Evaluation index system and evaluation method for emergency management capability of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprise

Abstract

The invention discloses a pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprise emergency management capability evaluation index system and an evaluation method, and belongs to the technical field of enterprise safety management. The method comprises the following steps: constructing an emergency management capability evaluation index system comprising a target layer, a criterion layer and an index layer, wherein the criterion layer covers dimensions such as an organization system, disposal drill and training guarantee; scientifically calculating the weight of each index based on an attribute hierarchy model (AHM); enterprise data is collected to score the indexes; performing weighted calculation to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value and a score of each level of dimension; weak links are identified based on results, and targeted improvement suggestions are generated. According to the invention, systematized, quantitative and precise assessment of the emergency management capability of the pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprise is realized, the defects of strong subjectivity, single dimension and weak diagnosis function of the existing method are effectively overcome, and a scientific decision tool is provided for the enterprise to improve the emergency management level.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of enterprise safety management and risk assessment technology, specifically relating to an evaluation index system and assessment method for emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises. More specifically, this invention relates to a quantitative and operable emergency management capability assessment method based on a multi-level indicator system and attribute hierarchy model (AHM), used to systematically diagnose the shortcomings of enterprise emergency management and provide precise improvement directions. Background Technology

[0002] Pharmaceutical manufacturing companies face significant safety risks due to the involvement of hazardous chemicals, high-temperature and high-pressure equipment, and bioactive substances in their production processes. Their emergency management capabilities directly impact personnel safety, environmental safety, and production continuity. Currently, assessments of these capabilities often rely on qualitative checks, experience-based judgments, or single-dimensional evaluations, exhibiting the following significant shortcomings: The evaluation dimensions are too narrow: existing methods mostly focus on the four stages of "prevention, preparation, response and recovery" of emergencies, and lack a comprehensive evaluation from multiple dimensions and a systematic approach to the overall emergency management system of an enterprise (such as organization, systems, resources, training, equipment, etc.).

[0003] Highly subjective and lacking in quantification: Most assessments rely on subjective scoring by experts or inspectors, lacking scientific weighting methods and unified quantitative models, resulting in poor comparability of evaluation results and difficulty in truly reflecting the level of enterprise capabilities.

[0004] Weak targeting: General safety assessment models fail to fully consider the unique process risks, regulatory requirements, and management characteristics of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, leading to a disconnect between assessment results and actual enterprise management.

[0005] Diagnostic function deficiency: Existing methods often stop at providing an overall score or rating, failing to identify specific weaknesses (such as "which specific aspect of which indicator layer is deficient"), and therefore cannot provide enterprises with clear and actionable improvement measures. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The purpose of this invention is to overcome the shortcomings of existing technologies and provide a scientific, systematic, quantifiable, and highly targeted method for assessing the emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises. This method aims to: Construct a multi-level evaluation index system that comprehensively reflects the key elements of emergency management in pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises; The Attribute Hierarchy Model (AHM) is introduced to achieve objective and scientific calculation of indicator weights; Through quantitative and comprehensive assessment, the weaknesses in an enterprise's emergency management capabilities can be accurately identified. Based on the assessment results, targeted capability improvement suggestions are automatically generated, providing direct support for enterprise management decisions.

[0007] Step S1: Construct an evaluation index system for the emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises.

[0008] 1.1 Determine the target level (A): The overall level of the enterprise's emergency management capabilities.

[0009] 1.2 Determine the criteria layer (B): Based on all elements of emergency management in pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, establish at least three primary evaluation dimensions, including: -B1: Emergency Management Organizational System; -B2: Emergency Response and Emergency Drills; -B3: Education and Training and Emergency Support.

[0010] 1.3 Define the indicator layer (C): Decompose and set several specific secondary evaluation indicators for each primary dimension, for example: - Corresponding to B1 may include: C1 organizational structure construction, C2 emergency response plan management, and C3 system and mechanism construction; - Corresponding to B2 may include: C4 Emergency Response Procedures, C5 Emergency Rescue Information System, and C6 Emergency Drill Effectiveness Evaluation; - Corresponding to B3 may include: C7 Training Implementation and Recording, C8 Emergency Material Support, and C9 Equipment and Facility Support.

