Full-dimension management performance evaluation system

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of management performance evaluation, and discloses a full-dimension management performance evaluation system. According to the invention, quantitative indexes are adopted as objective evaluation dimensions, and superior selection evaluation, same-level mutual evaluation, subordinate inverse evaluation and service object evaluation are adopted as subjective evaluation dimensions, so that a concise and effective full-dimension performance evaluation system is constructed, and a balanced management system of all parties is formed; according to the method, service object satisfaction evaluation average change trend scores of related departments and related workers are measured and calculated through modes that service objects evaluate satisfaction change trends of indexes for various services, index weights are distributed to various departments in combination with actual work, and the sum of the weights distributed to the indexes of the departments is converged, so that the service object satisfaction evaluation average change trend scores of the related departments and the related workers are calculated. The service object satisfaction degree is converted into performance evaluation scores of all departments and all workers, direct driving force for improving the service object satisfaction degree is formed, and the working quality and efficiency are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of management performance evaluation, and in particular to a full-dimensional management performance evaluation system. Background Art

[0002] Currently, performance evaluations for administrative agencies, enterprises, and institutions are often overly detailed and complex, leading to excessive assessment burdens. Individual and organizational assessments are not closely linked, lacking support for team culture development. Assessment dimensions are incomplete, leading to heavy burdens on subordinates, poor coordination and collaboration among peers, and a lack of satisfaction and satisfaction among service recipients. Service recipient satisfaction cannot be effectively broken down across departments and staff members, failing to directly drive improvements. Therefore, achieving efficient and concise performance evaluation methods to effectively align all organizational resources with the needs of service recipients is a key development goal for all organizations.

[0003] The existing performance appraisal and evaluation methods (plans) of administrative agencies and enterprises and institutions often evaluate internal departments and individuals separately and fail to effectively integrate them. The content is complicated and lengthy, and does not effectively reflect the evaluation of service recipients or the evaluation of service recipients cannot be converted into the appraisal and evaluation of various departments and staff members.

[0004] Existing technologies still have shortcomings:

[0005] Common problems in the existing organizational assessment and evaluation system:

[0006] 1. The evaluation dimensions are not comprehensive and the internal management is unbalanced. For example, if the top-down approach is too strong, the subordinates will be burdened and the needs of the service recipients will be ignored; if the bottom-up approach is too strong, it will easily lead to "too compromising" similar to "populism"; if the peers are too strong towards each other, it will easily lead to inefficient coordination, buck-passing and high internal friction.

[0007] 2. The assessment rules are too complex and cumbersome, which will increase the extra workload caused by the assessment and make it difficult for the assessed persons to form a clear subjective cognition and work orientation.

[0008] 3. Evaluating departments and individuals separately makes it difficult to form a collective sense of honor among staff members.

[0009] 4. Without collecting the evaluations of service recipients, it is impossible to effectively evaluate the quality and efficiency of work, optimally allocate resources, verify and improve work methods; without converting the evaluations of service recipients into evaluations of various departments and staff members, it is impossible to form a direct driving force for improving the satisfaction of service recipients; if the evaluations of service recipients are converted into evaluations of various departments and staff members, it is easy to cause unfairness due to different bases of service recipient satisfaction or long-term interference factors, unfairness due to whether the work content of business departments and support departments is directly related to service recipients, and unfairness due to inconsistencies in the content of service recipient evaluations by different departments.

[0010] For this purpose, a full-dimensional management performance evaluation system is proposed. Summary of the Invention

[0011] In view of the shortcomings of the existing technology, the present invention provides a full-dimensional management performance evaluation system to solve the background technical problems.

