Park operation state evaluation system combined with scoring model

Abstract

The invention discloses a park operation state assessment system combined with a scoring model, and relates to the technical field of park operation state assessment. A first weight based on actual data and a second weight based on fluctuation influence are introduced, and are combined with a first comprehensive weight obtained based on an existing analytic hierarchy process to obtain a first comprehensive weight; therefore, the defect that the first comprehensive weight is high in subjectivity can be effectively overcome, more scientific optimization scheme support is provided for park management on the premise that the objectivity and accuracy of weight distribution are effectively improved, and the final weight is more accurate and accurate on the premise that the final weight passes multi-level verification and correction. The scientificity and rationality of the method are ensured, so that the method can better serve the management of the park and the formulation of an optimization scheme.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of park operation status evaluation, and in particular to a park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model. Background Art

[0002] Existing park operation status assessment methods generally rely on a combination of qualitative analysis and quantitative data. However, these methods often lack systematicity and standardization, making it difficult to fully and accurately reflect the actual operation status of the park. Therefore, a scoring model is introduced to provide a quantitative and objective evaluation system for the park operation status. The following is the specific implementation process of the existing evaluation system: First, determine the evaluation indicators of the park's operating status. This is usually done in the form of organizing cross-departmental meetings to discuss and determine all potential indicators related to the park's operations. Based on the discussion results, screen out the most representative and influential indicators, such as energy efficiency, environmental quality, safety level, facility maintenance, etc., and then obtain relevant data for the above key indicators. This process usually uses automated means such as sensor networks to collect data. Then, calculate the score of each evaluation indicator based on the relevant data obtained for each evaluation indicator. Then, use the hierarchical analysis method to determine the weight of each evaluation indicator. Then, build a suitable scoring model, usually a weighted sum model, and input the score and weight of each evaluation indicator to obtain the score of the park's operating status. Finally, based on the score of the park's operating status, propose improvement suggestions or formulate specific park operating status optimization plans. Although the existing method can effectively provide a quantitative and objective evaluation system, it still has certain defects. Specifically, although the hierarchical analysis method mentioned above is a widely used and effective multi-criteria decision-making method, it also has some limitations and potential problems in practical applications. Specifically, the hierarchical analysis method mainly relies on expert scoring and judgment, which leads to the calculated weights often having strong subjectivity. This will cause the score of the park operation status calculated based on its weight to deviate from the actual situation, thereby affecting the quality of the final optimization plan and the effect of park operation optimization.

[0003] Therefore, the existing technology urgently needs a technical solution for a park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model. Summary of the Invention

[0004] In order to solve the above technical problems, the present invention provides a park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model, which specifically includes the following modules: Evaluation indicator score calculation module: used to determine the evaluation indicators of the park operation status, collect data for each evaluation indicator, and calculate the score of each evaluation indicator based on the data of each evaluation indicator; A first comprehensive weight calculation module: connected to the evaluation index score calculation module, used to determine the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation index using the hierarchical analysis method; The first comprehensive weight correction module is connected to the first comprehensive weight calculation module and is used to correct the first comprehensive weight to obtain the final weight of each evaluation indicator; A second comprehensive weight calculation unit: used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator; The first weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator; Historical score calculation interface: used to collect historical data of each evaluation indicator and calculate the historical score of each evaluation indicator based on the historical data; Historical score normalization interface: used to normalize the historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator; Historical average score and standard deviation calculation interface: used to aggregate and average the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and based on the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, calculate the standard deviation of the historical score of each evaluation indicator; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score based on the score of each evaluation indicator, the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and the standard deviation of the historical scores; Weighted average score calculation interface: used to calculate the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator based on the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score, and the standardized historical score of each evaluation indicator; Total weighted average score calculation interface: used to add the weighted average scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the total weighted average score; The first weight calculation interface is used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator based on the ratio of the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator to the total weighted average score; The second weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second weight of each evaluation indicator; Evaluation indicator score mean calculation interface: used to calculate the mean score of all evaluation indicators; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score and the mean of each evaluation indicator; Total difference calculation interface: used to summarize the difference between the scores of all evaluation indicators and the mean to obtain the total difference; Second weight calculation interface: used to calculate the ratio of the difference of each evaluation indicator to the total difference, and obtain the second weight of each evaluation indicator.