[0011] The setting of the indicator layer needs to be combined with the typical risks of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises (such as fire, poisoning, dust explosion, biological pollution, etc.) and the characteristics of the process flow.

[0012] Step S2: Establish an evaluation model based on the Attribute Hierarchy Model (AHM) and determine the indicator weights.

[0013] 2.1 Establish a hierarchical structure model that includes the target layer, criterion layer, and indicator layer.

[0014] 2.2 Several industry experts were invited to use the 1-9 scale method to compare the importance of each element in the same level with respect to a certain criterion in the next higher level, and to construct multiple judgment matrices (such as A, B1, B2, B3).

[0015] 2.3 The judgment matrix Convert the model into an attribute judgment matrix using the conversion formula. The conversion formula is as follows: , ( ),and .

[0016] in, It is a constant, preferably .

[0017] 2.4 Attribute Judgment Matrix Calculate its relative attribute weight vector ,for 1-order matrix, elements The formula for calculating the relative attribute measure is: ; 2.5 Calculate the composite weights: Calculate the weights of each element in the criterion layer relative to the target layer. The weights of each element in the indicator layer relative to its respective criterion. Multiplying these values ​​yields the final composite weight of each secondary indicator C relative to the overall objective A.

[0018] Step S3: Collect enterprise data and score the indicators.

[0019] 3.1 For each secondary indicator C in the aforementioned indicator system, develop specific, observable, or verifiable scoring rules.

[0020] 3.2 Collect relevant evidence and data from the target pharmaceutical manufacturing company through methods such as document review, on-site inspection, personnel interviews, record retrieval, and drill observation.

[0021] 3.3 The evaluation experts will independently score each secondary indicator based on the scoring rules and the actual situation of the enterprise.

[0022] 3.4 The scores from multiple experts are averaged (e.g., using a gymnastics scoring method) to obtain the final evaluation score for each secondary indicator. .

[0023] Step S4: Perform comprehensive evaluation calculations and result analysis.

[0024] 4.1 Calculate the overall score of the enterprise's emergency management capability: ,in The combined weights of the secondary indicators obtained in step S2.

[0025] 4.2 Calculate the scores for each primary indicator: ,in The local weights of each secondary indicator under this primary indicator (i.e. (The components in).

[0026] 4.3 Based on the preset score range, the overall score and the scores of each dimension are divided into multiple evaluation levels, such as "Excellent", "Good", "Average", "Needs Improvement", etc.

[0027] 4.4 By analyzing the scores, weights, and differences from the average level of each indicator, we can identify the indicators that have a significant impact on the overall score and have low scores, which are the key weak links that urgently need improvement.

[0028] Step S5: Generate a report recommending improvements to emergency management capabilities.

[0029] 5.1 Based on the weaknesses identified in step S4, and in conjunction with best practices and regulatory requirements in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, generate targeted improvement suggestions automatically or with manual assistance.

[0030] 5.2 The recommendations specifically correspond to the low-scoring indicators in the evaluation index system. For example, for the low score of "Institutional Mechanism Construction C3", it is recommended to "improve the emergency management system revision process and establish a dynamic update mechanism"; for the low score of "Emergency Material Support C8", it is recommended to "establish an electronic ledger for emergency materials and implement dynamic management and regular effectiveness testing".

[0031] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention by adopting the above technical solution are as follows: 1. The indicator system constructed by this invention covers the entire emergency management chain from organization, contingency plans, and systems to handling, drills, and support, and is particularly well-suited to the risk characteristics of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, making the evaluation more systematic and comprehensive; 2. This invention uses the Attribute Hierarchy Model (AHM) to determine weights, which effectively reduces subjective arbitrariness. The weight calculation has a solid mathematical foundation, and the consistency test is simple, resulting in more scientific, objective, and reliable results. 3. Through weighted comprehensive calculation, this invention can not only provide an overall capability score and level, but also decompose it layer by layer to accurately locate specific problems in specific dimensions such as "the construction of institutional mechanisms under the emergency management organizational system", thus achieving a leap from "general evaluation" to "precise diagnosis". 4. This invention directly links evaluation results with improvement suggestions, forming a closed-loop management logic of "evaluation-diagnosis-improvement". It provides enterprises with a clear and operable approach and decision-making basis for improving their emergency management capabilities. Moreover, the methodology is clear and the steps are well-defined. It can be applied to pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises of different sizes and with different products through standardized procedures, and has good industry promotion value. Attached Figure Description

[0032] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the method for assessing the emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, as provided in an embodiment of the present invention.

