Evaluation method for engineering construction project safety risk management and control maturity and related product

Abstract

The invention relates to the field of hydraulic engineering construction project safety risk management and control, in particular to an engineering construction project safety risk management and control maturity evaluation method and related products, and the method comprises the steps: building a hierarchical evaluation index system; determining the weight of each evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system; obtaining a score value; according to the score value of the lowest-layer evaluation index and the corresponding weight, calculating to obtain a maturity evaluation value of engineering construction project safety risk management and control; quantitative weighting is performed on each evaluation index by adopting an analytic hierarchy process, experience judgment of experts is combined with a scientific calculation method, the subjectivity of determining the importance of each assessment item only by experience in traditional evaluation is avoided, the whole evaluation process is more scientific and objective, and the evaluation result is more reliable.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the field of safety risk management and control of water conservancy construction projects, in particular to an evaluation method for the safety risk management and control maturity of construction projects and related products. BACKGROUND

[0002] Water conservancy construction projects usually have the characteristics of large investment scale, long construction period, complex technology and variable construction environment, and the construction process often involves high-risk links such as high-altitude work, underwater work and operation of large mechanical equipment. Therefore, effective safety risk management and control throughout the construction process is the key to ensuring the smooth implementation of the project and preventing safety accidents.

[0003] In existing engineering practice, the industry generally uses on-site safety inspection combined with corresponding examination and scoring methods to evaluate the safety management level of construction projects. However, the current evaluation method has some limitations. On the one hand, since the evaluation indicators and examination standards of different projects may not be uniform, the evaluation results are often difficult to objectively and standardize horizontally and vertically between different projects or different stages of the same project. On the other hand, traditional evaluation methods mainly focus on "point" inspection and simple scoring of the current safety state, and are difficult to systematically and comprehensively reflect the maturity and internal soundness of the project safety management system, thus providing limited guidance for targeted and continuous management improvement by managers. SUMMARY

[0004] The technical problem to be solved by the present application is how to establish a suitable evaluation method to provide clear data support and direction guidance for continuous improvement of safety management, with the purpose of providing an evaluation method for the safety risk management and control maturity of construction projects, improving the evaluation level of the safety risk management and control maturity of water conservancy construction projects, and improving the safety risk management and control level to reduce the incidence of safety accidents.

[0005] The present application is realized by the following technical solutions: An evaluation method for the safety risk management and control maturity of construction projects, comprising: establishing a hierarchical evaluation index system comprising at least two levels based on a preset risk management and control mechanism; determining the weights of each evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system using the analytic hierarchy process; obtaining the score value corresponding to the bottom-level evaluation index of the hierarchical evaluation index system in the construction project to be evaluated; calculating the maturity evaluation value of the safety risk management and control of the construction project according to the score value of the bottom-level evaluation index and its corresponding weight.

[0006] Optionally, the risk management mechanism comprises a searching mechanism, a research and judgment mechanism, an early warning mechanism, a prevention mechanism, a disposal mechanism, and a responsibility mechanism. The searching mechanism comprises establishing a safety risk grading management system, carrying out hazard source identification, and establishing a hazard source list and dynamic identification. The research and judgment mechanism comprises evaluating risk levels and establishing a major hazard source special file. The early warning mechanism comprises implementing monitoring and guarding, strictly monitoring and warning, and timely implementing early warning. The prevention mechanism comprises implementing risk grading management responsibilities, implementing risk management measures, preparing a major project special construction plan and a risk evaluation report, and timely addressing accident hazards. The disposal mechanism comprises establishing an emergency team and supplies, clarifying emergency responsibilities, conducting emergency plan drills, and quickly and effectively disposing of emergencies. The responsibility mechanism comprises establishing a full-employee safety production responsibility system, conducting safety education and training, conducting responsibility system assessment, and strictly rewarding and punishing accountability.

