline state, the load rate of the predetermined reviewer is greater than 95%, and the location of the predetermined reviewer deviates more than 1 kilometer from the preset location. If the load rate of a reviewer is greater than 95%, it means that the workload rate of this reviewer is too high and cannot quickly process the current review task, and subsequent review tasks will be postponed.

[0022] The positioning unit uses GPS positioning or Beidou positioning. By collecting the positioning information of the auditor's mobile phone during working hours to determine the auditor's location. If the auditor goes out temporarily and is more than 1 kilometer away from the preset location, that is, the office location, it indicates that the auditor cannot quickly return to handle the audit task.

[0023] The auditor database includes the auditor's name, position, contact information, skill parameter set, and positioning information. The skill parameter set includes personnel professional field label, skill level label, historical audit accuracy rate label, online status label, current load rate label; the task type label includes task professional field label and task level label; in step S4, when screening auditors matching the task type label from the auditor database, it is through the matching of the task professional field label with the personnel professional field label, and the matching of the skill level label with the task level label.

[0024] The formula for calculating the real-time load rate L of an auditor is L = Q / (V * T + ε), where V is the average processing rate of the auditor, T is the window duration of the auditor, and ε is a smoothing coefficient to prevent division by zero error, with a default value of 0.01. The window duration refers to a fixed time range for statistical calculation of relevant data. In the dynamic auditor allocation method, it is an important parameter in the sliding window mechanism. For example, when calculating the auditor's load rate, a specific time length is set as the window duration. During this time period, the task processing situation of the auditor is collected and analyzed to measure their workload status. For example, the window duration is set to 15 minutes. Within these 15 minutes, the number of tasks to be audited for auditor A is 60, and their task processing rate is 4 tasks per minute. Then, according to the load rate calculation formula, the load rate of auditor A can be calculated as 60 / (4 × 15) = 1.0. This load rate data can help the system judge the workload situation of auditor A and then make a reasonable task allocation decision.

[0025] The formula for calculating the skill matching degree S of an auditor in step S5 is S = α * E + β * Z + γ * G, where E is the professional background score of the auditor, Z is the skill level score of the auditor, G is the work experience score of the auditor, and α, β, γ are weight coefficients, and the specific values of α, β, γ are dynamically adjusted according to the average load rate of all auditors.

[0026] The professional field labels of the personnel are (J1·d1, J2·d2, J3·d3), where J1, J2, and J3 are three different professional fields, namely Field 1, Field 2, and Field 3, and d1, d2, and d3 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d1, d2, and d3 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the professional field labels of the task are (J4·d4, J5·d5, J6·d6), where J4, J5, and J6 are three different professional fields, namely Field 3, Field 4, and Field 5, and d4, d5, and d6 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d4, d5, and d6 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the calculation method of the professional background score E of the auditor is E = d1*d4*M1 + d2*d5*M2 + d3*d6*M3. If J1 is the same as J4, then M1 = 1, otherwise M1 = 0; if J2 is the same as J5, then M2 = 1, otherwise M2 = 0; if J3 is the same as J6, then M3 = 1, otherwise M3 = 0. Matrix convolution operation is used to calculate the task-auditor matching degree. Taking the simple vector dot product as an example, assuming the professional field label matrix of auditor B is (Law·0.7, Finance·0.9, Technology·0.2), and the task label is (Law·0.2, Finance·0.7, Technology·0.1), then the matching score = 0.7×0.2×1 + 0.9×0.7×1 + 0.2×0.1×1 = 0.73. This method can quickly obtain a quantitative professional background score according to the matching degree between the professional skills of the auditor and the skills required for the task.

[0027] The skill level label is Q1, and the range of Q1 is an integer from 0 to 10. The task level label is Q2, and the range of Q2 is an integer from 0 to 10. The calculation formula for the skill level score Z of the auditor is Z = Q1 - Q2 + D, where D takes any value in the range of 0.01 - 0.99. The difference between Q1 and Q2 can quickly obtain the difference between the skill level of the auditor and the skill level required for the audit task. The higher the difference, the higher the skill level score of the auditor. By setting D as the score compensation, it is avoided that the same level produces 0 points.

[0028] Suppose there are n auditors, and the load rate of each auditor is Then the average load rate of all auditors is ; α = 4*K1, β = 3*K2, γ = 3*K3, In this way of calculation, the weights of the parameters in calculating the skill matching degree S can be dynamically adjusted according to the average load rate of all reviewers. When the average load rate is lower, K1 is larger. In this case, when calculating the skill matching degree S, the weight of the professional background score is greater, and the impact on the final result is greater. This is because in the case of low load rate, more importance is attached to the professional background score, which is conducive to the reviewers with more consistent professional backgrounds becoming the final alternative reviewers. When the load rate is high, more importance is attached to the skill level score and work experience score. After getting busy, the skills and experience of reviewers are more tested, which is conducive to making correct judgments.

