Personnel performance evaluation management methods, systems and electronic equipment

Abstract

This invention provides a personnel performance evaluation management method, system, and electronic device, relating to the field of human resource management technology. Upon submission of a personnel transfer application, this invention automatically triggers a pre-detection of performance evaluation conflicts, fundamentally breaking down the technical barriers between the personnel transfer module and the performance evaluation module in existing technologies. It proactively intercepts the risk of "employees not being found in the new department," a failure that would normally only surface after the transfer. When a pre-detection of performance evaluation conflicts fails, an alert is issued by displaying a list of conflicting activities. This guides HR to resolve conflicts before organizational changes, eliminating the high cost of manual investigation. Thus, it ensures the logical completeness and validity of performance evaluation data before organizational adjustments, laying a solid technical foundation for the smooth execution of subsequent evaluation processes.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of human resource management technology, and in particular to a personnel performance management method, system and electronic equipment. Background Technology

[0002] Existing enterprise performance appraisal management systems, as core modules of HRSaaS (Human Resource Software as a Service) platforms, face significant technical challenges when dealing with the frequent organizational transfers of employees across departments, branches, and even subsidiaries within large enterprises. The system needs to adjust the departments responsible for appraisal activities, the scoring entities, and the weighting allocations before and after these transfers.

[0003] Currently, when HR (Human Resources) submits a transfer request on the personnel transfer application page, the system immediately performs an organizational relationship change, directly switching the employee's department field from the original department to the new department. This leads to the following malfunction: After the transfer process is completed, when the new department's HR attempts to include the employee in the new department's performance appraisal activities, the system returns an empty set query or a join failure error. After this malfunction occurs, it can only be remedied through cross-departmental manual communication and coordination, with IT (Information Technology) personnel manually repairing the database. This process is time-consuming and costly. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of this invention is to provide a personnel assessment and management method, system, and electronic device to alleviate the problems of failed assessment activities after personnel transfer and high costs of manual investigation in the existing technology.

[0005] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a personnel performance evaluation and management method, comprising: After detecting the submission of a personnel transfer application, a pre-detection of performance conflicts is performed on the target employee based on the performance record of the target employee in the original department. If the pre-detection of assessment conflicts fails, an assessment conflict alert will be issued, which will include displaying a list of conflicting activities. When the pre-detection of performance conflict passes, the organizational relationship and performance activity relationship of the target employees are adjusted to the target department based on the performance activity change method in the preset performance configuration table.

[0006] In an optional implementation, based on the performance evaluation activity records of the employee being transferred in their original department, a performance evaluation conflict pre-detection is performed on the employee being transferred, including: Query the performance evaluation records of the target employee who is being transferred and whose status is incomplete in their original department, and include them in the list of conflicting activities; The conflict severity score is calculated based on the status blocking score, time pressure score, and assessment type importance score of each assessment activity in the conflict activity list. The detection results of the pre-detection of the assessment conflict are determined based on the comparison between the conflict severity score and the first preset threshold.

[0007] In an optional implementation, an assessment conflict alert is provided, which includes displaying a list of conflicting activities. When the conflict severity score reaches the first preset threshold but is less than the second preset threshold, a reminder alarm is issued; wherein the second preset threshold is greater than the first preset threshold; the reminder alarm includes displaying a list of conflicting activities and allowing the operator to choose to ignore the alarm and continue submitting the operation; When the conflict severity score reaches the second preset threshold, a blocking alarm is issued. The blocking alarm includes displaying a list of conflict activities, recommended processing paths and estimated processing time for each path, and blocking the submission operation.

[0008] In an optional implementation, after adjusting the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target transferred employees to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table, the personnel assessment management method further includes: When the assessment time point is detected, the first assessment score of the original department and the second assessment score of the target department are obtained respectively. Obtain departmental weight data determined based on preset weight calculation rules; wherein, the weight calculation rules include weighting based on time ratio, and adjusting the weight by adding task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor; Based on departmental weight data, the first assessment score and the second assessment score are weighted and summed to obtain the final assessment score of the employee being mobilized for the target.

[0009] In an optional implementation, the department weight data is calculated in the following way: For the original department and the target department, the basic time weight of each department is determined based on the length of service of the employees transferred to the target department in the two departments during the assessment period. Based on the target, mobilize the task execution data of employees in each department during the assessment period to determine the task completion rate correction factor for each department; Based on the historical performance data of employees in each department during the assessment period, determine the performance trend correction factor for each department; Based on the task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor of each department, the basic time weight is adjusted to obtain the comprehensive correction weight of each department; The combined adjusted weights of the two departments are normalized to obtain the final departmental weights for the two departments.

[0010] In an optional implementation, the personnel performance management method further includes the following before writing the final performance scores of employees with target-driven motivation into the database: Based on the completeness index, the scope rationality index, and the logical consistency index, the consistency of the scoring data of the first assessment score result and the scoring data of the second assessment score result is verified. When the consistency verification fails, a manual review alarm is triggered, and the writing of the final assessment score is temporarily suspended.