[0033] Figure 2 This is a hierarchical structure diagram of the emergency management capability evaluation index system constructed for embodiments of the present invention.

[0034] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the principle of calculating indicator weights using the Attribute Hierarchy Model (AHM). Detailed Implementation

[0035] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present invention clearer, the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and specific embodiments. The following embodiments are only used to explain the present invention and do not constitute a limitation on the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0036] Example: Application using a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, Company A, as an example. Part 1: Assessment Preparation and Indicator System Construction Company Overview Survey and Analysis: First, a comprehensive investigation was conducted on Company A, a manufacturer of traditional Chinese medicine pills, whose main products include Ginseng Spleen-Strengthening Pills and Hemp Seed Intestinal-Moistening Pills. Its production process encompasses raw material processing, extraction, concentration, mixing, pill making, and packaging. Through on-site investigation and data analysis, the main risks identified for Company A include: fire risks caused by raw material alcohol, dust explosion risks, explosion risks from pressure vessels such as extraction tanks, occupational health risks from moldy medicinal materials, and general risks such as mechanical injuries and electric shock. This step aims to ensure that subsequent assessment indicators closely align with the company's actual risk characteristics.

[0037] Construct a three-level evaluation index system: Based on the survey results and general requirements for emergency management in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, a system is constructed as follows: Figure 2 The indicator system shown.

[0038] Target level (A): Company A's overall emergency management capabilities.

[0039] Criterion Layer (B): Set three primary dimensions.

[0040] B1 (Emergency Management Organizational System): Assess the static structure and institutional foundation of an enterprise's emergency management.

[0041] B2 (Emergency Response and Emergency Drills): Assess the company's dynamic response and preparedness capabilities for emergency management.

[0042] B3 (Education, Training and Emergency Support): Assess the human resources and material resources available for the company's emergency management.

[0043] Indicator Layer (C): Nine measurable and verifiable specific secondary indicators are set.

[0044] Corresponding to B1: C1 (Organizational Structure): Examine the completeness and rationality of the emergency command center setup, division of responsibilities, and staffing; C2 (Emergency Plan Management): Examine the completeness of the emergency plan system (comprehensive, specialized, and on-site response plans), the quality of its preparation, review and filing, and regular revisions; C3 (Institutional Mechanism Construction): Examine the establishment and implementation of supporting systems such as emergency duty, early warning, information reporting, and post-disaster response.

[0045] Corresponding to B2: C4 (Emergency Response and Handling Procedures): Examines the clarity of the process from receiving the alarm, analysis, activation, rescue to termination, decision-making efficiency, and on-site command and coordination capabilities; C5 (Emergency Rescue Information System): Examines the availability and effectiveness of information systems used for emergency communication, monitoring, data support, etc.; C6 (Emergency Drill Effectiveness Evaluation): Examines the planning, realism, coverage, and post-drill evaluation and improvement measures of the drill.

[0046] Corresponding to B3: C7 (Training Implementation and Recording): Examine the frequency of emergency knowledge training, the relevance of the content, the scope of personnel covered, and the standardization of training records and effectiveness assessments; C8 (Emergency Material Support): Examine the allocation standards, storage management, maintenance, and deployment mechanisms of emergency materials and equipment; C9 (Equipment and Facility Support): Examine the integrity and reliability of dedicated emergency facilities such as fire protection, leak control, decontamination, and first aid, as well as supporting facilities such as backup power supplies and emergency lighting.

