Physical protection internal personnel reliability evaluation method, management method, device and system

Abstract

The invention discloses a physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method, management method, device and system. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring an index system for personnel reliability assessment; performing pairwise comparison on the N personnel evaluation dimensions to evaluate the relative importance degree between the dimensions to obtain a first judgment matrix, and performing pairwise comparison on a plurality of reliability elements under each personnel evaluation dimension to evaluate the relative importance degree between the elements to obtain a second judgment matrix; determining a first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension according to the first judgment matrix, and determining a second weight of each reliability element according to the second judgment matrix; determining an element score of each reliability element according to the personnel information of the to-be-evaluated personnel; determining a dimension risk value of the personnel evaluation dimension according to the element score of each reliability element and the second weight; and determining a reliability risk value of the to-be-assessed person according to the dimension risk value of each person assessment dimension and the first weight. And the evaluation accuracy is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of nuclear power technology, specifically relating to a method, management method, device, and system for assessing the reliability of internal personnel protection. Background Technology

[0002] In physical security systems, internal personnel reliability is a comprehensive measure of the ability and stability of personnel in nuclear-related positions to comply with procedures, fulfill their responsibilities, and avoid intentional or negligent acts that could lead to security incidents. It is one of the key influencing factors in physical security risk analysis. Effective assessment of internal personnel reliability helps identify potential human-caused risk sources and improves the overall synergistic effectiveness of physical, technical, and human security measures.

[0003] Currently, personnel reliability assessments largely rely on internal regulations and best practices, often using a limited set of dimensions (such as basic background checks or job performance) for qualitative judgment, or subjective scoring for grading. Some practices treat personnel in different positions and risk scenarios with similar standards, making coarse-grained distinctions based solely on job sensitivity, qualification certificates, or historical violations; others directly borrow from prevailing security industry experience or guidelines from foreign institutions. This results in existing technologies for personnel reliability assessment lacking quantitative standards, exhibiting strong subjectivity, and employing limited assessment dimensions, leading to low accuracy and precision in assessing the physical protection risks of nuclear facilities.

[0004] Therefore, existing technologies are not very accurate in assessing personnel reliability. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to address the above-mentioned shortcomings of the existing technology by providing a method, management method, device and system for assessing the reliability of internal personnel in physical protection. Using this method can improve the accuracy of the assessment of the reliability of internal personnel in physical protection.

[0006] In a first aspect, embodiments of the present invention provide a method for assessing the reliability of physical protection for internal personnel, including:

[0007] Obtain a personnel reliability assessment indicator system, which includes a reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer.

[0008] The first judgment matrix is ​​obtained by comparing the relative importance of each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise. The second judgment matrix is ​​obtained by comparing the relative importance of each of the multiple reliability factors under each personnel evaluation dimension pairwise.

[0009] The first judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship between the evaluation dimensions of each person in the criteria layer, and the second judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship of each reliability element within its respective evaluation dimension of the person.

[0010] Based on the first judgment matrix, determine the first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension, and based on the second judgment matrix, determine the second weight of each reliability element;

[0011] Based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated, determine the element score for each reliability element;

[0012] Based on the element scores and second weights of each reliability element, the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension is determined;

[0013] The reliability risk value of the personnel to be evaluated is determined based on the dimensional risk value and first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension.

[0014] Secondly, embodiments of the present invention also provide a physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device, comprising:

[0015] The acquisition module is used to acquire the indicator system for personnel reliability assessment. The indicator system includes reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer.

[0016] The first assessment module, connected to the acquisition module, is used to compare the relative importance of each of the N personnel assessment dimensions pairwise to obtain a first judgment matrix. It also compares the relative importance of each of the multiple reliability factors under each personnel assessment dimension pairwise to obtain a second judgment matrix.

[0017] The first judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship between the evaluation dimensions of each person in the criteria layer, and the second judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship of each reliability element within its respective evaluation dimension of the person.

[0018] The first determination module, connected to the first evaluation module, is used to determine the first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension based on the first judgment matrix, and to determine the second weight of each reliability element based on the second judgment matrix.

[0019] The second determination module, connected to the first determination module, is used to determine the element score of each reliability element based on the personnel information of the person to be evaluated.

[0020] The second assessment module, connected to the second determination module, is used to determine the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension based on the element scores and second weights of each reliability element.

[0021] The third assessment module, connected to the second assessment module, is used to determine the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed based on the dimensional risk value and the first weight of each personnel assessment dimension.

[0022] Thirdly, embodiments of the present invention also provide a method for managing internal personnel through physical protection, comprising:

[0023] Based on the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method described in the first aspect, the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed is obtained;

[0024] Based on the aforementioned reliability risk value, develop personnel management measures;

[0025] The personnel management measures described above shall be used to manage the internal personnel responsible for the physical protection.

[0026] Fourthly, embodiments of the present invention also provide a physical protection internal personnel management system, comprising:

[0027] The physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device described in the second aspect is used to obtain the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed through the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method.

[0028] The generation module, connected to the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device, is used to generate personnel management measures based on the reliability risk value;

[0029] The execution module, connected to the generation module, is used to manage the internal personnel of the physical protection facility according to the personnel management measures.

[0030] Fifthly, embodiments of the present invention also provide a physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device, the device comprising: a processor and a memory storing computer program instructions;

[0031] When the processor executes computer program instructions, it implements the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method as described in the first aspect.

