Performance management method and device based on human efficiency quantification and electronic equipment

Abstract

The invention provides a performance management method and device based on human efficiency quantification and electronic equipment, and belongs to the technical field of intelligent personnel management, and the method comprises the steps: dividing at least one test link in a test process, and obtaining a minimum quantification unit corresponding to each test link; wherein the minimum quantization unit represents the single minimum output quantity of a single tester; determining an activity standard man-hour corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each test link; wherein the activity standard man-hour represents the standard duration required for completing the single minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit; and determining the actual workload of the first tester according to the activity standard working hours corresponding to the test links and the number of the minimum quantization units of the test links actually completed by the first tester. The method can objectively and effectively quantify the workload of the testers, facilitates the effective personnel management according to the objective quantification result, and improves the overall work efficiency and the satisfaction degree of the testers.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application belongs to the technical field of intelligent personnel management, and particularly relates to a performance management method and device based on human efficiency quantification and electronic equipment. BACKGROUND

[0002] With the development of society and economic growth, the quantity and scale of the demand for electrochemical energy storage sample testing are increasing, higher requirements are put forward for the production capacity of electrochemical energy storage samples, and in the competitive market environment, research and development testing needs to be delivered within a specified time and ensure that the quality meets the expectations of customers, therefore, the production capacity and human efficiency need to be improved to meet these requirements.

[0003] Due to the large number of research and development testing projects, complex testing processes and a large number of testers, the performance evaluation of testers at present mainly depends on the evaluation of managers, but it is subjective, and it is difficult to effectively manage personnel according to subjective performance evaluation results, resulting in low overall work efficiency and low satisfaction of testers. SUMMARY

[0004] In view of the above technical problems, the embodiments of the present application provide a performance management method and device based on human efficiency quantification and electronic equipment, through the divided minimum quantization unit and the corresponding activity standard working hours, the workload of the tester can be objectively and effectively quantified, which is convenient for effective personnel management according to the objective quantification result, and further improves the overall work efficiency and the satisfaction of the tester.

[0005] In a first aspect, the embodiments of the present application provide a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification, the method comprising:

[0006] dividing at least one test link in a test process to obtain a minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test link; wherein the minimum quantization unit represents a single minimum output of a single tester;

[0007] determining an activity standard working hour corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each test link; wherein the activity standard working hour represents a standard time required to complete the single minimum output corresponding to the minimum quantization unit;

[0008] determining the actual workload of the first tester according to the activity standard working hour corresponding to each test link and the number of minimum quantization units of each test link actually completed by the first tester.

[0009] Compared with the performance evaluation of the test personnel mainly depending on the manager's evaluation in the related art, the subjectivity is relatively strong, and the overall work efficiency is low, and the satisfaction of the test personnel is also low. In the embodiment of the present application, at least one test link in the test process is divided into a minimum quantization unit to represent the single minimum output of a single test personnel, and the activity standard working hours corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of different test links are determined to measure different test links through the activity standard working hours. Specifically, for the work efficiency quantization of the first test personnel, the actual workload of the first test personnel can be determined according to the activity standard working hours corresponding to each test link and the number of minimum quantization units of each test link actually completed by the first test personnel, that is, through the divided minimum quantization unit and the corresponding activity standard working hours, the workload of the test personnel can be objectively and effectively quantified, which is convenient for effective personnel management according to the objective quantification result, and further improves the overall work efficiency and the satisfaction of the test personnel.

[0010] In some embodiments, after determining the actual workload of the first test personnel according to the activity standard working hours corresponding to each test link and the number of minimum quantization units of each test link actually completed by the first test personnel, the method further comprises:

[0011] comparing the actual workload of the first test personnel with the standard workload of the first test personnel set in advance;

[0012] in the case that the actual workload is less than the standard workload, outputting alarm information to the manager device, wherein the alarm information represents that the first test personnel does not meet the post capacity;

[0013] in the case that the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, ranking the performance of the first test personnel according to the actual workload.

[0014] In the embodiment of the present application, after determining the actual workload of the first test personnel, the actual workload can be compared with the standard workload set for the test personnel. If the actual workload does not meet the standard workload, alarm information can be output to the manager device to prompt the manager that the test personnel does not meet the post capacity. If the actual workload meets the standard workload, no alarm information needs to be output, and the performance of the test personnel can be ranked according to the actual workload, which is convenient for the manager to timely understand the test personnel who does not meet the post capacity, and the performance ranking is also convenient for the test personnel to adjust the working state according to the feedback, which is beneficial to improve the overall work efficiency.

[0015] In some embodiments, ranking the performance of the first test personnel according to the actual workload comprises:

[0016] rank the performance of the first test personnel according to the actual workload and the extra score item corresponding to the first test personnel;

[0017] The extra score item includes at least one of a manager score item and a test quality score item.

[0018] In the embodiment, when ranking the performance of the first test personnel, the manager score item and the test quality score item can be referred to as extra score items, which can reflect the working attitude and quality of the first test personnel. Compared with ranking the performance of the test personnel only according to the actual workload, the embodiment can evaluate the performance of the test personnel from multiple aspects and rank the performance according to the performance evaluation. The comprehensive performance evaluation can effectively improve the satisfaction of the test personnel.

[0019] In some embodiments, the method further includes:

[0020] determining a standard number of human resources corresponding to each test link according to the activity standard man-hours corresponding to each test link, the activity workload corresponding to each test link, and the standard working hours of the test personnel, wherein the activity workload represents a target number of minimum quantization units to be completed by each test link, and the standard number of human resources represents a number of persons to be configured to complete each test link;

[0021] outputting a recommended personnel allocation list by using a pre-set recommendation algorithm according to the configured number of human resources of each test link and the corresponding standard number of human resources, wherein the recommended personnel allocation list is used to assist in allocating personnel to each test link.

[0022] In the embodiment, for different test links, the standard number of human resources corresponding to different test links can be determined according to the activity standard man-hours corresponding to the test links, the activity workload to be completed, and the standard working hours of the test personnel, that is, the number of persons required to complete a certain test link is determined. Then, the recommended personnel allocation list used to assist in allocating personnel can be output by using the recommendation algorithm according to the configured number of human resources of each test link and the standard number of human resources, so that the personnel of different test links can be reasonably allocated in an intelligent manner, and the efficiency of the whole work can be effectively improved.

[0023] In some embodiments, the determination of the standard number of human resources corresponding to each test link according to the activity standard man-hours corresponding to each test link, the activity workload corresponding to each test link, and the standard working hours of the test personnel includes:

[0024] For each of the at least one test link, a product of the activity standard man-hours corresponding to the test link and the activity workload is calculated, and then divided by the standard working time length to obtain a standard man-hour configuration quantity corresponding to the test link.

[0025] In the embodiments of the present application, a specific implementation of determining the standard man-hour configuration quantity is provided. Specifically, the activity standard man-hours corresponding to the test link are multiplied by the activity workload, and then the product is divided by the standard working time length of the test personnel to obtain the standard man-hour configuration quantity corresponding to the test link.