[0012] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solutions: a full-dimensional management performance evaluation system, including the following five evaluation dimensions:

[0013] Evaluation of the completion of quantitative objective indicators, based on the scores of departments and individuals on the completion of preset quantitative target tasks;

[0014] The superiors select and evaluate, and score departments and individuals by screening and selecting important or outstanding work at each level;

[0015] Service recipient evaluation, which converts service recipient satisfaction into department and individual scores;

[0016] Departments at the same level will evaluate each other and rate the coordination and cooperation between departments based on an anonymous mutual evaluation mechanism;

[0017] Subordinates conduct reverse evaluation, scoring the department's business guidance and assistance based on an anonymous evaluation mechanism;

[0018] The service object evaluation is converted into an assessment score through the following formula:

[0019] Formula 1: Satisfaction change trend score of a single evaluation dimension = (satisfaction of this quarter - satisfaction of the previous quarter) / (100% - satisfaction of the previous quarter);

[0020] Formula 2: Weighted change trend score of departmental single evaluation dimension satisfaction = result of Formula 1 × department weight;

[0021] Formula 3: Average trend score of department service recipient satisfaction evaluation = weighted trend score of satisfaction of each evaluation dimension of the department / sum of weights of each evaluation dimension of the department.

[0022] Preferably, the evaluation dimensions in the evaluation of the completion of the quantitative objective indicators include the completion of the quantitative target tasks assigned by the superiors and the same level by each department and staff:

[0023] The specific evaluation process is to evaluate the departments based on the completion of indicators issued by the target work departments at all levels;

[0024] Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as:

[0025] The department score is calculated based on the target task completion rate according to "(target task assessment score / target task assessment full score) × preset weight ratio";

[0026] An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

[0027] Preferably, the evaluation dimensions selected by the superior include the completion of key tasks, highlight tasks and daily tasks;

[0028] The specific assessment process includes the following:

[0029] a: Staff members shall report their work items monthly. Each work item may be assigned no more than two assistants, and each person shall report no more than two items per month;

[0030] b. The department head will refer to the application items in step a to select important or outstanding work, and determine the number of items to be selected based on "number of department members x preset ratio";

[0031] c. The responsible person shall refer to the screening results of step b and further select tasks according to the number of people in the department under his / her charge × the preset ratio;

[0032] d: The principal person in charge shall refer to the selection results of c and select no more than 10 important or highlight tasks, of which comprehensive support work shall account for no less than 20% (the number of staff in the comprehensive support department / the total number of staff in the organization);

[0033] e: Special tasks, commendations, positive comments from superiors, quality improvement and negative events are not subject to the number of submissions and selections. Among them, negative events are mandatory items for deduction.

[0034] Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as:

[0035] The individual score is calculated based on the superior's selection and evaluation score according to "(individual score for this item / highest score of individuals in this item in the organization) × preset weight ratio";

[0036] The department score is calculated based on the superior's evaluation score and is calculated as "the sum of the scores of all department staff / total number of department staff."

[0037] Preferably, among the work items selected by the main person in charge, the proportion of comprehensive support work is not less than the ratio of the number of staff in the comprehensive support department to the total number of staff in the organization.

[0038] Preferably, the evaluation dimension of the service recipient evaluation is mainly to collect the service recipient's evaluation of each service;

[0039] The specific assessment process includes the following:

[0040] After the closed-loop processing of the service recipients’ needs is completed, it will be regarded as a new satisfaction ticket for the quarter;

[0041] After the complaint is handled, it will be converted into a satisfaction ticket for the quarter. The same complaint will only be counted once in a year.

[0042] When the same work meets similar needs of a large number of people, if no less than 5% of the service recipients approve of "satisfaction", additional satisfaction votes will be counted as corresponding number of votes in that quarter;

[0043] The service recipients who make telephone complaints and report problems offline will be calculated based on the preset vote weights, and complaints will be counted as dissatisfaction, and resolved complaints will be counted as new satisfaction votes in the quarter. The same complaint from the same person will only be counted once in a year.

[0044] The evaluation results are calculated using formulas 1-3. The department scores and individual scores are:

[0045] The evaluation score of the department's service recipients is the result of formula 3 converted according to the preset weight ratio;

[0046] The evaluation score of an individual service recipient is consistent with the score of the department.