[0005] A second comprehensive weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator according to the first weight of each evaluation indicator and the second weight of each evaluation indicator; A final weight calculation unit is used to combine the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator with the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator to obtain a final weight of each evaluation indicator; Park operation status score calculation module: connected to the first comprehensive weight correction module, used to build a scoring model, and input the score of each evaluation indicator and the final weight of each evaluation indicator into the scoring model to obtain the park operation status score; Optimization plan formulation module: connected to the park operation status score calculation module, used to formulate the park operation status optimization plan based on the park operation status score.

[0006] The embodiments of the present invention have the following technical effects: The present invention introduces a first weight based on actual data of historical scores and current scores and a second weight based on fluctuation effects, and combines them with the first comprehensive weight obtained based on the existing hierarchical analysis method, so as to effectively overcome the defect of strong subjectivity of the first comprehensive weight. Therefore, the present invention provides a more scientific optimization solution support for park management on the premise of effectively improving the objectivity and accuracy of weight distribution, and the final final weight ensures its scientificity and rationality under the premise of multi-level verification and correction, so as to better serve the management of the park and the formulation of optimization solutions. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0007] In order to more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the specific 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.

[0008] Figure 1 This is a framework diagram of a park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model provided by an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0009] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present invention more clear, the technical solutions of the present invention are described clearly and completely below. Obviously, the embodiments described are only some of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of them. All other embodiments derived by persons of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without inventive effort are also within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0010] Example 1: Figure 1 As shown, the present invention provides a park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model, including the following modules: Evaluation indicator score calculation module: used to determine the evaluation indicators of the park operation status, collect data for each evaluation indicator, and calculate the score of each evaluation indicator based on the data of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that the evaluation indicators of the park's operating status include but are not limited to energy efficiency, environmental quality, safety level, facility maintenance, etc.; at the same time, regarding the calculation of the score of each evaluation indicator, taking the above-mentioned energy efficiency score calculation as an example, it is first necessary to collect data related to energy efficiency, including but not limited to total energy consumption: the total energy consumption of all buildings, facilities and equipment in the park, building area: the total area of ​​each building in the park, number of users: the average daily number of users in the park, etc. When a comprehensive park is selected, including office buildings, production workshops and other auxiliary facilities, the corresponding total energy consumption data can be 50,000 kwh / month, and the building area is 20,000 , the average daily number of users is 1,000. Next, we need to obtain benchmark values ​​to facilitate the calculation of the corresponding data scores. These benchmark values ​​can be determined based on industry standards, historical data or best practices, such as the energy intensity benchmark value: the ideal value of energy consumption per square meter per month is 2.5kwh / / month, per capita energy consumption benchmark value: the ideal energy consumption per person per month is 50kwh / person / month. Then, the score is calculated based on the difference between the actual data and the benchmark value. A simple linear proportional method is usually used to calculate the score. The calculation formula for the score is:

[0011] The score ranges from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best.

[0012] When calculating the energy intensity score, the actual energy intensity is first calculated as: Since the benchmark value is 2.5kwh / / month, the corresponding energy intensity score is:

[0013] Similarly, when calculating the per capita energy consumption score, first calculate the actual per capita energy consumption:

[0014] Since the corresponding benchmark value is , then the corresponding per capita energy consumption score is:

[0015] If only the above two types of data are considered, the average value is taken as the score of the energy efficiency evaluation index. The calculation of other evaluation indicators is similar and will not be described in detail here.

