Production safety assessment method and device, terminal equipment and storage medium
By obtaining multi-dimensional index scores of enterprise safety production and combining them with dynamic weighting coefficients, the problem of inaccurate safety scoring evaluation in existing technologies has been solved, realizing the authenticity and objectivity of safety scoring results and improving the effectiveness of safety management.
Patent Information
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- CHINA TOBACCO GUANGXI IND
- Filing Date
- 2026-01-21
- Publication Date
- 2026-05-08
AI Technical Summary
The existing safety rating and evaluation model cannot truly reflect the level of enterprise safety production work, especially since there is a lack of systematic evaluation methods in the safety production process, resulting in inaccurate evaluation results.
By obtaining the actual scores of the evaluated departments on target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators, and combining them with dynamic weighting coefficients, a comprehensive safety score is calculated to reflect the true safety management level of each department in the enterprise.
It ensures the authenticity and objectivity of safety scoring results, comprehensively reflects the enterprise's safety management level, avoids the problem of short-term accident-free periods masking long-term management loopholes, and improves safety management efficiency and execution.
Smart Images
Figure CN121998496A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] This application relates to the field of enterprise production safety technology, and in particular to a production safety assessment method, apparatus, terminal equipment and storage medium. Background Technology
[0002] Production safety scoring (hereinafter referred to as safety scoring) refers to the measurable results achieved by controlling and eliminating risks based on safety production policies and predetermined safety management objectives. Safety scoring evaluation should truthfully and objectively reflect the quality of an enterprise's safety production work, providing a scientific basis for continuous improvement and management assessment of safety production work. However, for a long time, enterprises have focused more on the completion of safety objectives in safety scoring evaluation, emphasizing outcome indicators such as zero accidents and 100% rectification of safety hazards, lacking systematic evaluation methods for key areas and processes of safety production. For example, two departments, A and B, in a certain enterprise both achieved zero accidents in the annual safety scoring assessment, successfully completing the zero-accident safety target and receiving an excellent rating in the annual assessment. Further investigation reveals that the daily safety production practices of departments A and B are not entirely the same. For instance, department A has repeatedly exhibited violations of safety regulations, and workers were found to be repeatedly not wearing safety protective equipment during hazardous operations. Clearly, the quality of safety work in department A is significantly lower than that in department B, indicating that the existing safety evaluation model cannot accurately reflect the level of safety production work. Summary of the Invention
[0003] In view of this, embodiments of this application provide a production safety assessment method, apparatus, terminal equipment, and storage medium, which can effectively solve the problem of not being able to accurately reflect the level of safe production work.
[0004] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a production safety assessment method, including: Obtain the actual scores of the evaluated department on target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators reflect the key intermediate state of safety management, and the process control indicators reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. Add the three actual scores together to get the unweighted total score; Determine the management level of the department being evaluated, and obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficient based on its management level; Multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient to output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
[0005] In some embodiments, the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators are weighted at 20%, 30%, and 50% of the total score, respectively, and the scores for each level are evaluated with the corresponding weighted score as the full score on a 100-point scale.
[0006] In some embodiments, the dynamic weighting coefficient is set based on the magnitude of the safety production risk, the difficulty of the work, and the workload undertaken by the department.
[0007] In some embodiments, the weighting coefficient is a dynamically adjusted value that is periodically updated based on the department's historical safety performance data and changes in the current safety production tasks undertaken.
[0008] In some embodiments, the department is divided into at least three levels according to the safety production management level, and each different safety production management level has a different weighting coefficient; The weighting coefficients mentioned therein decrease as the level increases.
[0009] In some embodiments, obtaining the actual scores of the evaluated department on the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators includes: Obtain the safety survey data of the department being evaluated; The safety survey data is compared with the target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators to determine the indicators that meet the requirements and those that do not, and corresponding scoring operations are performed to obtain the actual score of each indicator.
[0010] In some embodiments, the safety rating level of the evaluated department is determined based on the score range in which the overall safety score falls; Based on the security rating level, corresponding countermeasures will be implemented for the department being evaluated.
[0011] Secondly, this application also provides a production safety assessment device, comprising: The data acquisition module is used to acquire the actual scores of the evaluated department on target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators reflect the key intermediate state of safety management, and the process control indicators reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. The calculation module is used to add the three actual scores together to obtain the unweighted total score; The hierarchy module is used to determine the management level to which the evaluated department belongs and to obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficients based on its management level. The weighting module is used to multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient and output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
[0012] Thirdly, this application also provides a terminal device, which includes a processor and a memory, the memory storing a computer program, and the processor executing the computer program to implement the production safety assessment method described above.