[0032] The present invention provides a method for assessing the reliability of internal personnel through physical protection. This method employs a three-tiered structure of "target-dimension-element" and a two-level judgment matrix of "cross-dimension-intra-dimension" to establish a clear system for expressing relative importance. Furthermore, it combines element scores with a two-level weighted aggregation to form a quantitative "reliability risk value." This method achieves a structured decomposition and quantitative calculation of personnel reliability, reflecting differences in relative importance at both the dimensional and element levels, reducing the influence of single subjective judgments, and improving the accuracy of personnel reliability assessment results. Attached Figure Description

[0033] Figure 1 : A flowchart of a method for assessing the reliability of physical protection for internal personnel, provided as an embodiment of the present invention;

[0034] Figure 2 : Flowchart of another method for assessing the reliability of internal personnel protection in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention;

[0035] Figure 3 : A schematic diagram of an index system for assessing the reliability of physical protection for internal personnel, provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0036] Figure 4 : A structural diagram of a physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0037] Figure 5 : A structural diagram of a physical protection internal personnel management system provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0038] Figure 6 : A structural diagram of a device provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0039] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solution of the present invention, the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0040] It should be noted that, in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used merely to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising..." does not exclude the presence of additional identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0041] Physical protection: refers to the physical protection systems and measures (access control, monitoring, inspection, regulations, etc.) taken for critical sites / assets such as nuclear facilities to prevent theft, damage, and illegal transfer.

[0042] Internal threats: Malicious or negligent actions by personnel within the organization (permanent staff / outsourced / temporary staff, etc.) that may lead to security incidents. This is in contrast to external attacks.

[0043] Insider threats are among the threats that the physical protection systems of nuclear facilities need to guard against. Insider personnel reliability assessment is an important preventative protection measure. Its purpose is to assess whether insider personnel have the potential to carry out threatening activities, including radioactive sabotage or illegal transfer of nuclear materials, by conducting background checks and assessments of personnel within the nuclear facility. This allows for the early prediction and implementation of relevant measures to eliminate potential insider threat risks.

[0044] The nine-point scale is a measurement and assessment method based on nine levels, primarily used in fields such as environmental auditing. This method helps assessors quantify subjective indicators by defining the meaning of different scales.

[0045] Currently, all types of nuclear facilities in my country have implemented background checks on their internal personnel. However, most checks only examine the basic personal information, social relationships, educational background, and work experience of prospective employees to determine if they meet the basic requirements of the position. For some positions, an assessment of their social hazard is conducted to determine if they pose a threat. However, regular background checks are often delayed and fail to detect significant changes in the circumstances of internal personnel in a timely manner, leading to gaps in internal personnel monitoring. Therefore, a quantitative assessment method for personnel reliability is needed to continuously track the situation of internal personnel, calculate specific numerical values ​​of internal personnel reliability using quantitative methods, and promptly identify internal threats based on trends in these quantitative assessment values.

[0046] Example 1:

[0047] Based on the above research, in order to solve the aforementioned technical problems, such as Figure 1 As shown, this embodiment provides a method for assessing the reliability of physical protection for internal personnel, including the following steps 101 to 106.

[0048] Step 101: Obtain the indicator system for personnel reliability assessment. The indicator system includes reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer.

[0049] Specifically, a three-tiered indicator system for personnel reliability assessment is obtained: the target layer is the "reliability risk value," the "N personnel assessment dimensions" is the dimension layer, and the "multiple reliability elements under each dimension" is the element layer. The target layer is the reliability risk value (single-target output), the dimension layer is the personnel assessment dimensions (multi-dimensional classification), and the element layer is the reliability elements (multi-indicator refinement). These three layers form a complete "target-dimension-element" mapping, ensuring that subsequent weights and scores have clear attribution and aggregation paths.

[0050] Step 102: Compare the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise to assess the relative importance of each dimension and obtain a first judgment matrix; and compare the multiple reliability elements under each personnel evaluation dimension pairwise to assess the relative importance of each element and obtain a second judgment matrix.

[0051] The first judgment matrix characterizes the relative importance of each personnel evaluation dimension at the criterion level, while the second judgment matrix characterizes the relative importance of each reliability element within its respective personnel evaluation dimension. Specifically, the first judgment matrix (cross-dimensional): compares each of the N dimensions pairwise to quantify the relative importance of each dimension; this matrix characterizes the importance relationship between the dimensions at the criterion level. The second judgment matrix (intra-dimensional): compares multiple elements within each dimension pairwise to quantify the relative importance of elements within that dimension; this matrix characterizes the importance relationship of each element within its respective dimension.

[0052] The first judgment matrix addresses the importance allocation "between dimensions"; the second judgment matrix addresses the importance allocation "within each dimension"; the two are not confused.

[0053] Step 103: Determine the first weight of each of the personnel evaluation dimensions according to the first judgment matrix, and determine the second weight of each of the reliability elements according to the second judgment matrix.

[0054] Specifically, dimensional weights (first weights): calculated by the first judgment matrix, used to measure the relative contribution of each dimension to the target layer. Feature weights (second weights): calculated by the second judgment matrix, used to measure the relative contribution of each feature within each dimension to that dimension. Feature weights are "local weights," effective only within their respective dimensions; dimensional weights are "global to target layer" weights. Both types of weights are applied layer by layer.

