Post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for complete period of information system project

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of data processing in the aspect of informatization projects, and discloses a post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for the whole period of an information system project, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining a construction quality score, an operation level score, an application effect evaluation score and an economic benefit score of a to-be-evaluated information system; and in combination with the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effect evaluation score and the economic benefit score, obtaining a post-evaluation result of the to-be-evaluated information system through a first expression. According to the method, the unified evaluation standard is set, and the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effect evaluation score, the economic benefit score and the corresponding weight of the to-be-evaluated information system are combined, so that post-evaluation of the informatization construction platform is comprehensively realized, more accurate and real informatization construction platform condition information can be quickly obtained, and the evaluation efficiency of the informatization construction platform is improved. Reference and basis are provided for decision and implementation of future informatization construction, and the informatization construction effect is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of data processing technology for information technology projects, and in particular to a post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for the entire cycle of information system projects. Background Art

[0002] In today's world, information technology is profoundly influencing global economic and social development, and profoundly changing the production and management methods of enterprises. The value brought by information construction to enterprises is increasing day by day, but it is also gradually exposing various construction problems such as development and implementation. The effective implementation of post-evaluation work can improve the scientific decision-making and management level of information projects and enhance investment returns. Only through in-depth evaluation and analysis of completed information projects can we effectively discover the problems existing in the information construction process and use them to guide the next stage of information construction. However, the currently commonly used information system post-evaluation often focuses too much on the results of project construction and project management, and lacks a full-cycle and all-round evaluation of the information system. The current status of information system post-evaluation has the following problems:

[0003] Lack of compliance evaluation: Compliance evaluation involves determining whether an information system complies with relevant laws, regulations, policies, and standards. This is crucial for ensuring the legality and security of information systems. However, in post-evaluation of information systems, compliance evaluations during the early stages of a project are often insufficiently addressed, or even rarely addressed.

[0004] Deficiencies in usability evaluation: Usability refers to the user experience when using an information system, including the system's understandability, learnability, and operability. This indicator has a direct impact on the work efficiency of system users and the utilization rate of the information system. However, the usability evaluation of later operations is often overlooked in the post-evaluation of information systems.

[0005] Shortcomings of economic benefit evaluation: Economic benefit evaluation should encompass not only direct financial gains but also indirect benefits, such as improved productivity and reduced costs. A comprehensive evaluation of economic benefits helps measure the actual value and return on investment of information systems, but post-evaluation of information systems rarely addresses the economic benefits generated by projects.

[0006] Lack of quantitative analysis: In the post-evaluation of information systems, qualitative analysis is more common, while quantitative analysis lacks data support, which limits the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0007] Therefore, it is urgent to propose a post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of information system projects, to evaluate and summarize information projects with more comprehensive indicators, to discover the laws of information development, to grasp the development trends of information technology, to guide the information technology process in a comprehensive, systematic and scientific manner, to provide reference and basis for the decision-making and implementation of future information technology construction, and to ensure the effectiveness of information technology construction. Summary of the Invention

[0008] The present invention provides a post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for the entire cycle of information system projects, covering various stages of information technology projects such as feasibility study, construction, operation and management, and including evaluation indicators such as the comparison of the completeness of project feasibility study and detailed design, the advanced information technology used in project construction, and the benefits brought by management or scientific research projects supported after project operation, so as to solve the defect of lack of unified evaluation standards for the evaluation of completed information technology engineering projects.

[0009] The present invention is applicable to the post-evaluation of information systems already developed by various enterprises and institutions, and the examples selected are mainly related information systems of the power grid industry.

[0010] The present invention provides a post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of information system projects. The post-evaluation results of the information system to be evaluated are obtained by the post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of information system projects, and information construction suggestions are output based on the post-evaluation results of the information system to be evaluated.

[0011] Post-evaluation results S of the information system to be evaluated i Including: obtaining the construction quality score F1, operation level score F2, application effectiveness evaluation score F3, and economic benefit score F4 of the information system to be evaluated. Through the first expression, the post-evaluation result S of the information system to be evaluated is obtained. i The first expression is:

[0012] S i =αF1+βF2+γF3+δF4, (α, β, γ, δ are the corresponding score weights)

[0013] The construction quality score F1 refers to the degree of goal achievement, process standardization, and system advancement of the information technology project. It is used to reflect the compliance and technical specifications of the project during the planning, design, and development stages, and to measure the rationality of the system architecture, code quality, and reliability of the delivered results.

[0014] The operational level score F2 refers to the examination of the information system's system reliability, system usability, system security, system disaster recovery, and operation and maintenance service quality. It is used to evaluate the stability, security, and operation and maintenance efficiency of the system after it goes online, reflecting its sustainable service capabilities in the actual environment;

[0015] The application effectiveness evaluation score F3 examines the information system's key task support rate, business support, and system application rate. Business support is divided into professional business support and management business expenditure. Business systems are examined based on professional business support, while management systems are examined based on management business support. This score is used to examine the system's usability, functional satisfaction, and business value realization from a user's perspective, measuring its contribution to organizational process optimization or decision support.