[0011] In an optional implementation, adjusting the organizational relationships and performance evaluation activities of the target employees to the target department includes: Migrate the performance evaluation data of employees in their original departments to the target department; Calculate the hash values ​​of the source and target data sets before and after the data migration for the assessment activity; When the hash value of the source dataset is inconsistent with the hash value of the target dataset, a migration rollback is automatically triggered, and a data integrity alert is issued.

[0012] Secondly, the present invention provides a personnel performance evaluation and management system, comprising: The conflict pre-detection module is used to perform performance conflict pre-detection on the target employee based on the performance activity records of the target employee in the original department after detecting the submission of a personnel transfer application. The conflict alarm module is used to issue an assessment conflict alarm, including displaying a list of conflicting activities, when the assessment conflict pre-detection fails. The relationship adjustment module is used to adjust the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target employees to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table when the assessment conflict pre-detection passes.

[0013] Thirdly, the present invention provides an electronic device, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program that can run on the processor, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the personnel assessment and management method of any of the foregoing embodiments.

[0014] Fourthly, the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, performs the personnel assessment and management method of any of the foregoing embodiments.

[0015] The personnel performance evaluation management method, system, and electronic device provided by this invention include the following steps: after detecting the submission of a personnel transfer application, performing a pre-detection of performance evaluation conflicts for the target employee based on the performance evaluation activity records of the target employee in the original department; if the pre-detection of performance evaluation conflicts fails, issuing a performance evaluation conflict alarm including displaying a list of conflicting activities; and if the pre-detection of performance evaluation conflicts passes, adjusting the organizational relationship and performance evaluation activity relationship of the target employee to the target department based on the performance evaluation activity change method in the preset performance evaluation configuration table. This automatic pre-detection of performance appraisal conflicts at the moment of personnel transfer application submission fundamentally breaks down the technical barriers between the personnel transfer module and the performance appraisal module in existing technologies. It proactively intercepts the risk of "employees not being able to be found in the new department," a failure that would normally only surface after the transfer is completed. When the pre-detection of performance appraisal conflicts fails, an alert is issued by displaying a list of conflicting activities. This guides HR to resolve conflicts before changing organizational relationships, eliminating the technical drawback of high costs associated with manual investigation. Thus, the logical completeness and validity of performance appraisal activity data are ensured before organizational adjustments, laying a solid technical foundation for the smooth execution of subsequent performance appraisal processes. Attached Figure Description

[0016] To more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the specific embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained from these drawings without creative effort.

[0017] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a personnel performance evaluation and management method provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 2 A flowchart illustrating another personnel performance evaluation and management method provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a personnel assessment and management system provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is an overall architecture diagram of a personnel assessment and management system provided in an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0018] The technical solution of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the embodiments. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0019] The enterprise performance appraisal management system is one of the core modules of an HRSaaS platform. In large enterprises, employees frequently undergo organizational transfers across departments, branches, and even subsidiaries due to business needs. The performance appraisal system needs to adjust the departments responsible for appraisal activities, the scoring entities, and the weighting allocation accordingly before and after these transfers. Research has revealed the following technical deficiencies in existing HRSaaS systems: Defect 1: There is a blind spot in the assessment of conflicts before the transfer, and the assessment conflicts have the characteristic of delayed exposure.

[0020] In existing HRSaaS systems, there is a serious technical architecture gap between the personnel transfer module and the performance appraisal module, lacking a pre-emptive status detection mechanism. When HR submits a transfer request on the personnel transfer application page, the system immediately executes an organizational relationship change, directly switching the employee's department field from the original department to the new department. However, it lacks pre-detection logic for the performance appraisal activity status and cannot identify whether the employee still has any performance appraisal activities in the original department that are in "in progress" or "pending evaluation".

[0021] This technical flaw inevitably leads to the following chain of technical failures: After the transfer process is completed, when the new department's HR attempts to include the employee in the new department's performance appraisal module, the system will return an empty set query or a join failure error. The root cause is that the foreign key relationship logic at the database level conflicts with the uniqueness constraint of the performance system—the employee's performance appraisal activity record still maintains a foreign key binding with the original department's performance appraisal activity table, while system rules prohibit the same employee from being assigned to the performance appraisal activities of two departments simultaneously.

[0022] Because existing technologies have failed to resolve the aforementioned conflicts at the technical level, the system cannot provide clear fault cause prompts to the HR department of the new department after a failure occurs. Instead, it relies on cross-departmental manual communication and coordination, with IT personnel manually repairing the database, a process that takes an average of 2 to 5 working days. In business scenarios involving large-scale relocation, the scope of such technical failures expands exponentially, and repair costs and technical debt accumulate exponentially, severely hindering the digital efficiency of large-scale organizational restructuring.