[0055] Step 104: Determine the element score for each reliability element based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated.

[0056] Specifically, based on the personnel information of the individuals to be evaluated, a corresponding "element score" is generated for each reliability element. This score serves as a quantitative input, which is combined with the element weights to enter the calculation at the dimensional level.

[0057] Step 105: Determine the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension based on the element scores and second weights of each reliability element. The dimensional risk value is a comprehensive quantitative result of the risk contribution of the elements within that dimension.

[0058] Specifically, for each person's evaluation dimension, the "element score of each element within the dimension" and the "second weight set corresponding to the dimension" can be weighted and summarized to obtain the "dimensional risk value".

[0059] Step 106: Determine the reliability risk value of the person to be evaluated based on the dimensional risk value and the first weight of each of the personnel evaluation dimensions.

[0060] Specifically, the element scores are aggregated into dimensional risk values ​​by element weights, and then aggregated into an overall risk value by dimensional weights, forming a bottom-up two-stage weighted path. The final "reliability risk value" can be obtained by weighting and summing the "dimensional risk values ​​of each dimension" with the "first weight of each dimension".

[0061] In this embodiment, a clear system for expressing relative importance is established through a three-tiered structure of "target-dimension-element" and a two-level judgment matrix of "cross-dimension-intra-dimension". Then, a two-level weighted summary is performed using element scores to form a quantitative "reliability risk value". This achieves a structured decomposition and quantitative calculation of personnel reliability, reflecting differences in relative importance at the dimensional and element levels, reducing the influence of single subjective judgments, and improving the accuracy of personnel reliability assessment results.

[0062] Optionally, in step 102 above, the relative importance of each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions is assessed by comparing them pairwise to obtain a first judgment matrix, which may specifically include:

[0063] Step 1: Compare each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise, and use the nine-point scale to obtain the importance value of each personnel evaluation dimension relative to the other personnel evaluation dimensions;

[0064] Step 2: Generate an initial judgment matrix based on the importance value corresponding to each personnel evaluation dimension;

[0065] Step 3: Perform consistency verification on the initial judgment matrix to obtain the consistency ratio;

[0066] Step 4: If the consistency ratio is higher than the preset threshold, repeat steps 1 to 3 until the consistency ratio is lower than or equal to the preset threshold. Then, determine the initial judgment matrix as the first judgment matrix, which is a positive reciprocal matrix.

[0067] Specifically, Step 1 compares each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise, using a nine-point scale to quantify the relative importance of any two dimensions, obtaining the importance value of each dimension relative to the other dimensions. Step 2 constructs an initial judgment matrix based on the relative importance values ​​obtained in Step 1, with matrix elements corresponding to the importance ratios between each dimension. Step 3 verifies the consistency of the initial judgment matrix, calculating the consistency ratio to measure the intrinsic consistency level of the pairwise comparison sets. Step 4, if the consistency ratio is higher than a preset threshold, returns to and repeats Steps 1 to 3 for correction until the consistency ratio reaches or falls below the preset threshold; after the consistency condition is met, the initial judgment matrix is ​​determined as the first judgment matrix, and this first judgment matrix is ​​a positive reciprocal matrix.

[0068] In this embodiment, a judgment matrix is ​​established through pairwise comparisons using a nine-point scale, and iterative corrections are performed using a consistency ratio as the criterion until a preset threshold is met, ultimately yielding a first judgment matrix with positive and negative inverses. This process ensures the operability of relative importance quantification and the logical consistency of the judgment set, thereby improving the reliability and stability of the dimensional weight base data, reducing biases caused by subjective inconsistencies, and supporting the accuracy and verifiability of subsequent evaluation calculations.

[0069] In one example, the method for determining the first and second judgment matrices is as follows:

[0070] A nine-point scale was used, and at least eight industry experts were invited to score the relative importance of each pair of indicators in the second level (N personnel evaluation dimensions) and the third level (evaluation element level). After removing the highest and lowest scores, the average of the remaining scores, rounded to the nearest integer, was used as the relative importance score for the two indicators. Specifically:

[0071] Indicator B i The relative importance of (the i-th personnel evaluation dimension) to itself is 1 point, i.e., a ii =1.

[0072] Indicator B i For indicator B j The relative importance of (the j-th personnel evaluation dimension) is a. ij Score, Indicator B j For indicator B i The relative importance is 1 / a ij Points, i.e., a ji =1 / a ij .

[0073] Based on the relative importance scores among the indicators, construct the second-level and third-level judgment matrices respectively.

[0074] The judgment matrix for the second-level indicators, i.e., the first judgment matrix, is as follows:

[0075]

[0076] The largest eigenvalue of the matrix is ​​λ A and the corresponding eigenvectors (i.e., eigenvectors corresponding to the dominant direction) W = {w1, w2, ..., w i ..., w m}, and AW=λ A W.

[0077] B i The judgment matrix for the third-level indicator is: That is, the second judgment matrix is:

[0078]

[0079] The largest eigenvalue of the matrix is ​​λ Bi and the corresponding eigenvector W i ={w i1 w i2 , ..., w ij ..., w im}, and there is B i W=λ Bi W.

[0080] In one example, the consistency check method is as follows:

[0081] The consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​checked using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). If the check passes, the eigenvectors of the judgment matrix are the weight values ​​w of the second level. i The weight values ​​w of each indicator in the third level ij If the test fails, remove the highest and lowest scores from the remaining scores, construct a judgment matrix and perform a consistency test. Repeat the above process until the test passes.