[0016] The economic benefit score (F4) measures the input-output ratio between the investment in system construction and operation and maintenance and the indirect economic benefits. Indirect economic benefits include both revenue increases and cost savings. Cost-benefit analysis (e.g., ROI and TCO) quantifies the project's financial return and determines whether the investment achieved its intended goals.

[0017] In the post-evaluation of information system projects, these four indicators together constitute the core dimensions of post-evaluation, comprehensively verifying the success or failure of the project from the technical, operational, user experience and financial levels, and providing data support for subsequent improvements or similar project decisions.

[0018] α, β, γ, and δ represent the weights of the construction quality score, operational level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score, respectively. These four weights can be adjusted based on actual evaluation requirements. The weights of the corresponding data are determined using expert evaluation methods based on evaluation requirements, primarily based on the subjective judgment of experts, combined with scoring methods, analogy methods, and correlation coefficient methods.

[0019] The construction quality score F1 of the information system to be evaluated is composed of the goal achievement score Q1, the process standardization score Q2, and the system advancement score Q3, which can be obtained through the second expression:

[0020] (υ, φ, φ are the weights of the corresponding data respectively)

[0021]

[0022]

[0023] The operational level score F2 of the information system to be evaluated is composed of the system reliability score W1, the system usability score W2, the system security score W3, the system disaster recovery score W4, and the operation and maintenance service quality score W5, and is obtained through the third expression:

[0024] ( ρ、 σ、 are the weights of the corresponding data)

[0025]

[0026]

[0027] The application effectiveness evaluation score F3 of the information system to be evaluated is composed of the key task support rate score E1, the professional business support score E2, the management business support score E3, and the system application rate score E4, and is obtained through the fourth expression:

[0028] (ζ, η, θ, are the weights of the corresponding data)

[0029]

[0030]

[0031]

[0032] As the economic benefit score F4 of the information system to be evaluated, in one embodiment, the indirect economic benefit can be obtained according to the standard "benefit / system investment amount*100, full score 100 points".

[0033] The present invention also provides a post-evaluation system for the entire cycle of information system projects, comprising:

[0034] The data acquisition module is used to obtain the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated;

[0035] The evaluation module combines the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effectiveness evaluation score, and the economic benefit score to obtain the post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated through the first expression;

[0036] Among them, the first expression is:

[0037] S i =αF1+βF2+γF3+δF4,

[0038] In the first expression, S i represents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operation level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, F4 represents the economic benefit score, and α, β, γ, and δ are the weights of the corresponding scores respectively.

[0039] The present invention also provides an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program, characterized in that when the processor executes the computer program, it implements any of the above-mentioned post-evaluation methods for the entire cycle of information system projects.

[0040] The present invention also provides a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements any of the above-mentioned post-evaluation methods for the entire cycle of information system projects.

[0041] The present invention provides a post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for the entire cycle of information system projects. By setting a unified evaluation standard and combining the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, economic benefit score and their corresponding weights of the information system to be evaluated, the post-evaluation of the information construction platform is fully realized. It can quickly obtain more accurate and true information on the status of the information construction platform, help enterprises shift from "completing projects" to "doing projects right", and ultimately improve the maturity and success rate of the overall information construction, provide a reference and basis for future decision-making and implementation of information construction, and improve the effect of information construction. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0042] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the present invention or the prior art, a brief introduction will be given below to the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying any creative work.

[0043] Figure 1 The present invention provides a flowchart of a post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of an information system project.

[0044] Figure 2 This is a visualization example of the post-evaluation results of an enterprise management system.

[0045] Figure 3 This is a visualization example of the post-evaluation results of an enterprise business system.

[0046] Figure 4 This is a schematic structural diagram of the electronic device provided by the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0047] In order to make the purpose, technical solutions and advantages of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the present invention. Obviously, the embodiments described are part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments, and they should not be understood as limitations on the present invention. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention. In the description of the present invention, it should be understood that the terms used are only for descriptive purposes and cannot be understood as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0048] It should be noted that the execution entity of the post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of information system projects provided by the present invention can be any terminal-side device that meets the technical requirements, such as a post-evaluation device for the entire life cycle of information system projects. The score data required for the post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of information system projects provided by the present invention can be obtained by evaluators scoring each item according to preset scoring criteria.

[0049] The following combination Figures 1-4 The present invention describes a post-evaluation method, system, device and medium for the entire life cycle of an information system project.