[0047] Develop detailed scoring criteria: Develop a detailed, quantifiable scoring table for each secondary indicator C1-C9, for example: For C2 (Emergency Response Plan Management): Total score is 100 points. Among them, "Completeness of the plan system" accounts for 30 points (10 points will be deducted for each missing category); "The content of the plan complies with the 'Guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency Response Plans for Production Safety Accidents in Production and Business Units'" accounts for 40 points; "The plan is revised every three years and there are records" accounts for 20 points; "The plan has been filed with the competent department" accounts for 10 points. Points will be deducted item by item during the assessment by reviewing documents and verifying dates.

[0048] For C8 (Emergency Supplies Support): Total score is 100 points, of which "Supplies List and Risk Matching" accounts for 25 points; "Warehouse Storage Conditions and Zoning Management" accounts for 20 points; "Complete Monthly Inspection and Maintenance Records" accounts for 25 points; "Key Supplies (such as Positive Pressure Breathing Apparatus) Perform On-site Practical Tests Well" accounts for 30 points (2 units will be randomly checked, and 15 points will be deducted if 1 unit is ineffective).

[0049] Part Two: Application of the AHM Model and Weight Determination Construct the judgment matrix: Five experts were hired from the fields of pharmaceutical engineering design, pharmaceutical company EHS management, safety production research institutes, government emergency management departments, and third-party safety evaluation agencies. The experts were provided with an explanation of the indicator system and a table of the meaning of the 1-9 scale method (as shown in Table 2). The experts were asked to fill out the questionnaire independently and score each element in pairs.

[0050] For example, regarding the importance of criteria layers B1, B2, and B3 relative to target layer A, an expert's judgment is: B1 is slightly more important than B2 (assigned a value of 3), B1 is significantly more important than B3 (assigned a value of 5), and B2 is slightly more important than B3 (assigned a value of 3). Based on this, the expert's judgment matrix A* is: =

[0051] Similarly, experts need to construct judgment matrices B1*, B2*, and B3* for C1, C2, and C3 under B1, C4, C5, and C6 under B2, and C7, C8, and C9 under B3, respectively.

[0052] Data collection and processing: Five expert questionnaires were collected. For each judgment matrix, the geometric mean (or arithmetic mean) of the corresponding positional scale values ​​given by the five experts was calculated to obtain the group judgment matrix. For example, for position a12 in matrix A, the five experts gave 3, 2, 3, 4, 2 respectively, then the geometric mean was... ≈2.70, after rounding to the nearest integer or decimal, we obtain the comprehensive scale value, from which we obtain the comprehensive judgment matrix. , wait.

[0053] Calculate the weights: Based on the comprehensive judgment matrix For example, the AHM calculation process is shown.

[0054] Step 1: Convert the model and calculate the attribute judgment matrix μ.

[0055] Assumption Applying the conversion formula ( Take 1).

[0056] The calculation yields: =3 / (3+1 / 3)=0.9; 5 / (5+1 / 5)=0.9615; =3 / (3+1 / 3)=0.9; Conversely, =0.1, =0.0385, =0.1; diagonal .

[0057] Therefore, the attribute judgment matrix =[0,0.9,0.9615;0.1,0,0.9;0.0385,0.1,0].

[0058] Step 2: Calculate the relative attribute weights.

[0059] For a 3x3 matrix, the formula is: ; calculate: ; ; ; Therefore, the criterion layer weight vector That is, the weights of B1, B2, and B3 relative to the overall objective are 0.6205, 0.3333, and 0.0462, respectively.

[0060] Repeat this process to calculate .

[0061] Step 3: Calculate the composite weights.

[0062] Composite weight of secondary indicator C1 The weight of B1 is (0.6205) × The local weight of C1 is (0.5804) = 0.3601.

[0063] The composite weights of all C indicators were calculated accordingly (the results are basically consistent with Table 4).

[0064] Part Three: On-site Assessment and Data Collection An evaluation team was formed and the evaluation was conducted on-site. An evaluation team consisting of three trained evaluators (not the experts who scored the initial weights) will be stationed at Company A for 2-3 days, carrying the "On-site Evaluation Checklist" (which contains detailed scoring rules for each indicator).