[0007] Optionally, the hierarchical evaluation index system comprises first-level evaluation indexes and second-level evaluation indexes. The first-level evaluation indexes are the searching mechanism, the research and judgment mechanism, the early warning mechanism, the prevention mechanism, the disposal mechanism, and the responsibility mechanism. The second-level evaluation indexes are indexes respectively belonging to the first-level evaluation indexes.

[0008] Optionally, the method for determining the weights of the evaluation indexes in the hierarchical evaluation index system using the analytic hierarchy process comprises: For each evaluation index at the same level in the hierarchical evaluation index system, the importance is compared two by two to construct a judgment matrix. The weight vector of the judgment matrix is calculated and consistency is checked, and when the consistency check passes, the weight vector is taken as the weight of the corresponding evaluation index.

[0009] Optionally, the method for constructing the judgment matrix comprises: Each evaluation index at the same level is set as a row and a column of the judgment matrix. The quantified values obtained by comparing the importance two by two are filled into the element positions corresponding to the rows and columns in the judgment matrix. The importance is quantified using scale values of 1 to 9.

[0010] Optionally, the weight vector of the judgment matrix is calculated using the square root method, wherein, is the weight of the i-th evaluation index, is an element in the judgment matrix, indicating the importance of the i-th evaluation index relative to the j-th evaluation index. is an element in the judgment matrix, indicating the importance of the i-th evaluation index relative to the j-th evaluation index.​​ The evaluation index is relative to the first The importance scale of each evaluation indicator; This refers to the total number of evaluation indicators within the same level.

[0011] Optionally, methods for obtaining the score value corresponding to the lowest-level evaluation indicator in the hierarchical evaluation indicator system include: Establish scoring standards in advance for each of the most basic evaluation indicators; Experts score the engineering construction projects to be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria, and obtain the score values ​​of each lowest-level evaluation indicator.

[0012] Optionally, when there are multiple experts, the final score is determined in the following way: If there are 2 to 5 experts, the arithmetic mean of all the expert scores shall be used as the score. If there are more than 5 experts, the score will be the arithmetic mean of all remaining expert scores after removing the highest and lowest scores.

[0013] Optionally, the method for calculating the maturity evaluation value is as follows: Multiply the score of each lowest-level evaluation indicator by its corresponding weight to obtain a weighted score for each indicator. Then sum the weighted scores of all indicators to obtain the maturity evaluation value. : ,in, This represents the total number of the lowest-level evaluation indicators. This serves as an index for the lowest-level evaluation metrics. For the first The score value of the most basic evaluation indicator. For the first The weights corresponding to the most basic evaluation indicators.

[0014] A computer program product, including a computer program / instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implements the above-mentioned method for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects.

[0015] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following advantages and beneficial effects: This invention constructs an evaluation index system based on the system's risk management mechanism. Using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), it quantitatively determines the objective weights of each level of evaluation index in the system through pairwise comparisons and matrix operations. Then, it combines these objective weights with expert scores obtained through a standardized process to calculate a comprehensive maturity evaluation value that can quantitatively characterize the project's safety risk management level.

[0016] This invention overcomes the limitations of existing evaluation methods, such as weak applicability and difficulty in comparing evaluation results due to inconsistent indicator systems. It enables objective horizontal comparison and vertical tracking of the safety management level of different water conservancy projects under a unified standard.

[0017] By employing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to quantitatively assign weights to each evaluation indicator, and combining expert judgment with scientific calculation methods, the subjectivity of traditional evaluations—which rely solely on experience to determine the importance of each assessment item—is avoided. This makes the entire evaluation process more scientific and objective, and the evaluation results more reliable.

[0018] By analyzing the final quantitative score and the scores of each sub-item, we can not only clearly measure the overall maturity of safety management, but also accurately identify the specific weak links in the safety control system. This provides managers with a clear and quantitative basis for making targeted improvement strategies and achieving continuous optimization of safety management. Attached Figure Description

[0019] The accompanying drawings illustrate exemplary embodiments of the present invention and, together with the description thereof, serve to explain the principles of the invention. These drawings are included to provide a further understanding of the invention and are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, but do not constitute a limitation on the embodiments of the present invention.