[0050] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of the post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of information system projects provided by the present invention. Figure 1 The present invention provides a post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of an information system project, which may include:

[0051] Step S110: Obtain the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated;

[0052] Step S120: Combining the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effectiveness evaluation score, and the economic benefit score, a post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the first expression;

[0053] In this embodiment, the first expression is:

[0054] S i =αF1+βF2+γF3+δF4,

[0055] In the first expression, S i represents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operational level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, and F4 represents the economic benefit score. In this embodiment, α, β, γ, and δ are 0.25, 0.25, 0.2, and 0.3, respectively. The weights of the corresponding scores can be determined based on the evaluation requirements using expert evaluation methods, primarily based on the subjective judgment of experts, combined with scoring methods, analogy methods, and correlation coefficient methods.

[0056] The construction quality score F1 refers to the degree of goal achievement, process standardization, and system advancement of the information technology project. It is used to reflect the compliance and technical specifications of the project during the planning, design, and development stages, and to measure the rationality of the system architecture, code quality, and reliability of the delivered results.

[0057] The operational level score F2 refers to the examination of the information system's system reliability, system usability, system security, system disaster recovery, and operation and maintenance service quality. It is used to evaluate the stability, security, and operation and maintenance efficiency of the system after it goes online, reflecting its sustainable service capabilities in the actual environment;

[0058] The application effectiveness evaluation score F3 examines the information system's key task support rate, business support, and system application rate. Business support is divided into professional business support and management business expenditure. Business systems are examined based on professional business support, while management systems are examined based on management business support. This score is used to examine the system's usability, functional satisfaction, and business value realization from a user's perspective, measuring its contribution to organizational process optimization or decision support.

[0059] The economic benefit score (F4) measures the input-output ratio between the investment in system construction and operation and maintenance and the indirect economic benefits. Indirect economic benefits include both revenue increases and cost savings. Cost-benefit analysis (e.g., ROI and TCO) quantifies the project's financial return and determines whether the investment achieved its intended goals.

[0060] In the post-evaluation of information system projects, these four indicators together constitute the core dimensions of post-evaluation, comprehensively verifying the success or failure of the project from the technical, operational, user experience and financial levels, and providing data support for subsequent improvements or similar project decisions.

[0061] In one embodiment, the construction quality score F1 of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained by the following steps:

[0062] Combining the goal achievement score Q1, process standardization score Q2, and system advancement score Q3, the construction quality score F1 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the second expression, where the second expression is:

[0063]

[0064] In the second expression, F1 represents the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated, Q1 represents the goal achievement score, Q2 represents the process standardization score, and Q3 represents the system advancement score. In this embodiment, υ, φ are 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 respectively.

[0065] In the construction quality evaluation of information system projects, the goal achievement score (Q1) measures the degree of match between the actual project results and the initial planning goals (such as functional requirements, performance indicators, and delivery scope), reflecting whether the project accurately achieves the expected design; the process standardization score (Q2) evaluates whether the project follows established management processes, technical standards, and industry specifications (such as development document integrity and change control compliance) during implementation, reflecting the organization and controllability of project execution; the system advancement score (Q3) examines the system's foresight and competitiveness from the perspectives of technical architecture, innovation, and scalability, and determines whether it adopts appropriate cutting-edge technologies to adapt to future business development needs. These three together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of construction quality, comprehensively evaluating the comprehensive level of project construction from the perspectives of results orientation, process control, and technical value, providing key improvement basis for subsequent optimization or similar projects.

[0066] Among them, the target achievement score can be obtained according to the formula "(realized function points / designed function points)*100". The realized function points shall be based on the function points in the third-party functional test report, and the designed function points shall be based on the function points of the project detailed design.

[0067] Process standardization includes project pre-construction standardization, project construction standardization, and project acceptance and transfer standardization. The process standardization score is the sum of the weights of the above three indicators. In this example, the weights are 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 respectively.

[0068] Among them, the project's early stage standardization score, project construction standardization score, and project acceptance and capital transfer standardization score can be obtained according to the formula "100-(number of existing problems / number of inspection items)*100".

[0069] In the process standardization evaluation of information system projects, the project's early stage standardization score focuses on assessing compliance during the initial stages, such as project approval, requirements analysis, and feasibility studies, reflecting the scientific nature of project planning and the rigor of decision-making procedures. The project construction standardization score systematically examines the execution of key links such as progress control, quality supervision, and change management during the development and implementation process, reflecting the project team's adherence to standardized processes. The project acceptance and transfer standardization score measures the integrity and procedural legitimacy of closing work such as system testing, delivery acceptance, and asset handover, ensuring that project results are transferred to the operation and maintenance phase in compliance with regulations. These three dimensions together constitute a complete evaluation system for process standardization. They comprehensively assess the institutionalization and standardization of project management processes in the three key stages of project initiation, implementation and construction, and closing and handover, providing an important basis for improving the maturity of organizational project management.

[0070] The system advancement score of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by weighting the technical advancement score X1, the version compliance score X2, and the architecture compliance score X3. In this embodiment, the relevant weights are 0.2, 0.4, and 0.4, respectively. The technical advancement score can be calculated based on the standard of "100 points for any advanced technology used, and 0 points for any technology not used." The version compliance score can be calculated using the formula "100 - (number of versions not met / number of versions involved) * 100." The architecture compliance score can be calculated based on the standard of "100 points for meeting the preset requirements, and 0 points for not meeting the requirements."

