Business index evaluation method and system based on quantitative index credibility

Abstract

The invention relates to the field of data processing, and discloses a business index evaluation method and system based on quantitative index credibility, and the method comprises the steps: setting an index credibility evaluation model, setting six dimensions from the three directions of index definition, data source and application range, and carrying out the evaluation of the credibility of an index, the six dimensions comprise basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard normalization, quality reliability and citation credibility; according to the index credibility evaluation model, credibility calculation formulas of six dimensions are obtained, evaluation subjects and weights corresponding to the six dimensions are obtained respectively, and final actual scores of all the dimensions are obtained through evaluation and serve as respective evaluation values of the six dimensions; and carrying out weighted summary on the basis of the evaluation values of the six dimensions, aggregating the scores of the six dimensions by adopting a weighting algorithm, quantifying to obtain the evaluation value of the index credibility, and grading based on the quantized evaluation value of the index credibility to finish evaluation. According to the method, the index credibility can be objectively and accurately evaluated.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of data processing, in particular to a business index evaluation method and system based on quantified index credibility. BACKGROUND

[0002] Business index is a core quantitative tool for measuring enterprise operation efficiency. In today's accelerating digital transformation, more and more enterprises have begun to build standard indexes in data platforms and promote their application. However, the promotion of standard indexes built by current enterprise data platforms is very difficult, and each business department often has the mentality of "who builds who uses, and who does not build does not use". The root cause can be summarized as follows: first, the credibility is questionable, the index calculation logic is not transparent, the data update delay exceeds the business tolerance threshold, leading to the business department questioning the authenticity of the data; second, the authority is missing, the index is formulated without the backing of high-level strategy and joint review by business departments; third, the value perception is weak, the index design focuses on the management perspective of the department responsible for the management of the index, other business departments lack participation and the adaptability of the index to the business scene of the department is insufficient, leading to the difficulty of other departments in intuitively perceiving the guiding value of the actual work, forming an "island effect" of "building and using". The core problem is that data governance has not formed an effective closed loop, the standardization effect of the collection link is relatively transparent, but index management still needs to be implanted into the whole business value chain, thus resulting in the current data scene construction situation of "data platform self-building and self-use, and business department if-then". SUMMARY

[0003] In view of the above problems, the purpose of the present application is to provide a business index evaluation method and system based on quantified index credibility, which can objectively and accurately evaluate the credibility of the index.

[0004] To achieve the above purpose, in the first aspect, the technical scheme adopted by the present application is as follows: a business index evaluation method based on quantified index credibility, comprising: setting an index credibility evaluation model, setting six dimensions for evaluating the credibility of the index from three directions of index definition, data source and application range, the six dimensions including: basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard specification, quality reliability and reference credibility; obtaining the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions according to the index credibility evaluation model, respectively obtaining the evaluation subject and weight corresponding to the six dimensions, and evaluating the final actual score of each dimension as the evaluation value of each dimension; weighting and summarizing the evaluation values of the six dimensions, aggregating the six-dimensional scores by using a weighted algorithm, quantifying the evaluation value of the index credibility, grading based on the quantified evaluation value of the index credibility, and completing the evaluation.

[0005] Furthermore, an indicator credibility assessment model is set up, including: interpreting indicator data standards, and extracting information related to credibility assessment by analyzing indicator definitions, calculation formulas, statistical methods, data sources, and application scenarios to form an information table to be assessed.

[0006] Furthermore, based on the indicator credibility assessment model, six dimensions of credibility calculation formulas are obtained to obtain the basic compliance assessment value. Specifically, the basic compliance is assessed from the aspects of indicator business definition and the basis for formulating calculation formulas, and the transparency of data retrieval logic.

[0007] The scoring rules for basic compliance are as follows:

[0008] The benchmark score is 100 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula are completely consistent with the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on relevant national standards. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition. It is complete, clear, and easy to read and understand.

[0009] The compliance level score is 80 points. The indicator definitions and calculation formulas meet the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on external national and industry standards or management systems. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition and is easy to read and understand.

[0010] The standard level score is 60 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula conform to the enterprise standard. The formulation is based on the enterprise standard or enterprise system. The data acquisition logic is completely consistent with the business definition.

[0011] The applicable level score is 40 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula meet the requirements of the enterprise's business or management system, do not conflict with the enterprise's data standards, and the data retrieval logic is clear.

[0012] The availability score is 20 points. The indicator definition, calculation formula and business requirements are basically consistent. The basis for formulation is the relevant business system or application requirements. The data acquisition logic is clear.

[0013] Furthermore, based on the indicator credibility assessment model, a six-dimensional credibility calculation formula is obtained to obtain the consensus authority assessment value. Specifically, starting from the indicator definition and release review process, the assessment is conducted on whether the review method is compliant and the types and number of departments involved in the review work.

[0014] The scoring rules for consensus authority assessment are as follows:

[0015] The enterprise-level score is 100 points. The indicators have been verified across departments and systems, have been confirmed in writing by the heads of all relevant departments, and have been approved by the company's top decision-making level to form a standardized management document.

[0016] The cross-professional level score is 80 points. The indicator has been reviewed by a cross-professional / departmental joint working group, obtained the signature confirmation of the relevant department leaders, formed a countersigned document and incorporated into the management system.

[0017] Professional level score is 60 points, the index is demonstrated by experts in relevant business fields, and the implementation plan is formed by obtaining the signature confirmation of the head of the main user department;

[0018] Department level score is 40 points, the index is completed by cross-team negotiation within the initiating department, and is approved by the department head, but no agreement is reached with other relevant departments;

[0019] Temporary level score is 20 points, the index is temporarily agreed through informal communication without formal negotiation process, and lacks standardized document support.

[0020] Further, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the source authority is obtained, which is: starting from the non-constant class of the index, including calculating the factor data collection source, including calculating the factor index or detailed data, when there are multiple calculation factors, the lowest value of the source authority of each calculation factor is taken as the source authority evaluation value of the current index;

[0021] The source authority evaluation score rule is:

[0022] National certification level score is 100 points, the number published by the national official;

[0023] Official certification level score is 80 points, the number published by the central bank credit investigation or listed company announcement, or the data provided by the industry or data service agency through compliance channel or purchase;

[0024] System optimization level score is 60 points, the data collected by Internet of Things sensors, updated according to business cycle and automatically labeled as abnormal value;

[0025] Manual review level score is 40 points, the data stored in the data platform;

[0026] Temporary reference level score is 20 points, only the data stored in the data platform source layer or business application system library, or the free data collected by network search or manual collection with disclaimer.