[0016] A first comprehensive weight calculation module: connected to the evaluation index score calculation module, used to determine the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation index using the hierarchical analysis method; It is worth noting that the process of determining the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator using the hierarchical analysis method includes: first, a hierarchical model needs to be established, which usually includes a target layer, a criterion layer and a program layer (or indicator layer). For the evaluation of the park's operating status, the hierarchical model can be as follows: the target layer is to evaluate the overall operating status of the park, the criterion layer is the main aspects that affect the park's operating status, such as energy efficiency, environmental quality, safety level, facility maintenance, etc., the indicator layer: specific evaluation indicators, such as specific sub-indicators under energy efficiency, such as energy consumption per unit area, energy consumption per capita, etc.; next, in order to determine the relative importance of each evaluation indicator, it is necessary to construct a judgment matrix. The judgment matrix is ​​completed through expert scoring, and a scale of 1 to 9 is usually used to represent the relative importance between two indicators. Next, it is necessary to calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix and its corresponding eigenvector. Each element in the eigenvector is the weight of the corresponding indicator, that is, the first comprehensive weight of the corresponding evaluation indicator.

[0017] The first comprehensive weight correction module is connected to the first comprehensive weight calculation module and is used to correct the first comprehensive weight to obtain the final weight of each evaluation indicator; A second comprehensive weight calculation unit: used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator; The first weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that the calculation of the first weight is entirely based on the score, including the actual data of historical scores, thus effectively reducing the reliance on subjective judgment of experts. In other words, the first weight is calculated based on actual data, so it is more objective. At the same time, the calculation of the first weight takes into account the difference between the current score and historical performance, so it can dynamically reflect the changes in various evaluation indicators in different time periods, and adjust the weight distribution in time to adapt to changes in the operating status of the park.

[0018] Historical score calculation interface: used to collect historical data of each evaluation indicator and calculate the historical score of each evaluation indicator based on the historical data; It is worth noting that the calculation method of the historical score of each evaluation indicator is the same as the calculation method of the score of each evaluation indicator, which will not be described one by one here. However, regarding the collection of historical data, the focus is on collecting historical data of each evaluation indicator in the past period of time, such as the past 6 months, to provide basic data for subsequent standardization.

[0019] Historical score normalization interface: used to normalize the historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that the purpose of normalizing the historical scores of each evaluation indicator is to eliminate the impact of different dimensions. The specific normalization formula is:

[0020] Where, represents the standardized historical score of the i-th evaluation indicator at time point t; Represents the historical score of the i-th evaluation indicator at time point t; Represents the maximum historical score of the i-th evaluation indicator; Represents the minimum historical score of the i-th evaluation indicator; Historical average score and standard deviation calculation interface: used to aggregate and average the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and based on the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, calculate the standard deviation of the historical score of each evaluation indicator; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score based on the score of each evaluation indicator, the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and the standard deviation of the historical scores; The calculation formula for the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score is:

[0021] Where, Represents the difference between the score of the i-th evaluation indicator and the historical score; Represents the score of the i-th evaluation indicator; Represents the historical average score of the i-th evaluation indicator; Represents the standard deviation of the historical scores of the i-th evaluation indicator; Weighted average score calculation interface: used to calculate the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator based on the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score, and the standardized historical score of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that when calculating the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator, the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score is used. The advantage of using the difference as a weight is that, since the difference reflects the change in the current score relative to the historical performance, by using the difference as a weight, the changing trend of each evaluation indicator in the current time period can be dynamically reflected. This method can promptly capture the short-term fluctuations and major changes of each evaluation indicator, avoiding the lag problem that may be caused by relying solely on historical data. For example, if a certain indicator performed well in the past but has declined significantly in the current evaluation cycle, the difference as a weight can quickly identify and adjust its importance. The calculation formula is:

