Quality evaluation method for single ordnance equipment item and complete set of goods and materials

Abstract

The invention provides a quality evaluation method for a single ordnance equipment item and a complete set of goods and materials. According to the method, ordnance equipment materials are divided into six categories of metal equipment, non-metal equipment and the like according to materials, quantitative evaluation is carried out according to six indexes of technical performance, storage time and the like, the quality of the materials is scientifically divided into seven grades of new products, workable products and the like, and unification of evaluation standards and standardization of processes are achieved; according to the method for determining the quality grade of the complete set of materials according to the proportion of the to-be-scraped products, the accuracy and reliability of evaluation are remarkably improved. According to the method, through comprehensive evaluation of multi-dimensional indexes, the influence of human factors is effectively reduced, the problems of high subjectivity and different standards in the prior art are solved, and meanwhile, potential safety hazards are reduced by standardizing a dangerous goods evaluation process; the evaluation result based on quantitative data can accurately reflect the material quality condition, a scientific basis is provided for inventory optimization and resource allocation, and the management cost is remarkably reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of military equipment management, and in particular to a method for evaluating the quality of individual or complete sets of military equipment, which is used to standardize the quality evaluation standards of military equipment and improve the scientificity and effectiveness of material management. Background Art

[0002] Military equipment and supplies reserves are crucial for the military's response to war and emergencies, and their quality is directly linked to its emergency response capabilities. Currently, the following problems exist in the quality assessment of military equipment and supplies: There is a lack of unified standards, procedures, and methods for quality assessment. Many assessments rely on subjective judgment or a single performance indicator, resulting in a crude and crude approach. Standards, methods, and procedures vary widely across units, leading to significant discrepancies in the assessment of the same equipment across different units, significantly increasing storage and management costs. The reliability of quality assessments is questionable, potentially leading to large-scale equipment failures during wartime or critical missions. Alternatively, low quality assessments can lead to significant human and financial investment, resulting in a waste of human and financial resources and a low cost-effectiveness ratio. Non-standard quality assessments of hazardous materials can directly endanger the storage environment and personnel safety, and in serious cases, can cause major safety incidents. Summary of the Invention

[0003] In view of this, in order to solve the problems existing in the technical background, the present invention proposes a method for evaluating the quality of single items and complete sets of military equipment. Specifically, it includes the following contents:

[0004] A method for evaluating the quality of a single item of military equipment comprises the following steps:

[0005] Step 1: Classify military equipment and supplies into six categories according to their materials: metal equipment, non-metal equipment, electronic components, assemblies, complete sets of spare parts, and batteries;

[0006] Step 2: Based on the six factors of technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance condition, and completeness of the materials, the materials are divided into four categories and seven quality levels: new, acceptable, to be repaired, and to be scrapped, and the corresponding grade values ​​are assigned;

[0007] Step 3: Quality Assessment Content: Evaluate materials based on six dimensions: technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance status, and completeness. Each dimension is assigned a corresponding grade value of A, B, C, D, E, or F.

[0008] Step 4: For a single type of military equipment, take the maximum value of the six assessment items as the quality grade value of the material; according to the quality grade value, look up the table to determine the specific quality grade of the material.

[0009] A method for evaluating the quality of a complete set of military equipment supplies is provided. The quality grade of each single item in the set is evaluated according to the above method. Based on the quality grade values ​​of the items in the set, the quality grade of the complete set is determined according to the following rules:

[0010] If there are no scrapped items in the set, the maximum value among the materials A, B, C, D, E, and F in the set will be taken as the quality grade value of the complete set of materials; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is ≤ 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, then: if the set can be repaired by itself, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 5; if support repair is required, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 6; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is greater than 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 7.