[0027] Further, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the standard specification is obtained, which is: starting from the data standardization degree of the non-constant class of the index, analyzing whether the specification used in the whole process of data collection, exchange, convergence and calculation is strictly consistent with the standard;

[0028] The index standard specification evaluation score rule is:

[0029] The production standard level score is 100 points, the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field business data from creation to convergence of blood clear, field type and precision, value domain in the whole data stream completely comply with the data standard;

[0030] The business verification level score is 80 points, the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field type and precision, value domain completely comply with the data standard;

[0031] The development compatibility level score is 60 points, the index calculation factor, index measurement corresponding field type and precision completely comply with the data standard;

[0032] The experimental observation level score is 40 points, the index calculation factor, index measurement corresponding field type complies with the data standard;

[0033] The temporary buffer level score is 20 points, the index calculation factor, index measurement corresponding field data can be converted to the data type required for calculation, and there is no type conversion error or data loss.

[0034] Further, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the quality reliability is obtained, which is: starting from the quality scanning of the index calculation basis data and the quality feedback of the index application scene for analysis;

[0035] The quality reliability evaluation score rule is:

[0036] The benchmark authentication level score is 100 points, which passes the full-dimensional technical verification, and the core business scene has no feedback problem for 12 consecutive months;

[0037] The business consensus level score is 80 points, which passes the quality scanning and does not find key quality problems, and the main user confirms that the data quality is available;

[0038] The technical compliance level score is 60 points, which passes the quality scanning and meets the basic technical standard, but there are local disputes in business feedback;

[0039] The temporary buffer level score is 40 points, there are repairable technical defects, but the business side can accept temporary use;

[0040] The observation isolation level score is 20 points, the data quality scanning or business feedback finds major defects, triggering automatic isolation.

[0041] Further, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the reference public credit is obtained, which is: from the index application scene, the reference public credit evaluation score rule is:

[0042] Regulatory mandatory level score 100, data used for national regulatory reporting or legally required scenarios, errors will directly trigger administrative penalties or national security risks;

[0043] Strategic decision-making level score 80, data supports major strategic decisions of the enterprise, deviations may cause billion-level losses;

[0044] Business execution level score 60, data drives daily business operations, directly affecting department KPI achievement and resource allocation;

[0045] Experimental reference level score 40, data used for internal innovation research or trend analysis, allowing controlled errors but requiring confidence intervals;

[0046] Temporary buffer level score 20, data has technical defects but can be temporarily repaired, limited to emergency scenarios for short-term use.

[0047] Further, based on the quantitative evaluation of the reliability of the indicators, the following levels are classified:

[0048] Based on the normal distribution principle, the top 5% score ≥90 is set as the strategic decision-making level, and the subsequent 10% decrease corresponds to the management requirements, and the last 10% triggers the mandatory rectification mechanism;

[0049] According to the score interval, the reliability of the indicators is classified as:

[0050] Strategic decision-making level, score interval 90-100, data is complete and traceable, certified by three parties, calculation formula is agreed by cross-department, no quality accidents for 12 consecutive months;

[0051] Management insight level, score interval 80-89, 100% of core data sources come from authoritative systems, quality assessment meets all requirements, version change records are complete;

[0052] Operational reference level, score interval 70-79, basic data compliance meets requirements, key field missing rate <1%, but there are secondary data sources that are not fully standardized;

[0053] Experimental observation level, score interval 60-69, data sources include non-authoritative systems, with T+1 or more delays, but the core calculation logic is verified by technology;

[0054] Risk warning level, score interval 50-59, more than 20% of the data comes from manual accounts, key quality indicators are not up to standard, and there are version management defects;

[0055] Disabled warning level, score <50, data source legality is questionable, quality defect rate exceeds threshold, calculation formula has not been confirmed by cross-department.

[0056] In a second aspect, the technical scheme adopted by the present application is: a business index evaluation system based on quantified index credibility, comprising: a model construction module, which sets an index credibility evaluation model, and evaluates the credibility of an index from three aspects of index definition, data source and application range, and sets six dimensions, including basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard normativity, quality reliability and reference public trust; an evaluation value calculation module, which obtains a credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions according to the index credibility evaluation model, respectively obtains an evaluation subject and a weight corresponding to the six dimensions, and evaluates the final actual score of each dimension as the evaluation value of each dimension; and a hierarchical evaluation module, which aggregates the six-dimensional scores by using a weighted algorithm based on the evaluation values of the six dimensions, quantitatively obtains the evaluation value of the index credibility, classifies based on the quantified evaluation value of the index credibility, and completes the evaluation.

[0057] The present application has the following advantages due to the adoption of the above technical scheme:

[0058] 1. The present application can break through the traditional single-dimension index evaluation mode, establish an evaluation system covering the whole life cycle of index data collection, storage, conversion, calculation and application, and objectively and accurately evaluate the credibility of the index.

[0059] 2. The present application can separate the independent calculation units of the six dimensions and the joint evaluation module, verify the dimension independence by orthogonal test method, and ensure that the abnormality of a single dimension will not contaminate the overall credibility evaluation result.

[0060] In summary, the present application is based on the construction of a credibility calculation, maintenance and improvement system, and further promotes the establishment of enterprise index management culture through visual labels, explicitly promotes the application of high-credibility indexes, and at the same time, clearly defines low-credibility indexes to promote index data governance and management, forming a virtuous cycle. It can be widely applied to business index management in various industries. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0061] Figure 1 is a business index evaluation method flowchart based on quantified index credibility in an embodiment of the present application;

[0062] Figure 2 is an index credibility evaluation model schematic diagram in an embodiment of the present application;

[0063] Figure 3 is an electronic device structure diagram in an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0064] In order to solve the data scene construction status of "data platform self-built and self-used, and business department if close if far" in the prior art, the application provides a business index evaluation method and system based on quantified index credibility, which comprises the following steps: analyzing parameter values of six dimensions of consensus authority, basic compliance, source authority, standard normativity, quality reliability and reference public trust from three directions of index definition, data source and application range by interpreting index data standards, analyzing index calculation formulas and analyzing index application scenarios; obtaining the credibility of the index by weighted calculation of the parameter values, and further classifying and visualizing; formulating an index credibility improvement scheme according to the visualized result, optimizing the index data standard, or promoting the reference of high-credibility indexes. The application can objectively and reasonably quantify the credibility of business indexes, and further enhance the reference confidence of business departments and reduce the difficulty of popularization and use of high-credibility indexes through visualized application of the credibility. The causes of low-credibility indexes are analyzed, the working direction of index data governance and index management is clarified, and the enterprise data operation capability is improved.