[0023] Furthermore, the flaw was already present when the transfer application was submitted, but it wasn't exposed until the new department's HR performed the subsequent assessment, resulting in the complete loss of the optimal window for resolution. Existing technology lacks any assessment status awareness mechanism during the transfer application submission stage, creating a typical "post-event discovery, manual remediation" passive response model rather than a "prevention-oriented, system-guided" proactive control model. This deficiency stems from a design flaw at the system architecture level and cannot be remedied by optimizing user operation procedures. Only by introducing pre-transfer status detection and a quantitative conflict scoring mechanism at the system level can it be fundamentally resolved.

[0024] Defect 2: The weight calculation has a single dimension, resulting in a lack of fairness in boundary scenarios.

[0025] Current technologies for calculating comprehensive performance evaluations across transfer periods generally employ a single, purely time-based proportional model. This model allocates weights solely based on the employee's length of service in their original and new departments before and after the transfer, leading to serious fairness issues when the transfer date approaches the end of the performance evaluation cycle. For example, if an employee transfers on the 88th day of the evaluation cycle (out of 90 days), the system will automatically assign 97.8% weight to the original department and 2.2% weight to the new department, completely ignoring the employee's actual task completion rate throughout the original department's cycle and performance trends during their tenure in the new department.

[0026] The fairness flaws of the aforementioned pure time-based proportional model are specifically: it cannot effectively distinguish the essential differences in contribution between employees who "efficiently completed 90% of the task objectives in their original department" and those who "inefficiently completed 30% of the task objectives in their original department," nor can it quantify the performance trend changes of employees during their tenure in different departments (such as "continuously improving" or "continuously declining"). This technical limitation results in the assessment results failing to truly reflect the actual work output and changes in ability of employees, which can easily lead to serious fairness questions in boundary transfer scenarios, damaging the credibility and management value of the performance appraisal system.

[0027] Defect 3: Lack of consistency verification for multi-source scoring data.

[0028] In cross-departmental transfer scenarios where both the original and new departments jointly score performance, existing technologies lack a mechanism for cross-validating scoring data from two independent assessment systems. If the scoring data returned by one department has missing fields, scores exceeding preset ranges, or abnormal deviations between the two departments' scores (possibly due to system data processing errors or subjective bias in scoring), the system will still directly substitute these values ​​into the weighted calculation, resulting in unreliable final performance results.

[0029] Data quality out-of-control issues in batch transfer scenarios: The existing system does not have the ability to automatically verify the integrity, legality and logical consistency of multi-source scoring data. The discovery of data quality problems is completely delayed and passive, and it relies heavily on post-event employee complaints, which seriously affects the credibility of performance results and HR management effectiveness.

[0030] Defect 4: The data migration process lacks integrity guarantees.

[0031] During the migration of performance evaluation data from the original department to the new department, existing technology does not provide any data migration integrity verification mechanism. If the migration process is partially completed due to system failure, network interruption, or database transaction anomaly, the system cannot automatically detect the incomplete data, nor can it automatically trigger a rollback recovery.

[0032] Current technologies lack technical safeguards at the data migration level: IT operations personnel are forced to manually check each database entry to confirm migration integrity, which is not only inefficient and prone to omissions, but also cannot achieve automated repair. This urgently requires the introduction of automated data integrity verification mechanisms and intelligent rollback mechanisms at the system level to eradicate data migration risks from the underlying technology.

[0033] To address the lack of technical linkage between personnel transfer and performance appraisal systems in existing HRSaaS systems, this invention provides a personnel performance appraisal management method, system, and electronic device. It automatically triggers quantitative pre-detection of performance appraisal conflicts the moment a transfer application is submitted, guides HR in handling conflicts through structured alerts, and, in conjunction with a multi-dimensional weight correction algorithm and a multi-source data consistency verification mechanism, fundamentally alleviates the technical malfunction in existing technologies where employees cannot be added to performance appraisal activities after a transfer. Simultaneously, it improves the fairness and data reliability of cross-departmental transfer comprehensive scoring.

[0034] In the context of personnel relocation within an enterprise, this invention can prevent personnel inconsistencies from occurring in the new department's performance evaluation system by automatically identifying and quantifying the risk of state conflicts in performance appraisal activities. Furthermore, the use of a multi-dimensional correction model can enhance the fairness of cross-departmental comprehensive performance scoring.

[0035] To facilitate understanding of this embodiment, a personnel assessment and management method disclosed in this embodiment of the invention will first be described in detail.

[0036] This invention provides a personnel performance evaluation and management method, which can be executed by an electronic device with data processing capabilities. See also... Figure 1 The diagram shows a personnel performance evaluation and management method, which mainly includes the following steps S110 to S130: Step S110: After detecting the submission of the personnel transfer application, perform pre-detection of performance conflict for the target employee based on the performance record of the target employee in the original department.