[0013] Fourthly, this application also provides a readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed on a processor, implements the aforementioned production safety assessment method.
[0014] The embodiments of this application have the following beneficial effects: This application, by balancing the final results of safe production with the daily management process, comprehensively reflects the true safety management level of each department within an enterprise through scores of target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators. This effectively avoids the problem of long-term management loopholes being masked by short-term accident-free periods, making the evaluation results more authentic, objective, and credible. Furthermore, it ensures precise allocation of regulatory resources and closed-loop supervision, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of safety management. Attached Figure Description
[0015] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, the accompanying drawings used in the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. It should be understood that the following drawings only show some embodiments of this application and should not be regarded as a limitation of the scope. For those skilled in the art, other related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.
[0016] Figure 1 This paper illustrates a flowchart of a production safety assessment method according to an embodiment of this application. Figure 2 A schematic diagram of a production safety assessment device according to an embodiment of this application is shown. Detailed Implementation
[0017] The technical solutions in the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments.
[0018] The components of the embodiments of this application described and illustrated in the accompanying drawings can be arranged and designed in a variety of different configurations. Therefore, the following detailed description of the embodiments of this application provided in the drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the claimed application, but merely to illustrate selected embodiments of the application. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of this application without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of this application.
[0019] In the following text, the terms "comprising," "having," and their cognates, which may be used in various embodiments of this application, are intended only to indicate a particular feature, number, step, operation, element, component, or combination thereof, and should not be construed as primarily excluding the presence of one or more other features, numbers, steps, operations, elements, components, or combinations thereof, or adding the possibility of one or more combinations thereof. Furthermore, the terms "first," "second," "third," etc., are used only for distinguishing descriptions and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.
[0020] Unless otherwise specified, all terms used herein (including technical and scientific terms) shall have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the various embodiments of this application pertain. Terms (such as those defined in commonly used dictionaries) shall be interpreted as having the same meaning as in their contextual meaning in the relevant technical field and shall not be construed as having an idealized or overly formal meaning, unless clearly defined in the various embodiments of this application.
[0021] The following detailed description of some embodiments of this application is provided in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Unless otherwise specified, the following embodiments and features can be combined with each other.
[0022] To address the problems of existing technologies, this application provides a production safety assessment method. This method involves obtaining the actual scores of the assessed department on target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators; summing these three scores to obtain an unweighted total score; determining the management level of the assessed department and obtaining a corresponding dynamic weighting coefficient based on that level; and multiplying the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient to output the comprehensive safety score of the assessed department. This yields a comprehensive and effective safety score.
[0023] The production safety assessment method will be explained below with reference to some specific examples.
[0024] Figure 1 A flowchart of a production safety assessment method according to an embodiment of this application is shown. Exemplarily, the production safety assessment method includes the following steps: Step S100: Obtain the actual scores of the evaluated department on the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators reflect the key intermediate states of safety management, and the process control indicators reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. The method in this embodiment is applied to the situation of conducting a safety assessment of any target department. In this embodiment, three different levels of scoring indicators are set for how to conduct the assessment: target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators. Multi-dimensional scoring is carried out based on these three indicators.
[0025] The target indicators refer to indicators that reflect the results of safe production. Considering the special nature of safe production and the role of zero accidents in guiding safe production, safe production accidents are used as the target indicators for safety scoring.
[0026] Furthermore, based on fault tree analysis and causal analysis, the secondary indicators supporting the target indicators (hereinafter referred to as key indicators) are analyzed to derive a key indicator database. The key indicator database is then further analyzed to determine the key indicators, including hazard rectification rate, hazard recurrence rate, safety protection device integrity rate, safety interlock device failure rate, and electrical equipment qualification rate.
[0027] Fault tree analysis is a top-down, deductive reasoning method for system security analysis. It starts with an undesirable top event (such as equipment failure or safety accident), decomposes all possible combinations of causes that lead to the event layer by layer, and uses logic gates (such as AND gates and OR gates) to connect the intermediate events and basic events, thus constructing an inverted "tree structure".