[0065] To make the objects, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application will be described clearly and completely below with reference to the drawings of the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments of the present application. Based on the described embodiments of the present application, all other embodiments obtained by a person of ordinary skill in the art belong to the scope of protection of the present application.

[0066] It should be noted that the terms used herein are only intended to describe specific embodiments, and are not intended to limit the exemplary embodiments according to the present application. As used herein, the singular form is intended to include the plural form, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, and it should also be understood that, when the terms "comprise" and / or "include" are used in the specification, there is a feature, step, operation, device, component and / or combination thereof.

[0067] In one embodiment of the present application, a business index evaluation method based on quantified index credibility is provided. In this embodiment, as shown in Figure 1 、 Figure 2 , the method comprises the following steps:

[0068] 1) Setting an index credibility evaluation model, setting six dimensions to evaluate the credibility of the index from three directions of index definition, data source and application range, the six dimensions including basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard normativity, quality reliability and reference public trust;

[0069] 2) According to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, the evaluation subjects and weights corresponding to the six dimensions are obtained respectively, and the final actual scores of each dimension are evaluated as the respective evaluation values of the six dimensions;

[0070] Among them, the evaluation subjects and weights of the six dimensions are shown in Table 1.

[0071] Table 1 Evaluation subjects and weights of six dimensions

[0072] Evaluation dimension Evaluation subject Weight Basic compliance Indicator definition, calculation formula, data extraction logic 10％ Consensus authority Indicator review department type, number of departments 10％ Source authority Indicator calculation factor, data source of basic data 15％ Standard specification Indicator calculation factor, standardization degree of basic data 20％ Quality reliability Indicator calculation factor, data quality of basic data 30％ Cite credibility Application scenario of indicator 15％

[0073] 3) On the basis of the respective evaluation values of the six dimensions, the six-dimensional scores are aggregated by using a weighted algorithm, the evaluation value of the index credibility is quantitatively obtained, the index credibility is classified based on the quantified evaluation value, and the evaluation is completed.

[0074] In the above step 1), the index credibility evaluation model is set, specifically: the index data standard is interpreted, the information related to the credibility evaluation is stripped out by analyzing the index definition, calculation formula, statistical caliber, data source and application scene information, and a to-be-evaluated information table is formed.

[0075] In the above step 2), the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained according to the index credibility evaluation model, and the evaluation value of the basic compliance is obtained, specifically: the basic compliance is evaluated from the aspects of the basis for formulating the index business definition and calculation formula, and the transparency of data taking logic.

[0076] The scoring rules of the basic compliance are:

[0077] The benchmark level score is 100 points, the index definition and calculation formula are completely consistent with the requirements of the external regulatory department, the basis for formulating is the national relevant standard, the data taking logic is completely consistent with the business definition, and is complete, clear, easy to read and understand;

[0078] The compliance level score is 80 points, the index definition and calculation formula meet the requirements of the external regulatory department, the basis for formulating is the external national, industry standard or management system, the data taking logic is completely consistent with the business definition, and is easy to read and understand;

[0079] The standard level score is 60 points, the index definition and calculation formula meet the enterprise standard, the basis for formulating is the enterprise standard or enterprise system, and the data taking logic is completely consistent with the business definition;

[0080] The applicable level score is 40 points, the index definition and calculation formula meet the requirements of the enterprise business or management system, and do not conflict with the enterprise data standard, and the data taking logic is clear;

[0081] The available level score is 20 points, the index definition and calculation formula are basically consistent with the business requirements, the basis for formulating is the relevant business system or application requirement, and the data taking logic is clear.

[0082] In this embodiment, the scoring rules of the basic compliance are shown in Table 2.

[0083] Table 2 Scoring rules of the basic compliance

[0084]

[0085] In the above step 2), the reliability calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained according to the index reliability evaluation model, and the evaluation value of the consensus authority is obtained, specifically: starting from the index definition and the release audit process, whether the audit method is compliant and the type and number of departments participating in the audit work are evaluated;

[0086] The scoring rules of the consensus authority evaluation are as follows:

[0087] The enterprise-level score is 100 points. The index is demonstrated by a cross-departmental system, confirmed in writing by all relevant department heads, approved by the highest decision-making level of the company, and formed into a standardized management document.

[0088] The cross-professional level score is 80 points. The index is demonstrated by a cross-professional / departmental joint working group, confirmed by the relevant department in charge, formed into a co-signing document and incorporated into the management system.

[0089] The professional level score is 60 points. The index is demonstrated by relevant business field experts, confirmed by the head of the main use department, and formed into an executable implementation plan.

[0090] The department level score is 40 points. The index is completed within the initiating department through cross-team consultation, approved by the department head, but not agreed with other relevant departments.

[0091] The temporary level score is 20 points. The index has not gone through the formal consultation process, but only through informal communication to reach a temporary agreement, lacking of standardized document support.

[0092] In this embodiment, the scoring rules of the consensus authority evaluation are shown in Table 3.

[0093] Table 3 Scoring rules of the consensus authority evaluation

[0094]

[0095]

[0096] In the above step 2), the reliability calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained according to the index reliability evaluation model, and the evaluation value of the consensus authority is obtained, specifically: starting from the index definition and the release audit process, whether the audit method is compliant and the type and number of departments participating in the audit work are evaluated;

[0097] The source authority evaluation score rule is:

[0098] The national certification level score is 100 points, and the number is officially published by the state;

[0099] The official certification level score is 80 points, and the number is officially published by the central bank credit investigation or listed company, or the data provided by the industry or data service agency through compliance channels or purchase;

[0100] The system optimization level score is 60 points, which is collected by Internet of Things sensors, updated according to the business cycle, and automatically labeled as abnormal value;

[0101] The artificial review level score is 40 points, which is stored in the data platform;

[0102] The temporary reference level score is 20 points, which is only stored in the data platform source layer or business application system library, or the free data searched on the network or collected manually with disclaimer.