[0020] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating an evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to the present invention.

[0021] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the hierarchical evaluation index system according to Embodiment 4 of the present invention.

[0022] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating Embodiment 4 of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0023] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this invention clearer, the invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention.

[0024] It should also be noted that, for ease of description, only the parts relevant to the present invention are shown in the accompanying drawings.

[0025] Where there is no conflict, the embodiments and features described herein can be combined with each other. The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0026] Example 1 The method provided in this embodiment objectively evaluates the comprehensive level of safety risk management of an engineering construction project in a systematic and quantitative manner. First, a hierarchical evaluation model is constructed. Then, the weights of each element in the model are determined. Next, the performance of the actual object is scored. Finally, the weights and scores are combined through mathematical calculations to obtain the final evaluation result.

[0027] like Figure 1 As shown, a method for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects includes: The first step is to establish a hierarchical evaluation indicator system with at least two levels based on the pre-set risk management mechanism.

[0028] The maturity level of safety risk management is set as the overall evaluation goal. This overall goal is then decomposed into several primary and secondary evaluation indicators according to their inherent logical relationships. This decomposition continues until the lowest-level indicators become specific operational items that can be directly observed, judged, or scored. This transforms a macro-level evaluation goal into a clearly structured and hierarchical analytical framework.

[0029] The second step is to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the weights of each evaluation indicator in the hierarchical evaluation index system.

[0030] After establishing the evaluation index system, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to determine the weights of each evaluation index within the system. This quantifies the importance of different indicators in the overall evaluation. Specifically, experts in the field are invited to conduct pairwise importance comparisons of each indicator at the same level. These qualitative comparison results are then transformed into quantitative, objective weight values ​​through mathematical matrix operations. Thus, each indicator is assigned a clear weight coefficient, reflecting its contribution to the higher-level objective.

[0031] The third step is to obtain the score value corresponding to the lowest level evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system for the engineering construction project to be evaluated.

[0032] For a specific construction project to be evaluated, the evaluators will examine and objectively score the actual safety management performance of the project item by item based on the aforementioned indicator system, especially the lowest level evaluation indicators, thereby obtaining a series of raw scoring data that can reflect the current actual situation of the project.

[0033] The fourth step is to calculate the maturity evaluation value of safety risk management for engineering construction projects based on the scores of the lowest-level evaluation indicators and their corresponding weights.

[0034] By weighting the scores of the lowest-level indicators representing actual performance in the previous step with the corresponding weight values ​​representing importance in the second step (e.g., by weighted summation), a comprehensive evaluation value that can fully and quantitatively represent the overall safety risk management maturity of the engineering construction project can be obtained.

[0035] Example 2 Based on Example 1, this embodiment provides a more detailed explanation of the steps for "determining the weights of each evaluation index in a hierarchical evaluation index system using the analytic hierarchy process".

[0036] The method for determining weights mainly includes two core stages: First, for each evaluation indicator within the same level, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed through pairwise comparisons by experts; then, mathematical calculations are performed on the constructed judgment matrix to obtain the weight vector, and necessary consistency checks are conducted. Only when the consistency check passes is the calculated weight vector finally adopted as the weight of the corresponding evaluation indicator, thereby ensuring the scientificity and reliability of the evaluation system.

[0037] Methods for determining the weights of each evaluation indicator in a hierarchical evaluation index system using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) include: For each evaluation indicator at the same level in the hierarchical evaluation indicator system, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed by comparing their importance pairwise. Each evaluation indicator at the same level is then set as a row and column of the judgment matrix, thus forming a... The square matrix structure (where (This refers to the total number of indicators at this level).