[0026] In some embodiments, according to the configured man-hour configuration quantity of each test link and the corresponding standard man-hour configuration quantity, a recommended personnel allocation list is output by using a pre-set recommendation algorithm, including:

[0027] For each of the at least one test link, the following steps are performed:

[0028] In the case where the configured man-hour configuration quantity is less than the standard man-hour configuration quantity, first information indicating that the test link needs to increase test personnel is output;

[0029] In the case where the configured man-hour configuration quantity is greater than the standard man-hour configuration quantity, second information indicating that the test link supports reducing test personnel is output;

[0030] According to the first test link corresponding to the first information and the second test link corresponding to the second information, the recommended personnel allocation list is output by using the recommendation algorithm.

[0031] In the embodiments of the present application, for each test link, the configured man-hour configuration quantity is compared with the standard man-hour configuration quantity. If the configured man-hour configuration quantity has not reached the standard man-hour configuration quantity, it indicates that the test personnel of the test link is in an overload state and more manpower needs to be allocated. In this case, first information indicating that test personnel needs to be increased is output. If the configured man-hour configuration quantity has exceeded the standard man-hour configuration quantity, it indicates that there is a surplus of personnel in the test link, and part of the personnel can be allocated to other test links. In this case, second information indicating that test personnel can be reduced in the test link is output. Then, according to the first test link corresponding to the first information and the second test link corresponding to the second information, a recommended personnel allocation scheme is recommended by using the recommendation algorithm, that is, a recommended personnel allocation list is output to assist personnel allocation, which is conducive to improving the efficiency of the overall work.

[0032] In some embodiments, according to the first test link corresponding to the first information and the second test link corresponding to the second information, the recommended personnel allocation list is output by using the recommendation algorithm, including:

[0033] Based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second testing phase, determine whether there are any second testers who meet the requirements for participating in the first testing phase among the testers participating in the second testing phase;

[0034] If it is determined that the second tester exists, generate third information that represents a recommendation to reassign the second tester to the first testing phase;

[0035] Based on the third piece of information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

[0036] In this embodiment, for a second testing phase with surplus personnel, it can be determined whether there are any second testing personnel among the corresponding testing personnel who meet the requirements for participating in the first testing phase. If so, third information can be generated to allocate them to the first testing phase, and then a recommended personnel allocation list can be output based on the third information. For example, it can be determined whether there are testing personnel with clamping qualifications in the sampling testing phase with surplus personnel. If so, it can be recommended to allocate them to the clamping testing phase, and a recommended personnel allocation list can be output based on this for managers to refer to when allocating personnel.

[0037] In some embodiments, after determining, based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second testing phase, whether there exists a second tester who meets the requirements for participating in the first testing phase, the method further includes:

[0038] If it is determined that there is no second tester, the testers in the second testing phase are ranked according to their performance, and the N testers at the bottom of the ranking are selected as the third testers; where N is an integer greater than 0.

[0039] Generate a fourth piece of information that recommends the third tester to participate in training; wherein the training is related to the first testing phase;

[0040] The step of outputting the recommended personnel deployment list based on the third information includes:

[0041] Based on at least one of the third and fourth information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

[0042] In this embodiment of the application, if there are no second testers in the second test stage with surplus personnel who meet the requirements for participating in the first test stage, the testers in the second test stage can be sorted according to their performance ranking, and the N testers with the lowest ranking can be selected to generate fourth information that represents the recommendation of these personnel to participate in training related to the first test stage. Based on at least one of the third and fourth information, a recommended personnel allocation list can be output to assist managers in making personnel allocation decisions.

[0043] Secondly, embodiments of this application also provide a performance management device based on human efficiency quantification, the system comprising:

[0044] A partitioning module is used to partition at least one test stage in the testing process to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test stage; wherein, the minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester.

[0045] The first determining module is used to determine the standard working time corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each of the test links; wherein, the standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit in a single test;

[0046] The second determining module is used to determine the actual workload of the first tester based on the standard working hours of each test step and the number of minimum quantized units of each test step actually completed by the first tester.

[0047] Thirdly, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described in the first aspect.

[0048] Fourthly, embodiments of this application also provide a computer-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described in the first aspect.

[0049] Fifthly, embodiments of this application also provide a computer program product, which includes a computer program that, when run on a computer, implements the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described in the first aspect. Attached Figure Description

[0050] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or related technologies will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of this application. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0051] Figure 1 This is one of the flowcharts illustrating a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application.

[0052] Figure 2 This is the second flowchart of a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment;

[0053] Figure 3 This is the third flowchart of a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment;

[0054] Figure 4 This is the fourth flowchart of a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment;

[0055] Figure 5 This is the fifth flowchart illustrating a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application.

[0056] Figure 6 This is the sixth flowchart illustrating a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application.

[0057] Figure 7 This is the seventh flowchart of a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment;

[0058] Figure 8 This is the eighth flowchart of a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment;

[0059] Figure 9 This is a schematic diagram of the personnel management system applied to a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0060] Figure 10 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of establishing a comprehensive personnel performance appraisal system in a performance management method based on the quantification of human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment.

[0061] Figure 11 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of building a human resource allocation model in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0062] Figure 12This is a schematic diagram illustrating a human resource scheduling recommendation example in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0063] Figure 13 This is a schematic diagram of the process of building an employee competency map in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0064] Figure 14 This is a flowchart illustrating optimization strategy 1 in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0065] Figure 15 This is a flowchart illustrating optimization strategy 3 in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application embodiment;

[0066] Figure 16 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a performance management device based on human efficiency quantification proposed in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0067] The embodiments of the technical solution of this application will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. These embodiments are only used to more clearly illustrate the technical solution of this application and are therefore merely examples, and should not be used to limit the scope of protection of this application.

[0068] Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this application pertains; the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the application; the terms “comprising” and “having”, and any variations thereof, in the specification, claims, and foregoing description of the drawings are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion.

[0069] In the description of the embodiments of this application, technical terms such as "first" and "second" are used only to distinguish different objects and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance or implicitly specifying the number, specific order, or primary and secondary relationship of the indicated technical features. In the description of the embodiments of this application, "multiple" means two or more, unless otherwise explicitly defined.

[0070] In this document, the term "embodiment" means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with an embodiment may be included in at least one embodiment of this application. The appearance of this phrase in various places throughout the specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment, nor is it a separate or alternative embodiment mutually exclusive with other embodiments. It will be explicitly and implicitly understood by those skilled in the art that the embodiments described herein can be combined with other embodiments.

[0071] In the description of the embodiments in this application, the term "and / or" is merely a description of the relationship between related objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can represent: A existing alone, A and B existing simultaneously, and B existing alone. Additionally, the character " / " in this document generally indicates that the preceding and following related objects have an "or" relationship.