[0082] In some embodiments, the method for determining the second judgment matrix is ​​the same as the method for determining the first judgment matrix described above, and therefore will not be repeated.

[0083] Optionally, the first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension is determined based on the first judgment matrix, specifically including:

[0084] The first judgment matrix is ​​weighted using the eigenvector method to obtain the eigenvectors corresponding to the dominant direction;

[0085] The feature vectors are normalized to obtain the first weight of each person's evaluation dimension.

[0086] Specifically, the eigenvector method is used as the computational approach to extract relative importance information from the first judgment matrix. Through the eigenvector method, an "eigenvector corresponding to the dominant direction" is obtained. This eigenvector represents the relative importance relationship between the various personnel evaluation dimensions. The eigenvectors are then normalized and converted into the first weights of each personnel evaluation dimension, forming a standardized weight set (summing a uniform scale) for subsequent weighted calculations.

[0087] In this embodiment, representative eigenvectors are extracted from the first judgment matrix using the eigenvector method, and then normalized to obtain standardized weight values. This achieves a transformation from relative importance relationships to weight quantification that can be directly used for calculation. This ensures that the weight outputs have a consistent measurement scale, facilitating subsequent weighted aggregation and risk calculation at the dimensional level, and improving the operability and interpretability of the evaluation model.

[0088] In some embodiments, the method for determining the second weight is the same as the method for determining the first weight described above, and therefore will not be repeated.

[0089] Optionally, step 104 above specifically includes:

[0090] A graded and quantitative scoring rule is used to assign a score to each reliability element, resulting in an element score for each reliability element.

[0091] The scoring rules are constructed based on an expert rule base and / or historical event data. That is, the scoring rules can be based on expert knowledge systems, historical event data, or a combination of both.

[0092] In this embodiment, reliability elements are scored by using a hierarchical quantitative scoring rule constructed based on an expert rule base and / or historical event data. This gives the "element scoring" a traceable basis and a unified quantitative standard, reduces subjective arbitrariness, and enhances the consistency and comparability of the scoring. It also provides standardized and computationally usable basic data for subsequent weighted dimension aggregation and overall risk value calculation.

[0093] In one example, the method for scoring the various reliability factors of the personnel being evaluated is as follows:

[0094] The factors (reliability elements) affecting the third-level indicators are divided into i levels, where i ≥ 3. Each factor takes a value between [1, i] according to the degree of risk it poses to the third-level indicators, where low-risk factors take a value of 1 and high-risk factors take a value of i.

[0095] Optionally, the above N personnel evaluation dimensions include at least one of the following five dimensions: basic personnel information, behavioral stability, health status, work performance, and social relationships; The basic information of personnel includes, but is not limited to, age, length of service, job sensitivity, and qualifications; behavioral stability includes, but is not limited to, value stability, discipline, and risk preference; health status includes, but is not limited to, physical and mental health indicators, sleep and stress levels; work performance includes, but is not limited to, performance rating, violation or abnormal records, and leave and overtime patterns; social relationships include, but are not limited to, sensitivity to external contacts, signs of economic pressure, and records of litigation or criminal cases.

[0096] In this embodiment, by limiting the evaluation dimensions to five distinct sets of personnel dimensions and specifying the scope of each dimension in the manner of "at least one" and "including but not limited to", the indicator system is provided with clear and operable selection boundaries, avoiding arbitrariness in dimension setting. On the other hand, it retains room for expansion to adapt to different scenario needs, thereby ensuring the relevance of the evaluation content while taking into account flexibility and feasibility, and promoting the standardization and stability of subsequent weight calculation and score summary.

[0097] In one example, the process of constructing the indicator system for personnel reliability assessment is as follows: The physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment index system in this embodiment consists of three levels. The highest level is the personnel reliability risk value A. The second level (i.e., N personnel assessment dimensions) includes, but is not limited to, basic information index B1, behavioral norms B2, physical and mental health index B3, social relationship index B4, and work performance index B5. The third-level index of basic information index B1 (i.e., the personnel assessment dimensions include multiple reliability factors) includes education level C. 11 Professional Background C 12 Employment Type C 13 Job Type C 14 The third-level indicators of behavioral norms B2 include, but are not limited to, behavioral tendencies C. 21 Values ​​C 22 Illegal and criminal activities C 23 C. Violations of rules and regulations 24 The third level of indicators for physical and mental condition B3 includes, but is not limited to, drug dependence. 31 Personality Trait C 32 Physiological diseases C 33 Mental illness C 34 The third-level indicators of socioeconomic relations B4 include, but are not limited to, kinship relations C. 41 C. Interactions with foreign organizations or individuals 42 Personal credit record C 43 Investment situation C 44 The third-level indicators of job performance B5 include, but are not limited to, job satisfaction C. 51 Assessment Results C 52 C. Rewards and punishments 53Security awareness C 54 .

[0098] Optionally, the above-mentioned determination of the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension based on the element score and second weight of each reliability element; and the determination of the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed based on the dimensional risk value and first weight of each personnel assessment dimension, may specifically include the following steps: Depending on the circumstances, all or part of the third-level indicators (reliability elements) of the personnel to be evaluated may be selected. According to the scoring rules of the third-level indicators, the indicator is scored Cij (the element score of the j-th reliability element under the i-th personnel evaluation dimension), where j is the j-th selected third-level indicator.