[0103] In this embodiment, the source authority evaluation score rule is shown in Table 4.

[0104] Table 4 Source authority evaluation score rule

[0105]

[0106] In the above step 2), according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of six dimensions is obtained, and the standard normative evaluation value is obtained, which is: starting from the data standardization degree of the non-constant class calculation factor of the index, analyzing whether the specifications used in the storage and calculation in the whole process of data collection, exchange, convergence, calculation are strictly consistent with the standard;

[0107] The index standard normative evaluation score rule is:

[0108] The production standard level score is 100 points, the business data of the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field from creation to convergence has clear blood relationship, and the field type and precision, value range completely comply with the data standard in the whole data flow;

[0109] The business verification level score is 80 points, the field type and precision, value range of the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field completely comply with the data standard;

[0110] The development compatibility level score is 60 points, the field type and precision of the index calculation factor and index measurement corresponding field completely comply with the data standard;

[0111] The experimental observation level score is 40 points, the field type of the index calculation factor and index measurement corresponding field complies with the data standard;

[0112] The temporary buffer level score is 20 points, and the data in the corresponding field of the index calculation factor and the index metric can be normally converted into the data type required for calculation without type conversion error or data loss.

[0113] In this embodiment, the index standard specification evaluation score rule is shown in Table 5.

[0114] Table 5 Index Standard Specification Evaluation Score Rule

[0115]

[0116] In the above step 2), according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the quality reliability is obtained. Specifically, the quality feedback situation of the index application scene and the quality scanning situation of the index calculation basis data are analyzed;

[0117] The quality reliability evaluation score rule is:

[0118] The benchmark authentication level score is 100 points, and the full-dimensional technical verification is passed, and the core business scene has no feedback problem for 12 consecutive months;

[0119] The business consensus level score is 80 points, and no key quality problem is found through quality scanning, and the main user confirms that the data quality is available;

[0120] The technical compliance level score is 60 points, and the quality scanning is passed, and the basic technical standard is met, but there are local disputes in business feedback;

[0121] The temporary buffer level score is 40 points, and there are repairable technical defects, but the business side can accept temporary use;

[0122] The observation isolation level score is 20 points, and the data quality scanning or business feedback finds major defects, triggering automatic isolation.

[0123] In this embodiment, the quality reliability evaluation score rule is shown in Table 6.

[0124] Table 6 Quality Reliability Evaluation Score Rule

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] In the above step 2), according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the reference public credit is obtained. Specifically, the index application scene is analyzed, and the reference public credit evaluation score rule is:

[0128] Regulatory mandatory level score 100, data used for national regulatory reporting or legally required scenarios, errors will directly trigger administrative penalties or national security risks;

[0129] Strategic decision-making level score 80, data supports major strategic decisions of enterprises, deviations may cause billion-level losses;

[0130] Business execution level score 60, data drives daily business operations, directly affecting department KPI achievement and resource allocation;

[0131] Experimental reference level score 40, data is used for internal innovation research or trend analysis, allowing controlled errors but requiring confidence intervals to be marked;

[0132] Temporary buffer level score 20, data has technical defects but can be temporarily repaired, limited to emergency scenarios for short-term use.

[0133] In this embodiment, the reference credibility evaluation score rule is shown in Table 7.

[0134] Table 7 Reference Credibility Evaluation Score Rule

[0135]

[0136] In the above step 3), when calculating the index credibility, the evaluation values of the six dimensions are weighted and aggregated (weights are shown in Table 1), and a weighted algorithm is used to aggregate the six-dimensional scores. Finally, the evaluation value of the index credibility can be quantified, and the calculation formula of the credibility is: a credibility index of 20-100 points is generated.

[0137] Index credibility = ∑(dimension score x dimension weight)

[0138] Further, based on the quantified evaluation value of the index credibility, it is classified into:

[0139] Based on the normal distribution principle, the top 5% score ≥90 is set as the strategic decision-making level, and the subsequent 10 points decrease corresponds to the management requirement, and the last 10% triggers the mandatory rectification mechanism;

[0140] According to the score interval, the index credibility is classified as:

[0141] Strategic decision-making level, score interval 90-100, data is complete and traceable, three-party certified, calculation formula is consensus across departments, and there is no quality accident for 12 consecutive months;

[0142] Management insight level, score interval 80-89, 100% of core data sources come from authoritative systems, quality evaluation meets all requirements, and version change records are complete;

[0143] Operational reference level, score interval 70-79, basic data compliance meets the standard, key field missing rate <1%, but there are secondary data sources not fully standardized;

[0144] Test observation level, score interval 60-69, data source contains non-authoritative system, there is T+1 or more delay, but the core calculation logic passes the technical verification;

[0145] Risk warning level, score interval 50-59, more than 20% of the data comes from manual account, key quality indicators do not meet the standard, there are version management defects;

[0146] Disable warning level, score <50, data source legality is questionable, quality defect rate exceeds the threshold, calculation formula is not confirmed across departments.

[0147] In this embodiment, the index credibility classification according to the score interval is shown in Table 8.

[0148] Table 8 Index credibility classification according to score interval

[0149]

[0150] In this embodiment, the index credibility quantification evaluation and classification method is described by taking seismic index data as an example, which includes the following steps:

[0151] S1, Interpret index data standard: Interpret index data standard, through analyzing index definition, calculation formula, statistical caliber, data source, application scene and other information, the information related to credibility evaluation is stripped out, and further investigation and improvement is necessary, forming a table of information to be evaluated.

[0152]

[0153]

[0154] S2, Evaluate basic compliance parameter value: Through the interpreted credibility evaluation information, it can be found that the index "total seismic data acquisition time" has been included in the enterprise standard, which is an internal management index within the enterprise, and has nothing to do with external regulatory requirements. Therefore, the basic compliance evaluation value of the index is 60.