[0072] In terms of capacity and personnel efficiency management, the main problems at present are as follows: personnel efficiency cannot be monitored. This is because there are many R&D testing projects, complex testing processes, and many testers, making it difficult to formulate standard testing hours. Therefore, the workload of testers cannot be quantified, and quality problems are difficult to pinpoint to testers. The performance evaluation of testers mainly relies on the evaluation of managers, which is highly subjective, resulting in low overall work efficiency and low satisfaction among testers.

[0073] To address the aforementioned issues, this application provides a performance management system based on quantified human efficiency. By utilizing intelligent monitoring, it quantifies the capacity, efficiency, and manpower allocation of an engineering center. Through the establishment of a quantitative capacity assessment system, a human efficiency evaluation system, and the construction of a manpower allocation model, it provides managers with an efficient management service platform for capacity, performance evaluation, and manpower optimization. This enables scientific and refined management of testing capacity and human efficiency, thereby improving overall work efficiency and employee satisfaction.

[0074] The performance management method based on human efficiency quantification provided in this application embodiment can be applied, for example, to the performance management of production line operators with repetitive and quantifiable work characteristics, as well as laboratory testers.

[0075] The following provides a detailed description of the performance management method, apparatus, and electronic equipment based on human efficiency quantification provided in the embodiments of this application.

[0076] Figure 1 This is one of the flowcharts illustrating a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 1 As shown, the performance management methods based on quantifying human efficiency include S101-S103;

[0077] S101, divide at least one test step in the test process to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test step;

[0078] The minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester.

[0079] S102, determine the standard working hours of the activity corresponding to the smallest quantization unit of each of the test steps;

[0080] The activity standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit in a single operation.

[0081] S103, determine the actual workload of the first tester based on the standard working hours of each test step and the number of minimum quantitative units of each test step actually completed by the first tester.

[0082] It should be noted that the testing process, for example, is the testing process of electrochemical energy storage samples. The testing steps include multiple testing steps such as delivery, fixture sorting, welding, clamping, sample receiving, and sample delivery. The above is only an example, and this application does not limit it.

[0083] Specifically, at least one test step in the testing process can be divided to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test step. Here, the minimum quantization unit is used to characterize the minimum output of a single tester.

[0084] For example, in the clamping test, the smallest quantization unit can be defined as: a single tester clamping one sample. In this case, "clamping one sample" is taken as the minimum output quantity per test.

[0085] For example, in the welding test, the smallest quantization unit can be defined as: a single tester welding one sample. In this case, "welding one sample" is taken as the minimum output quantity per test. Similarly, the smallest quantization unit can also be defined as: a single tester welding a sample once. In this case, "welding a sample once" is taken as the minimum output quantity per test. The specific smallest quantization unit can be defined according to the actual situation. This application does not impose any restrictions.

[0086] After dividing each test stage into its minimum quantization units, the standard working hours corresponding to the minimum quantization units of each test stage can be determined. Here, the standard working hours are used to characterize the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity of a single test corresponding to the minimum quantization unit.

[0087] For example, in the clamping test, if the smallest quantitative unit is "a single tester clamping one sample", then the standard working time corresponding to the smallest quantitative unit can be determined. For example, it takes 0.01 hours for a single tester to clamp one sample. Here, "0.01 hours" is the standard time for a single tester to clamp one sample. The standard time can be understood as the time that a tester normally needs to spend to complete the smallest quantitative unit. It can be calculated through offline surveys, average value calculations, etc.

[0088] For example, in the welding test, if the smallest quantitative unit is "a single tester welding one sample", then the standard working time corresponding to the smallest quantitative unit can be determined. For example, it takes 0.5 hours for a single tester to weld one sample. Here, "0.5 hours" is the standard time for a single tester to weld one sample.

[0089] It can be seen that by dividing the work into the smallest quantitative units and determining the corresponding standard working hours, the workload of testers in different testing stages can be measured with the same granularity. For example, it takes tester A 0.5 hours to weld one sample and tester B 0.01 hours to clamp one sample. Therefore, the workload of tester A welding one sample is equivalent to the workload of tester B clamping 50 samples, which means that the workload of testers is effectively quantified.

[0090] After determining the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test stage and the standard working hours corresponding to the minimum quantization unit, the workload of the testers can be quantified. Specifically, the actual workload of the first tester is determined based on the standard working hours corresponding to each test stage and the number of minimum quantization units of each test stage actually completed by the first tester.

[0091] The following example, using the first tester, illustrates the process of workload quantification:

[0092] You can first obtain the number of the smallest quantitative units of each test step actually completed by the first tester. For example, if 5 samples were welded, that is, the number corresponding to "one tester welds one sample" is 5; then add 20 samples were clamped, that is, the number corresponding to "one tester clamps one sample" is 20.

[0093] Assuming that it takes 0.5 hours for a single tester to weld a sample and 0.01 hours for a single tester to clamp a sample, the actual workload of the first tester can be quantified as: 5 * 0.5 hours + 20 * 0.01 hours = 2.7 hours, thus quantifying the workload of the testers.

[0094] It should also be noted that the number of the smallest quantization units of each test step actually completed by the first tester can be counted using technologies such as the Internet of Things, and this application does not impose any restrictions on this.

[0095] In this embodiment, compared to the related technologies where the performance evaluation of testers mainly relies on manager evaluation, which is highly subjective and leads to low overall work efficiency and low tester satisfaction, this application first divides at least one testing step in the testing process into minimum quantifiable units to represent the minimum output of a single tester. Then, it determines the standard working hours corresponding to the minimum quantifiable units of different testing steps, so as to measure different testing steps through the standard working hours. Specifically, for the quantification of the efficiency of the first tester, the actual workload of the first tester can be determined based on the standard working hours corresponding to each testing step and the number of minimum quantifiable units of different testing steps actually completed by the first tester. That is, by dividing the minimum quantifiable units and the corresponding standard working hours, the workload of testers can be objectively and effectively quantified, which facilitates effective personnel management based on objective quantification results, thereby improving overall work efficiency and tester satisfaction.

[0096] In some embodiments, Figure 2 This is the second flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 2 As shown, S104-S105 are included after S103;

[0097] S104, compare the actual workload of the first tester with the pre-set standard workload corresponding to the first tester;

[0098] S105, if the actual workload is less than the standard workload, output alarm information to the management device; if the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, rank the first tester's performance based on the actual workload.

[0099] The alarm information indicates that the first tester does not meet the job requirements.

[0100] Specifically, after determining the actual workload of the first tester, a performance evaluation needs to be conducted on that actual workload. This involves comparing the actual workload of the first tester with the pre-set standard workload corresponding to the first tester, and then dividing the evaluation into the following two scenarios based on the comparison results:

[0101] Scenario 1: If the actual workload is less than the standard workload, an alarm message will be sent to the administrator's equipment to remind the administrator that the first tester does not meet the job requirements, so that the administrator can intervene and continuously monitor the situation.

[0102] Scenario 2: If the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, the first tester will be ranked according to the actual workload, and the performance ranking can be fed back to the tester in a timely manner so that the tester can make timely adjustments.

[0103] It should be noted that a corresponding standard workload can be set for each tester, and the standard workload for different testers can be the same or different. This application does not impose any restrictions on this.