[0047] Preferably, the scoring dimensions for peer-to-peer evaluations include but are not limited to management support, talent support, collaborative interaction, proactive service, efficiency improvement and burden reduction, decision-making stability, and implementation. If a department ranks last in the same dimension for consecutive quarters, points will be deducted based on the corresponding multiple of the number of consecutive quarters.

[0048] The specific evaluation process uses departments to fill out mutual evaluation forms "anonymously" every quarter;

[0049] Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as:

[0050] The department score is calculated based on the department's mutual evaluation score according to "(department score / 100) × preset weight ratio";

[0051] An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

[0052] Preferably, the scoring dimensions of the subordinate reverse evaluation include but are not limited to management support, policy support, talent support, collaborative interaction, proactive service, in-depth involvement in the front line, dynamic replacement, skill empowerment, efficiency improvement and burden reduction, decision-making stability and implementation. If the same dimension ranks last for consecutive quarters, points will be deducted according to the corresponding multiple of the number of consecutive quarters;

[0053] The specific evaluation process uses the subordinate organizations to fill out the reverse evaluation form "anonymously" every quarter;

[0054] Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as:

[0055] The department score is calculated based on the reverse evaluation score of the lower level according to "(department score / 100)×preset weight ratio";

[0056] An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

[0057] Preferably, in the service object evaluation, department weights are dynamically adjusted through a convergence algorithm to ensure fairness in weight distribution.

[0058] Preferably, the assister score allocation rule is:

[0059] When there is only one assistant, the applicant and assistant will be scored at 70% and 30% of the bonus points respectively;

[0060] When there are two assistants, the applicant and the assistant will each receive 50% of the bonus points.

[0061] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0062] The present invention adopts quantitative indicators as objective evaluation dimensions and superior selection and evaluation, peer evaluation, subordinate feedback, and service object evaluation as subjective evaluation dimensions to construct a concise and effective full-dimensional performance evaluation system and form a balanced management system for all parties. The present invention calculates the average trend score of the service object satisfaction evaluation of the relevant departments and relevant staff through the change trend of the service object's satisfaction with each service evaluation indicator, assigns indicator weights to each department in combination with the actual work, and converges the sum of the weights assigned to each department's indicators. That is, the service object satisfaction is converted into the performance evaluation score of each department and each staff member, which is conducive to forming a direct driving force to improve the service object satisfaction and improve the quality and efficiency of work.

[0063] Other features and advantages of the present invention will be described in the following description, and in part will become apparent from the description, or will be understood by practicing the present invention. The purpose and other advantages of the present invention can be realized and obtained by the structures pointed out in the description, claims and drawings. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0064] Figure 1 This is a framework diagram of the full-dimensional management performance evaluation system of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0065] The following will clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this technical field without making any creative efforts shall fall within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0066] See also Figure 1The present invention provides a full-dimensional management performance evaluation system that uses quantitative indicators as one objective evaluation dimension and four subjective evaluation dimensions (percentage system) of superior selection and evaluation, peer evaluation, subordinate feedback, and service object evaluation to build a concise and effective full-dimensional performance evaluation system and form a balanced management system. The details are as follows:

[0067] 1. Evaluation of the completion of quantitative objective indicators (30 points)

[0068] 1. The content and purpose of the assessment are mainly to assess the completion of the quantitative target tasks assigned by the superiors and the current level by each department and staff, and to focus on implementing the decision-making arrangements of the superiors and the current level (each organization shall formulate it according to its actual situation, and this article will not elaborate on it).

[0069] 2. Evaluation process: evaluate departments based on the completion of indicators issued by the target work departments at all levels.

[0070] 3. Score calculation

[0071] Department score: Work completion score = (target task assessment score / target task assessment full score) × 30;

[0072] Personal score: Work completion score = department’s score for this evaluation indicator.