[0155] S3, Evaluate consensus authority parameter value: Since the index "total seismic data acquisition time" has passed the joint review of business department, planning department and data department, and has been included in the enterprise standard, it meets the cross-professional level, but has not reached the strategic level, therefore the evaluation value of consensus authority is 80.

[0156] S4, evaluate the source authority parameter value: the metric "total seismic data acquisition time" is derived from the data lake standard layer data table, the dimensions time category and branch are from the source system self-built table in the source layer, according to the principle of not low but high, the evaluation value of source authority is 20.

[0157] S5, evaluate the standard specification parameter value: the metric "total seismic data acquisition time" is the occupancy_duration field type of the data lake standard layer data table "seismic acquisition time efficiency data table", which is a numerical type, with a precision of 2 decimal places, and a dimension of hours "h". It is consistent with the data standard data set G0201040002002 executed by the table, and the dimension fields time category reference data and main data respectively. The table is directly collected into the lake by the source acquisition system without data processing, so the evaluation value of standard specification is 100.

[0158] S6, evaluate the quality reliability parameter value: the index "total seismic data acquisition time" has been used in the financial department, and there is no feedback of data unavailability problem, but in the quality scanning five months ago, the basic data table found quality problems. Therefore, the evaluation value of quality reliability should be 80.

[0159] S7, evaluate the reference public credit parameter value: the index "total seismic data acquisition time" is a business index for analyzing the time efficiency of seismic data acquisition, which is used for daily business management and assessment, and has nothing to do with enterprise strategy and regulatory reporting, so the evaluation value of reference public credit should be 60.

[0160] S8, confidence level calculation and classification: according to the index confidence level calculation formula, the confidence level of total seismic data acquisition time is calculated as:

[0161] Index confidence level = 60*10% + 80*10% + 20*15% + 100%20% + 80*30% + 60*15%

[0162] = 6 + 8 + 3 + 20 + 24 + 9

[0163] = 70

[0164] Therefore, the confidence level of total seismic data acquisition time is A, that is, the operation reference level.

[0165] S9, confidence level visualization design: according to the setting of the confidence level analysis rule, the device identifies the A level index as yellow (AAA: green; AA: blue; A: yellow; BBB: orange; BB: brown; C: red), which is displayed in the index data standard management tool and the index data service tool according to the color, so that business personnel can understand through the color that the index can be used with confidence in business, but it is not suitable for strategic decision-making and external reporting.

[0166] S10, the credibility promotion scheme analysis: in need of further improving the credibility of the index "total time of seismic data acquisition", the device can automatically analyze according to the evaluation of six dimensions, six dimensions of loss analysis as follows:

[0167]

[0168] Analysis of the source authority is the most serious dimension of loss, this dimension evaluates the source of basic data, the loss reason is that the basic data table of the two dimensions (time limit category, branch) of the index statistics is a non-standardized system self-built table; other such as basic compliance, quality reliability also have obvious improvement space. Through analysis, the following improvement suggestion scheme can be given:

[0169] Basic compliance: perfect data standard, increase external basis of index formulation, such as national standard, industry standard, etc.;

[0170] Source authority: the basic data table of two dimensions (time limit category, branch) is included in the data standard management, the basic data is upgraded from the source layer to the standard layer, and the data quality scanning is carried out regularly;

[0171] Quality reliability: continue to pay attention to the quality management of related basic data, form a quality problem management closed loop, and ensure that the quality meets the standard for 12 months.

[0172] On the basis of this scheme, the data operation personnel only need to execute according to the procedure, which can stably and effectively improve the index credibility, and it is very promising to achieve AA level (blue) in a short time.

[0173] In summary, the present application starts from the basic data of business index and application scene, realizes that the credibility of data can be judged according to a simple label (such as recommendation degree, even a color) through credibility evaluation, without further analyzing the credibility reason; at the same time, it can further promote the standardization of index data, such as filling in the index to become basic data into the lake after calculation; the basic table calculation based on the source layer is replaced by the basic table calculation based on the standard layer; the data item based on high quality score is replaced by the data item based on low quality evaluation, etc., to realize the improvement of index credibility, and finally achieve the standardization of index basic data, the standardization of management and the authority of index application scene, and increase the significance of project operation.

[0174] In an embodiment of the present application, a business index evaluation system based on quantified index credibility is provided, which comprises:

[0175] The model building module sets up an indicator credibility assessment model, which evaluates the credibility of indicators from three aspects: indicator definition, data source, and application scope, and sets up six dimensions to assess the credibility of indicators. The six dimensions include: basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard and normative, quality reliability, and citation credibility.

[0176] The evaluation value calculation module obtains the credibility calculation formulas for the six dimensions based on the indicator credibility evaluation model, obtains the evaluation subject and weight corresponding to the six dimensions respectively, and evaluates and obtains the final actual score of each dimension, which serves as the evaluation value for each of the six dimensions.

[0177] The tiered evaluation module weights and aggregates the evaluation values ​​of the six dimensions, uses a weighted algorithm to aggregate the scores of the six dimensions, quantifies the evaluation value of the indicator credibility, and tiers the indicators based on the quantified evaluation value of the indicator credibility to complete the evaluation.

[0178] In the above embodiments, an indicator credibility assessment model is set up, including: interpreting indicator data standards, and extracting information related to credibility assessment by analyzing indicator definitions, calculation formulas, statistical methods, data sources, and application scenario information to form an information table to be assessed.

[0179] In the above embodiments, the credibility calculation formulas for six dimensions are obtained based on the indicator credibility assessment model, and the evaluation value of basic compliance is obtained. Specifically, basic compliance is evaluated from the aspects of indicator business definition and the basis for formulating calculation formulas, and the transparency of data retrieval logic.

[0180] The scoring rules for basic compliance are as follows:

[0181] The benchmark score is 100 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula are completely consistent with the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on relevant national standards. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition. It is complete, clear, and easy to read and understand.

[0182] The compliance level score is 80 points. The indicator definitions and calculation formulas meet the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on external national and industry standards or management systems. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition and is easy to read and understand.

[0183] The standard level score is 60 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula conform to the enterprise standard. The formulation is based on the enterprise standard or enterprise system. The data acquisition logic is completely consistent with the business definition.

[0184] The applicable level score is 40 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula meet the requirements of the enterprise's business or management system, do not conflict with the enterprise's data standards, and the data retrieval logic is clear.