[0104] In this embodiment, after determining the actual workload of the first tester, the actual workload can be compared with the standard workload set for the tester. If the actual workload does not reach the standard workload, an alarm message can be output to the administrator's device to remind the administrator that the tester does not meet the job requirements. If the actual workload reaches the standard workload, there is no need to output an alarm message. The tester can be ranked according to the actual workload, which makes it easier for the administrator to identify testers who do not meet the job requirements in a timely manner. At the same time, the performance ranking also makes it easier for testers to adjust their work status based on feedback, which is conducive to improving overall work efficiency.

[0105] In some embodiments, Figure 3 This is the third flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 3 As shown, S105 specifically includes:

[0106] S1051, if the actual workload is less than the standard workload, output alarm information to the management device; if the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, rank the performance of the first tester according to the actual workload and the additional scoring items corresponding to the first tester.

[0107] The additional scoring items include at least one of the management scoring items and the test quality scoring items.

[0108] Specifically, when ranking the performance of the first tester, in addition to the tester's actual workload, other aspects of the tester can also be examined in order to conduct a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional performance evaluation of the tester. Therefore, this application also sets up additional scoring items, which may include, for example, management scoring items and test quality scoring items.

[0109] Among them, the manager scoring item is where managers score the testers. Specifically, managers can add or deduct points based on factors such as the testers' work attitude.

[0110] Test quality scoring items, such as those implemented through a synchronized personnel test quality points system, can ensure traceability of sample flow in response to test quality issues, resulting in point deductions for the corresponding testers. For those who close quality issues, such as testers claiming and resolving them, and receiving corresponding point rewards upon approval, a system like a monthly red and black list can be generated with appropriate rewards and penalties. Test quality scoring can be integrated into the testers' performance evaluation system.

[0111] In some embodiments, actual workload and additional scoring items may each have a certain weight when ranking performance. When calculating additional scoring items, manager scoring items and test quality scoring items may also have a certain weight. These weights can be set according to the actual situation, and this application does not impose any restrictions on them.

[0112] It should be noted that the above performance appraisal system can be set up to conduct a performance review every quarter, and the appraisal indicators and scoring standards can be adjusted in a timely manner according to strategic adjustments and market changes.

[0113] In this embodiment, when ranking the performance of the first tester, additional scoring items such as manager scoring items and test quality scoring items can also be referenced. These additional scoring items can reflect aspects such as the first tester's work attitude and work quality. Compared to ranking testers solely based on actual workload, this embodiment evaluates testers' performance from multiple perspectives and ranks them based on the performance evaluation. This more comprehensive performance evaluation can effectively improve tester satisfaction.

[0114] In some embodiments, Figure 4 This is the fourth flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 4 As shown, with Figure 4 Is Figure 1 Taking the corresponding implementation example, the performance management method based on quantifying human efficiency also includes S106-S107:

[0115] S106. Determine the standard manpower configuration quantity for each test stage based on the standard working hours of each test stage, the workload of each test stage, and the standard working hours of the test personnel.

[0116] Wherein, the activity workload represents the target number of the smallest quantitative units that need to be completed in each of the test stages, and the standard manpower configuration number represents the number of people required to complete each of the test stages.

[0117] S107. Based on the number of personnel already configured for each test stage and the corresponding standard number of personnel, a recommended personnel allocation list is output using a pre-set recommendation algorithm.

[0118] The recommended personnel allocation list is used to assist in the allocation of personnel for each of the testing stages.

[0119] Specifically, after determining the standard working hours of the minimum quantitative unit corresponding to each testing stage, the standard manpower configuration for each testing stage can be determined based on the standard working hours of the activities, the workload of each testing stage, and the standard working hours of the testers. Here, the standard manpower configuration can be understood as the number of people required to complete each testing stage normally.

[0120] It should be noted that the activity workload represents the target number of the smallest quantization unit that needs to be completed in each testing stage. For example, the activity workload of the clamping testing stage is to clamp 10,000 samples. Assuming that the smallest quantization unit is divided into "one tester clamping one sample", the activity workload is 10,000. This activity workload can be set according to the actual situation, and this application does not impose any restrictions on it.

[0121] It should also be noted that the standard working hours for testers, such as the number of hours a tester needs to work per month, can be adjusted according to the actual situation, and this application does not impose any restrictions on this.

[0122] After determining the standard manpower configuration for each testing stage, a recommended personnel allocation list can be generated using a pre-set recommendation algorithm based on the existing manpower configuration and the corresponding standard manpower configuration for each testing stage. This list assists managers in allocating personnel for each testing stage, facilitating coordination among testers and improving overall work efficiency and tester satisfaction.

[0123] In this embodiment, for different testing stages, the standard manpower configuration for each testing stage can be determined based on the standard working hours, the amount of work to be completed, and the standard working hours of the testers. In other words, it can be determined how many people are needed to complete a certain testing stage. Then, based on the current manpower configuration and the standard manpower configuration for each testing stage, a recommendation algorithm can be used to output a recommended personnel allocation list to assist in personnel allocation. By intelligently allocating personnel for different testing stages, the overall work efficiency can be effectively improved.

[0124] In some embodiments, Figure 5 This is the fifth flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application.Figure 5 As shown, S106 specifically includes:

[0125] S1061, for each of the at least one testing steps, calculate the product of the standard working hours and the workload of the activity corresponding to the testing step, and then divide it by the standard working hours to obtain the standard manpower configuration quantity corresponding to the testing step.

[0126] Specifically, the standard manpower configuration for each testing stage can be calculated using the following formula:

[0127] Standard manpower allocation = (Activity standard working hours * Activity workload) / Standard working hours.

[0128] In this application embodiment, a specific implementation method for determining the standard manpower configuration quantity is provided. Specifically, the standard working hours of the activity corresponding to the testing phase are multiplied by the activity workload, and then the product is taken as the standard working hours of the testers to obtain the standard manpower configuration quantity corresponding to the testing phase. This is convenient to use as a standard to evaluate whether the configured manpower configuration quantity is appropriate.

[0129] In some embodiments, Figure 6 This is the sixth flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 6 As shown, S107 specifically includes:

[0130] S1071, for each of the at least one test stage, perform the following steps: if the configured manpower configuration is less than the standard manpower configuration, output first information indicating that the test stage needs to increase the number of testers; if the configured manpower configuration is greater than the standard manpower configuration, output second information indicating that the test stage supports reducing the number of testers.

[0131] S1072, based on the first test step corresponding to the first information and the second test step corresponding to the second information, the recommendation algorithm is used to output the recommended personnel allocation list.

[0132] Specifically, using the standard manpower allocation as the evaluation criterion, the number of manpower allocated for each testing stage is evaluated, which can be mainly divided into the following three situations:

[0133] Scenario 1: If the number of personnel already configured is less than the standard number of personnel configured, it means that there is a shortage of testers in this testing phase and the system is overloaded. More personnel need to be allocated. In this case, output the first information that the characterization testing phase needs to add testers to assist in personnel allocation.