[0011] Furthermore, when the quality level value of the complete set of materials is 7, the quality level is to be scrapped. The specific calculation method is as follows:

[0012] When the quality grade of the complete set of materials is 7, the quality grade is to be scrapped. The specific calculation method is as follows:

[0013]

[0014] Among them: p——quality grade of complete set of materials;

[0015] p i ——Quality level of the i-th material in the set;

[0016] n – the total number of supplies included in the set;

[0017] V7——Total value of materials with quality level 7 in the package (amount on account);

[0018] V——Total value of complete set of materials (amount on account);

[0019] k is the ratio of the repair cost to the new product purchase price, which is a constant and usually ranges from 0.5. Generally, if it is greater than this value, it means that the product is not worth repairing;

[0020] Among them, when Max(p1,p2,p3...p n )=7, The quality level of the complete set of materials should be assessed as awaiting repair. If the storage unit can repair it by itself, it is considered awaiting repair at level 1, with a value of 5. If it needs support repair or is sent to a factory or institute for repair, it is considered awaiting repair at level 2, with a value of 6.

[0021] Furthermore, the total value of the complete set of materials and the total value of the scrapped products shall be based on the amount on account.

[0022] Furthermore, the method is applicable to the reserve management of military equipment and supplies, and is used to standardize the quality assessment process, unify the assessment standards, and provide a basis for material reserve decision-making.

[0023] The above technical solution has the following beneficial effects:

[0024] The present invention classifies military equipment and supplies into six categories according to their materials, such as metal equipment and non-metal equipment, and quantitatively evaluates them based on six indicators, such as technical performance and storage time, to scientifically divide the quality of materials into seven levels, such as new products and acceptable products. This achieves the unification of evaluation standards and the standardization of processes. The method of determining the quality level of complete sets of materials according to the proportion of scrapped products significantly improves the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation. The present invention effectively reduces the influence of human factors through the comprehensive evaluation of multi-dimensional indicators, solves the problems of strong subjectivity and inconsistent standards in the existing technology, and reduces safety hazards by standardizing the dangerous goods assessment process. The evaluation results based on quantitative data can accurately reflect the status of materials, provide a scientific basis for inventory optimization and resource allocation, and significantly reduce management costs. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0025] Figure 1 This is a flow chart of the quality assessment of military equipment and materials of the present invention;

[0026] Figure 2 This is a flow chart for quality assessment of complete sets of military equipment and supplies of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0027] 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 field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0028] See also Figure 1-Figure 2 The method for evaluating the quality of a single item of military equipment shown includes the following steps:

[0029] Step 1: Classify military equipment and supplies into six categories according to their materials: metal equipment, non-metal equipment, electronic components, assemblies, complete sets of spare parts, and batteries;

[0030] Step 2: Based on the six factors of technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance condition, and completeness of the materials, the materials are divided into four categories and seven quality levels: new, acceptable, to be repaired, and to be scrapped, and the corresponding grade values ​​are assigned;

[0031] Step 3: Quality Assessment Content: Evaluate materials based on six dimensions: technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance status, and completeness. Each dimension is assigned a corresponding grade value of A, B, C, D, E, or F.

[0032] Step 4: For a single type of military equipment, take the maximum value of the six assessment items as the quality grade value of the material; according to the quality grade value, look up the table to determine the specific quality grade of the material.

[0033] A method for evaluating the quality of a complete set of military equipment supplies is provided. The quality grade of each single item in the set is evaluated according to the above method. Based on the quality grade values ​​of the items in the set, the quality grade of the complete set is determined according to the following rules:

[0034] If there are no scrapped items in the set, the maximum value among the materials A, B, C, D, E, and F in the set will be taken as the quality grade value of the complete set of materials; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is ≤ 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, then: if the set can be repaired by itself, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 5; if support repair is required, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 6; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is greater than 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 7.

[0035] When the quality grade of the complete set of materials is 7, the quality grade is to be scrapped. The specific calculation method is as follows:

[0036]

[0037] Among them: p——quality grade of complete set of materials;

[0038] p i ——Quality level of the i-th material in the set;

[0039] n – the total number of supplies included in the set;

[0040] V7——Total value of materials with quality level 7 in the package (amount on account);

[0041] V——Total value of complete set of materials (amount on account);

[0042] k is the ratio of the repair cost to the new product purchase price, which is a constant and usually ranges from 0.5. Generally, if it is greater than this value, it means that the product is not worth repairing;

[0043] Among them, when Max(p1,p2,p3...p n )=7, The quality level of the complete set of materials should be assessed as awaiting repair. If the storage unit can repair it by itself, it is considered awaiting repair at level 1, with a value of 5. If it needs support repair or is sent to a factory or institute for repair, it is considered awaiting repair at level 2, with a value of 6.