[0037] This step aims to be at the very beginning of the personnel transfer process, that is, the moment HR clicks to submit the transfer application. The system automatically triggers a scan and risk assessment of the current performance status of the target employee, thereby intercepting potential performance conflicts before the organizational change occurs.

[0038] The employees targeted for transfer can be any member within the company's organizational structure. Performance evaluation activity records refer to data entries created and assigned to the employee during the evaluation period, associated with specific departmental evaluation activities. For example, the submission of a personnel transfer application can be detected by listening to the submission event on the front-end page.

[0039] In some possible embodiments, the above-mentioned pre-detection of assessment conflicts may include the following sub-steps S111 to S113: Sub-step S111: Query the performance evaluation records of the target employee who is to be transferred and whose status is not completed in the original department, and add them as a list of conflicting activities.

[0040] This can be explained by the fact that not all performance appraisal activities will cause conflict; only those that are not yet completed and still require processing pose a potential risk of conflict. Therefore, the system first filters the performance appraisal activity database based on employee and original department identifiers to identify records in an incomplete state, such as "in progress" or "pending evaluation." These records constitute the list of conflicting activities for subsequent analysis.

[0041] For example, if employee Zhang San currently has a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) assessment activity with a status of "in progress" and an OKR (Objectives and Key Results) assessment activity with a status of "pending scoring" under his original department "R&D Department 1", then these two records will be retrieved and added to the conflict activity list.

[0042] Sub-step S112: Calculate the conflict severity score based on the status blocking score, time pressure score, and assessment type importance score of each assessment activity in the conflict activity list.

[0043] In order to transform qualitative conflict risks into quantitative decision-making basis, the system calculates a three-dimensional score for each assessment activity in the conflict activity list.

[0044] Specifically, the status blocking score is used to quantify the degree to which the assessment activity hinders the transfer process, and can be determined based on the status of the assessment activity. For example, when the assessment activity status is "in progress" and the score has not been submitted, the status blocking score can be 1.0, indicating strong blocking (assessment data has not been fully collected, and forced transfer will lead to data fragmentation); when the status is "pending scoring" (the process has reached the scoring node but has not been completed), it can be 0.5, indicating moderate blocking (which can be resolved by setting up a proxy scorer); when the status is "completed," it is 0.0, indicating no blocking.

[0045] Time pressure scoring quantifies the urgency of an assessment activity's deadline and can be determined based on the current time, the activity's deadline, and the total duration of the assessment period. For example, the first... i Timeliness and pressure scoring for each assessment activity D i According to the formula The calculation yielded that, For the first i The deadline for each assessment activity. t now For the current time, T cycle The total duration of the assessment period (the unit can be days). D i ∈[0,1]. D i The smaller the value, the closer the deadline, the more difficult it is to resolve the conflict, and the more significant its contribution to the conflict severity score.

[0046] The assessment type importance score is used to quantify the weight of the assessment activity in corporate management and can be determined based on the assessment type of the activity. For example, the assessment type importance score for KPI type can be 1.0, the assessment type importance score for OKR type can be 0.6, and the assessment type importance score for other types (such as project milestones, behavioral assessments, etc.) can be 0.3.

[0047] After obtaining the scores from the three dimensions mentioned above, the system uses a three-dimensional weighted conflict severity scoring algorithm to calculate the conflict severity score. Specifically, the scores from the three dimensions are weighted and summed according to preset weight coefficients to obtain the individual conflict score for each assessment activity. The scores from all assessment activities in the conflict activity list are then accumulated to obtain the final conflict severity score. C conflict ,Right now ;in, N act This indicates the total number of assessment activities for employees transferred to the target department that are incomplete (e.g., status value is "in progress" or "pending evaluation"), which is also the number of assessment activities in the conflict activity list. Si Indicates the first i The status of the assessment activity is blocked in the scoring; P i For the first i The importance score of each assessment activity type; w s , w d , w p The weighting coefficients for the status blockage score, time pressure score, and assessment type importance score are respectively, satisfying... w s + w d + w p =1, for example, w s =0.50, w d =0.30, w p =0.20. The weighting coefficient can be stored in the system assessment configuration table, allowing system administrators to adjust the configuration according to the company's assessment culture.

[0048] Sub-step S113: Based on the comparison result between the conflict severity score and the first preset threshold, determine the detection result of the pre-detection of the assessment conflict.

[0049] In practice, the calculated conflict severity score can be compared with a first preset threshold. If the conflict severity score is lower than the first preset threshold, the pre-detection of conflict assessment is considered passed; if the conflict severity score reaches the first preset threshold, the pre-detection of conflict assessment is considered failed. It should be noted that the first preset threshold is the dividing line between "low risk that can be ignored" and "risk that needs attention". The specific value can be set according to actual needs and is not limited here. For example, the first preset threshold can be 0.3.