[0134] Scenario 2: If the number of personnel already configured is equal to the standard number of personnel, it means that the number of testers configured for this test phase is appropriate and no further adjustments are needed.

[0135] Scenario 3: If the number of personnel already configured is greater than the standard number of personnel configured, it means that there is a surplus of personnel in this testing phase. Some personnel can be transferred to other testing phases. In this case, output the second information indicating that the testing phase supports reducing the number of test personnel to assist in personnel allocation.

[0136] Then, based on the first testing stage corresponding to the first information and the second testing stage corresponding to the second information, a recommendation algorithm is used to output a recommended personnel allocation list to assist managers in allocating personnel for each testing stage, thereby improving overall work efficiency and tester satisfaction.

[0137] In this embodiment, for each testing stage, the configured manpower allocation is first compared with the standard manpower allocation. If the configured manpower allocation is less than the standard manpower allocation, it indicates that the testing personnel in this stage are overloaded and more manpower needs to be allocated. At this time, the first information indicating that more testing personnel are needed is output. If the configured manpower allocation exceeds the standard manpower allocation, it indicates that there is a surplus of personnel in this testing stage, and some personnel can be allocated to other testing stages. At this time, the second information indicating that this testing stage supports reducing the number of testing personnel is output. Then, a recommendation algorithm is used to recommend a personnel allocation plan based on the first testing stage corresponding to the first information and the second testing stage corresponding to the second information, that is, to output a recommended personnel allocation list to assist in personnel allocation and improve the overall work efficiency.

[0138] In some embodiments, Figure 7 This is the seventh flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 7 As shown, S1072 specifically includes:

[0139] S1072-1, Based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second test phase, determine whether there are any second testers who meet the requirements for participating in the first test phase among the testers participating in the second test phase;

[0140] S1072-2, if it is determined that the second tester exists, generate third information that represents the recommendation to reassign the second tester to the first testing phase;

[0141] S1072-3, Based on the third information, output the recommended personnel allocation list.

[0142] Specifically, the recommendation algorithm can be implemented through the above steps. For the first test stage where there is a shortage of personnel and the second test stage where there is a surplus of personnel, it can be determined first, based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second test stage, whether there are second testers who meet the requirements for participating in the first test stage.

[0143] If a second tester is determined to exist, third information is generated to recommend that the second tester be reassigned to the first testing phase. Based on the third information, a recommended personnel reassignment list is then output.

[0144] For example, assuming there is a shortage of personnel in the welding stage but a surplus in the clamping stage, we can first determine whether there are any testers who can be transferred to the welding stage based on the basic information of the testers in the clamping stage, such as whether they have welding skills and whether they are willing to be transferred. For example, if tester C in the clamping stage has welding skills and is willing to be transferred to the welding stage, then tester C is the second tester mentioned above. We can generate third information that recommends transferring tester C to the first testing stage. The third information can also include multiple second testers who meet the requirements. Then, based on the third information, we can output a recommended personnel transfer list.

[0145] In some embodiments, if it is determined that there are a large number of second testers, they can be sorted according to their performance rankings, and the testers ranked lower can be selected to generate corresponding third information. Finally, a recommended personnel allocation list is output to assist the first test in achieving its performance targets while ensuring the performance of the second test.

[0146] In this embodiment, for a second testing phase with surplus personnel, it can be determined whether there are any second testing personnel among the corresponding testing personnel who meet the requirements for participating in the first testing phase. If so, third information can be generated to allocate them to the first testing phase, and then a recommended personnel allocation list can be output based on the third information. For example, it can be determined whether there are testing personnel with clamping qualifications in the sampling testing phase with surplus personnel. If so, it can be recommended to allocate them to the clamping testing phase, and a recommended personnel allocation list can be output based on this for managers to refer to when allocating personnel.

[0147] In some embodiments, Figure 8 This is the eighth flowchart of a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 8 As shown, S1072-1 is followed by S1072-4 to S1072-5:

[0148] S1072-4, If it is determined that there is no second tester, the testers in the second testing stage are ranked according to their performance, and the N testers at the bottom of the ranking are selected as the third testers;

[0149] Where N is an integer greater than 0.

[0150] S1072-5, Generate fourth information to characterize and recommend the third tester to participate in the training;

[0151] The training is related to the first testing phase.

[0152] S1072-3 specifically includes S1072-31:

[0153] S1072-31, based on at least one of the third information and the fourth information, output the recommended personnel allocation list.

[0154] It should be noted that there is no fixed order between S1072-4 to S1072-5 and S1072-2. This application does not impose any restrictions on this, and the figure is only an example.

[0155] Specifically, if it is determined that there are no second testers, the testers in the second testing stage can be sorted according to their performance ranking, and the N testers at the bottom of the ranking can be selected as the third testers to participate in the training. Then, a fourth piece of information recommending the third testers to participate in the training can be generated. Based on at least one of the third and fourth pieces of information, a list of recommended personnel can be output to assist managers in personnel allocation.

[0156] For example, suppose there is a shortage of personnel in the welding process, but a surplus of personnel in the clamping process. If there is no second tester in the clamping process who meets the requirements of the welding process, the surplus testers in the clamping process can be ranked according to their performance. For example, the last two testers can be selected as the third testers to be trained and recommended. Based on this, a list of recommended personnel can be generated. The manager can then determine whether to allocate the third tester to participate in welding-related training. After achieving a match between personnel and positions, the tester can be allocated to the welding process.

[0157] In this embodiment of the application, if there are no second testers in the second test stage with surplus personnel who meet the requirements for participating in the first test stage, the testers in the second test stage can be sorted according to their performance ranking, and the N testers with the lowest ranking can be selected to generate fourth information that represents the recommendation of these personnel to participate in training related to the first test stage. Based on at least one of the third and fourth information, a recommended personnel allocation list can be output to assist managers in making personnel allocation decisions.

[0158] The following example illustrates the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification provided in this application.

[0159] Figure 9 This is a schematic diagram of the personnel management system applied to a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application embodiment, as shown below. Figure 9 As shown, the personnel management system is mainly divided into the following parts, which are arranged in a progressive order:

[0160] (I) Basic Data Section;

[0161] The basic data section mainly includes: activity list, standard working hours for activities, employee travel time, job responsibilities, skill requirements, and capacity indicators, which can be obtained through TRP (Test Activity Management System), BPM (Business Activity Management System), certification management system, QIS (Failure Analysis Management System), operations system, and testing cost competitiveness.

[0162] (II) The information technology component is mainly divided into:

[0163] 1) Capacity analysis: This includes capacity indicators, capacity report display, low-production risk warning, automatic capacity analysis, capacity thresholds, and capacity forecasting;

[0164] 2) Performance Management: This includes personnel efficiency checklist, personnel efficiency ranking, overall performance ranking, personnel efficiency non-compliance checklist, bonus / penalty records, and adjustment of performance indicators;

[0165] 3) Human resource allocation: This involves organizational structure, job maps, human resource gap (i.e., mismatch between human resource planning and actual needs), recruitment list, human efficiency analysis, standard working hours for activities, and personnel qualification management, etc.