[0044] Specific implementation method: Step 1: Determine the extreme value of technical performance: The technical performance of the military equipment and materials to be evaluated is determined by referring to Table 4 according to whether the technical performance and main technical performance meet the requirements, whether it can be repaired by itself, needs support for repair or cannot be repaired, etc. to determine the technical performance level A as 1, 2, 5, 6 or 7; Step 2: Determine the storage (storage) time level: Calculate and determine the storage (storage) time based on the factory delivery time of the military equipment and materials to be evaluated, and then refer to Table 5 and Table 3 to determine the storage (storage) time level B as 1, 2 or 3; Step 3: Determine the use status level: refer to Table 6 to determine the use status level C as 1 or 4 according to whether the military equipment and materials to be assessed are in use; Step 4: Determine the maintenance status level: refer to Table 7 to determine the maintenance status level D as 1 or 4 according to whether the military equipment and materials to be assessed are repaired or upgraded; Step 5: Determine the appearance status level: refer to Table 8 to determine the appearance status extreme value E as 1, 2 or 5 according to the appearance status of the military equipment and materials to be assessed; Step 6: Determine the completeness level: refer to the supporting tools, spare parts, accessories and The integrity of the technical data or whether it affects the use of the check table 9 to determine the completeness level F is 1, 2 or 5; Step 7: Method for determining the quality level of a single variety of materials: P takes the largest of A, B, C, D, E, and F, and then check Table 2 to determine the specific quality level of the material; Method for determining the quality level of a complete set of military equipment materials: P is calculated in three cases: ① When there is no single material to be scrapped in the set, take the largest of A, B, C, D, E, and F; ② When there is a single material to be scrapped in the set (level value is 7), and the quality level of the set is 7 When the total value of the materials accounts for less than or equal to 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials (the amount on account), if the storage unit can repair it by itself, the quality grade value P of the complete set of materials is 5; if the storage unit cannot repair it by itself and needs to support repair or send it to a factory, institute or other technical unit for repair, the quality grade value P of the complete set of materials is 6; ③ When a single material in the set is to be scrapped (the grade value is 7) and the total value (the amount on account) of the materials with a quality grade of 7 in the set accounts for more than 50% of the total value (the amount on account) of the complete set of materials, the quality grade value P of the complete set of materials is 7.

[0045] The specific implementation cases are as follows:

[0046] Situation Description: A certain type of strapdown inertial navigation system was manufactured on June 20, 2014, and stored in a warehouse. In October 2019, in response to a maritime conflict, the strapdown inertial navigation system was transferred to a warehouse in the conflict zone for standby storage, but remained sealed and unused. It was returned to its original warehouse in June 2021. On November 15, 2024, during a clearance and inventory check of materials, it was discovered that the strapdown inertial navigation system component box had no surface damage and the buckles were securely connected. The outer packaging was free of damage, indentations, deformation, or rain damage. All outer packaging labels were complete, intact, and clearly visible. The equipment surface was free of scratches, damage, rust, oxides, mildew, deformation, or oil leaks, and the fastening quality was intact. The equipment model and serial number matched the product delivery instructions, and the lead wires were securely welded. The supporting tools, spare parts, accessories, and technical documentation were complete. A review of the strapdown inertial navigation system's files revealed no maintenance records. It is now necessary to determine the quality level of the strapdown inertial navigation system on November 15, 2024.

[0047] Carry out single extreme value assessment according to the steps described in the technical solution (see Figure 1 shown):

[0048] (1) Technical Performance Level: Based on the inventory check on November 15, 2024, the technical performance of this strapdown inertial navigation system meets the specified tactical and technical indicators. According to Table 4, the technical performance level is 1.