[0050] Step S120: When the pre-detection of assessment conflict fails, an assessment conflict alarm is triggered, which includes displaying a list of conflicting activities.

[0051] After detecting potential risks, this step presents the risk details to HR in a visual manner to guide HR in resolving conflicts before changing organizational relationships.

[0052] In some possible implementations, a progressive alarm mechanism can be employed to execute differentiated system responses: When the conflict severity score is less than the first preset threshold, there is no alarm, and the transfer process continues directly without HR intervention; When the conflict severity score reaches the first preset threshold but is less than the second preset threshold, an alert is issued. When the conflict severity score reaches the second preset threshold, a blocking alarm will be issued.

[0053] The second preset threshold is greater than the first preset threshold. The specific value can be set according to actual needs and is not limited here. For example, the first preset threshold is 0.3 and the second threshold is set to 0.6.

[0054] When the conflict severity score falls within the range of the first preset threshold but below the second preset threshold, it indicates a certain risk, but not yet to the point where intervention is necessary; therefore, a warning alert is issued. This warning alert displays a list of conflict activities in the user interface, listing the name, status, deadline, and corresponding score details for each assessment activity. Simultaneously, the system provides an "Ignore and Continue" option, allowing operators to ignore the warning and continue submitting personnel transfer applications if they are aware of the risk. This provides HR with operational flexibility in low-risk scenarios.

[0055] When the conflict severity score reaches the second preset threshold, it indicates a high-risk conflict that must be addressed. At this point, the system will execute strong blocking logic. Specifically, the blocking alert will not only display a list of conflicting activities, but also intelligently recommend processing paths based on a preset rule engine, and estimate and display the processing time for each path. Simultaneously, the system will disable the submit button, forcibly blocking the submission of the current personnel transfer application until the conflict is resolved and the recalculated conflict severity score falls below the first or second preset threshold.

[0056] For example, the structured content of a blocking alarm may include: 1. A list of conflicting activities (including each activity) S i , D i , P i 1. Detailed score breakdown); 2. Recommended system handling path for each conflict (e.g., Option A: Set up a proxy scorer; Option B: Apply for an extension of the assessment activity deadline; Option C: Immediately unbind the assessment activity data); 3. Estimated processing time for each recommended handling path.

[0057] Step S130: When the pre-detection of assessment conflict passes, based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table, adjust the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target employees to the target department.

[0058] After confirming there are no conflicts or that conflicts have been resolved, the system will officially execute the transfer operation. The aforementioned performance evaluation configuration table is a strategy table preset by the enterprise in the system, defining the handling logic for unfinished performance evaluation activities under an employee's name when the employee is transferred in different scenarios. The above-mentioned performance evaluation activity change methods can include: canceling the performance evaluation activities of the original department (deleting the employee data in the original department's performance evaluation table and organizational relationship table, and adding it to the corresponding target department); or only changing the organization, without changing the performance evaluation activities (only changing the employee's department in the organizational relationship table).

[0059] In some possible embodiments, adjusting the organizational relationships and performance evaluation activities of employees to the target department may include the following sub-steps S131 to S133: Sub-step S131: Migrate the performance evaluation data of the target employees in their original departments to the target department.

[0060] This can be explained by the fact that adjusting organizational and performance evaluation relationships at the business level means a change in employee affiliation, while at the data level, this requires the underlying technical means of migrating performance evaluation data. This migration process strictly follows the instructions in the performance evaluation configuration table.

[0061] For example, if the configuration method is "Cancel current department assessment activities", the migration operation may include: deleting the employee's associated data in the original department's assessment activity table and organizational relationship table, and adding the employee's data record in the corresponding assessment activity table of the target department. If the configuration method is "Only organizational change, assessment activities not changed", the migration operation mainly involves updating the employee's department field in the organizational relationship table, while retaining its association in the original assessment activities, and only adjusting the data access permissions.

[0062] Sub-step S132: Calculate the hash values ​​of the source data set and the target data set before and after the migration of the assessment activity data.

[0063] To ensure that data is not lost, corrupted, or damaged during the migration process, the system initiates an integrity verification mechanism before and after the migration. For example, the system serializes the source data set before the migration (i.e., the performance evaluation data of the employees transferred to the original department before the adjustment) and calculates its hash value, denoted as [data missing]. H src Similarly, after the migration is complete, a hash value is calculated for the target dataset (i.e., the performance evaluation data of the adjusted employees in the target department), denoted as [hash value]. H dest .

[0064] Sub-step S133: When the hash value of the source data set is inconsistent with the hash value of the target data set, the migration rollback is automatically triggered and a data integrity alarm is issued.