[0166] 4) Person-job matching: This involves skills courses, skills manual courses, job certificate management, work manual management, learning resumes, promotion learning maps, and course development.

[0167] (III) Tool-based components;

[0168] The tool-based component, through information technology management of business activities, is divided into several parts: capacity analysis model, performance evaluation, human resource allocation model, and person-job matching analysis.

[0169] (iv) Intelligent components;

[0170] The intelligent component is mainly divided into several parts: capacity optimization early warning, personnel optimization early warning, and personnel-job optimization early warning.

[0171] Based on the aforementioned personnel management system, the method of this application mainly involves the following parts:

[0172] (1) Establish a sound personnel performance appraisal system: clarify the analysis model of employee efficiency, realize real-time visualization of efficiency and early warning of abnormal efficiency. Provide data support for employee performance appraisal and efficiency optimization.

[0173] Figure 10 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of establishing a comprehensive personnel performance appraisal system in a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 10 As shown, the performance indicators (standard workload) delivered by the job are compared with the actual indicators achieved (actual workload) to calculate the efficiency of the testers and give a performance ranking; a performance review is conducted every quarter, and the assessment indicators and scoring standards can be adjusted in a timely manner according to strategic adjustments and market changes.

[0174] A personnel testing quality points system was simultaneously established: For any testing quality issues, the flow of related samples was traceable, and points were deducted from the corresponding testing personnel. For those who closed quality issues, i.e., employees could claim and resolve the issues, and upon approval, receive corresponding points rewards. A red and black list was generated monthly, with appropriate rewards and penalties. Quality points were incorporated into the testing personnel's performance evaluation system.

[0175] (2) Establish a human resource allocation model: By clarifying the human resource allocation list and job requirements, maximize the matching of personnel and job capabilities, and maximize work efficiency, work quality and employee happiness.

[0176] Figure 11 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of building a human resource allocation model in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application. Figure 11 As shown, the standard working hours for the activity were determined through offline surveys. The activity workload was obtained through testing resource planning systems, quality integration systems, operations systems, and testing cost competitiveness systems. The actual attendance time of employees was obtained through the BPM system to determine the standard working hours for testers, thus deriving the standard manpower allocation for each position (i.e., the standard manpower allocation quantity). The formula for calculating the standard manpower allocation quantity is: (Standard working hours for the activity * Activity workload) / Standard working hours = Standard manpower allocation quantity.

[0177] Based on the job delivery requirements, a job responsibility list (including name, responsibilities, responsibility requirements, skill requirements, etc.) is generated. The personnel capability model is matched with the job responsibility list, and the optimal human resource allocation model is automatically generated using a recommendation algorithm. Based on the gap between the current human resource allocation and the optimal human resource allocation, a suitable personnel recommendation list is automatically generated.

[0178] The following is an example illustrating manpower allocation recommendations:

[0179] Figure 12This is a schematic diagram illustrating a human resource allocation recommendation example in a performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in this application. Table 1 shows... Figure 12 A summary table of the corresponding data and human resource management suggestions.

[0180] Table 1. Data Summary and Human Resource Management Recommendations

[0181]

[0182] Based on the above figure and table, we can see that:

[0183] 1> By establishing standard working hours for each process in the battery cell performance testing, collecting the workload of each process, and calculating the required manpower for each process.

[0184] 2> Compare and analyze the required manpower with the existing manpower to determine the manpower gap. For example, the sample receiving, clamping, welding, and fixture sorting require 0.95 manpower, 0.3 manpower, 0.3 manpower, and 0.2 manpower respectively, but the delivery process requires 0.6 manpower.

[0185] 3> Based on the analysis of human resource differences and considering the qualifications of personnel, priority is given to transferring personnel with delivery qualifications from the sample collection stage to the delivery stage. If the qualifications of personnel do not meet the requirements, on-the-job training is automatically generated, and the manager selects the personnel who need to participate in the training. After passing the training, they are transferred to the delivery stage.

[0186] 4> For situations where there is a slight surplus of manpower in each stage, it is recommended to conduct skills training for personnel, cultivate generalists who can master tasks such as clamping, welding, and fixture sorting, and enable one person to perform multiple roles, thereby optimizing manpower.

[0187] (3) Build an employee competency map: Figure 13 This is a flowchart illustrating the process of building an employee competency map in a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 13 As shown, employee training paths must meet the requirements of the job to achieve a good match between people and positions.

[0188] (4) Intelligent early warning and intelligent allocation of manpower;

[0189] Real-time data acquisition: By deploying IoT devices and intelligent software tools, real-time monitoring of employee work status will be achieved. This includes, but is not limited to, collecting multi-dimensional data such as working hours, workload, work quality, and employee health status. Data collection requires employee permission; data can only be collected and analyzed after the employee agrees to these permissions.

[0190] Algorithm Design and Application: Utilizing deep learning and natural language processing technologies, a series of artificial intelligence algorithms will be designed and applied to analyze the collected data in real time. This will help the team identify high-efficiency work patterns, potential work stress points, and the match between employee skills and job requirements.

[0191] Early warning mechanism establishment: Based on algorithm analysis results, an early warning mechanism will be established. When the system detects production bottlenecks, unreasonable human resource allocation, or abnormal employee work status, it will automatically trigger an early warning, promptly notifying relevant departments to intervene and avoid potential risks and losses.

[0192] (5) When there are discrepancies between human efficiency and manpower allocation, the system can recommend adjustment strategies:

[0193] Adjustment Strategy 1: When individual employees consistently fall below the standard efficiency, the system will automatically identify this and send an alert email to notify managers to intervene and improve the situation.

[0194] Figure 14 This is a flowchart illustrating optimization strategy 1 in a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 14 As shown, the methodology for improving human efficiency is to first quantify human efficiency and determine whether the current human efficiency meets the requirements. If the human efficiency does not meet the requirements, the short-term human efficiency improvement plan is to first identify the inefficiencies and then introduce measures based on the inefficiencies.

[0195] A long-term and high-efficiency solution involves reshaping business activities, identifying activities that need to be changed, automating these activities or reducing their volume, and consequently reducing the number of personnel required.

[0196] Adjustment Strategy 2: When a new employee is in a certain position, if the employee's efficiency remains consistently low, the system can automatically identify this and send an alert email to the manager to conduct employee skills training and qualification assessment, determine whether the person and the job are a good match, and use this as an important basis for the employee's formal employment.

[0197] Adjustment Strategy 3: Figure 15 This is a flowchart illustrating optimization strategy 3 in a performance management method based on quantified human efficiency proposed in this application. Figure 15 As shown, by connecting to the activity monitoring system, changes in activity levels can be obtained. When activity levels increase or decrease, the system can automatically calculate the optimal manpower allocation for the activity and determine the loading distribution of all activities in the laboratory, the ability distribution of personnel, and the rapid deployment of recommended personnel; where, activity loading = required number of people / current number of people.