[0071] In the evaluation of system advancement in information system projects, the technical advancement score measures the innovation and foresight of the technology used in the system, reflecting whether it utilizes cutting-edge industry technologies to maintain long-term competitiveness. The version compliance score assesses whether the system's version iterations conform to industry standards and technical specifications, reflecting its adherence to the technology ecosystem and compatibility requirements. The architectural conformity score examines whether the system's architectural design meets business expansion needs and the technological evolution path, verifying its flexibility and sustainable development capabilities. These three indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of system advancement, comprehensively assessing the system's technical value and development potential from the perspectives of technological innovation, standards compliance, and architectural adaptability, providing key decision-making basis for subsequent technology upgrades and architectural optimization.

[0072] The system advancement score is a quantitative indicator used to measure the system's advancement in technology, performance, economic benefits, etc.

[0073] In one embodiment, the operation level score F2 of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained by the following steps:

[0074] Combining the system reliability score W1, system usability score W2, system security score W3, system disaster recovery score W4, and operation and maintenance service quality score W5 of the information system to be evaluated, the operation level score F2 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the third expression;

[0075] Among them, the third expression is:

[0076]

[0077] In the third expression, F2 represents the operational level score of the information system to be evaluated, W1 represents the system reliability score, W2 represents the system usability score, W3 represents the system security score, W4 represents the system disaster recovery score, and W5 represents the operation and maintenance service quality score. ρ、 σ、 They are 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.2 respectively.

[0078] Among them, the system reliability score W1 is a quantitative indicator used to measure the system's high availability, the number of unplanned outages, and the information system integration monitoring rate.

[0079] The system usability score W2 is obtained by weighting the interface friendliness C1, operation stability C2, response speed C3, and business compatibility C4. In this embodiment, the corresponding weights are 0.1, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.4 respectively.

[0080] In the usability evaluation of information system projects, the interface friendliness score measures the intuitiveness and operational ease of the system's human-computer interaction design, reflecting the user's learning cost and operational experience. The operational stability score assesses the system's ability to operate continuously and without failure, reflecting its level of assurance for business continuity. The response speed score examines the timeliness of the system's request processing and feedback results, verifying whether its performance efficiency meets user expectations. The business fit score evaluates the degree of match between the system's functional design and actual business processes, reflecting its precise support for user work scenarios. These four indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of system usability, comprehensively assessing the system's user-friendliness from four aspects: interactive experience, operational assurance, performance, and functional adaptation, providing important improvement basis for improving user satisfaction and usage efficiency.

[0081] The system security score is a quantitative indicator used to measure level protection, system confidentiality, level time, and security incidents.

[0082] In one embodiment, the system security score W3 of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained by obtaining the level protection score, system confidentiality score, level event score, and security event score of the information system to be evaluated, and taking weighted sum; the corresponding weights in this embodiment are 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, and 0.25 respectively.

[0083] Among them, the level protection score can be obtained according to the standard "100 points for completion on time, 0 points for failure to complete", the system confidentiality score can be obtained according to the standard "100 points for no confidentiality incidents, 0 points for one or more incidents", and can be obtained according to the standard "MAX (100-number of level 5 incidents*100-number of level 6 incidents*50-number of level 7 incidents*25-level 8 incidents*10,0) (the classification standard of incidents can be set according to actual conditions)", and the security incident score can be obtained according to the standard "MAX (100-number of notifications or major adverse effects*10-number of times the website and system have been notified of high-risk vulnerabilities by social websites or internal companies*5-number of common security vulnerabilities and weak passwords*2,0)".

[0084] In the system security evaluation of information system projects, the Level Protection Score measures the extent to which the system meets the national cybersecurity Level Protection requirements, reflecting the compliance of its basic security protection system. The System Confidentiality Score evaluates the system's encryption protection and access control capabilities for sensitive data, reflecting the completeness of its technical measures to prevent information leakage. The Level Event Score examines the system's performance in resisting medium- and high-risk cybersecurity incidents, verifying its effectiveness in protecting against major threats. The Security Incident Score counts the frequency of actual security vulnerabilities and intrusion incidents, quantifying the system's true security posture during operation. These four indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of system security, comprehensively assessing the system's comprehensive security defense capabilities from four levels: compliance foundation, data protection, threat response, and operation monitoring, providing precise improvement directions for improving the system's security protection level.