[0065] System comparison H src and H dest The system checks the values ​​of the migration data and its inconsistencies. If the values ​​match, the data migration is considered complete and error-free (data migration integrity verification passed), and the process ends normally. If the values ​​do not match, a data anomaly is detected. In this case, the system will automatically perform a migration rollback operation, calculate and record the set of differing fields, and simultaneously send a data integrity alert to the system administrator to notify IT operations personnel to investigate. This mechanism fundamentally eliminates data gaps caused by migration failures.

[0066] In practice, the bidirectional hash checksum is automatically calculated and compared before and after data migration: H src =SHA256(serialize(D src )); H dst =SHA256(serialize(D dst )); like H src = H dst If the data migration integrity verification passes, the process continues; if H src ≠ H dst The system automatically performs a migration rollback operation and calculates the set of difference fields D. diff =D src D dst And record it, while simultaneously sending a data integrity alert to the system administrator. Among them, D src D represents the source data set. dst This represents the target data set.

[0067] In this embodiment of the invention, the method automatically triggers performance conflict pre-detection the moment the personnel transfer application is submitted. This fundamentally breaks down the technical barrier between the personnel transfer module and the performance appraisal module in the prior art, and intercepts the risk of "the new department cannot find the employee" that would normally only be exposed after the transfer is completed. When the performance conflict pre-detection fails, a performance conflict alert is issued by displaying a list of conflicting activities. This guides HR to resolve conflicts before changing organizational relationships, eliminating the technical drawback of high manual investigation costs. Thus, the logical completeness and correlation validity of performance activity data are ensured before organizational relationship adjustments, laying a solid technical foundation for the smooth execution of subsequent performance appraisal processes.

[0068] In this embodiment of the invention, for employees transferred to a target location, the scoring rules for their performance evaluation activities may include: joint scoring by the original department and the target department (sending a first task instruction containing the original department's performance evaluation content to the original department's performance evaluation system and a second task instruction containing the target department's performance evaluation content to the target department); and separate scoring by the target department (sending a third task instruction containing the full-cycle performance evaluation content to the target department).

[0069] Furthermore, regarding situations where the original department and the target department jointly score performance, in order to achieve accurate calculation of performance evaluation scores for employees transferred across departments and to strictly control data quality, such as... Figure 2 As shown, the aforementioned personnel performance evaluation and management methods also include: Step S210: When the assessment time node is detected, obtain the first assessment score result of the original department and the second assessment score result of the target department respectively.

[0070] In this embodiment of the invention, the assessment time node refers to a pre-configured deadline that triggers the collection of assessment scores or the moment when the system automatically initiates the scoring task. When the system detects that this time node has arrived, it will automatically send data acquisition requests to both the original department's assessment system and the target department's assessment system. This can be explained by the fact that for employees who have undergone cross-transfer periods, their assessment cycle is divided into the performance phase in the original department and the performance phase in the target department. Therefore, the system needs to obtain scoring results from two independent assessment data sources.

[0071] For example, the system can send a request carrying the employee's identifier and the assessment activity identifier to the original department's assessment system to obtain the employee's performance rating during their time in the original department, which will be recorded as the first assessment rating result. Simultaneously, a similar request can be sent to the target department's assessment system to obtain the employee's performance rating after joining the target department, which will be recorded as the second assessment rating result. These two rating results will serve as the original data source for subsequent calculation of the overall score.

[0072] Step S220: Obtain department weight data determined based on preset weight calculation rules.

[0073] To fairly and reasonably calculate the final performance of employees mobilized for a target purpose, the system needs to determine the weight of the original department and the target department in the final assessment score according to specific weighting rules. In this embodiment of the invention, the weighting rules break through the traditional single-time proportion limitation and introduce a multi-stage correction mechanism.

[0074] Specifically, the acquisition of departmental weight data is not a simple linear calculation. Instead, two independent correction dimensions are superimposed on the basic time-proportion weight to form a three-dimensional comprehensive weight correction model. The aforementioned weight calculation rules may include using time proportion as the basic weight, and then superimposing task completion rate correction factors and performance trend correction factors for weight adjustment. This design aims to solve the fairness problem caused by the pure time proportion model in boundary scenarios, such as the inability to distinguish whether an employee efficiently completed most of the tasks or inefficiently completed a small number of tasks in their original department.

[0075] For example, the system can read the weight calculation strategy for the target employee transfer record from the preset weight configuration library, and call the corresponding calculation engine to output the final department weights of the original department and the target department.

[0076] In some possible embodiments, the system will perform the following sub-steps S221 to S225 for the original department and the target department respectively, based on the three-dimensional weight correction model, to calculate the final department weights used for weighted calculation.

[0077] Sub-step S221: For the original department and the target department, determine the basic time weight of each department based on the tenure information of the target transfer employees in the two departments during the assessment period.

[0078] The explanation is that the base time weight reflects the proportion of time an employee spends in their original department and target department before and after the transfer, respectively, and is the benchmark component that constitutes the assessment weight.