[0198] In some embodiments, a performance management approach based on quantifying human efficiency may include the following steps:

[0199] 1) Streamline business activity processes and clarify the relationship between activities and personnel;

[0200] 2) Automatically extract relevant underlying data such as personnel information, attendance time, and workload based on the time dimension specified by the system;

[0201] 3) Process and apply the underlying data according to the corresponding computational logic;

[0202] 4) After processing and applying the underlying data, it will display data on human efficiency, personnel capabilities, and manpower quantification, and provide suggestions on low human efficiency, personnel activity loading distribution, manpower allocation, and manpower adjustment. It can also predict the amount of manpower required in the future.

[0203] 5) By adjusting the strategy, the system automatically extracts the underlying data;

[0204] 6) Through the application and analysis of underlying data, determine the effects of strategy adjustment on improving laboratory efficiency and productivity;

[0205] 7) Continuously improve operational efficiency through hardware, software, or personnel management, and quantify the improvement effect of each improvement measure.

[0206] In this embodiment, through visual monitoring of personnel, the efficiency of management personnel and manpower allocation can be quantified. Based on the acquired task volume and employee capability matrix, the allocation of manpower can be dynamically adjusted to achieve person-job matching, thereby improving testing efficiency and increasing productivity. By quantifying human efficiency data, inefficiencies can be identified, and measures can be formulated to improve human efficiency and help reduce costs.

[0207] The above describes the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification proposed in the embodiments of this application. The related devices and electronic equipment are described below.

[0208] Figure 16 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a performance management device based on human efficiency quantification proposed in an embodiment of this application, as shown below. Figure 16 As shown, the performance management device 1600 based on human efficiency quantification includes:

[0209] The partitioning module 1601 is used to partition at least one test stage in the test process to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test stage; wherein, the minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester.

[0210] The first determining module 1602 is used to determine the standard working time corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each of the test links; wherein, the standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the single minimum output corresponding to the minimum quantization unit;

[0211] The second determining module 1603 is used to determine the actual workload of the first tester based on the standard working hours of each test step and the number of minimum quantized units of each test step actually completed by the first tester.

[0212] In some embodiments, the performance management device 1600 based on human resource efficiency quantification further includes: a processing module, used for:

[0213] Compare the actual workload of the first tester with the pre-set standard workload corresponding to the first tester;

[0214] If the actual workload is less than the standard workload, an alarm message is output to the administrator's device; wherein, the alarm message indicates that the first tester does not meet the job requirements;

[0215] If the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, the first tester is ranked according to the actual workload.

[0216] In some embodiments, the processing module is specifically used for:

[0217] Based on the actual workload and the additional scoring items corresponding to the first tester, the first tester is ranked according to performance.

[0218] The additional scoring items include at least one of the management scoring items and the test quality scoring items.

[0219] In some embodiments, the processing module is further configured to:

[0220] Based on the standard working hours of each test stage, the workload of each test stage, and the standard working hours of the testers, the standard manpower configuration for each test stage is determined; wherein, the workload of each test stage represents the target number of the smallest quantitative units that need to be completed, and the standard manpower configuration represents the number of people required to complete each test stage.

[0221] Based on the number of personnel already configured for each testing stage and the corresponding standard number of personnel, a recommended personnel allocation list is output using a pre-set recommendation algorithm; wherein, the recommended personnel allocation list is used to assist in the allocation of personnel for each testing stage.

[0222] In some embodiments, the processing module is further specifically used for:

[0223] For each of the at least one testing stage, calculate the product of the standard working hours and the workload of the activity corresponding to the testing stage, and then divide it by the standard working hours to obtain the standard manpower configuration quantity corresponding to the testing stage.

[0224] In some embodiments, the processing module is further specifically used for:

[0225] For each of the at least one test stage, perform the following steps:

[0226] If the number of configured personnel is less than the standard number of personnel, output the first information indicating that the testing phase needs to increase the number of testers;

[0227] If the configured manpower configuration is greater than the standard manpower configuration, output second information indicating that the testing process supports reducing the number of testers;

[0228] Based on the first test stage corresponding to the first information and the second test stage corresponding to the second information, the recommendation algorithm is used to output the recommended personnel allocation list.

[0229] In some embodiments, the processing module is further specifically used for:

[0230] Based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second testing phase, determine whether there are any second testers who meet the requirements for participating in the first testing phase among the testers participating in the second testing phase;

[0231] If it is determined that the second tester exists, generate third information that represents a recommendation to reassign the second tester to the first testing phase;

[0232] Based on the third piece of information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

[0233] In some embodiments, the processing module is further specifically used for:

[0234] If it is determined that there is no second tester, the testers in the second testing phase are ranked according to their performance, and the N testers at the bottom of the ranking are selected as the third testers; where N is an integer greater than 0.

[0235] Generate a fourth piece of information that recommends the third tester to participate in training; wherein the training is related to the first testing phase;

[0236] Based on at least one of the third and fourth information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

[0237] It should be understood that the performance management device 1600 based on human efficiency quantification in this application embodiment can be implemented using an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a programmable logic device (PLD). The PLD can be a complex programmable logical device (CPLD), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a generic array logic (GAL), or any combination thereof. The aforementioned method can also be implemented using software; the performance management device 1600 based on human efficiency quantification and its various modules can also be software modules.

[0238] This application also provides an electronic device, including: a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the aforementioned performance management method based on human efficiency quantification.

[0239] The above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, by software, hardware, firmware, or any other combination thereof. When implemented using software, the above embodiments can be implemented, in whole or in part, as a computer program product. The computer program product includes one or more computer instructions. When the computer program instructions are loaded or executed on a computer, all or part of the processes or functions described in the embodiments of this application are generated. The computer can be a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, a computer network, or other programmable device. The computer instructions can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium or transmitted from one computer-readable storage medium to another. For example, the computer instructions can be transmitted from one website, computer, server, or data center to another website, computer, server, or data center via wired (e.g., coaxial cable, fiber optic, digital subscriber line (DSL)) or wireless (e.g., infrared, wireless, microwave, etc.) means. The computer-readable storage medium can be any available medium that a computer can access or a data storage device such as a server or data center that includes one or more sets of available media. The available medium can be a magnetic medium (e.g., floppy disk, hard disk, magnetic tape), an optical medium (e.g., DVD), or a semiconductor medium. A semiconductor medium can be a solid-state drive (SSD).

[0240] This application provides a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions (i.e., a computer program) stored thereon, the computer-readable program instructions being used to execute the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification in the above embodiments.

[0241] The computer-readable storage medium provided in this application may be, for example, a USB flash drive, but is not limited to, electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared systems, devices, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of computer-readable storage media may include, but are not limited to: electrical connections with one or more wires, portable computer disks, hard disks, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), optical fibers, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, or any suitable combination thereof. In this embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, system, or device. The program code contained on the computer-readable storage medium may be transmitted using any suitable medium, including but not limited to: wires, optical cables, RF (Radio Frequency), etc., or any suitable combination thereof.