[0085] The system disaster recovery score W4 is a quantitative indicator used to measure the completeness and implementation of the disaster recovery plan. This can be achieved by obtaining the disaster recovery plan completeness score and disaster recovery implementation score of the information system being evaluated. In this embodiment, the corresponding weights are 0.5 and 0.5, respectively. The disaster recovery plan completeness score can be determined based on the standard "100 points for meeting the disaster recovery requirements in the security protection system, 0 points for failure to meet them," while the disaster recovery implementation score can be determined based on the standard "100 points for regular disaster recovery implementation, 0 points for failure to implement disaster recovery."

[0086] In the system disaster recovery evaluation of information system projects, the Disaster Recovery Plan Completeness Score measures the comprehensiveness and feasibility of the disaster recovery plan design, reflecting its coverage of various potential risks and the rationality of the recovery strategy. The Disaster Recovery Implementation Score assesses the compliance of actual disaster recovery facility construction, drill execution, and recovery capabilities, reflecting the effectiveness of the plan's transition from theory to practice. Together, these two indicators constitute the core evaluation dimensions of system disaster recovery capabilities. They systematically assess the project's ability to ensure data protection and business continuity from the two key aspects of plan design and implementation, providing important basis for improving disaster recovery systems.

[0087] The operation and maintenance service quality score can be comprehensively scored by collecting user feedback through user survey forms.

[0088] In the evaluation of information system operation level, the system reliability score measures the system's ability to operate continuously and stably, reflecting its service availability, fault recovery speed and fault tolerance performance; the system usability score evaluates the user interface's friendliness and interaction efficiency, reflecting the system's adaptability to business personnel; the system security score examines the system's ability to resist security threats such as network attacks and data leaks, verifying the completeness of its security protection system; the system disaster recovery score measures the system's data protection and business continuity guarantee level in disaster events (such as hardware failures and natural disasters); the operation and maintenance service quality score evaluates the standardization of technical support from dimensions such as operation and maintenance response timeliness and problem-solving capabilities. These five indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of the operation level, comprehensively verifying the system's actual service performance in the production environment from the aspects of stability, user experience, security, disaster recovery capability and operation and maintenance support, and providing a key basis for system optimization and upgrades.

[0089] In one embodiment, the application effectiveness evaluation score F3 of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained by the following steps: combining the key task support rate score E1, the professional business support score E2, the management business support score E3, and the system application rate score E4, and obtaining the application effectiveness evaluation score F3 of the information system to be evaluated through a fourth expression;

[0090] Among them, the fourth expression is:

[0091]

[0092] In the fourth expression, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, E1 represents the key task support rate score, E2 represents the professional business support score, E3 represents the management business support score, and E4 represents the system application rate score. In this embodiment, ζ, η, θ, They are 0.3, 0.4, 0.4 and 0.3 respectively.

[0093] Among them, the key task support rate score E1 can be obtained according to the standard "Key task support rate score = number of key tasks supported by the system * 200 / total number of key tasks of the department in a year, up to 100 points." The professional business support score E2 can be obtained according to the standard "Key project score = number of national projects or ultra-high voltage projects x10 (points) + company-level projects or company plans x5 (points) + provincial grid companies and below x2 (points); paper patent score = number of core journals x5 (points) + number of other journals x2 (points) + number of patents x5 (points); standard score = number of international / national standards x10 (points) + number of industry standards x8 (points) + number of group standards x5 (points) + State Grid Corporation standards x2 (points)". The professional business support score E2 can be obtained according to the standard "(efficiency improvement + quality improvement + refined management + decision support) * 0.25". The management business support score E3 can be obtained based on the standard (efficiency improvement + quality improvement + management refinement + decision support) * 0.25, and the system application rate score E4 can be calculated based on user activity, function activity, and key business data growth rate, where user activity = (number of active users / number of registered users) * 100, function activity = (number of active functions / total number of functions) * 100, and key business data growth rate = (number of active functions / total number of functions) * 100.

[0094] In the evaluation of information system application effectiveness, the key task support rate score (E1) measures the system's support for the organization's core business and strategic goals, reflecting whether it effectively enables key business processes; the professional business support score (E2) evaluates the system's applicability and functional completeness in specific business areas, reflecting its ability to support specialized work scenarios; the management business support score (E3) examines the system's auxiliary role in management decision-making, data analysis, and other aspects, verifying its contribution to improving management efficiency; and the system application rate score (E4) quantifies the system's popularity and acceptance in actual work through data such as user activity and function usage frequency. These four indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of application effectiveness, comprehensively assessing the actual value of the system after implementation from the perspectives of strategic fit, professional adaptation, management empowerment, and user stickiness, providing important reference basis for subsequent optimization directions.

[0095] In one embodiment, the system application rate score of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained by weighting the user activity score, function activity score, and key business data growth rate score of the information system to be evaluated. In this embodiment, the relevant weights are 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3, respectively.

[0096] Among them, the user activity score can be obtained according to the standard "(number of active users / number of registered users)*100", the function activity score can be obtained according to the standard "(number of active functions / total number of functions)*100", and the key business data growth rate score can be obtained according to the standard "(data growth in this assessment period / data growth in the previous period>0.8) get full marks".