[0079] For example, the system can calculate the proportion of an employee's tenure in their original department relative to the total time of the entire assessment period, based on the start and end times of the assessment cycle and the employee's actual transfer time. This proportion serves as the base time weight for the original department. Correspondingly, the remaining proportion is determined as the base time weight for the target department. In other words, the base time weight can be calculated using the following formula: , ; in, This indicates the base time weight of the original department; Indicates the base time weight of the target department; Indicates the transfer time of the target employees; Indicates the start time of the assessment period; This indicates the end time of the assessment period.

[0080] Sub-step S222: Based on the target, mobilize the task execution data of employees in each department within the assessment period and determine the task completion rate correction factor for each department.

[0081] The task completion rate correction factor reflects the actual degree to which employees complete their performance evaluation tasks and is unrelated to the number of days they have worked. Specifically, task execution data can include the total number of performance evaluation sub-tasks assigned to employees in each department within a corresponding time period (i.e., the total number of performance evaluation sub-tasks to be completed), and the number of performance evaluation sub-tasks already completed. The task completion rate correction factor for that department is obtained by calculating the ratio of the number of completed performance evaluation sub-tasks to the total number of performance evaluation sub-tasks to be completed. In other words, the department... d Task completion rate correction factor It can be calculated using the following formula: , ; in, This indicates that the target scheduling employees are in the department. d The number of assessment sub-tasks completed within the corresponding time period; This indicates that the target scheduling employees are in the department. d The total number of assessment sub-tasks to be completed within the corresponding time period. d = orig Indicates the original department. d = new Indicates the target department.

[0082] It should be noted that this factor can effectively quantify an employee's task performance efficiency during their tenure in a specific department. For example, even if an employee has worked in their original department for a long time, if their task completion rate is low, this factor will reduce the weight of the original department, thus reflecting the principle of "more work, more pay" in a fair manner.

[0083] Sub-step S223: Based on the target, mobilize the historical performance data of employees in each department within the assessment period to determine the performance trend correction factor for each department.

[0084] Historical performance data can be recent (e.g., the last 3 months). Besides static task completion status, the dynamic trend of employee performance is also a crucial factor influencing the reasonable allocation of weights. Based on this, the system can retrieve employees' historical performance records for corresponding time periods in each department, calculate the month-on-month change in their average performance score, and then generate a performance trend correction factor based on this month-on-month change through a preset mathematical transformation. Optionally, the performance trend correction factor, i.e., the departmental performance trend correction factor, can be obtained by mapping the month-on-month change using the Sigmoid function. d Performance trend correction factor It can be calculated using the following formula: ; in, This indicates that the target scheduling employees are in the department. d The month-on-month change in the average performance score within the corresponding period; μThis represents the preset smoothing coefficient, for example. μ =2.0. The Sigmoid function maps the trend value of any real number field to the open interval (0,1), which can avoid the weight imbalance caused by extreme trend values.

[0085] This can be explained by the fact that when an employee's performance in a department shows a sustained upward trend, this factor will be given a positive boost, appropriately increasing the weight of their performance evaluation in that department; conversely, if performance shows a downward trend, a negative adjustment will be applied. This mechanism scientifically quantifies the trajectory of an employee's skill growth or decline, avoiding the one-sidedness of scoring at a single point in time.

[0086] Sub-step S224: Based on the task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor of each department, adjust the basic time weight to obtain the comprehensive correction weight of each department.

[0087] After obtaining the base time weight and two correction factors, the system will dynamically adjust the base time weight. Specifically, the system can apply the task completion rate correction factor and the performance trend correction factor to the base time weight according to preset fusion rules. For example, a weighted summation or product amplification method can be used to adjust the base time weight. The adjusted value is the department's comprehensive adjusted weight, which comprehensively considers three dimensions: time span, task output, and performance trend, and more accurately reflects the distribution of employees' actual contributions than a single time ratio.

[0088] In one possible implementation, the aforementioned departments d Comprehensive adjustment weight It can be calculated using the following formula: ; in, Indicates department d Basic time weighting; β 1. β 2 are both preset coefficient values, and both range from [0, 0.30]. For example, β 1 = 0.15 β 2 = 0.10.

[0089] Sub-step S225: Normalize the combined corrected weights of the two departments to obtain the final department weights of the two departments.

[0090] Since the overall adjustment weights are calculated independently by each department, their sum may not equal 1. Therefore, the system needs to perform normalization. Specifically, normalization can be performed using the following formula: , ; in, w orig This indicates the final department weight of the original department. w new This indicates the final departmental weight of the target department. This indicates the overall adjusted weight of the original department. This represents the overall adjusted weight for the target department. Through normalization, it ensures... w orig + w new =1.

[0091] Step S230: Based on the departmental weight data, the first assessment score and the second assessment score are weighted and summed to obtain the final assessment score of the target-oriented employee.