[0242] The aforementioned computer-readable storage medium may be included in an electronic device or may exist independently without being assembled into an electronic device.

[0243] The aforementioned computer-readable storage medium carries one or more programs, which, when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the following steps:

[0244] The testing process is divided into at least one testing stage to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each testing stage; wherein, the minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester.

[0245] Determine the standard working time corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each test step; wherein, the standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit in a single test;

[0246] The actual workload of the first tester is determined based on the standard working hours corresponding to each test stage and the number of minimum quantitative units actually completed by the first tester in each test stage.

[0247] Computer program code for performing the operations of this application can be written in one or more programming languages ​​or a combination thereof, including object-oriented programming languages ​​such as Java, Smalltalk, and C++, and conventional procedural programming languages ​​such as the "C" language or similar programming languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user's computer, partially on the user's computer, as a standalone software package, partially on the user's computer and partially on a remote computer, or entirely on a remote computer or server. In cases involving remote computers, the remote computer can be connected to the user's computer via any type of network—including a Local Area Network (LAN) or a Wide Area Network (WAN)—or can be connected to an external computer (e.g., via the Internet using an Internet service provider).

[0248] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of apparatus, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of this application. In this regard, each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, segment, or portion of code containing one or more executable instructions for implementing a specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions indicated in the blocks may occur in a different order than those indicated in the drawings. For example, two consecutively indicated blocks may actually be executed substantially in parallel, and they may sometimes be executed in reverse order, depending on the functions involved. It should also be noted that each block in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, can be implemented using a dedicated hardware-based system that performs the specified function or operation, or using a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.

[0249] The modules described in the embodiments of this application can be implemented in software or hardware. The names of the modules do not necessarily limit the functionality of the unit itself.

[0250] The readable storage medium provided in this application is a computer-readable storage medium that stores computer-readable program instructions (i.e., computer programs) for executing the aforementioned performance management method based on human efficiency quantification. This addresses the technical problems of low overall work efficiency and low tester satisfaction. Compared with related technologies, the beneficial effects of the computer-readable storage medium provided in this application are the same as those of the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification provided in the above embodiments, and will not be elaborated upon here.

[0251] This application also provides a computer program product, including a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described above.

[0252] The computer program product provided in this application can solve the technical problems of low overall work efficiency and low tester satisfaction. Compared with related technologies, the beneficial effects of the computer program product provided in this application are the same as those of the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification provided in the above embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0253] The above-described embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit them. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions 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 this application, and should all be included within the protection scope of this application.

Claims

1. A performance management method based on quantifying human efficiency, characterized in that, The method includes: The testing process is divided into at least one testing stage to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each testing stage; wherein, the minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester. Determine the standard working time corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each test step; wherein, the standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit in a single test; The actual workload of the first tester is determined based on the standard working hours corresponding to each test stage and the number of minimum quantitative units actually completed by the first tester in each test stage.

2. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 1, characterized in that, After determining the actual workload of the first tester based on the standard working hours corresponding to each of the test stages and the number of minimum quantitative units actually completed by the first tester in each of the test stages, the method further includes: Compare the actual workload of the first tester with the pre-set standard workload corresponding to the first tester; If the actual workload is less than the standard workload, an alarm message is output to the administrator's device; wherein, the alarm message indicates that the first tester does not meet the job requirements; If the actual workload is greater than or equal to the standard workload, the first tester is ranked according to the actual workload.

3. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 2, characterized in that, The step of ranking the performance of the first tester based on the actual workload includes: Based on the actual workload and the additional scoring items corresponding to the first tester, the first tester is ranked according to performance. The additional scoring items include at least one of the management scoring items and the test quality scoring items.

4. The performance management method based on human resource quantification according to any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the standard working hours of each test stage, the workload of each test stage, and the standard working hours of the testers, the standard manpower configuration for each test stage is determined; wherein, the workload of each test stage represents the target number of the smallest quantitative units that need to be completed, and the standard manpower configuration represents the number of people required to complete each test stage. Based on the number of personnel already configured for each testing stage and the corresponding standard number of personnel, a recommended personnel allocation list is output using a pre-set recommendation algorithm; wherein, the recommended personnel allocation list is used to assist in the allocation of personnel for each testing stage.

5. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 4, characterized in that, The determination of the standard manpower allocation for each testing stage, based on the standard working hours, workload, and standard working hours of the testers for each testing stage, includes: For each of the at least one testing stage, calculate the product of the standard working hours and the workload of the activity corresponding to the testing stage, and then divide it by the standard working hours to obtain the standard manpower configuration quantity corresponding to the testing stage.

6. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 4, characterized in that, The step involves using a pre-set recommendation algorithm to output a recommended personnel allocation list based on the configured manpower quantity for each testing phase and the corresponding standard manpower quantity, including: For each of the at least one test stage, perform the following steps: If the number of configured personnel is less than the standard number of personnel, output the first information indicating that the testing phase needs to increase the number of testers; If the configured manpower configuration is greater than the standard manpower configuration, output second information indicating that the testing process supports reducing the number of testers; Based on the first test stage corresponding to the first information and the second test stage corresponding to the second information, the recommendation algorithm is used to output the recommended personnel allocation list.

7. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 6, characterized in that, The step of outputting the recommended personnel deployment list based on the first test step corresponding to the first information and the second test step corresponding to the second information, using the recommendation algorithm, includes: Based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second testing phase, determine whether there are any second testers who meet the requirements for participating in the first testing phase among the testers participating in the second testing phase; If it is determined that the second tester exists, generate third information that represents a recommendation to reassign the second tester to the first testing phase; Based on the third piece of information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

8. The performance management method based on quantified human efficiency according to claim 7, characterized in that, After determining, based on the basic information of the testers participating in the second testing phase, whether there exists a second tester who meets the requirements for participating in the first testing phase, the method further includes: If it is determined that there is no second tester, the testers in the second testing phase are ranked according to their performance, and the N testers at the bottom of the ranking are selected as the third testers; where N is an integer greater than 0. Generate a fourth piece of information that recommends the third tester to participate in training; wherein the training is related to the first testing phase; The step of outputting the recommended personnel deployment list based on the third information includes: Based on at least one of the third and fourth information, output the recommended personnel deployment list.

9. A performance management device based on human efficiency quantification, characterized in that, include: A partitioning module is used to partition at least one test stage in the testing process to obtain the minimum quantization unit corresponding to each test stage; wherein, the minimum quantization unit represents the minimum output of a single tester. The first determining module is used to determine the standard working time corresponding to the minimum quantization unit of each of the test links; wherein, the standard working time represents the standard time required to complete the minimum output quantity corresponding to the minimum quantization unit in a single test; The second determining module is used to determine the actual workload of the first tester based on the standard working hours of each test step and the number of minimum quantized units of each test step actually completed by the first tester.

10. An electronic device, characterized in that, include: A memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described in any one of claims 1 to 8.

11. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores computer instructions that, when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the performance management method based on human efficiency quantification as described in any one of claims 1 to 8.

Images