[0049] (2) Storage time level

[0050] The strapdown inertial navigation system was shipped from the factory and entered storage on June 10, 2014, and will be in storage until November 15, 2024, for a total of 125 months. According to Tables 5 and 3, the strapdown inertial navigation system belongs to the electronic components category - vacuum devices - magnetrons, backward wave tubes, piezoelectric gyroscopes, etc. Its storage time of 125 months is greater than T2 (120 months), and its storage time level is 3.

[0051] (3) Usage level value

[0052] In response to a maritime conflict, the strapdown inertial navigation system was transported to a warehouse in the conflict area for storage. According to Table 6, the usage level is 1.

[0053] (4) Maintenance status level

[0054] There is no maintenance record for this strapdown inertial navigation system. According to Table 7, the maintenance status level is 1.

[0055] (V) Appearance status level

[0056] The strapdown inertial navigation system packaging is complete, the component box has no surface scratches, and the clasps are securely fastened. The outer packaging is free of damage, dents, deformation, or rain damage. All outer packaging labels are complete, intact, and visible. The equipment surface is free of scratches, damage, rust, oxides, mildew, deformation, or oil leaks, and the fastening is intact. According to Table 8, the Appearance Quality Grade is 1.

[0057] (6) Completeness level

[0058] The strapdown inertial navigation system is complete with tools, spare parts, accessories, and technical documentation. Table 9 shows that the completeness rating is 1.

[0059] According to the single extreme value and the single material quality assessment method, the grade p of the strapdown inertial navigation system is the maximum grade among the six quality assessment items:

[0060] P=Max(A,B,C,D,E,F)=Max(1,3,1,1,1,1)=3

[0061] According to Table 2, the quality level of the strapdown inertial navigation system is assessed as Level 2.

[0062] In the present invention, the standards and methods for material quality assessment are solidified to reduce the influence of human factors and improve the scientificity and effectiveness of quality assessment; including the classification of assessment objects, quality grade division, quality assessment content, and grade assessment method. The classification of assessment objects is to divide military equipment and materials into six categories according to their materials: metal equipment, non-metallic equipment, electronic components, assemblies, complete sets of spare parts, and batteries, as shown in Table 1. The quality grade division is to divide military equipment and materials into four categories, namely new products, usable products, products to be repaired, and products to be scrapped, according to their technical performance, storage (storage) time, usage status, maintenance status, etc., and assign corresponding grade values ​​as the basis for quantitative assessment (see Table 2 for details). The quality assessment content includes six items, namely technical performance, storage (storage) time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance status, and completeness, which are assigned corresponding grade values ​​as the basis for quantitative assessment. The corresponding grade values ​​of the technical performance of military equipment and materials are shown in Table 4. The test items, technical requirements, and test methods of the technical performance of each equipment and material are determined by their test standards or specifications. The corresponding grade values ​​for storage time are shown in Table 5, the corresponding grade values ​​for usage conditions are shown in Table 6, the corresponding grade values ​​for maintenance conditions are shown in Table 7, the corresponding grade values ​​for appearance status are shown in Table 8, and the corresponding grade values ​​for completeness are shown in Table 9.

[0063] To assess the quality grade of a single type of military equipment, we first quantitatively determine the maximum value of the six quality assessment items, including technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance status, and completeness, as the material quality grade. Then, we refer to Table 2 to qualitatively determine the specific quality grade of the material. The specific calculation method is as follows:

[0064] P = Max (A, B, C, D, E, F); the assessment items and grade ranges represented by A, B, C, D, E, and F are shown in Table 10. The above methods and steps can complete the quality assessment of military equipment and supplies.