[0022] Where, Represents the weighted average score of the i-th evaluation indicator; The number of time points representing historical data; Represents the difference between the score of the i-th evaluation indicator and the historical score; represents the standardized historical score of the i-th evaluation indicator at time point t; Total weighted average score calculation interface: used to add the weighted average scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the total weighted average score; The first weight calculation interface is used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator based on the ratio of the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator to the total weighted average score; The second weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second weight of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that by calculating the first difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the mean, it is possible to identify which indicators have the greatest impact on the fluctuation of the total score of all evaluation indicators, which helps to understand the key driving evaluation indicators of the park's operating status, and the calculation of the second weight is mainly to balance the defects of the first weight. Specifically, considering that the calculation of the first weight can produce the above-mentioned effect, it still has certain defects, that is, the first weight mainly depends on historical data. If the historical data cannot accurately reflect the current or future trends, it may lead to unreasonable weight distribution, and although the difference is taken into account, it may still ignore the significant changes in some key evaluation indicators in the short term, and fail to respond to emergencies in a timely manner. For this reason, the second weight is calculated by The difference between the score of the evaluation indicator and the mean can capture the current trend of change in time to effectively make up for the historical dependence defect of the first weight. For example, when the historical data of a certain evaluation indicator performs well, but performs poorly in the current evaluation cycle, and the first weight still gives the indicator a higher weight, the second weight can identify this change and reduce its weight, so as to more accurately reflect the actual situation. At the same time, the calculation of the second weight can quickly identify short-term fluctuations and adjust the weight distribution in time. For example, when a security incident occurs suddenly, resulting in a sharp drop in the score of the security level indicator, the first weight cannot quickly reflect this change, while the second weight can immediately identify this fluctuation, increase its weight, and prompt managers to take emergency measures.

[0023] Evaluation indicator score mean calculation interface: used to calculate the mean score of all evaluation indicators; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score and the mean of each evaluation indicator; Total difference calculation interface: used to summarize the difference between the scores of all evaluation indicators and the mean to obtain the total difference; The second weight calculation interface is used to calculate the ratio of the difference of each evaluation indicator to the total difference, and obtain the second weight of each evaluation indicator; A second comprehensive weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator according to the first weight of each evaluation indicator and the second weight of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that the benefit of combining the first weight with the second weight is that the first weight is based on historical data and current performance, reflecting long-term trends and short-term changes; the second weight emphasizes the impact of each indicator on the overall score fluctuation. The combination of the two can more comprehensively reflect the importance of each indicator. At the same time, the first weight provides a stable scoring basis, while the second weight increases the sensitivity to changing trends. The combination of the two can quickly respond to new changes while maintaining a stable score. Not only that, the two weight distribution methods complement each other to form a multi-level verification mechanism, thereby effectively improving the accuracy and reliability of weight distribution.

[0024] A final weight calculation unit is used to combine the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator with the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator to obtain a final weight of each evaluation indicator; It is worth noting that the final weight combines the expert judgment of the hierarchical analysis method, the historical and current performance of the first weight, and the fluctuation influence of the second weight. This can effectively improve the scientific calculation of the final weight while effectively overcoming the subjective defects of the first comprehensive weight. Specifically, although the hierarchical analysis method provides a basis for expert judgment, it lacks a dynamic reflection of actual data. By introducing the first weight and the second weight, this deficiency can be effectively compensated, thereby better serving the management of the park and the formulation of optimization plans. Furthermore, by introducing a first weight based on actual data and a second weight based on the impact of fluctuations, and combining them with the first comprehensive weight based on the hierarchical analysis method, the present invention effectively overcomes the defects of strong subjectivity in the prior art. Although the first weight has the advantages of reducing subjectivity and enhancing dynamic adaptability, it also has the problems of strong historical dependence and ignoring short-term fluctuations. For this reason, the second weight can effectively make up for the defects of the first weight by identifying key factors and balancing effects, ensuring the scientificity and rationality of weight distribution. The final final weight is verified and corrected at multiple levels to ensure its scientificity and rationality, so as to better serve the subsequent management of the park operation status and the formulation of optimization plans.

[0025] Park operation status score calculation module: connected to the first comprehensive weight correction module, used to build a scoring model, and input the score of each evaluation indicator and the final weight of each evaluation indicator into the scoring model to obtain the park operation status score; It is worth noting that the above scoring model mainly adopts a weighted sum model, and the calculation formula for the park operation status score is:

[0026] Where, Represents the park's operating status score; Represents the total number of evaluation indicators; Represents the score of the i-th evaluation indicator; Represents the final weight of the i-th evaluation indicator; Optimization plan formulation module: connected to the park operation status score calculation module, used to formulate the park operation status optimization plan based on the park operation status score.