[0099] The risk value of the second-level indicator Bi is calculated according to the following formula (1): (1) Where j is the j-th selected third-level indicator.

[0100] The risk value of the first-level indicator A is calculated according to formula (2): (2) Where i is the i-th second-level index calculated.

[0101] The risk value of indicator A is the risk value of the reliability of internal personnel in physical protection.

[0102] To facilitate understanding of the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method provided in this embodiment, a practical application description of the above method is provided here, such as... Figure 2 As shown, please refer to the following example for details: Step 1: Construct a reliability assessment index system for physical protection of internal personnel.

[0103] Specifically, such as Figure 3 The internal personnel assessment indicator system for physical protection, as shown, consists of three levels. The highest level is the personnel reliability risk value A. The second level includes basic information indicator B1, behavioral norms indicator B2, physical and mental health indicator B3, social relationships indicator B4, and work performance indicator B5. The third level of indicators for basic information indicator B1 includes education level C. 11 Professional Background C 12 Employment Type C 13 Job Type C 14 The third level of indicators for behavioral norms indicator B2 includes values ​​C. 21 Behavioral Tendencies C 22 Illegal and criminal activities C 23 C. Violations of rules and regulations 24 The third level of indicators for physical and mental health status B3 includes drug dependence status C.31 Personality Trait C 32 Physiological diseases C 33 Mental illness C 34 The third level of indicators for socioeconomic relations B4 includes kinship C. 41 C. Interactions with foreign organizations or individuals 42 Personal credit record C 43 Investment situation C 44 The third level of performance indicators for B5 includes job satisfaction (C). 51 Assessment Results C 52 C. Rewards and punishments 53 Security awareness C 54 .

[0104] Step 2: Weighting of Personnel Reliability Assessment Indicators

[0105] (1) Scoring based on relative importance.

[0106] Eight experts were invited to score the relative importance of each pair of indicators in the second and third levels, resulting in the first and second judgment matrices.

[0107] For the first judgment matrix, taking the relative importance score of behavioral norms indicator B2 relative to basic situation indicator B1 as an example, after removing the highest and lowest scores from the scores given by 8 experts, the average score is a. 21 The relative importance of behavioral norms indicator B2 to basic situation indicator B1 is a. 21 In terms of importance, the relative importance of basic situation indicator B1 to behavioral norms indicator B2 is 1 / a. 21 The scores are as follows. Table 1 below shows the scoring results of the eight invited experts on the relative importance of the second-level indicators.

[0108] Table 1. Scoring results of the relative importance among the second-level indicators.

[0109] Then the judgment matrix A (first judgment matrix) of the second-level indicator is:

[0110] The largest eigenvalue of the matrix is ​​λ A And the corresponding eigenvectors W={w1, w2, w3, w4, w5}, and AW=λ A W.

[0111] The weights of the basic situation indicator B1, behavioral norms indicator B2, physical and mental health indicator B3, social relations indicator B4, and work performance indicator B5 are w1, w2, w3, w4, and w5, respectively.

[0112] (2) Perform a consistency check.

[0113] According to the consistency test formula of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), CR = CI / RI, where CI = (λ A -n) / (n-1)=(λ A -5) / (5-1), where n is the order of the judgment matrix A, and RI=1.12. When CR<0.10, the test is considered passed.

[0114] (3) Determine the weight of the indicators.

[0115] Determine the first weight of the personnel evaluation dimension and the second weight of the reliability element dimension.

[0116] Correspondingly, judgment matrices B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5 are derived based on expert scores, along with their corresponding largest eigenvalues ​​λ. B1 , λ B2 , λ B3 , λ B4 , λ B5 , and eigenvector W1={w 11 w 12 w 13 w 14}, W2={w 21 w 22 w 23 w 24}, W3={w 31 w 32 w 33 w 34}, W4={w 41 w 42 w 43 w 44}, W5={w 51 w 52 w 53 w 54}

[0117] Then the level of education received is C 11 Professional Background C 12 Employment Type C 13 Job Type C 14 The weight values ​​are w 11 w 12 w 13 w 14 Behavioral tendency C 21 Values ​​C 22 Illegal and criminal activities C 23 C. Violations of rules and regulations 24 The weight values ​​are w 21 w22 w 23 w 24 Drug dependence status C 31 Personality Trait C 32 Physiological diseases C 33 Mental illness C 34 The weight values ​​are w 31 w 32 w 33 w 34 Kinship C 41 C. Interactions with foreign organizations or individuals 42 Personal credit record C 43 Investment situation C 44 The weight values ​​are w 41 w 42 w 43 w 44 Job satisfaction C 51 Assessment Results C 52 C. Rewards and punishments 53 Security awareness C 54 The weight values ​​are w 51 w 52 w 53 w 54 .

[0118] Step 3: Develop scoring rules for the third-level indicators (determine the element scores for each reliability element based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated).

[0119] The factors influencing the third-level indicators are divided into four levels. Each factor takes a value between [1, 4] based on the level of risk it poses to the third-level indicators, with low-risk factors assigned a value of 1 and high-risk factors assigned a value of 4. Table 2 below shows one scoring method for the third-level indicators.

[0120] Table 2. A scoring method for a third-level indicator.