[0028] The main steps involve first identifying the type of incident to be analyzed, then constructing a fault tree, using logic gates to decompose the top event into intermediate events and underlying basic events, identifying the most basic event combinations that lead to the top event, and finally evaluating which basic events have the greatest impact on the system. If the probability of each basic event is known, the probability of the top event can be calculated. In this way, based on the target metric, it is possible to find which events have the greatest impact on the target metric, thereby forming the corresponding key performance indicators (KPIs).
[0029] Causal analysis is a divergent thinking tool used to systematically identify various potential causes that may lead to a problem or outcome. Its typical form is a fishbone diagram, placing the problem at the "fish head," listing the main categories of causes on either side of the main bone, and then refining them layer by layer to specific factors. This method can also be used to identify the events that have the greatest impact on target metrics, thus forming corresponding key performance indicators (KPIs).
[0030] It is understandable that this key indicator is an indicator that can reflect the critical intermediate state of safety management, and it is derived from the actual analysis of the target indicators.
[0031] Furthermore, based on the fault tree analysis method and causal analysis method, the third-level indicators (hereinafter referred to as process indicators) that affect the key indicators are sorted out and analyzed to obtain a process indicator library.
[0032] The process indicator database was further analyzed and refined to determine process indicators, including safety responsibility, risk classification and control and accident hazard investigation and management, safety production rules and regulations and operating procedures, safety training and education, safety management of hazardous operations, occupational health and labor protection equipment management, safety management of hazardous chemicals, safety management of stakeholders, safety management of changes, safety management of production equipment and facilities, safety management of fire-fighting equipment and facilities, emergency preparedness and response, etc.
[0033] Therefore, it can be understood that the aforementioned target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators are only three major categories of indicators. Under each category, there are corresponding subcategories of indicators, which are determined based on the department, production environment, or specific work environment.
[0034] To determine the actual scores for each of the aforementioned indicators, a survey system will be used to obtain corresponding safety survey data. This data is based on the surveys conducted for each of the indicators, each with its own score. As an example, a deduction system can be implemented: if an indicator reflected in the safety survey data is unqualified or does not meet specifications, points will be deducted; otherwise, no points will be deducted. The safety survey data is then compared with the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators to determine which indicators meet the requirements and which do not, and corresponding scoring operations are performed to obtain the actual scores for each indicator.
[0035] The aforementioned safety survey data is based on manual collection by staff and acquisition of technical data through corresponding sensors. This safety survey data is a targeted survey of the aforementioned indicators. It is understandable that if the indicators differ between different departments, the types of safety survey data will also differ.
[0036] The exemplary target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators can have a maximum score of 100 points, with each type of indicator carrying a different percentage of the score. The actual scores for each type of indicator can be determined using the method described above. For the exemplary model, the weights of the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators are 20%, 30%, and 50% of the total score, respectively, and the scores for each level are evaluated using the corresponding weighted score on a 100-point scale.
[0037] Furthermore, for target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators within the same level, each indicator is assigned a specific score. Based on historical data, scores are assigned according to the importance of the indicators, and a score is deducted for each indicator if it fails to meet the target. For example, a score of 0.1-1 may be assigned.
[0038] Preferably, for quantitative indicators, the judgment is made directly based on the indicator value. For qualitative indicators, a comprehensive judgment is generally made by an evaluation team.
[0039] In one alternative implementation, if the key indicator is the hazard rectification rate, 0.1 points are deducted for each unrectified hazard. If there are multiple unrectified hazards, the points are accumulated until all points for that item are deducted. For example, if there are 5 unrectified hazards, 0.5 points are deducted. This process continues until all points for that item are deducted.
[0040] In one alternative implementation, the safety training and education module for process control indicators deducts 0.2 points per person for each instance of unlicensed personnel working without a certificate. If there are multiple unlicensed personnel, the points are accumulated until all points for that item are deducted.
[0041] It can be understood that the three types of index scores in this embodiment reflect the safety status of different links and steps in safe production, and quantify this safety status to obtain the actual scores of the three quantitative indicators.
[0042] Step S200: Add the three actual scores together to obtain the unweighted total score.
[0043] After obtaining the actual scores of the three indicators, they are added together, and the resulting total score is the unweighted total score.
[0044] It should be noted that different departments have different actual production environments, so different departments obviously cannot be scored using the same standard. Therefore, the unweighted total score needs to be weighted.
[0045] Step S300: Determine the management level of the department being evaluated, and obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficient based on its management level.