[0027] It is worth noting that the evaluation indicators used are limited to energy efficiency, environmental quality, safety level and facility maintenance, and the corresponding scores and final weights are as shown in Table 1: Table 1 shows the scores and final weights of the evaluation indicators: energy efficiency, environmental quality, safety level and facility maintenance:

[0028] Based on Table 1 and combined with the scoring model, the park operation status score can be calculated to be 7.8 points; Next, you need to analyze the scores of each evaluation indicator in detail to find areas that need improvement; Among them, the score of 7.5 points for energy efficiency reflects good performance at present, but there is still room for improvement, that is, possible reasons include aging equipment and insufficient energy-saving measures; the score of 8.0 points for environmental quality reflects good performance, but still requires continuous monitoring and improvement, that is, attention needs to be paid to aspects such as air quality and green coverage; the score of 6.5 points for safety level reflects poor performance and requires special attention and improvement, that is, there may be safety hazards or incomplete emergency plans; the score of 9.0 points for facility maintenance reflects excellent performance and continues to maintain the current maintenance level, that is, regular inspection and maintenance are needed to ensure the long-term stable operation of the facilities; Based on the above analysis, a detailed optimization plan can be developed to focus on improving the areas with lower scores while maintaining the advantages of the areas with higher scores. The following is a specific optimization plan: First, energy efficiency should be improved, with the primary goal of increasing energy utilization efficiency and reducing unit energy consumption. Specific measures include gradually replacing outdated equipment with high-efficiency energy-saving equipment, such as LED lighting systems and intelligent air conditioning control systems. Energy conservation plans should also be implemented, promoting the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar power systems. This should even include employee energy conservation training and promoting habits such as energy conservation and water conservation. This optimization plan aims to raise the energy efficiency score to above 8.0 within the next year. Regarding environmental quality, we should improve it, with the main goal of further enhancing environmental quality and creating a healthier working and living environment. Specific measures include installing air quality monitoring equipment to monitor the air quality in the park in real time and taking timely purification measures. We should also increase the green area in the park, plant more trees and flowers, and improve the green coverage rate. We may even strengthen the publicity of garbage classification, improve garbage disposal facilities, and reduce environmental pollution. Through this optimization plan, we aim to increase the environmental quality score to above 8.5 points within the next six months. Regarding safety levels, the main goal is to significantly enhance the park's safety management and ensure that there are no major safety accidents. Specific measures include regular and comprehensive safety hazard inspections, timely rectification of identified problems, formulation and improvement of various emergency response plans, regular emergency drills, and improvement of employees' ability to respond to emergencies. This also includes strengthening employee safety education and training to enhance the safety awareness and skills of all employees. Through this optimization plan, we aim to increase the safety level score to above 7.5 within the next three months and to above 8.0 within six months. Regarding facility maintenance, the level of facility maintenance should be maintained. The main purpose is to continue to maintain a high level of facility maintenance and ensure the long-term stable operation of the facilities. Specific measures include establishing a complete facility maintenance system, regularly inspecting and maintaining various facilities, and adopting preventive maintenance strategies to detect potential problems in advance and avoid facility failures. It even includes introducing advanced facility management systems and using Internet of Things technology to achieve intelligent management. This optimization plan ensures that the facility maintenance score remains above 9.0 points and gradually increases to 9.5 points.

[0029] It should be noted that the terms used in the present invention are only for describing specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the scope of this application. As shown in the present specification, unless the context clearly indicates an exception, the words "one", "a", "a kind of" and / or "the" do not specifically refer to the singular and may also include the plural. The terms "comprise", "include" or any other variants thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, so that the process, method or device comprising a series of elements includes not only those elements, but also includes other elements not explicitly listed, or also includes elements inherent to such process, method or device. In the absence of further restrictions, the elements defined by the sentence "comprise a..." do not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method or device comprising the elements.