[0121] For a given individual, select all third-level indicators from behavioral norms indicator B2 and physical and mental condition indicator B3, and score them according to the scoring rules shown in Table 2. The scoring result is behavioral tendency C. 21 C. Values 22 C. Illegal and criminal activities 23 Points, violations of rules and regulations (C) 24 C. Drug dependence status 31 C. Personality Traits 32 Classification, Physiological Diseases C 33 C. Mental Illness 34 point.

[0122] Step 4: Calculate the internal personnel reliability risk value

[0123] Assuming the above N personnel evaluation dimensions include B2 and B3, then: (1) Calculate the risk value of behavioral norm indicator B2:

[0137] (2) Calculate the risk value for physical and mental condition B3:

[0138]

[0139] (3) The risk value of indicator A is calculated as follows:

[0140]

[0141] The physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method in this embodiment can quantitatively analyze and evaluate the index parameters characterizing the reliability level of internal personnel of nuclear facilities, calculate the internal personnel reliability risk value, and help analyze the trend changes in the internal personnel reliability level.

[0142] Example 2:

[0143] This embodiment provides a method for managing internal personnel through physical protection, the method including:

[0144] The reliability risk value of the personnel to be evaluated is obtained by using the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method provided in any of the above embodiments.

[0145] Develop management measures based on the reliability risk values ​​of the personnel to be evaluated;

[0146] The personnel responsible for the physical protection are managed in accordance with personnel management measures.

[0147] Specifically, firstly, the reliability risk value of the personnel to be evaluated is obtained using the reliability risk assessment method provided in any of the above embodiments. Then, differentiated management measures are formulated based on the reliability risk value (e.g., if the reliability risk value is higher than a preset threshold, enhanced management of the personnel is required, including access control verification, behavior monitoring, psychological intervention, etc.). Finally, the personnel to be evaluated are managed based on the formulated personnel management measures. These management measures are then implemented in the daily management of the personnel to be evaluated (e.g., access control verification is completed by the management department within 3 days; behavior monitoring is automatically implemented through access control system logs; psychological intervention is assigned to contracted psychological counselors, etc.).

[0148] In this embodiment, the quantitative "reliability risk value" generated by the structured assessment process is used as the sole decision-making basis to construct a closed-loop management chain of "assessment-formulation-execution": management measures are directly anchored to traceable quantitative results, significantly reducing human subjective interference and improving the objectivity and consistency of decision-making; a single scalar connects the entire process from assessment to execution, reducing the interpretation loss and coordination costs of intermediate links, and improving response efficiency and execution continuity; at the same time, it does not limit the specific type of measures and hierarchical rules, retaining the adaptability space for different implementation scenarios, and realizing flexible, precise and dynamic control over personnel reliability risks.

[0149] Example 3:

[0150] like Figure 4 As shown, this embodiment provides a physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device 300, which is used to implement the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method provided in any of the above embodiments.

[0151] Physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device 300, specifically including:

[0152] The acquisition module 301 is used to acquire the indicator system for personnel reliability assessment. The indicator system includes reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer.

[0153] The first assessment module 302, connected to the acquisition module 301, is used to compare the relative importance of each of the N personnel assessment dimensions pairwise to obtain a first judgment matrix, and to compare the relative importance of each of the multiple reliability factors under each personnel assessment dimension pairwise to obtain a second judgment matrix.

[0154] The first judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship between the evaluation dimensions of each person in the criteria layer, and the second judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship of each reliability element within its respective evaluation dimension of the person.

[0155] The first determining module 303 is connected to the first evaluation module 302 and is used to determine the first weight of each personnel evaluation dimension according to the first judgment matrix, and to determine the second weight of each reliability element according to the second judgment matrix.

[0156] The second determining module 304, connected to the first determining module 303, is used to determine the element score of each reliability element based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated.

[0157] The second assessment module 305, connected to the second determination module 304, is used to determine the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension based on the element score and second weight of each reliability element.

[0158] The third assessment module 306, connected to the second assessment module 305, is used to determine the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed based on the dimensional risk value and the first weight of each personnel assessment dimension.

[0159] Optionally, the first evaluation module 302 mentioned above includes:

[0160] The first assessment unit is used to perform step 1: compare each of the N personnel assessment dimensions pairwise, and obtain the importance value of each personnel assessment dimension relative to the other personnel assessment dimensions using the nine-point scale method;

[0161] The first generation module is used in step 2: generating an initial judgment matrix based on the importance value corresponding to each person's evaluation dimension;

[0162] The verification unit is used to perform step 3: verify the consistency of the initial judgment matrix and obtain the consistency ratio;

[0163] The control unit is used to execute step 4: if the consistency ratio is higher than the preset threshold, control the first evaluation unit, the first generation module and the verification unit to re-execute steps 1 to 3 until the consistency ratio is lower than or equal to the preset threshold, and determine the initial judgment matrix as the first judgment matrix. The first judgment matrix is ​​a positive reciprocal matrix.

[0164] Optionally, the first determining module 303 includes:

[0165] The analysis unit is used to calculate the weights of the first judgment matrix using the eigenvector method to obtain the eigenvectors corresponding to the dominant direction.

[0166] The first determining unit is used to normalize the feature vector to obtain the first weight of each person's evaluation dimension.

[0167] Example 4:

[0168] like Figure 5As shown, this embodiment provides a physical protection internal personnel management system 400, the system including:

[0169] The physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device 300 provided in any of the above embodiments is used to obtain the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed by the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method provided in any of the above embodiments.