[0065] Multi-dimensional evidence collection: Document review: Review emergency plans, safety management systems, training records, drill records, emergency supplies ledgers, equipment maintenance records, etc.

[0066] On-site inspection: Inspect the emergency command center, emergency supplies warehouse, fire-fighting facilities, leak collection facilities, emergency lighting, safety exits, etc., and conduct on-site testing of some emergency equipment (such as air respirators).

[0067] Personnel interviews: Random interviews were conducted with safety management personnel, workshop directors, front-line operators, and emergency response team members to understand their awareness of emergency responsibilities, training gains, and feelings about participating in drills.

[0068] Simulation and simulation: Select a scenario (such as "an initial fire caused by an alcohol leak in the extraction workshop") and ask the on-duty personnel to verbally describe or simply simulate the initial response actions.

[0069] Expert rating: After each day's work, the assessment team independently scores C1-C9 based on the collected evidence and the scoring criteria. For example, assessor A found that Company A's contingency plan system was complete but its most recent revision was more than 3 years ago and it had not been filed. Therefore, the corresponding points were deducted from item C2, resulting in a score of 82. The scores from the three assessors were then averaged to obtain the final score S_C for this indicator. The final collected score data is shown in Table 5 of the background technical disclosure document.

[0070] Part Four: Comprehensive Evaluation and Report Generation Calculate the scores for each level: Overall ability score: =0.3601 85.4 + 0.2275 82.6 + ... + 0.0271 80.6 = 83.25.

[0071] First-level dimension score: B1 score = (0.5804) 85.4 + 0.3667 82.6 + 0.0529 76.8) / (0.5804+0.3667+0.0529)=83.92.

[0072] B2 score = (0.1000) 79.2 + 0.3333 81.5 + 0.5667 83.7) / (0.1000+0.3333+0.5667)=82.52.

[0073] B3 score = (0.0462) 74.3 + 0.3667 78.9 + 0.5872 80.6) / (0.0462+0.3667+0.5872)=82.82.

[0074] Rating: Based on the preset standards (Excellent ≥90, Good 80-89, Average 70-79, Needs Improvement <70), Company A's overall capability is "Good", with all dimensions being "Good". However, indicators C3, C7, C4, and C8 have fallen into the "Average" or "Needs Improvement" range.

[0075] Diagnosis of key weaknesses: A weight-score matrix analysis was conducted. Although C7 (training) scored very low (74.3), its composite weight (0.0021) was extremely low, having a negligible impact on the overall score. C3 (institutional mechanism construction) and C4 (emergency response procedures) both scored below 80, and their weights (0.0329 and 0.0333, respectively) were in the middle range among all nine indicators, representing typical weaknesses of "moderate importance but poor performance." C8 (emergency material support) scored 78.9 with a weight of 0.0169, which also warrants attention. These three items were identified as key improvement items in this assessment.

[0076] Generate a structured assessment and improvement report: The core sections of the report include: Assessment Summary: Overall score, grade, and key findings.

[0077] Detailed score analysis: Score tables and radar chart visualizations for each level.

[0078] Key issue diagnosis: Focus on C3, C4, and C8, and list specific evidence of non-compliance (such as "the system does not stipulate a periodic review mechanism", "the emergency response flowchart is not posted at key positions", "the gas masks sampled have expired").

[0079] Targeted improvement suggestions: Regarding C3: "It is recommended to add a clause to the Emergency Management System that 'the Safety Department shall lead a systematic review every year and promptly initiate temporary revisions based on changes in regulations, findings from drills, or lessons learned from accidents.'" Regarding C4: "It is recommended to make a simplified on-site emergency response flowchart (including reporting telephone numbers and initial measures) into a laminated card, distribute it to each work team, and conduct spot checks on familiarity every quarter." Regarding C8: "It is recommended to establish an emergency supplies QR code management system to achieve full electronic tracking of the entire process of warehousing, inspection, expiration, and replacement, and to set up monthly automatic reminders for inspection tasks." Example of an improvement plan: Provide a Gantt chart template that includes improvement measures, responsible departments, completion deadlines, and acceptance criteria.