[0029] w1 > w2 > w3, and w1 + w2 + w3 = 1.

[0030] Although the present invention has been described with reference to several illustrative embodiments thereof, it should be understood that those skilled in the art can design many other modifications and embodiments that will fall within the scope of the principles disclosed in this application and the spirit thereof. More specifically, within the scope of this application's disclosure, the drawings, and the claims, various variations and improvements can be made to the components and / or the layout of the subject combination layout. In addition to the variations and improvements made to the components and / or the layout, other uses will also be apparent to those skilled in the art.

Claims

1. A dynamic reviewer assignment method, characterized in that, It includes the following steps. Step S1, establish an auditor database and a task label database; Step S2, when initiating an audit task, add corresponding task type labels from the task label database; Step S3, when the audit task reaches the scheduled auditor, judge the availability of the scheduled auditor through the multi-source fusion module. If the scheduled auditor is available, maintain the original audit process and let the scheduled auditor conduct the audit. If the scheduled auditor is unavailable, enter Step S4; Step S4, based on the task type label of the current audit task, screen out auditors from the auditor database who match the task type label and have a load rate < 70% as alternative auditors; Step S5, calculate the priority score of each alternative auditor screened out in Step S4 through the formula P = w1*S + w2*(1 - L) + w3*A, where S is the skill matching degree, L is the real-time load rate, A is the historical accuracy rate, and w1, w2, w3 are weight coefficients; Step S6, select the alternative auditor with the highest priority score to replace the scheduled auditor; The auditor database includes the name, position, contact information, skill parameter set, and location information of the auditor. The skill parameter set includes personnel professional field labels, skill level labels, historical audit accuracy rate labels, online status labels, and current load rate labels; The task type label includes a task professional field label and a task level label; In Step S4, when screening out auditors from the auditor database who match the task type label, match the task professional field label with the personnel professional field label and the skill level label with the task level label; The calculation formula for the real-time load rate L of the auditor is L = Q / (V*T + ε), where V is the average processing rate of the auditor, T is the window duration of the auditor, and ε is a smoothing coefficient to prevent division by zero error, with a default value of 0.01; The calculation formula for the skill matching degree S of the auditor in Step S5 is S = α*E + β*Z + γ*G, where E is the professional background score of the auditor, Z is the skill level score of the auditor, G is the work experience score of the auditor, and α, β, γ are weight coefficients. The specific values of α, β, γ are dynamically adjusted according to the average load rate of all auditors; Suppose there are n auditors, and the load rate of each auditor is ( = 1, 2, 3 ……, ) ; Then the average load rate of all auditors is ; α = 4*K1, β = 3*K2, γ = 3*K3, K1 = 1 - , K2 = .

2. The dynamic auditor assignment method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The multi-source fusion module includes a heartbeat monitoring unit, a load calculation unit, and a positioning unit. The heartbeat monitoring unit sends heartbeat packets every 5 minutes using the UDP protocol, and if there is no response for 5 consecutive times, it is determined to be offline; the load calculation unit is used to calculate the load rate of the auditor; the positioning unit is used to determine the location of the auditor; when a predetermined auditor meets one or more of the unavailable conditions, it is determined that the predetermined auditor is unavailable. The unavailable conditions include that the predetermined auditor is in an offline state, the load rate of the predetermined auditor is greater than 95%, and the location of the predetermined auditor deviates from the preset location by more than 1 kilometer.

3. The dynamic auditor assignment method according to claim 1, wherein: The positioning unit uses GPS positioning or Beidou positioning.

4. A dynamic auditor allocation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The professional field labels of the personnel are (J1·d1, J2·d2, J3·d3), where J1, J2, and J3 are three different professional fields, namely field 1, field 2, and field 3, and d1, d2, and d3 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d1, d2, and d3 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the professional field labels of the task are (J4·d4, J5·d5, J6·d6), where J4, J5, and J6 are three different professional fields, namely field 3, field 4, and field 5, and d4, d5, and d6 are the professional background scoring coefficients corresponding to the three fields respectively. The value ranges of d4, d5, and d6 are all 0.1 - 0.9; the calculation method of the professional background score E of the auditor is E = d1*d4*M1 + d2*d5*M2 + d3*d6*M3. If J1 is the same as J4, then M1 = 1, otherwise M1 = 0; if J2 is the same as J5, then M2 = 1, otherwise M2 = 0; if J3 is the same as J6, then M3 = 1, otherwise M3 = 0.

5. A dynamic reviewer allocation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The skill level label is Q1, and the range of Q1 is an integer from 0 to 10. The task level label is Q2, and the range of Q2 is an integer from 0 to 10. The calculation formula for the skill level score Z of the auditor is Z = Q1 - Q2 + D, where D takes any value in the range of 0.01 - 0.

99.

6. A dynamic reviewer allocation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Where w1 > w2 > w3, and w1 + w2 + w3 = 1.

Images