[0170] The generation module 401 is connected to the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device and is used to formulate personnel management measures based on the reliability risk value;

[0171] The execution module 402, connected to the generation module, is used to manage the internal personnel of physical protection according to personnel management measures.

[0172] Figure 6 A schematic diagram of the hardware structure of the electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application is shown.

[0173] An electronic device may include a processor 501 and a memory 502 storing computer program instructions.

[0174] Specifically, the processor 501 may include a central processing unit (CPU), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or one or more integrated circuits that can be configured to implement the embodiments of this application.

[0175] Memory 502 may include mass storage for data or instructions. For example, and not limitingly, memory 502 may include a hard disk drive (HDD), floppy disk drive, flash memory, optical disk, magneto-optical disk, magnetic tape, or Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive, or a combination of two or more of these. Where appropriate, memory 502 may include removable or non-removable (or fixed) media. Where appropriate, memory 502 may be internal or external to the integrated gateway disaster recovery device. In a particular embodiment, memory 502 is non-volatile solid-state memory.

[0176] Memory may include read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), disk storage media devices, optical storage media devices, flash memory devices, and electrical, optical, or other physical / tangible memory storage devices. Therefore, typically, memory includes one or more tangible (non-transitory) computer-readable storage media (e.g., memory devices) encoded with software including computer-executable instructions, and when the software is executed (e.g., by one or more processors), it is operable to perform the operations described with reference to the methods according to one aspect of this disclosure.

[0177] The processor 501 reads and executes computer program instructions stored in the memory 502 to implement any of the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment methods in the above embodiments.

[0178] In one example, the electronic device may also include a communication interface 503 and a bus 504. For example, Figure 6 As shown, the processor 501, memory 502, and communication interface 503 are connected through bus 504 and complete communication with each other.

[0179] The communication interface 503 is mainly used to realize communication between various modules, devices, units and / or equipment in the embodiments of this application.

[0180] Bus 504 includes hardware, software, or both, that couples components of an online data traffic metering device together. For example, and not limitingly, the bus may include an Accelerated Graphics Port (AGP) or other graphics bus, an Enhanced Industry Standard Architecture (EISA) bus, a Front Side Bus (FSB), HyperTransport (HT) interconnect, an Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) bus, an Infinite Bandwidth Interconnect, a Low Pin Count (LPC) bus, a memory bus, a Microchannel Architecture (MCA) bus, a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus, a PCI-Express (PCI-X) bus, a Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA) bus, a Video Electronics Standards Association Local (VLB) bus, or other suitable buses, or combinations of two or more of these. Where appropriate, bus 504 may include one or more buses. Although specific buses are described and illustrated in embodiments of this application, any suitable bus or interconnect is contemplated herein.

[0181] Furthermore, in conjunction with the evaluation methods described in the above embodiments, this application embodiment can provide a computer storage medium for implementation. This computer storage medium stores computer program instructions; when these computer program instructions are executed by a processor, they implement any of the evaluation methods described in the above embodiments.

[0182] It should be clarified that this application is not limited to the specific configurations and processes described above and shown in the figures. For the sake of brevity, detailed descriptions of known methods are omitted here. In the above embodiments, several specific steps are described and shown as examples. However, the method process of this application is not limited to the specific steps described and shown. Those skilled in the art can make various changes, modifications, and additions, or change the order of steps, after understanding the spirit of this application.

[0183] The functional blocks shown in the above block diagram can be implemented as hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof. When implemented in hardware, they can be, for example, electronic circuits, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), appropriate firmware, plug-ins, function cards, etc. When implemented in software, the elements of this application are programs or code segments used to perform the required tasks. Programs or code segments can be stored on a machine-readable medium or transmitted over a transmission medium or communication link via data signals carried on a carrier wave. "Machine-readable medium" can include any medium capable of storing or transmitting information. Examples of machine-readable media include electronic circuits, semiconductor memory devices, ROM, flash memory, erasable ROM (EROM), floppy disks, CD-ROMs, optical disks, hard disks, fiber optic media, radio frequency (RF) links, etc. Code segments can be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, intranets, etc.

[0184] It should also be noted that the exemplary embodiments mentioned in this application describe methods or systems based on a series of steps or apparatus. However, this application is not limited to the order of the above steps; that is, the steps can be performed in the order mentioned in the embodiments, or in a different order, or several steps can be performed simultaneously.