[0185] The available level score is 20 points, the index definition, calculation formula and business demand are basically consistent, the basis for formulating is the relevant business system or application demand, and the data acquisition logic is clear.

[0186] In the above embodiment, the reliability calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained according to the index reliability evaluation model, and the consensus authority evaluation value is obtained. Specifically, from the index definition and the release audit process, whether the audit method is in compliance and the type and number of departments participating in the audit work are evaluated;

[0187] The scoring rules for consensus authority evaluation are:

[0188] The enterprise level score is 100 points, the index is demonstrated by cross-department system, and written confirmation is obtained from all relevant department heads, which is approved by the highest decision-making layer of the company, and forms a standardized management document;

[0189] The cross-professional level score is 80 points, the index is demonstrated by cross-professional / department joint working group, and signed confirmation is obtained from the relevant department in charge, which forms a signed document and is included in the management system;

[0190] The professional level score is 60 points, the index is demonstrated by relevant business field experts, and signed confirmation is obtained from the head of the main use department, which forms an executable implementation plan;

[0191] The department level score is 40 points, the index is completed within the cross-team negotiation of the initiating department, and the department head's approval is obtained, but no consensus is reached with other relevant departments;

[0192] The temporary level score is 20 points, the index has not gone through the formal negotiation process, but only through informal communication to reach a temporary agreement, and lacks the support of a standardized document.

[0193] In the above embodiment, the reliability calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained according to the index reliability evaluation model, and the consensus authority evaluation value is obtained. Specifically, from the index of the non-constant class calculation factor data collection source, including the calculation factor index or detailed data, when there are multiple calculation factors, the lowest value of the source authority of each calculation factor is taken as the source authority evaluation value of the current index;

[0194] The scoring rules for source authority evaluation are:

[0195] The national certification level score is 100 points, the number published by the national official;

[0196] The official certification level score is 80 points, the number published by the central bank credit investigation or listed company announcement, or the data provided by the industry or data service agency through compliance channels or purchase;

[0197] The system optimization level score is 60 points, the data collected by the Internet of Things sensor is updated according to the business cycle and automatically labeled with abnormal values;

[0198] The manual review level score is 40 points, the data stored in the data platform;

[0199] The temporary reference level score is 20 points, only data stored in the data platform source layer or business application system library, or free data searched on the network or manually collected with disclaimer.

[0200] In the above embodiment, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the standard normative evaluation value is obtained, specifically: starting from the data standardization degree of the non-constant class calculation factor of the index, analyzing whether the specifications used in the storage and calculation in the whole process of data collection, exchange, convergence are strictly consistent with the standard;

[0201] The index standard normative evaluation score rule is:

[0202] The production standard level score is 100 points, the business data of the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field from creation to convergence has clear blood relationship, and the field type and precision, value range fully comply with the data standard in the whole data flow;

[0203] The business verification level score is 80 points, the field type and precision, value range of the index calculation factor, index measurement and dimension corresponding field fully comply with the data standard;

[0204] The development compatibility level score is 60 points, the field type and precision of the index calculation factor and index measurement corresponding field fully comply with the data standard;

[0205] The experimental observation level score is 40 points, the field type of the index calculation factor and index measurement corresponding field complies with the data standard;

[0206] The temporary buffer level score is 20 points, the data of the index calculation factor and index measurement corresponding field can be normally converted into the data type required for calculation, and will not report an error or lose data due to type conversion.

[0207] In the above embodiment, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the quality reliability evaluation value is obtained, specifically: starting from the index calculation basis data quality scanning and index application scene quality feedback analysis;

[0208] The quality reliability evaluation score rule is:

[0209] The benchmark authentication level score is 100 points, which is verified by full-dimensional technology and has no feedback problems for 12 consecutive months in the core business scene;

[0210] Business consensus level score is 80, no key quality problems are found through quality scanning, and the main user confirms that the data quality is available;

[0211] Technical compliance level score is 60, meets the basic technical standards through quality scanning, but there are local disputes in business feedback;

[0212] Temporary buffer level score is 40, there are repairable technical defects, but business users can accept temporary use;

[0213] Observation isolation level score is 20, data quality scanning or business feedback finds major defects, triggering automatic isolation.

[0214] In the above embodiment, according to the index credibility evaluation model, the credibility calculation formula of the six dimensions is obtained, and the evaluation value of the reference public credit is obtained, which is: from the index application scene, the reference public credit evaluation score rule is:

[0215] Regulatory mandatory level score is 100, data is used in national regulatory reporting or legal mandatory scenarios, errors will directly trigger administrative penalties or national security risks;

[0216] Strategic decision-making level score is 80, data supports enterprise major strategic decision-making, deviation may cause billion-level loss;

[0217] Business execution level score is 60, data drives daily business operation, directly affects department KPI achievement and resource allocation;

[0218] Experimental reference level score is 40, data is used for internal innovation research or trend analysis, allowing controllable error but requiring confidence interval labeling;

[0219] Temporary buffer level score is 20, data has technical defects but can be temporarily repaired, limited to emergency scene short-term use.

[0220] In the above embodiment, the evaluation value of the index credibility based on quantification is graded, including:

[0221] Based on the principle of normal distribution, the top 5% score ≥90 is set as the strategic decision-making level, and the subsequent every 10 points decreases corresponding to the management requirements, and the last 10% triggers the mandatory rectification mechanism;

[0222] According to the score interval, the index credibility is graded as:

[0223] Strategic decision-making level, score interval is 90-100, data blood relationship is complete and traceable, three-party authentication, calculation formula is agreed by cross-department, and no quality accident for 12 consecutive months;

[0224] Management insight level, score interval 80-89, 100% of core data sources from authoritative system, quality assessment full compliance, version change record complete;

[0225] Operational reference level, score interval 70-79, basic data compliance, key field missing rate <1%, but there are secondary data sources not fully standardized;

[0226] Experimental observation level, score interval 60-69, data sources include non-authoritative system, there is T+1 above delay, but the core calculation logic passes the technical verification;

[0227] Risk warning level, score interval 50-59, more than 20% of the data from manual account, key quality indicators do not meet the standard, there are version management defects;

[0228] Disable warning level, score <50, data source legality is questionable, quality defect rate exceeds the threshold, calculation formula is not confirmed across departments.