[0046] In accordance with the principle of hierarchical management, all departments of the enterprise are classified into levels, and each level is assigned a corresponding coefficient. The principle of classification is based on factors such as the level of risk, difficulty, and workload of safety production management work in each department of the enterprise.
[0047] Specifically, the system is divided into three levels: production workshops, key departments, and non-key departments. The higher the coefficient, the greater the risk involved in that level of department, and the more time and effort required to complete the safety production task under the same conditions. Otherwise, if the coefficient is the same for every department, some departments may make more mistakes due to higher safety risks or other reasons. Therefore, it is necessary to compensate for the differences by increasing the coefficient.
[0048] Furthermore, this coefficient is not static; it can be dynamically adjusted based on historical records and the current safety production tasks undertaken.
[0049] For example, if the risk of the safety production task undertaken is higher than that of the previous task undertaken, the coefficient can be increased; otherwise, the coefficient can be decreased.
[0050] Based on the past safety performance (historical records) of each department of the enterprise and the risk characteristics of the safety production tasks currently being performed or to be undertaken, the original fixed "weighting coefficients" are modified during periodic evaluations to more accurately reflect the safety management difficulties and actual contributions of the department in a specific period.
[0051] The dynamic weighting coefficients are set based on the level of safety risks, work difficulty, and workload undertaken by each department, and are periodically updated according to the department's historical safety performance data and changes in current safety tasks. This avoids a one-size-fits-all scoring model that could lead to high-risk departments being underestimated due to unfavorable objective conditions, thereby incentivizing all departments to proactively strengthen process management.
[0052] Step S400: Multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient to output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
[0053] As an example, Q represents the overall safety score, a represents the weighting coefficient for the department, q represents the score for each level, q1 represents the target indicator score, q2 represents the key indicator score, and q3 represents the process control indicator score. Then, the expression exists: Q = a × (q1 + q2 + q3).
[0054] If Department A has target indicators, key indicators, and process indicators with scores of 20, 25, and 45 respectively, and this department belongs to the production workshop with a weighting coefficient of 1.01, then the overall safety score of this department is 1.01 × (20 + 25 + 45) = 90.9.
[0055] For example, if Department B's target indicators, key indicators, and process indicators score 20, 28, and 48 points respectively, and this department is a key department with a weighting coefficient of 1.005, then the department's overall safety score is 1.005 × (20 + 25 + 48) = 93.465.
[0056] Alternatively, if Department C's target indicators, key indicators, and process indicators are scored as 20, 30, and 46 respectively, and this department is a non-key department with a weighting coefficient of 1.0, then the department's overall safety score is 1.0 × (20 + 30 + 46) = 96.
[0057] Furthermore, the safety rating level of the evaluated department is determined based on the score range in which the overall safety score falls.
[0058] The safety rating level is a grade determined based on the overall safety score. Corresponding response measures are then implemented for the evaluated department according to the safety rating level. In other words, this rating level serves as a basis for subsequent response measures.
[0059] As an example, safety scores are calculated and categorized as Excellent, Good, Meets Standard, or Unsatisfactory. For instance, a score of 95 or higher is considered Excellent, requiring continued high-quality safety scores. A score between 85 and 95 is considered Good. A score between 75 and 85 is considered Meets Standard, resulting in a yellow card for the department and inclusion in departmental-level key monitoring and supervision. A score below 75 is considered Unsatisfactory, resulting in a red card for the department and inclusion in enterprise-level key monitoring and supervision.
[0060] It is understandable that departments at the "good" or above level do not need to implement improvement and monitoring measures, while departments below the "good" level need to be monitored and supervised, and warnings should be issued through different colored tags to alert and urge these departments to make rectifications.
[0061] Based on the above method, production safety scores can be calculated for different departments. This score integrates three different indicators and, by assigning weights based on the management level of each department, takes into account the differences between departments, resulting in a comprehensive safety score that considers multi-dimensional safety factors. By balancing the final outcome of safe production with the daily management process, it comprehensively reflects the true safety management level of each department within the enterprise, effectively avoiding the problem of long-term management loopholes being masked by short-term accident-free periods, making the evaluation results more realistic, objective, and credible.