[0097] In evaluating the system adoption rate of information system projects, the user activity score measures the frequency and depth of system user participation, reflecting the actual level of adoption by the user community. The functional activity score assesses the actual call and usage of each system module, reflecting the practicality and value conversion of functional design. The key business data growth rate score quantifies the actual impact of the system on business development through the dynamic changes in core business indicators. These three indicators together constitute the core evaluation dimensions of system adoption rate. They objectively reflect the penetration rate and value contribution of the system in actual operations from the perspectives of user behavior, functional utility, and business impact, providing data support for optimizing system functions and improving application effectiveness.

[0098] In one embodiment, the indirect economic benefits of the information system to be evaluated can be obtained as the economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated. Specifically, the indirect economic benefits can be calculated according to the standard "benefit / system investment amount*100, with a maximum score of 100 points." Revenue-increasing benefits primarily refer to the income gained from consulting, scientific research, and other projects newly developed through the information system; cost-saving benefits include but are not limited to the savings in purchasing similar commercial software after the system develops corresponding functions, and the labor costs saved through data collection, information flow, and other links carried out by the information system. Revenue-increasing benefits, outsourcing cost-saving benefits, and labor cost-saving benefits for the same matter are not counted repeatedly.

[0099] This embodiment uses a post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of an information system project provided by the present invention to score the business management system and the business management system of a certain enterprise.

[0100] One enterprise's business management system is a comprehensive management system that integrates business process standardization, execution monitoring, and decision support. It achieves closed-loop management of the entire business process through data visualization and intelligent analysis, focusing on addressing cross-departmental collaboration efficiency and risk management issues. Using IoT devices and mobile applications, the system dynamically monitors the quality, progress, and safety of manufacturing and construction processes. It leverages AI to alert users of anomalies, ensuring transparent project execution and traceability.

[0101] A certain enterprise's management information system scored high in management business support, with scores above 90 in efficiency improvement, quality improvement, refined management, and decision support. As a business information system, a certain enterprise's business system has a good support rate for key departmental tasks, with scores above 90.

[0102] Table 1 Assessment scores

[0103]

[0104] The present invention provides a post-evaluation method, system, equipment and medium for the entire cycle of information system projects. By setting a unified evaluation standard and combining the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, economic benefit score and their corresponding weights of the information system to be evaluated, the post-evaluation of the information construction platform is fully realized. More accurate and true information on the status of the information construction platform can be quickly obtained, providing a reference and basis for future decision-making and implementation of information construction, thereby improving the effect of information construction.

[0105] The information system to be evaluated can be obtained through the above-mentioned post-evaluation method for the entire information system project cycle and the post-evaluation results can be visualized (see Figure 2-Figure 3 ), and then output information construction suggestions based on the post-evaluation results of the information system to be evaluated. For example, when the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, or economic benefit score is lower than the preset threshold, the corresponding information construction suggestions are output. Alternatively, when the post-evaluation score is lower than the preset threshold, the information construction suggestions are output. The preset threshold can be set according to actual conditions.

[0106] Suggestions for information construction may include:

[0107] 1. Further strengthen the standardization of information technology project construction: When carrying out information technology project construction, we must not "focus on functionality and neglect management" and must attach great importance to the standardization of project processes. Information technology projects should focus on standardization management at every stage, including the inventory, planning, project establishment, implementation, acceptance, and operation and maintenance, to ensure project quality, strengthen risk prevention and control, and ensure project compliance.

[0108] 2. Further adopt advanced technologies to develop and build information systems: Digital transformation is an inevitable trend in the development of enterprise informatization. It is necessary to increase research on the integrated application of new technologies and new means. We must carefully study and analyze management or business needs, apply a variety of advanced information technologies, integrate, deepen and improve existing systems, build a new business digital support platform, and promote innovative development of business management.

[0109] 3. Further improve the means of monitoring the operation of information systems: relevant early warning monitoring, decision analysis, automated operations and other operation and maintenance tool applications can be developed. Efforts should be made to strengthen the construction of operation and maintenance monitoring and management systems to support the development of information operation and maintenance work such as resource management, operation monitoring, mode management, defect management, maintenance and two-ticket management of information systems and software and hardware, and become the main technical means and management tool for information operation and maintenance support.

[0110] 4. Further improve the effectiveness of information system applications: The system's registered users need to be further reviewed, and the reasons for long-term user inactivity need to be analyzed. Remedial measures should be implemented to meet the functional requirements of different users, increase user engagement, and boost user activity, fully leveraging the system's support for management and business operations. In-depth diagnostic analysis of system functions should be conducted, and functional design and development should be conducted to address pain points and difficulties in management and business operations. Effective solutions should be proposed to optimize and improve system functions and enhance system operational stability and reliability.