[0038] Domain experts were invited to compare the importance of each pair of indicators in the matrix based on their expertise and experience, and the importance was quantified using a scale of 1 to 9. For example, a scale of 1 indicates that the two indicators are equally important, while a scale of 9 indicates that the row indicator is extremely important relative to the column indicator, and the remaining scale values ​​represent different levels of intermediate importance.

[0039] The quantized values ​​are filled into the corresponding element positions in the rows and columns of the judgment matrix.

[0040] After the judgment matrix is ​​constructed, the weight vector is calculated. In a preferred embodiment, the weight vector can be calculated using the square root method, and the calculation formula is as follows: ,in, For the first The weight of each evaluation indicator, To determine the first element in the matrix Line 1 The element of the column represents the first element. The evaluation index is relative to the first The importance scale of each evaluation indicator; This refers to the total number of evaluation indicators within the same level.

[0041] After calculating the weight vector using the square root method, this embodiment also includes a crucial consistency check step to ensure the logical consistency of the judgments made by experts when performing pairwise comparisons. Only after passing this check is the calculated weight vector considered valid.

[0042] The testing process is as follows: Calculate the consistency index CI, which measures the degree to which the judgment matrix deviates from complete consistency.

[0043] In the formula, This represents the total number of evaluation indicators participating in the comparison at the current level. It is the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix.

[0044] An approximate calculation can be performed using the following formula: ,in, and The numbers calculated in the preceding steps are respectively the first number. The and the first The weight values ​​of each indicator.

[0045] After obtaining the consistency index (CI), the consistency ratio (CR) needs to be calculated to ultimately determine whether the degree of inconsistency in the judgment matrix is ​​within an acceptable range. The calculation formula is as follows: The average consistency index RI can be obtained by looking up the average consistency index table, and the weight of each index and consistency check can be calculated.

[0046] Typically, when the calculated consistency ratio When the judgment matrix is ​​considered to have satisfactory consistency, the previously calculated weight vector is considered valid and can be adopted. If the pairwise comparison judgments given by the experts are incorrect, it indicates that there is a logical contradiction. The judgment matrix needs to be adjusted accordingly, and the above calculations and tests need to be repeated until the consistency requirements are met.

[0047] Example 3 This embodiment, based on Embodiment 1, provides further detailed explanations of the steps for obtaining the scoring value and calculating the final maturity evaluation value.

[0048] Methods for obtaining the score values ​​corresponding to the lowest-level evaluation indicators in a hierarchical evaluation index system include: For each of the most basic evaluation indicators, establish a score evaluation standard in advance. This standard usually clearly corresponds the different degrees of achievement of the indicator (e.g., completed, partially completed, not started, etc.) with specific scores or score ranges (e.g., 80-100 points, 60-80 points, etc.).

[0049] After the evaluation criteria are established, an evaluation group composed of one or more experts in the field will score the engineering construction projects to be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria and obtain the score values ​​of each lowest-level evaluation indicator.

[0050] To improve the objectivity and reliability of the evaluation results, when the evaluation panel includes multiple experts, the final score is determined using the following method: If there are 2 to 5 experts, the arithmetic mean of all the expert scores shall be used as the score. If there are more than 5 experts, the score will be the arithmetic mean of all remaining expert scores after removing the highest and lowest scores.

[0051] After obtaining the final scores of all the lowest-level evaluation indicators, the maturity evaluation score is calculated as follows: Multiply the score of each lowest-level evaluation indicator by its corresponding weight to obtain a weighted score for each indicator. Then sum the weighted scores of all indicators to obtain the maturity evaluation value. : ,in, This represents the total number of the lowest-level evaluation indicators. This serves as an index for the lowest-level evaluation metrics. For the first The score value of the most basic evaluation indicator. For the first The weights corresponding to the most basic evaluation indicators.