[0073] 2. Selection and evaluation by superiors (20 points)

[0074] 1. The content and purpose of the assessment are mainly to assess the completion of key tasks, highlights and daily work, and to strive to simplify work performance evaluation and stimulate work vitality through this comprehensive subjective indicator.

[0075] 2. Assessment Process (see Table 1)

[0076] (1) Staff members may submit a declaration. Each person may upload no more than two items of the most important or fulfilling work each month, and may list no more than two persons who assist in carrying out the work.

[0077] (2) Department heads screen and select important or outstanding work from the matters reported by staff members every month, and round up the number of items to be screened based on “number of department members × 40%”.

[0078] (3) Selection of responsible persons: select important or highlight tasks every month, and round up the number of selected items according to "total number of staff in the department in charge × 20%" (which can be adjusted appropriately according to the number of management objects).

[0079] (4) The main person in charge shall select no more than 10 important or highlight tasks from the work items every month (which can be adjusted appropriately according to the number of management objects), of which comprehensive support work shall account for no less than 20% (the number of staff in the comprehensive support department / the total number of staff in the organization).

[0080] (5) Regarding special work, commendations, positive comments from superiors, improvement in quality and academic qualifications, "golden ideas" and "little stories" (which can be written separately), etc., are not subject to the number of items submitted and selected for evaluation. Criticisms from various levels or significant negative impacts will be deducted as mandatory items.

[0081] 3. Score calculation

[0082] (1) The work item is screened by the department head, and the applicant and assistant will add (subtract) 2 points;

[0083] (2) If the work item is selected by the person in charge, the applicant and the assistant will be awarded an additional (subtracted) 3 points;

[0084] (3) If the work item is selected by the principal, the applicant and the assistant will add (subtract) 5 points, and all staff members of the department will add (subtract) 1 point each;

[0085] The rules for allocating points to assisting people are as follows:

[0086] When there is only one assistant, the applicant and assistant will be scored at 70% and 30% of the bonus points respectively;

[0087] When there are two assistants, the applicant and the assistant will each receive 50% of the bonus points.

[0088] Individual score: score from superior selection = individual score for this item / highest score of this item in the organization × 20;

[0089] Department score: Superior selection score = sum of scores of all department staff / total number of department staff.

[0090] 3. Service Target Evaluation (30 points)

[0091] 1. The content and purpose of the assessment are mainly to collect the evaluation of various services by the service recipients, and strive to simplify the work performance evaluation through the subjective indicators of the results, so as to help build a culture of unity and cooperation in the organization, and a management system that is unified from bottom to top and from top to bottom.

[0092] 2. Assessment process (see Table 2):

[0093] Each quarter, service recipients' satisfaction ratings and needs for various services are collected. The average trend score for each department's service recipient satisfaction ratings is calculated by following the changing trends in satisfaction across various indicators, assigning weights to each department based on daily work, and converging the sum of the weights assigned to each department. The collected service recipient needs are managed in a closed-loop manner by the relevant departments. Once the needs are resolved in a closed-loop manner, they are counted as new satisfaction votes for the quarter. If a large number of service recipients meet similar needs for the same work, additional satisfaction votes may be counted based on the number of service recipients who are satisfied with the work, if no less than 5% of the service recipients are satisfied. Each quarter, service recipients who submit telephone complaints and report issues offline to varying degrees are assigned a weight of 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, or 100 votes, respectively (to be determined based on the specific circumstances of each organization). Complaints are counted as dissatisfaction, and resolved complaints are counted as new satisfaction votes for the quarter. The same complaint from the same person is counted only once per year.

[0094] 3. Score calculation

[0095] The service object evaluation is converted into an assessment score through the following formula:

[0096] Formula 1: Satisfaction change trend score of a single evaluation dimension = (satisfaction of this quarter - satisfaction of the previous quarter) / (100% - satisfaction of the previous quarter);

[0097] Formula 2: Weighted change trend score of departmental single evaluation dimension satisfaction = result of Formula 1 × department weight;

[0098] Formula 3: Average trend score of department service recipient satisfaction evaluation = weighted trend score of satisfaction of each evaluation dimension of the department / sum of weights of each evaluation dimension of the department.