[0080] Part Five: Key Points and Extensions of Method Implementation This embodiment demonstrates a complete evaluation process for a single enterprise. In practical applications, the method of this invention has high flexibility and scalability. Dynamic adjustment of indicators: For R&D-oriented or biopharmaceutical companies, indicators related to "biosafety emergency response" can be added; for companies with a large proportion of warehousing and logistics, indicators related to "hazardous chemical storage emergency response" can be strengthened.

[0081] Dynamic weight updates: Expert scoring can be reorganized periodically (e.g., every 2 years) to reflect regulatory changes and advancements in industry understanding.

[0082] Information technology implementation: The method of this invention can be developed into a software system or online platform. After users fill out the questionnaire online, the system backend automatically completes AHM weight calculation, data storage, score calculation, and report generation, greatly improving assessment efficiency and standardization.

[0083] Benchmarking analysis: Once enough evaluation data of companies in the same industry is accumulated, an industry benchmark database can be formed. Company A's score can not only be compared with itself vertically, but also with the industry average and benchmark companies horizontally, making its positioning more accurate.

[0084] While the present invention has been disclosed above with reference to preferred embodiments, it is not intended to limit the invention. Any variations and modifications can be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Therefore, any modifications, equivalent changes, and alterations made to the above embodiments based on the technical essence of the present invention, without departing from the scope of the invention, fall within the protection scope defined by the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A system and method for evaluating the emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Construct an evaluation index system for the emergency management capabilities of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, wherein the index system includes an objective layer, at least one criterion layer, and at least one indicator layer; S2. Based on the attribute hierarchy model, determine the weight of each element in the indicator system, including calculating the composite weight of each indicator relative to the overall target; S3. Collect relevant data on the target company, score each underlying indicator according to the indicator system, and obtain the score value of each indicator; S4. Combining the composite weights and scores of the aforementioned indicators, calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of the target enterprise's emergency management capability; S5. Based on the comprehensive evaluation value and the scores of each indicator, generate the emergency management capability assessment results and improvement suggestions.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S1, the criteria layer includes at least three primary dimensions: emergency management organizational system, emergency response and emergency drills, and education and training and emergency support.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The indicator layer includes multiple secondary indicators, specifically: The secondary indicators under the emergency management organizational system include: organizational structure construction, emergency plan management, and institutional mechanism construction. The secondary indicators under the emergency response and emergency drills include: emergency response procedures, emergency rescue information systems, and emergency drill effectiveness evaluation. The secondary indicators under education, training and emergency support include: training implementation and recording, emergency material support, and equipment and facility support.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S2 specifically includes: S2.1 Construct a hierarchical structure that includes the target layer, criterion layer, and indicator layer; S2.2 Obtain the pairwise comparison judgment matrix for each element in the same level relative to the criteria of its upper level; S2.3 The judgment matrix is ​​converted into an attribute judgment matrix using a conversion formula; S2.4 Calculate the relative attribute weights of each element based on the attribute judgment matrix; S2.5 Based on the relative attribute weights of each level, calculate the composite weight of each index in the index layer relative to the target layer.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The conversion formula is: ； in , To determine the elements in the matrix Relative to element Importance scale For the corresponding element in the attribute judgment matrix, This is a preset constant.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S3, the scoring of each underlying indicator is based on pre-defined scoring rules that take into account the risk characteristics of pharmaceutical manufacturing enterprises, and is carried out through one or more of the following methods: expert review, on-site inspection, and document review.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, In step S4, the formula for calculating the comprehensive evaluation value is: Total Score .

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Step S4 further includes: calculating the dimension score of each first-level dimension in the criterion layer, wherein the dimension score is a weighted sum of the scores of all its subordinate second-level indicators with their local weights in the criterion layer.

9. The method according to claim 1 or 8, characterized in that, In step S5, generating improvement suggestions specifically includes: identifying indicators whose score is lower than a preset threshold or whose composite weight is higher than a preset weight requirement, as key weak links, and generating specific improvement measures suggestions for the key weak links.

10. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the program, it implements the steps of the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 9.

Images