[0111] 5. Further enhance the economic benefits of information systems: With the deepening of digital transformation, the importance of data assets in the future development of enterprises has become increasingly prominent. We should tap into the potential of data assets, actively explore ways to convert resource value, promote the transformation of data resource advantages into competitive advantages, and transform resource reserves into cash flow. Based on existing data resources, we should develop new energy digital products, optimize emerging businesses, and actively integrate them into the company's digital product construction.

[0112] The following describes the post-evaluation system for the entire information system project cycle provided by the present invention. The post-evaluation system for the entire information system project cycle described below and the post-evaluation method for the entire information system project cycle described above can refer to each other.

[0113] The present invention provides a post-evaluation system for the entire life cycle of information system projects, which may include:

[0114] The data acquisition module is used to obtain the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated;

[0115] An evaluation module is used to: combine the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effectiveness evaluation score, and the economic benefit score to obtain a post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated through a first expression;

[0116] Among them, the first expression is:

[0117] S i =0.25F1+0.25F2+0.2F3+0.3F4,

[0118] In the first expression, S irepresents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operation level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, and F4 represents the economic benefit score. 0.25, 0.25, 0.2, and 0.3 are the weights of the corresponding scores respectively.

[0119] According to a post-evaluation system for the entire life cycle of an information system project provided by the present invention, the data acquisition module may include:

[0120] The first construction quality data acquisition submodule is used to obtain the target achievement score, process standardization score, and system advancement score of the information system to be evaluated, and obtain the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated through the second expression;

[0121] The second expression is:

[0122] F1=0.4Q1+0.3Q2+0.3Q3,

[0123] In the second expression, F1 represents the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated, Q1 represents the goal achievement score, Q2 represents the process standardization score, Q3 represents the system advancement score, and 0.4, 0.3, and 0.3 are the weights of the corresponding data respectively;

[0124] The second operation level data acquisition submodule is used to obtain the system reliability score, system usability score, system security score, system disaster recovery score, and operation and maintenance service quality score of the information system to be evaluated, and obtain the operation level score of the information system to be evaluated through a third expression;

[0125] Among them, the third expression is:

[0126] F2=0.2W1+0.2W2+0.2W3+0.2W4+0.2W5,

[0127] In the third expression, F2 represents the operational level score of the information system to be evaluated, W1 represents the system reliability score, W2 represents the system usability score, W3 represents the system security score, W4 represents the system disaster recovery score, and W5 represents the operation and maintenance service quality score. 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.2 are the weights of the corresponding data respectively;

[0128] The third application effectiveness evaluation data acquisition submodule is used to obtain the key task support rate score, professional business support score, management business support score, and system application rate score of the information system to be evaluated, and obtain the application effectiveness evaluation score F3 of the information system to be evaluated through the fourth expression;

[0129] Among them, the fourth expression is:

[0130] F3=0.3E1+0.4E2+0.4E3+0.3E4,

[0131] In the fourth expression, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, E1 represents the key task support rate score, E2 represents the professional business support score, E3 represents the management business support score, and E4 represents the system application rate score. 0.3, 0.4, 0.4, and 0.3 are the weights of the corresponding data respectively.

[0132] The fifth is the economic benefit data acquisition submodule, which is used to obtain the economic benefit score F4 of the information system to be evaluated.

[0133] According to the present invention, a post-evaluation electronic device for the entire cycle of an information system project is provided, and the physical structure diagram is shown as follows: Figure 4 The electronic device may include: a processor 810, a communications interface 820, a memory 830, and a communication bus 840, wherein the processor 810, the communications interface 820, and the memory 830 communicate with each other via the communication bus 840. The processor 810 may call the logic instructions in the memory 830 to execute a post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of an information system project, the method including:

[0134] Obtaining the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated; combining the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score, and using the first expression, obtaining the post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated;

[0135] Among them, the first expression is:

[0136] S i =0.25F1+0.25F2+0.2F3+0.3F4,

[0137] In the first expression, S i represents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operation level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, and F4 represents the economic benefit score. 0.25, 0.25, 0.2, and 0.3 are the weights of the corresponding data respectively.

[0138] In addition, the logic instructions in the above-mentioned memory 830 can be implemented in the form of a software functional unit and can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium when sold or used as an independent product. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of the present invention, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or the part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. The computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions for enabling a computer device (which can be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to perform all or part of the steps of the method described in each embodiment of the present invention. The aforementioned storage medium includes: various media that can store program codes, such as a USB flash drive, a mobile hard disk, a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic disk or an optical disk.

[0139] The device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate, and the components shown as units may or may not be physical units, i.e., they may be located in one location or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the modules may be selected based on actual needs to achieve the objectives of the present embodiment. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will be able to understand and implement the present invention without inventive effort.

[0140] Through the description of the above embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that each embodiment can be implemented by means of software plus a necessary general hardware platform, or of course, by hardware. Based on this understanding, the essence of the above technical solution or the part that contributes to the existing technology can be embodied in the form of a software product. The computer software product can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, such as ROM / RAM, a magnetic disk, an optical disk, etc., and includes a number of instructions for enabling a computer device (which can be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to execute the methods described in each embodiment or certain parts of the embodiments.