[0052] Example 4 This embodiment provides a specific example, such as Figure 3 As shown in this example, the hierarchical evaluation index system includes primary evaluation indicators and secondary evaluation indicators. The primary evaluation indicators represent the macro-level division of safety risk management, while the secondary evaluation indicators are the concretization and refinement of the primary indicators.

[0053] (1) Identification and confirmation of safety management maturity evaluation indicators A questionnaire survey was conducted among safety experts to identify the main evaluation indicators for safety risk management maturity based on six mechanisms. A literature review was also conducted, ultimately identifying 6 primary evaluation indicators and 21 secondary evaluation indicators. Based on this framework, a hierarchical structure model for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in water conservancy engineering construction projects was constructed and numbered, such as...Figure 2 As shown.

[0054] The risk management mechanism includes an identification mechanism, an assessment mechanism, an early warning mechanism, a prevention mechanism, a handling mechanism, and an accountability mechanism; The secondary evaluation indicators for the hazard identification mechanism include: establishing a safety risk classification and control system, conducting hazard identification, establishing a hazard list, and dynamic identification. The secondary evaluation indicators of the assessment mechanism include: evaluating the risk level and establishing special files for major hazard sources; The secondary evaluation indicators of the early warning mechanism include: implementing monitoring and duty, strictly monitoring and issuing early warnings, and promptly implementing early warnings; The secondary evaluation indicators of the prevention mechanism include: implementing risk classification and control responsibilities, implementing risk control measures, preparing special construction plans and risk assessment reports for major and hazardous projects, and promptly addressing potential accident hazards; The secondary evaluation indicators for the response mechanism include: establishing emergency response teams and supplies, clarifying emergency responsibilities, conducting emergency response drills, and rapid and effective emergency response; The secondary evaluation indicators of the accountability mechanism include: establishing a safety production responsibility system for all employees, carrying out safety education and training, conducting responsibility system assessments, and strictly enforcing rewards, punishments, and accountability.

[0055] (2) Establish the judgment matrix of each indicator layer based on the analytic hierarchy process. Based on the evaluation index system (1), the 1-9 scale method is adopted, the meaning of which is shown in Table 1. The influencing indicators are compared and scored in pairs, as shown in Tables 2-8.

[0056] Table 1: Definition of Fractions in the 1-9 Scale Method

[0057] (3) Calculation of the relative weight or importance vector W of the indicators For the identified indicators, establish a set of subjective weights for the indicators. The data obtained using the 1-9 scoring method were used to calculate the weight of each indicator using the root mean (geometric mean), and then consistency verification was performed. The specific calculation results are shown in Tables 2 to 10.

[0058] Table 2: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Level A Safety Risk Management Maturity Indicators

[0059] Consistency ratio: 0.0305; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 1.0000; : 6.1919.

[0060] Table 3: Results of the judgment matrix and weight calculation for the secondary indicators of the search mechanism b1

[0061] Consistency ratio: 0.0392; Weight for "Security Risk Control A": 0.2081; 4.1048 Table 4: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Secondary Indicators for Judgment Mechanism b2

[0062] Consistency ratio: 0.0000; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 0.1161; 2.0000 Table 5: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Secondary Indicators of Early Warning Mechanism b3

[0063] Consistency ratio: 0.0372; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 0.1822; 3.0387 Table 6: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Secondary Indicators of Prevention Mechanism b4

[0064] Consistency ratio: 0.0571; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 0.1988; 4.1525 Table 7: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Secondary Indicators of Disposal Mechanism b5

[0065] Consistency ratio: 0.0787; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 0.1803; : 4.2101 Table 8: Judgment Matrix and Weight Calculation Results of Secondary Indicators of the Responsibility Mechanism (b6)

[0066] Consistency ratio: 0.0584; Weight for "Security Risk Management Maturity A": 0.1146; 4.1561 (4) Establishment of scoring criteria for secondary indicators Table 11: Scoring Criteria for a Secondary Indicator