[0099] Department score: Service recipient evaluation score = average change trend score of the department's service recipient satisfaction evaluation × 30;

[0100] Personal score: Service recipient evaluation score = department’s score for this evaluation indicator.

[0101] 4. Mutual evaluation among departments at the same level (10 points)

[0102] 1. Evaluation Content and Purpose: The evaluation focuses on the coordination and cooperation among departments across dimensions such as management support, talent support, collaborative interaction, proactive service, efficiency and burden reduction, decision-making stability, and implementation. Departments that consistently rank last in the same dimension will have points deducted for that dimension based on a multiple of the number of consecutive quarters. This mutual evaluation mechanism aims to strengthen departmental collaboration and reduce buck-passing.

[0103] 2. Evaluation Process: Departments anonymously complete the mutual evaluation form every quarter (see Table 3).

[0104] 3. Score calculation

[0105] Department score: Department mutual evaluation score = department score for this item / (100×10);

[0106] Personal score: Departmental mutual evaluation score = department’s score for this evaluation indicator.

[0107] 5. Subordinate Counter-evaluation (10 points)

[0108] 1. Evaluation Content and Purpose. The assessment will primarily assess each department's support and guidance to subordinate organizations across a range of dimensions, including management support, policy support, talent support, collaborative collaboration, proactive service, frontline engagement, dynamic replacement, skills empowerment, efficiency improvement and burden reduction, decision-making stability, and implementation. For departments that consistently rank last in the same dimension for consecutive quarters, points will be deducted for that dimension based on a multiple of the number of consecutive quarters. This effort aims to optimize top-down services and reduce unnecessary burdens on subordinates through a reverse evaluation mechanism.

[0109] 2. Evaluation Process: Subordinate organizations shall anonymously complete the negative evaluation form (see Table 4) every quarter.

[0110] 3. Score calculation

[0111] Department score: Subordinate adverse evaluation score = department score / (100×10);

[0112] Personal score: Subordinates’ reverse evaluation score = department’s score for this evaluation indicator.

[0113] 6. Based on the above 1 to 5, the specific application of the embodiment (taking a certain city administrative agency as an example)

[0114] 1. Evaluation of the completion of quantitative objective indicators (30 points)

[0115] Example: A department's annual goal is to complete 10 livelihood projects, but it actually completed 9. The target task assessment score = (9 / 10) × 100 = 90 points, and the department score = (90 / 100) × 30 = 27 points. The individual score directly inherits the department score.

[0116] 2. Selection and evaluation by superiors (20 points)

[0117] Example:

[0118] Staff member A applies for "optimization of approval process" and designates assistant B;

[0119] Department heads screen 4 items (10 people in the department × 40%);

[0120] 4 items for selecting responsible persons from 2 departments (20 persons in charge of 2 departments x 20%);

[0121] The main person in charge selected 10 items, including 2 items related to comprehensive support work (accounting for 20%);

[0122] After the work is evaluated at the three levels, the cumulative score of A and B is: 2 (screening) + 3 (selection) + 5 (selection) = 10 points, and other members of the department will each add 1 point;

[0123] The scores for A and B are:

[0124] A total score:

[0125] 1.4 (screening) + 2.1 (selection) + 3.5 (selection) = 7 points;

[0126] B Total score:

[0127] 0.6 (screening) + 0.9 (selection) + 1.5 (selection) = 3 points;

[0128] Assuming that the highest individual score in the organization is 15 points, the individual score = (7 / 15)(highest score) × 20 ≈ 9.3 points; the department score = the total score of all members / number of people.