[0062] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of a production safety assessment device according to an embodiment of this application is shown. Exemplarily, the production safety assessment device includes: The data acquisition module 10 is used to acquire the actual scores of the evaluated department on the target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators reflect the key intermediate state of safety management, and the process control indicators reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. Calculation module 20 is used to add the three actual scores together to obtain an unweighted total score; The hierarchy module 30 is used to determine the management level to which the department being evaluated belongs, and to obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficients based on its management level. The weighting module 40 is used to multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient and output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
[0063] It is understood that the apparatus in this embodiment corresponds to the production safety assessment method in the above embodiments, and the options in the above embodiments are also applicable to this embodiment, so they will not be described again here.
[0064] This application also provides a terminal device, exemplary of which includes a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to enable the terminal device to perform the functions of the various modules in the above-described production safety assessment method or the above-described production safety assessment device.
[0065] The processor can be an integrated circuit chip with signal processing capabilities. The processor can be a general-purpose processor, including at least one of a Central Processing Unit (CPU), Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), Network Processor (NP), Digital Signal Processor (DSP), Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, or discrete hardware components. The general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor or any conventional processor, capable of implementing or executing the methods, steps, and logic block diagrams disclosed in the embodiments of this application.
[0066] The memory can be, but is not limited to, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), Programmable Read-Only Memory (PROM), Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), etc. The memory is used to store computer programs, and the processor can execute the computer programs accordingly after receiving execution instructions.
[0067] This application also provides a readable storage medium for storing the computer program used in the aforementioned terminal device.
[0068] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus and methods can also be implemented in other ways. The apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For example, the flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings show 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 alternative implementations, the functions marked in the blocks may occur in a different order than those marked in the drawings. For example, two consecutive 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 diagram and / or flowchart, and combinations of blocks in the block diagram and / or flowchart, can be implemented using a dedicated hardware-based system that performs the specified function or action, or using a combination of dedicated hardware and computer instructions.
[0069] In addition, the functional modules or units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated together to form an independent part, or each module can exist independently, or two or more modules can be integrated to form an independent part.
[0070] If the aforementioned functions are implemented as software functional modules and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or a portion of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a smartphone, personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.
[0071] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the scope of the technology disclosed in this application should be included within the scope of protection of this application.
Claims
1. A production safety assessment method, characterized in that, include: Obtain the actual scores of the evaluated department on target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators are used to reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators are used to reflect the key intermediate states of safety management, and the process control indicators are used to reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. Add the three actual scores together to get the total score; Determine the management level to which the department being evaluated belongs, and obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficient based on the management level; Multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient to output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
2. The production safety assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators account for 20%, 30%, and 50% of the total score, respectively.
3. The production safety assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The dynamic weighting coefficients are set based on the magnitude of safety production risks, work difficulty, and workload borne by the department being evaluated.
4. The production safety assessment method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The dynamic weighting coefficient is a dynamically adjusted value, and also includes: The dynamic weighting coefficients are periodically updated based on the historical safety performance data of the evaluated department and changes in its current safety production tasks.
5. The production safety assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The departments being evaluated are divided into at least three levels according to their safety production management levels, and each different safety production management level has a different weighting coefficient. The weighting coefficients mentioned therein decrease as the level increases.
6. The production safety assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process of obtaining the actual scores of the evaluated department on the target indicators, key indicators, and process control indicators includes: Obtain the safety survey data of the department being evaluated; The safety survey data is compared with the target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators to determine the indicators that meet the requirements and those that do not, and corresponding scoring operations are performed to obtain the actual score of each indicator.
7. The production safety assessment method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Also includes: The safety rating level of the evaluated department is determined based on the score range in which the overall safety score falls. Based on the security rating level, corresponding countermeasures will be implemented for the department being evaluated.
8. A production safety assessment device, characterized in that, include: The data acquisition module is used to acquire the actual scores of the evaluated department on target indicators, key indicators and process control indicators, wherein the target indicators reflect the results of safe production, the key indicators reflect the key intermediate state of safety management, and the process control indicators reflect the compliance of daily safety management behaviors. The calculation module is used to add the three actual scores together to obtain the unweighted total score; The hierarchy module is used to determine the management level to which the evaluated department belongs and to obtain the corresponding dynamic weighting coefficients based on its management level. The weighting module is used to multiply the unweighted total score by the weighting coefficient and output the overall safety score of the evaluated department.
9. A terminal device, characterized in that, The terminal device includes a processor and a memory, the memory storing a computer program, and the processor executing the computer program to implement the production safety assessment method according to any one of claims 1-7.
10. A readable storage medium, characterized in that, It stores a computer program that, when executed on a processor, implements the production safety assessment method according to any one of claims 1-7.