[0067] Considering the varying number of experts evaluating the maturity of safety production risk management in water conservancy construction projects, the final score for each secondary evaluation indicator can be calculated using the method shown in the table below: Table 12: Calculation Method for the Final Score of a Secondary Evaluation Indicator When Multiple Experts Participate in the Scoring

[0068] 5) Safety Risk Management Maturity Evaluation Formula For water conservancy construction projects that require safety risk management maturity assessment, an expert group is formed to score the secondary indicators of the established evaluation system according to the standards in Table 11. Then, the final score of each secondary evaluation indicator is calculated according to Table 12, and the safety risk management maturity of the water conservancy construction project is calculated according to the following formula.

[0069]

[0070] (6) Application of safety risk management maturity score The score for the maturity of safety risk management in water conservancy construction projects can be used as a basis for safety risk management assessment. Combined with assessment rewards and penalties, this can promote the improvement of safety risk management capabilities of on-site management agencies.

[0071] Safety risk management maturity, as a safety assessment method, provides a basis for continuous improvement of safety management and can continuously promote the improvement of safety management level. By scoring the secondary evaluation indicators, the evaluation report can show the deficiencies in safety risk management and enable targeted improvements.

[0072] Example 5 An evaluation terminal for assessing the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the aforementioned evaluation method for assessing the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects.

[0073] Memory is used to store software programs and modules. The processor executes various terminal functions and data processing by running the software programs and modules stored in memory. Memory can mainly consist of a program storage area and a data storage area. The program storage area can store the operating system, at least one executable program required for a given function, etc.

[0074] The storage data area can store data created based on the use of the terminal. Furthermore, the memory can include high-speed random access memory, and may also include non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage device, flash memory, or other volatile solid-state storage devices.

[0075] A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the aforementioned method for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects.

[0076] Without loss of generality, computer-readable media can include computer storage media and communication media. Computer storage media includes volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented using any method or technology for storing information such as computer-readable instruction data structures, program modules, or other data. Computer storage media includes RAM, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other solid-state storage technologies, CD-ROM, DVD or other optical storage, magnetic tape cassettes, magnetic tape, disk storage, or other magnetic storage devices. Of course, those skilled in the art will recognize that computer storage media are not limited to the above-mentioned types. The aforementioned system memories and mass storage devices can be collectively referred to as memory.

[0077] A computer program product, including a computer program / instructions, which, when executed by a processor, implements the above-mentioned method for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects.

[0078] Computer program products include computer programs or instruction sets used to perform specific tasks or achieve specific functions. These programs or instructions are designed to be executed by a processor to implement a series of predefined steps or operations. The program product may be stored in various forms of computer storage media, such as memory, hard disks, solid-state drives, optical discs, or other forms of digital storage devices. It may exist in the form of compiled binary code or in the form of scripts or bytecode that can be executed by an interpreter. Through carefully designed algorithms and logical instructions, the program product enables the processor to process data in a specific order and manner, performing various functions such as data analysis, user interaction, and device control.

[0079] In the description of this specification, the references to terms such as "one embodiment / mode," "some embodiments / modes," "example," "specific example," or "some examples," etc., indicate that a specific feature, structure, material, or characteristic described in connection with that embodiment / mode or example is included in at least one embodiment / mode or example of this application. In this specification, the illustrative expressions of the above terms do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment / mode or example. Moreover, the specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics described may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments / modes or examples. Furthermore, without contradiction, those skilled in the art can combine and integrate the different embodiments / modes or examples described in this specification, as well as the features of different embodiments / modes or examples.

[0080] Those skilled in the art should understand that the above embodiments are merely for illustrating the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Those skilled in the art can make other changes or modifications based on the above invention, and these changes or modifications still fall within the scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects, characterized in that, include: Establish a hierarchical evaluation indicator system with at least two levels based on a pre-set risk management mechanism; The weights of each evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system are determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Obtain the score value corresponding to the lowest level evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system for the engineering construction project to be evaluated; Based on the score values ​​of the lowest-level evaluation indicators and their corresponding weights, the maturity evaluation value of the safety risk management of the engineering construction project is calculated.

2. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, The risk management mechanism includes a detection mechanism, an analysis mechanism, an early warning mechanism, a prevention mechanism, a handling mechanism, and an accountability mechanism; The search mechanism includes: establishing a safety risk classification and control system, conducting hazard identification, establishing a hazard list and dynamic identification; The assessment mechanism includes: evaluating risk levels and establishing special files for major hazard sources; The early warning mechanism includes: implementing monitoring and duty, strictly monitoring and issuing early warnings, and promptly implementing early warnings; The aforementioned prevention mechanism includes: implementing risk classification and control responsibilities, implementing risk control measures, preparing special construction plans and risk assessment reports for critical and major projects, and promptly addressing potential safety hazards; The aforementioned response mechanism includes: establishing emergency teams and supplies, clarifying emergency responsibilities, conducting emergency plan drills, and implementing rapid and effective emergency response; The aforementioned responsibility mechanism includes: establishing a comprehensive safety production responsibility system, conducting safety education and training, carrying out responsibility system assessments, and strictly enforcing rewards, punishments, and accountability.

3. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 2, characterized in that, The hierarchical evaluation index system includes primary evaluation indicators and secondary evaluation indicators; The primary evaluation indicators are: the search mechanism, the analysis mechanism, the early warning mechanism, the prevention mechanism, the handling mechanism, and the accountability mechanism; The secondary evaluation indicators are: each of the indicators that belong to the primary evaluation indicators.

4. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, The methods for determining the weights of each evaluation index in the hierarchical evaluation index system using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) include: For each evaluation indicator at the same level in the hierarchical evaluation index system, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed by comparing their importance pairwise. Calculate the weight vector of the judgment matrix and perform a consistency check. When the consistency check passes, use the weight vector as the weight of the corresponding evaluation index.

5. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 4, characterized in that, The method for constructing the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: Each evaluation indicator at the same level is set as a row and column of the judgment matrix; The quantified values ​​obtained by pairwise comparison of importance are filled into the corresponding element positions in the row and column of the judgment matrix; Importance is quantified using a scale of 1 to 9.

6. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 4, characterized in that, The weight vector of the judgment matrix is ​​calculated using the square root method. ,in, For the first The weight of each evaluation indicator, To determine the first element in the matrix Line 1 The element of the column represents the first element. The evaluation index is relative to the first The importance scale of each evaluation indicator; This refers to the total number of evaluation indicators within the same level.

7. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, Methods for obtaining the score values ​​corresponding to the lowest-level evaluation indicators in a hierarchical evaluation index system include: Establish scoring standards in advance for each of the most basic evaluation indicators; Experts score the engineering construction project to be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria, and obtain the score values ​​of each lowest-level evaluation indicator.

8. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 7, characterized in that, When there are multiple experts, the final score is determined in the following way: If there are 2 to 5 experts, the arithmetic mean of all the expert scores shall be used as the score. If there are more than 5 experts, the arithmetic mean of all remaining expert scores after removing the highest and lowest scores will be used as the score.

9. The evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method for calculating the maturity evaluation value is as follows: Multiply the score of each lowest-level evaluation indicator by its corresponding weight to obtain the weighted score for each indicator. Then sum the weighted scores of all indicators to obtain the maturity evaluation value. : ,in, This represents the total number of the lowest-level evaluation indicators. This serves as an index for the lowest-level evaluation metrics. For the first The score value of the most basic evaluation indicator. For the first The weights corresponding to the most basic evaluation indicators.

10. A computer program product comprising a computer program / instructions, characterized in that, When the computer program / instruction is executed by the processor, it implements the evaluation method for the maturity of safety risk management in engineering construction projects as described in any one of claims 1-9.

Images