[0129] 3. Service recipient evaluation (30 points)

[0130] Weight convergence example:

[0131] Department A is responsible for "public safety" (weight 35%) and "administrative approval" (weight 25%);

[0132] Satisfaction rates this quarter were 80% (70% last quarter) and 85% (80% last quarter);

[0133] Formula 1: Public security change trend score = (80% - 70%) / (100% - 70%) = 0.33, administrative approval change trend score = (85% - 80%) / (100% - 80%) = 0.25;

[0134] Formula 2: Public security weighted score = 0.33 × 35% = 0.12, administrative approval weighted score = 0.25 × 25% = 0.06;

[0135] Formula 3: Department average change trend score = (0.12 + 0.06) / (35% + 25%) = 0.3;

[0136] Department score = 0.3 × 30 = 9 points, and individual score is the same as the department.

[0137] 4. Mutual evaluation among departments at the same level (10 points)

[0138] Example:

[0139] Department B ranked last in the "Collaboration and Integration" dimension for two consecutive quarters, and the deduction point = 2 × 1 = 2 points;

[0140] The mutual evaluation score is 85 points, and the final score = (85 / 100) × 10 = 8.5 points.

[0141] 5. Subordinate counter-evaluation (10 points)

[0142] Example:

[0143] Department C ranked last in the "Policy Support" dimension for three consecutive quarters, with a deduction of 3 points = 3 × 1 = 3 points;

[0144] The adverse review score is 78 points, and the final score = (78 / 100) × 10 = 7.8 points.

[0145] VII. Summary of Examples

[0146] The full-dimensional management performance evaluation system of the present invention integrates quantitative objective indicators with multi-level subjective evaluations (superior selection and evaluation, service object evaluation, peer evaluation, and subordinate feedback), with the dynamic transformation of service object satisfaction into evaluation drive as the core. Combined with the weight convergence algorithm and anonymous collaboration mechanism, it solves the problems of one-sided dimensions, cumbersome processes, and insufficient team collaboration in traditional assessments, significantly improving management efficiency, departmental coordination, and service satisfaction. It is suitable for various organizations such as administrative agencies, enterprises, institutions, etc., and is efficient, fair, and scalable.

[0147] Table 1 is the work application and selection form

[0148]

[0149]

[0150] Table 2 is the weight distribution table of service object satisfaction evaluation

[0151]

[0152] Table 3 shows the mutual evaluation of departments at the same level.

[0153]

[0154]

[0155] Table 4 is the reverse evaluation table of the lower-level organization on the department

[0156]

[0157]

[0158]

Claims

1. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system, characterized by: It includes the following five evaluation dimensions: Evaluation of the completion of quantitative objective indicators, based on the scores of departments and individuals on the completion of preset quantitative target tasks; The superiors select and evaluate, and score departments and individuals by screening and selecting important or outstanding work at each level; Service recipient evaluation, which converts service recipient satisfaction into department and individual scores; Departments at the same level evaluate each other and rate the coordination and cooperation between departments based on an anonymous mutual evaluation mechanism; Subordinates conduct reverse evaluation, scoring the department's business guidance and assistance based on an anonymous evaluation mechanism; The service object evaluation is converted into an assessment score through the following formula: Formula 1: Satisfaction change trend score of a single evaluation dimension = (satisfaction of this quarter - satisfaction of the previous quarter) / (100% - satisfaction of the previous quarter); Formula 2: Weighted change trend score of departmental single evaluation dimension satisfaction = result of Formula 1 × department weight; Formula 3: Average trend score of department service recipient satisfaction evaluation = weighted trend score of satisfaction of each evaluation dimension of the department / sum of weights of each evaluation dimension of the department.

2. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation dimensions of the completion of the quantitative objective indicators include the completion of the quantitative target tasks assigned by superiors and the same level by each department and staff: The specific evaluation process is to evaluate the departments based on the completion of indicators issued by the target work departments at all levels; Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as: The department score is calculated based on the target task completion rate according to "(target task assessment score / target task assessment full score) × preset weight ratio"; An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

3. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation dimensions of the superiors include the completion of key tasks, highlight tasks and daily tasks; The specific assessment process includes the following: a: Staff members shall report their work items monthly. Each work item may be assigned no more than two assistants, and each person shall report no more than two items per month; b. The department head selects important or outstanding work based on the application items in step a, and determines the number of items to be selected based on "number of department members x preset ratio"; c. The responsible person, referring to the screening results in step b, further selects tasks based on the number of people in the department under his / her charge × the preset ratio. d: The principal person in charge shall refer to the selection results of c and select no more than 10 important or highlight tasks, of which comprehensive support work shall account for no less than 20% (the number of staff in the comprehensive support department / the total number of staff in the organization); e: Special tasks, commendations, positive comments from superiors, quality improvement and negative events are not subject to the number of submissions and selections. Among them, negative events are mandatory items for deduction. Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as: The individual score is calculated based on the superior's selection and evaluation score according to "(individual score for this item / highest score of individuals in this item in the organization) × preset weight ratio"; The department score is calculated based on the superior's evaluation score and is calculated as "the sum of the scores of all department staff / total number of department staff." 4. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 3, characterized in that: Among the work items selected by the main person in charge, the proportion of comprehensive support work shall not be lower than the ratio of the number of staff in the comprehensive support department to the total number of staff in the organization.

5. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The evaluation dimension of the service recipient evaluation is mainly to collect the service recipients' evaluation of various services; The specific assessment process includes the following: After the closed-loop processing of the service recipients’ needs is completed, it will be regarded as a new satisfaction ticket for the quarter; After the complaint is handled, it will be converted into a satisfaction ticket for the quarter. The same complaint will only be counted once in a year. When the same work meets similar needs of a large number of people, if no less than 5% of the service recipients approve of "satisfaction", additional satisfaction votes will be counted as corresponding number of votes in that quarter; The service recipients who make telephone complaints and report problems offline will be calculated based on the preset vote weights, and complaints will be counted as dissatisfaction, and resolved complaints will be counted as new satisfaction votes in the quarter. The same complaint from the same person will only be counted once in a year. The evaluation results are calculated using formulas 1-3. The department scores and individual scores are: The evaluation score of the department's service recipients is the result of formula 3 converted according to the preset weight ratio; The evaluation score of an individual service recipient is consistent with the score of the department.

6. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The scoring dimensions for peer-to-peer evaluations include, but are not limited to, management support, talent support, collaborative interaction, proactive service, efficiency improvement and burden reduction, decision-making stability, and implementation. If a department ranks last in the same dimension for consecutive quarters, points will be deducted based on the corresponding multiple of the number of consecutive quarters. The specific evaluation process uses departments to fill out mutual evaluation forms "anonymously" every quarter; Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as: Department scores are calculated based on the departmental peer review scores as "(department score / 100) x preset weight ratio"; An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

7. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: The scoring dimensions of the subordinate reverse evaluation include but are not limited to management support, policy support, talent support, collaborative interaction, proactive service, in-depth involvement in the front line, dynamic replacement, skill empowerment, efficiency improvement and burden reduction, decision-making stability and implementation. If the ranking in the same dimension is the last for consecutive quarters, points will be deducted according to the corresponding multiple of the number of consecutive quarters; The specific evaluation process is that the subordinate organizations fill out the reverse evaluation form "anonymously" every quarter; Based on the assessment results, the score is calculated as: The department score is calculated based on the reverse evaluation score of the subordinate according to "(department score / 100)×preset weight ratio"; An individual's score directly inherits the score of his or her department.

8. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the service object evaluation, department weights are dynamically adjusted through a convergence algorithm to ensure fairness in weight distribution.

9. A full-dimensional management performance evaluation system according to claim 3, characterized in that: The assister score distribution rules are as follows: When there is only one assistant, the applicant and assistant will be scored at 70% and 30% of the bonus points respectively; When there are two assistants, the applicant and the assistant will each receive 50% of the bonus points.

Images