[0141] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, rather than to limit it. Although the present invention 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. However, 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 various embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of information system projects, characterized by: include: Obtain the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated; Combining the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score and economic benefit score, the post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the first expression; Among them, the first expression is: S i =αF1+βF2+γF3+δF4, In the first expression, S i It represents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operation level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, and F4 represents the economic benefit score. α, β, γ, and δ represent the weights of the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score, respectively. The four weights can be adjusted according to actual evaluation needs.

2. The post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of an information system project according to claim 1 is characterized in that: Obtain the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated, including: Obtain the target achievement score, process standardization score, and system advancement score of the information system to be evaluated; Combining the goal achievement score, process standardization score, and system advancement score, the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the second expression; The second expression is: In the second expression, F2 represents the construction quality score of the information system to be evaluated, Q1 represents the goal achievement score, Q2 represents the process standardization score, Q3 represents the system advancement score, υ, φ is the weight of the goal achievement score, process standardization score, and system advancement score; Among them, the process standardization score Q2 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by the weighted sum of the project pre-project standardization score, project construction standardization score, and project acceptance and transfer standardization score of the information system to be evaluated; The system advancement score Q3 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by weighting the technical advancement score, version compliance score and architecture compliance score of the information system to be evaluated.

3. The post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of an information system project according to claim 2, characterized in that: Obtain the operational level score of the information system to be evaluated, including: Obtain the system reliability score, system usability score, system security score, system disaster recovery score, and operation and maintenance service quality score of the information system to be evaluated; Combining the system reliability score, system usability score, system security score, system disaster recovery score, and operation and maintenance service quality score, the operation level score of the information system to be evaluated is obtained through the third expression; Among them, the third expression is: In the third expression, F3 represents the operational level score of the information system to be evaluated, W1 represents the system reliability score, W2 represents the system usability score, W3 represents the system security score, W4 represents the system disaster recovery score, and W5 represents the operation and maintenance service quality score. ρ、 σ、 These are the weights of the system reliability score, system usability score, system security score, system disaster recovery score, and operation and maintenance service quality score; The system usability score W2 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by weighted summation of the interface friendliness score, operation stability score, response speed score, and business fit score of the information system to be evaluated; The system security score W3 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by the weighted sum of the level protection score, system confidentiality score, level event score, and security event score of the information system to be evaluated; The system disaster recovery score W4 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by the weighted sum of the disaster recovery plan integrity score and the disaster recovery implementation score of the information system to be evaluated.

4. The post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of an information system project according to claim 3 is characterized in that: Obtain the application effectiveness evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, including: Obtain the key task support rate score, professional business support score, management business support score, and system application rate score of the information system to be evaluated; Combining the key task support rate score, professional business support score, management business support score, and system application rate score, the fourth expression is used to obtain the application effectiveness evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated; Among them, the fourth expression is: In the fourth expression, F4 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, E1 represents the key task support rate score, E2 represents the professional business support score, E3 represents the management business support score, E4 represents the system application rate score, ζ, η, θ, These are the weights of the key task support rate score, professional business support score, management business support score, and system application rate score; Among them, the system application rate score E1 of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by the weighted sum of the user activity score, function activity score, and key business data growth rate score of the information system to be evaluated.

5. A post-evaluation method for the entire life cycle of information system projects, characterized by: include: One or more of a business management and control platform, a design review and management system, a smart distribution network simulation computing platform, a technical and economic laboratory integration platform, and a construction supervision site real-time management platform are used as information systems to be evaluated, and a post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated is obtained by using the post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of an information system project as described in any one of claims 1 to 4; Based on the post-evaluation results of the information system to be evaluated, output information construction suggestions.

6. A post-evaluation system for the entire life cycle of information system projects, characterized by: include: The data acquisition module is used to obtain the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score of the information system to be evaluated; An evaluation module is used to: combine the construction quality score, the operation level score, the application effectiveness evaluation score, and the economic benefit score to obtain a post-evaluation result of the information system to be evaluated through a first expression; Among them, the first expression is: S i =αF1+βF2+γF3+δF4, In the first expression, S i It represents the post-evaluation score of the information system to be evaluated, F1 represents the construction quality score, F2 represents the operation level score, F3 represents the application effectiveness evaluation score, and F4 represents the economic benefit score. α, β, γ, and δ represent the weights of the construction quality score, operation level score, application effectiveness evaluation score, and economic benefit score, respectively. The four weights can be adjusted according to actual evaluation needs.

7. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein: When the processor executes the program, the post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of an information system project as described in any one of claims 1 to 4 is implemented.

8. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the post-evaluation method for the entire cycle of an information system project is implemented as described in any one of claims 1 to 4.

Images