[0229] The system provided by the embodiment is used for executing the above-mentioned method embodiments, and the specific process and detailed content are referred to the above-mentioned embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0230] As shown in Figure 3 In an embodiment of the present application, a computing device is provided, which can be a terminal, and can include a processor, a communications interface, a memory, a display screen and an input device. Wherein, the processor, the communications interface and the memory complete mutual communication through a communication bus. The processor is used to provide computing and control capability. The memory includes a non-volatile storage medium and an internal memory, the non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system and a computer program, the computer program is executed by the processor to implement the method in each embodiment described above; the internal memory provides an environment for the operating system and the computer program in the non-volatile storage medium. The communications interface is used for wired or wireless communication with external terminals, wireless communication can be realized through WIFI, management network, NFC (near field communication) or other technologies. The display screen can be a liquid crystal display screen or an electronic ink display screen, and the input device can be a touch layer overlaid on the display screen, or a key, trackball or touchpad arranged on the shell of the computing device, or an external keyboard, touchpad or mouse, etc. The processor can call the logical instructions in the memory.

[0231] Moreover, the logic instructions in the storage medium of the above-mentioned embodiments can be implemented in the form of software function units and sold or used as an independent product, which can be stored in a computer readable storage medium. Based on such understanding, the technical solutions of the present application essentially or partially contribute to the prior art, or part of the technical solutions can be embodied in the form of a software product. The computer software product is stored in a storage medium, and includes several instructions for causing a computer device (which can be a personal computer, a server, or a network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of the present application. The foregoing storage medium includes: a U disk, a mobile hard disk, a read-only memory (ROM, Read-Only Memory), a random access memory (RAM, Random Access Memory), a magnetic disk or an optical disk, and various media that can store program codes.

[0232] In an embodiment of the present application, a computer program product is provided, which includes a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and the computer program includes program instructions, which, when executed by a computer, enable the computer to perform the method provided by the above-mentioned method embodiments.

[0233] In an embodiment of the present application, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is provided, which stores server instructions, and the computer instructions enable a computer to perform the method provided by the above-mentioned embodiments.

[0234] The computer readable storage medium provided by the above-mentioned embodiments has similar implementation principles and technical effects to the above-mentioned method embodiments, and will not be described here.

[0235] The present application is described with reference to flowcharts and / or block diagrams of the methods, devices (systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that each flow and / or block in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams, and the combination of the flows and / or blocks in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device to produce a machine, so that the instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device produce a device that implements the functions specified in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams. Figure 1 The device that implements the functions specified in one flow or multiple flows and / or blocks Figure 1 The device that implements the functions specified in one flow or multiple flows and / or blocks

[0236] These computer program instructions can also be stored in a computer readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable memory produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the flow Figure 1 of the flow or flows and / or blocks Figure 1 of the block or blocks specified in the flow.

[0237] The computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide steps for implementing the flow Figure 1 of the flow or flows and / or blocks Figure 1 of the block or blocks specified in the flow.

[0238] Finally, it should be noted that the above-mentioned embodiments are merely used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present application, rather than limit the present application; even though the present application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that the technical solutions recorded in the foregoing embodiments can be modified, or some of the technical features can be replaced by equivalent technical features; and these modifications or replacements do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application.

Claims

1. A business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators, characterized in that, include: A credibility assessment model for indicators is set up, which evaluates the credibility of indicators from three aspects: indicator definition, data source, and application scope. The six dimensions include: basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard and normative, quality reliability, and citation credibility. Based on the credibility assessment model, the credibility calculation formulas for the six dimensions are obtained, the assessment subjects and weights corresponding to the six dimensions are obtained respectively, and the final actual scores of each dimension are obtained as the assessment values ​​of the six dimensions. The evaluation values ​​of the six dimensions are weighted and aggregated, and a weighted algorithm is used to aggregate the scores of the six dimensions to quantify the evaluation value of the indicator credibility. The evaluation is then graded based on the quantified evaluation value of the indicator credibility to complete the evaluation.

2. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Set up a credibility assessment model for the indicators, including: Interpreting indicator data standards involves analyzing indicator definitions, calculation formulas, statistical methods, data sources, and application scenarios to extract information relevant to credibility assessment and form an information table to be evaluated.

3. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, a six-dimensional credibility calculation formula is obtained to obtain the basic compliance assessment value. Specifically, the basic compliance is assessed from the aspects of indicator business definition and the basis for formulating the calculation formula, and the transparency of data retrieval logic. The scoring rules for basic compliance are as follows: The benchmark score is 100 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula are completely consistent with the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on relevant national standards. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition. It is complete, clear, and easy to read and understand. The compliance level score is 80 points. The indicator definitions and calculation formulas meet the requirements of external regulatory authorities. The formulation is based on external national and industry standards or management systems. The data retrieval logic is completely consistent with the business definition and is easy to read and understand. The standard level score is 60 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula conform to the enterprise standard. The formulation is based on the enterprise standard or enterprise system. The data acquisition logic is completely consistent with the business definition. The applicable level score is 40 points. The indicator definition and calculation formula meet the requirements of the enterprise's business or management system, do not conflict with the enterprise's data standards, and the data retrieval logic is clear. The availability score is 20 points. The indicator definition, calculation formula and business requirements are basically consistent. The basis for formulation is the relevant business system or application requirements. The data acquisition logic is clear.

4. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, a six-dimensional credibility calculation formula is obtained to obtain the consensus authority assessment value. Specifically, it starts from the indicator definition and release review process, assesses whether the review method is compliant, and the types and number of departments involved in the review work. The scoring rules for consensus authority assessment are as follows: The enterprise-level score is 100 points. The indicators have been verified across departments and systems, have been confirmed in writing by the heads of all relevant departments, and have been approved by the company's top decision-making level to form a standardized management document. The cross-professional level score is 80 points. The indicator has been reviewed by a cross-professional / departmental joint working group, obtained the signature confirmation of the relevant department leaders, formed a countersigned document and incorporated into the management system. The professional level score is 60 points. The indicators have been reviewed by experts in the relevant business field, and have been signed and confirmed by the heads of the main user departments to form an executable implementation plan. The departmental score was 40 points. The indicator was negotiated across teams within the initiating department and approved by the department head, but no agreement was reached with other relevant departments. The provisional level score is 20 points. The indicators were not formally negotiated and were only agreed upon through informal communication, lacking the support of normative documents.

5. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, a credibility calculation formula for six dimensions is obtained to obtain the source authority assessment value. Specifically, it starts from the non-constant number of calculation factor data collection sources of the indicator, including calculation factor indicators or detailed data. When there are multiple calculation factors, the lowest value among the source authority of each calculation factor is the source authority assessment value of the current indicator. The scoring rules for the source authority assessment are as follows: The national certification level score is 100 points, a figure officially released by the state. The official certification score is 80 points, which includes data released by the People's Bank of China's credit system or listed company announcements, or data provided by industry or data service providers obtained or purchased through compliant channels; The system optimization score was 60 points. The data was collected by IoT sensors, updated according to the business cycle, and automatically labeled with outliers. The manually reviewed score is 40 points, and the data is stored in the data platform. The temporary reference level score is 20 points. It consists only of data stored in the data platform source layer or business application system library, or free data retrieved from the Internet or collected manually with a disclaimer.

6. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, six dimensions of credibility calculation formulas are obtained to obtain standard and normative evaluation values. Specifically, starting from the data standardization degree of the non-constant calculation factors of the indicator, we analyze whether the specifications used in the storage and calculation of the entire process of data collection, exchange, aggregation and calculation are strictly consistent with the standard. The scoring rules for the standardization and normative evaluation of indicators are as follows: The production standard level score is 100 points. The business data corresponding to the fields of indicator calculation factors, indicator measures and dimensions has a clear lineage from creation to aggregation. The field types, precision and value range fully comply with the data standards in the entire data flow. The business verification level score is 80 points. The field types, precision, and value range of the corresponding fields of the indicator calculation factors, indicator measures, and dimensions fully comply with the data standards. The development compatibility score is 60 points, and the field types and precision of the indicator calculation factors and corresponding fields of the indicator measures fully comply with the data standards. The experimental observation level score is 40 points, and the field types of the index calculation factors and index measures conform to the data standards. The temporary buffer level score is 20 points. The data in the fields corresponding to the indicator calculation factors and indicator measures can be converted into the data types required for calculation without errors or data loss due to type conversion.

7. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, six dimensions of credibility calculation formulas are obtained to obtain the quality reliability assessment value. Specifically, the analysis starts from the quality scanning of the basic data used for indicator calculation and the quality feedback of indicator application scenarios. The scoring rules for quality reliability assessment are as follows: The benchmark certification score is 100 points, it has passed all-dimensional technical verification, and there have been zero reported issues in core business scenarios for 12 consecutive months; The business consensus level score was 80 points. No key quality issues were found through quality scanning, and the main users confirmed that the data quality was usable. The technical compliance score was 60 points, passing the quality scan and meeting basic technical standards, but there were some disputes in the business feedback. The temporary buffer level scored 40 points, indicating that there are fixable technical flaws, but the business side can accept temporary use; The observation isolation level score is 20 points. When a major defect is found in the data quality scan or business feedback, automatic isolation is triggered.

8. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the indicator credibility assessment model, six dimensions of credibility calculation formulas are derived to obtain the evaluation value of citation credibility. Specifically, the scoring rules for citation credibility assessment, based on the indicator application scenarios, are as follows: The mandatory regulatory level scores 100 points. The data is used in scenarios where national regulatory reporting or legal requirements are mandatory. Errors will directly lead to administrative penalties or national security risks. The strategic decision-making level score is 80 points, and the data supports the company's major strategic decisions. Deviations may result in losses of hundreds of millions of yuan. The business execution level score is 60 points. Data drives daily business operations and directly affects the achievement of departmental KPIs and resource allocation. The experimental reference level score is 40 points. The data is used for internal innovation research or trend analysis. Controllable errors are allowed, but confidence intervals must be labeled. The temporary buffer level scores 20 points. The data has technical defects but can be temporarily repaired. It is only suitable for short-term use in emergency scenarios.

9. The business indicator evaluation method based on the credibility of quantitative indicators as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluation values ​​based on the reliability of quantitative indicators are graded, including: Based on the principle of normal distribution, the top 5% with a score of ≥90 are set as strategic decision-making level, and the corresponding management requirements decrease for every 10 points thereafter, with the bottom 10% triggering a mandatory rectification mechanism. The reliability of the indicators is graded according to the score range as follows: Strategic decision-making level, with a score range of 90-100 points, complete and traceable data lineage, certified by third parties, calculation formula has reached cross-departmental consensus, and there have been no quality incidents for 12 consecutive months; Management Insight Level, with a score range of 80-89 points, core data sources are 100% from authoritative systems, all quality assessments meet the standards, and version change records are complete; Operational reference level, with a score range of 70-79 points, basic data compliance meets the standards, key field missing rate <1%, but there are secondary data sources that are not fully standardized; The test observation level has a score range of 60 to 69 points. The data source includes non-authoritative systems and there is a delay of more than T+1, but the core calculation logic has been technically verified. Risk warning level, score range 50-59, more than 20% of the data comes from manual ledgers, key quality indicators do not meet the standards, and there are version management defects; Warning level disabled, score <50, data source legality questionable, quality defect rate exceeds threshold, calculation formula not confirmed across departments.

10. A business indicator evaluation system based on the credibility of quantitative indicators, characterized in that, include: The model building module sets up an indicator credibility assessment model, which evaluates the credibility of indicators from three aspects: indicator definition, data source, and application scope, and sets up six dimensions to assess the credibility of indicators. The six dimensions include: basic compliance, consensus authority, source authority, standard and normative, quality reliability, and citation credibility. The evaluation value calculation module obtains the credibility calculation formulas for the six dimensions based on the indicator credibility evaluation model, obtains the evaluation subject and weight corresponding to the six dimensions respectively, and evaluates and obtains the final actual score of each dimension, which serves as the evaluation value for each of the six dimensions. The tiered evaluation module weights and aggregates the evaluation values ​​of the six dimensions, uses a weighted algorithm to aggregate the scores of the six dimensions, quantifies the evaluation value of the indicator credibility, and tiers the indicators based on the quantified evaluation value of the indicator credibility to complete the evaluation.

Images