[0185] It is understood that the above embodiments are merely exemplary implementations used to illustrate the principles of the present invention, and the present invention is not limited thereto. For those skilled in the art, various modifications and improvements can be made without departing from the spirit and essence of the present invention, and these modifications and improvements are also considered to be within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the reliability of physical protection for internal personnel, characterized in that, include: Obtain a personnel reliability assessment indicator system, which includes a reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer. The relative importance of each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions is assessed by pairwise comparison to obtain a first judgment matrix. A second judgment matrix is ​​obtained by pairwise comparison of multiple reliability factors under each personnel evaluation dimension to assess the relative importance of each factor. The first judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship between the evaluation dimensions of each person in the criteria layer, and the second judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship of each reliability element within its respective evaluation dimension of the person. Based on the first judgment matrix, a first weight for each of the personnel evaluation dimensions is determined, and based on the second judgment matrix, a second weight for each of the reliability elements is determined. Based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated, determine the element score for each reliability element; Based on the element scores and second weights of each reliability element, the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension is determined. The reliability risk value of the person to be evaluated is determined based on the dimensional risk value and the first weight of each of the personnel evaluation dimensions.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of comparing the relative importance of each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise to obtain a first judgment matrix specifically includes: Step 1: Compare each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise, and obtain the importance value of each personnel evaluation dimension relative to the other personnel evaluation dimensions using the nine-point scale method; Step 2: Generate an initial judgment matrix based on the importance value corresponding to each personnel evaluation dimension; Step 3: Perform consistency verification on the initial judgment matrix to obtain the consistency ratio; Step 4: If the consistency ratio is higher than the preset threshold, repeat steps 1 to 3 until the consistency ratio is lower than or equal to the preset threshold, and determine the initial judgment matrix as the first judgment matrix, wherein the first judgment matrix is ​​a positive reciprocal matrix.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of determining the first weight of each of the personnel evaluation dimensions based on the first judgment matrix specifically includes: The first judgment matrix is ​​weighted using the eigenvector method to obtain the eigenvectors corresponding to the dominant direction; The feature vectors are normalized to obtain the first weight of each person's evaluation dimension.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of determining the element scores for each reliability element based on the personnel information of the personnel to be evaluated specifically includes: A graded and quantitative scoring rule is used to assign a score to each reliability element, resulting in an element score for each reliability element. The scoring rules are constructed based on an expert rule base and / or historical event data.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The N personnel evaluation dimensions include: At least one of the following five dimensions: basic personnel information, ideological state, health status, work performance, and social relationships; The basic information of personnel includes, but is not limited to, age, length of service, job sensitivity, and qualifications. Ideological state includes, but is not limited to, stability of values, discipline, and risk preference; Health status includes, but is not limited to, physical and mental health indicators, as well as sleep and stress levels; Work performance includes, but is not limited to, performance rating, violation or abnormal records, and leave and overtime patterns; Social relationships include, but are not limited to, sensitivity to external contacts, signs of economic pressure, and records of litigation or criminal activity.

6. A device for assessing the reliability of internal personnel protection equipment, characterized in that, The device includes: The acquisition module is used to acquire the indicator system for personnel reliability assessment. The indicator system includes a reliability risk value and N personnel assessment dimensions. Each personnel assessment dimension includes multiple reliability elements, where N is a positive integer. The first evaluation module, connected to the acquisition module, is used to compare the relative importance of each of the N personnel evaluation dimensions pairwise to obtain a first judgment matrix, and to compare the relative importance of each of the multiple reliability factors under each personnel evaluation dimension pairwise to obtain a second judgment matrix. The first judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship between the evaluation dimensions of each person in the criteria layer, and the second judgment matrix is ​​used to characterize the relative importance relationship of each reliability element within its respective evaluation dimension of the person. A first determining module, connected to the first evaluation module, is used to determine a first weight for each of the personnel evaluation dimensions based on the first judgment matrix, and to determine a second weight for each of the reliability elements based on the second judgment matrix. The second determining module, connected to the first determining module, is used to determine the element score of each reliability element based on the personnel information of the person to be evaluated. The second assessment module, connected to the second determination module, is used to determine the dimensional risk value of the personnel assessment dimension based on the element score and second weight of each of the reliability elements. The third assessment module, connected to the second assessment module, is used to determine the reliability risk value of the person to be assessed based on the dimensional risk value and the first weight of each of the personnel assessment dimensions.

7. The apparatus according to claim 6, characterized in that, The first evaluation module includes: The first assessment unit is used to perform step 1: compare the N personnel assessment dimensions pairwise, and obtain the importance value of each personnel assessment dimension relative to the other personnel assessment dimensions according to the nine-point scale method; The first generation module is used to execute step 2: generate an initial judgment matrix based on the importance value corresponding to each person's evaluation dimension; The verification unit is used to perform step 3: to perform consistency verification on the initial judgment matrix and obtain the consistency ratio; The control unit is used to execute step 4: when the consistency ratio is higher than a preset threshold, control the first evaluation unit, the first generation module and the verification unit to re-execute steps 1 to 3 until the consistency ratio is lower than or equal to the preset threshold, and determine the initial judgment matrix as the first judgment matrix, wherein the first judgment matrix is ​​a positive reciprocal matrix.

8. The apparatus according to claim 6, characterized in that, The first determining module includes: The analysis unit is used to perform weighting on the first judgment matrix using the eigenvector method to obtain the eigenvector corresponding to the dominant direction; The first determining unit is used to normalize the feature vector to obtain the first weight of each person's evaluation dimension.

9. A method for managing internal personnel through physical protection, characterized in that, include: According to any one of claims 1 to 5, the method for assessing the reliability of internal personnel under physical protection is used to obtain the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed. Based on the aforementioned reliability risk value, develop personnel management measures; The personnel management measures described above shall be used to manage the internal personnel responsible for the physical protection.

10. A physical protection internal personnel management system, characterized in that, include: The physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device according to any one of claims 6 to 8 is used to obtain the reliability risk value of the personnel to be assessed by means of the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment method; The generation module, connected to the physical protection internal personnel reliability assessment device, is used to generate personnel management measures based on the reliability risk value; The execution module, connected to the generation module, is used to manage the internal personnel of the physical protection facility according to the personnel management measures.

Images