[0030] It should also be noted that the terms "center", "up", "down", "left", "right", "vertical", "horizontal", "inside", "outside", etc., indicating orientations or positional relationships, are based on the orientations or positional relationships shown in the accompanying drawings. They are only for the convenience of describing the present invention and simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, be constructed and operated in a specific orientation. Therefore, they cannot be understood as limitations on the present invention. Unless otherwise clearly specified and limited, the terms "installed", "connected", "connected", etc. should be understood in a broad sense. For example, it can be a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; it can be a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; it can be a direct connection, or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium, or it can be a communication between the internal parts of two elements. For those of ordinary skill in the art, the specific meanings of the above terms in the present invention can be understood according to specific circumstances.

[0031] 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 above embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that they can still modify the technical solutions described in the above embodiments, or replace some or all of the technical features therein with equivalents. However, these modifications or replacements do not deviate the essence of the corresponding technical solutions from the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model, characterized in that: Includes the following modules: Evaluation indicator score calculation module: used to determine the evaluation indicators of the park operation status, collect data for each evaluation indicator, and calculate the score of each evaluation indicator based on the data of each evaluation indicator; A first comprehensive weight calculation module: connected to the evaluation index score calculation module, used to determine the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation index using the hierarchical analysis method; The first comprehensive weight correction module is connected to the first comprehensive weight calculation module and is used to correct the first comprehensive weight to obtain the final weight of each evaluation indicator; Park operation status score calculation module: connected to the first comprehensive weight correction module, used to build a scoring model, and input the score of each evaluation indicator and the final weight of each evaluation indicator into the scoring model to obtain the park operation status score; Optimization plan formulation module: connected to the park operation status score calculation module, used to formulate the park operation status optimization plan based on the park operation status score.

2. A park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model according to claim 1, characterized in that: The first comprehensive weight is modified to obtain the final weight of each evaluation indicator, including: A second comprehensive weight calculation unit: used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator; Final weight calculation unit: used to combine the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator with the first comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator to obtain the final weight of each evaluation indicator.

3. A park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model according to claim 2, characterized in that: Calculating the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator includes: The first weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator; The second weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second weight of each evaluation indicator; The second comprehensive weight calculation subunit is used to calculate the second comprehensive weight of each evaluation indicator based on the first weight of each evaluation indicator and the second weight of each evaluation indicator.

4. A park operation status evaluation system combined with a scoring model according to claim 3, characterized in that: Calculating the first weight of each evaluation indicator includes: Historical score calculation interface: used to collect historical data of each evaluation indicator and calculate the historical score of each evaluation indicator based on the historical data; Historical score normalization interface: used to normalize the historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator; Historical average score and standard deviation calculation interface: used to aggregate and average the standardized historical scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and based on the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, calculate the standard deviation of the historical score of each evaluation indicator; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score based on the score of each evaluation indicator, the historical average score of each evaluation indicator, and the standard deviation of the historical scores; Weighted average score calculation interface: used to calculate the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator based on the difference between the score of each evaluation indicator and the historical score, and the standardized historical score of each evaluation indicator; Total weighted average score calculation interface: used to add the weighted average scores of each evaluation indicator to obtain the total weighted average score; First weight calculation interface: used to calculate the first weight of each evaluation indicator based on the ratio of the weighted average score of each evaluation indicator to the total weighted average score.

5. The park operation status evaluation system combined with the scoring model according to claim 3 is characterized in that: Calculating the second weight of each evaluation indicator includes: Evaluation indicator score mean calculation interface: used to calculate the mean score of all evaluation indicators; Difference calculation interface: used to calculate the difference between the score and the mean of each evaluation indicator; Total difference calculation interface: used to summarize the difference between the scores of all evaluation indicators and the mean to obtain the total difference; Second weight calculation interface: used to calculate the ratio of the difference of each evaluation indicator to the total difference, and obtain the second weight of each evaluation indicator.

Images