[0065] Table 1 Classification of military equipment and supplies

[0066]

[0067] Table 2 Quality grades, grade values ​​and main characteristics of military equipment and supplies

[0068]

[0069]

[0070] Table 3 Reference values ​​for storage time T1 and T2 of military equipment and supplies

[0071]

[0072]

[0073]

[0074]

[0075] Table 4 Technical performance level values

[0076]

[0077] Table 5 Storage time level values

[0078]

[0079] Table 6 Usage level values

[0080]

[0081] Table 7 Maintenance status level values

[0082]

[0083] Table 8 Appearance status level values

[0084]

[0085] Table 9: Completeness Grade Values

[0086]

[0087] Table 10 Quality assessment items and grade values

[0088] Assessment items code name Level value range Technical performance A 1，2，5，6，7 Storage time B 1，2，3，7 Usage C 1，4 Maintenance status D 1，4 Appearance status E 1，2，5 Uniformity F 1，2，5

[0089] The present invention proposes quality assessment standards and methods for military equipment and supplies, standardizes the process and content of quality assessment, unifies the assessment standards and methods, can maximize the potential and activate existing resources, and provide a decision-making basis for building a military equipment and supplies reserve system that is "ready for use and ready for use."

[0090] This invention introduces six dimensional evaluation indicators such as technical performance and storage time to conduct a comprehensive assessment of materials, and scientifically divides materials into seven levels, thereby improving the accuracy and scientific nature of material assessment. The quality assessment results can accurately reflect the status of materials and promote the adjustment and optimization of inventory. At the same time, it also provides data support for the development of digital platforms, information sharing and analysis, and the construction of military equipment quality information management systems based on data management.

[0091] The above describes the basic principles and main features of the present invention. Those skilled in the art should understand that the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments. The above embodiments and descriptions only illustrate the principles of the present invention. Without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention, the present invention may have various changes and improvements, which fall within the scope of the invention to be protected. The scope of protection of the invention is defined by the attached claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality of a single item of military equipment, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Step 1: Classify military equipment and supplies into six categories according to their materials: metal equipment, non-metal equipment, electronic components, assemblies, complete sets of spare parts, and batteries; Step 2: Based on the six factors of technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance condition, and completeness of the materials, the materials are divided into four categories and seven quality levels: new, acceptable, to be repaired, and to be scrapped, and the corresponding grade values ​​are assigned; Step 3: Quality Assessment Content: Evaluate materials based on six dimensions: technical performance, storage time, usage status, maintenance status, appearance status, and completeness. Each dimension is assigned a corresponding grade value of A, B, C, D, E, or F. Step 4: For a single type of military equipment, take the maximum value of the six assessment items as the quality grade value of the material; according to the quality grade value, look up the table to determine the specific quality grade of the material.

2. A method for evaluating the quality of complete sets of military equipment, characterized in that: The quality grade of each single material in the set is evaluated according to the method of claim 1; based on the quality grade values ​​of the materials in the set, the quality grade of the complete set of materials is determined according to the following rules: If there are no scrapped items in the set, the maximum value among the materials A, B, C, D, E, and F in the set will be taken as the quality grade value of the complete set of materials; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is ≤ 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, then: if the set can be repaired by itself, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 5; if support repair is required, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 6; if there are scrapped items in the set and their total value is greater than 50% of the total value of the complete set of materials, the grade value of the complete set of materials is 7.

3. A method for evaluating the quality of complete sets of military equipment according to claim 2, characterized in that: When the quality grade of the complete set of materials is 7, the quality grade is to be scrapped. The specific calculation method is as follows: Among them: p——quality grade of complete set of materials; p i ——Quality level of the i-th material in the set; n – the total number of supplies included in the set; V7——Total value of materials with quality level 7 in the package (amount on account); V——Total value of complete set of materials (amount on account); k is the ratio of the repair cost to the new product purchase price, which is a constant and usually ranges from 0.

5. Generally, if it is greater than this value, it means that the product is not worth repairing; Among them, when Max(p 1, p 2, p3...p n )=7, The quality level of the complete set of materials should be assessed as awaiting repair. If the storage unit can repair it by itself, it is considered awaiting repair at level 1, with a value of 5. If it needs support repair or is sent to a factory or institute for repair, it is considered awaiting repair at level 2, with a value of 6.

4. A method for evaluating the quality of complete sets of military equipment according to claim 2, characterized in that: The total value of the complete set of materials and the total value of the scrapped items shall be based on the amount on account.

Images