[0092] After obtaining the departmental weight data and the rating results of the two departments, the system will perform a final weighted calculation. Specifically, this will determine the final performance score of employees mobilized to achieve the target. S final It can be calculated using the following formula: S final = w orig S orig + w new S new ; in, S orig This indicates the first assessment score result. S new This indicates the score result of the second assessment.

[0093] In this embodiment, the method further includes showing HR a preview comparison of the basic time weight and the corrected final department weight, and providing preset coefficient values ​​for calculating the comprehensive corrected weight. β 1. β The manual adjustment entry for option 2 is limited to a value range of [0, 0.30]. (HR modification) β 1. β After step 2, the system recalculates the weights in real time and previews them to ensure the transparency and interpretability of the scoring results.

[0094] Furthermore, in this embodiment of the invention, to prevent distortion of the final assessment score due to anomalies in multi-source data, the system adds a data quality safeguard before formally writing the calculation results into the database. Considering that the first and second assessment scores originate from two independent assessment systems, their scoring data may contain missing data, out-of-bounds values, or logical conflicts due to differing scoring standards. Therefore, cross-validation of these two sets of scoring data is necessary. Based on this, before writing the final assessment scores of the employees targeted for transfer into the database, consistency verification is performed on the scoring data of the first and second assessment scores based on completeness indicators, scope reasonableness indicators, and logical consistency indicators.

[0095] The embodiments of the present invention perform consistency verification from the following three dimensions: completeness index is used to measure whether the data fields are complete; range reasonableness index is used to check whether the score value falls within the preset reasonable range; and logical consistency index is used to determine whether there is a systematic deviation between the scores of the two departments that exceeds reasonable expectations.

[0096] Specifically, the system uses a comprehensive scoring method. DCS (Data Consistency Score) automatically validates multi-source assessment scoring data: ; in, I complete , I range , I logic These are the indicator values ​​for completeness, scope rationality, and logical consistency, respectively. , , These are the weights of the three indicators, for example. =0.40, =0.40, =0.20.

[0097] Integrity indicators I complete This can be determined by checking whether there are empty values ​​or NULL fields in the scoring data returned by each department, that is: ; Among them, 1[ The brackets [] indicate an indicator function, where the result is 1 if the condition inside the brackets is true and 0 if the condition is false. Indicates department d In the rating data, the first k The field values ​​of each field; Indicates department dThe total number of fields in the rating data.

[0098] Scope rationality indicators I range This can be determined by checking whether the field values ​​of each scoring data point are within a preset reasonable range, that is: ; in, S min This represents the minimum value (i.e., the lower limit) of the preset reasonable range. S max This represents the maximum value (i.e., the upper limit) of a preset reasonable range. For example, the valid range for a percentage-based assessment is [0, 100]. S min =0, S max =100.

[0099] Logical consistency index I logic This can be determined by detecting whether there are systematic abnormal biases in the scoring results of the two departments, that is: ; in, This represents the average performance evaluation score of the original department (i.e., the average performance evaluation score of the original department). This represents the average reference converted score of the original department's assessment content under the target department's evaluation system (calculated by the system based on the assessment content mapping table). ε logic This represents the preset logic tolerance threshold, which can be set according to actual needs. For example, ε logic =20 points.

[0100] when DCS When a preset consistency threshold (e.g., 0.85) is reached, the consistency verification is considered successful, meaning the multi-source scoring data has passed verification. S final It can be written to the system's database; when DCS If the score falls below a preset consistency threshold, the consistency verification is deemed unsuccessful, and the system will trigger a manual review alert, temporarily suspending the writing of the final assessment score. During the manual review alert process, an alert message containing details of the low-score indicators, a list of abnormal fields, and a comparison report of the scores from both departments can be sent to the HR administrator. This mechanism transforms the passive "post-event discovery, employee complaint" model of existing technology into a proactive quality control model of "pre-event interception, system warning," effectively ensuring the reliability of assessment data in scenarios involving batch data transfers.

[0101] In this embodiment of the invention, the method, by constructing a dual guarantee mechanism of "multi-dimensional weighted scoring" and "multi-source data consistency verification," technically alleviates the fairness problem caused by the single dimension of weight calculation in existing technologies, as well as the data control problem caused by the lack of cross-validation of multi-source scoring data. This method not only scientifically quantifies employees' actual contributions and performance trends before and after transfers, ensuring the fairness and reasonableness of assessment results, but also automatically intercepts abnormal data before the final results are released, significantly reducing the post-event error correction costs for HR departments and significantly improving the performance management efficiency and system intelligence level of large enterprises under complex organizational restructuring.

[0102] In summary, compared with the prior art, the embodiments of the present invention have the following beneficial effects: Effect 1: Fundamentally eliminates the technical glitch of "employees not being found in the new department". By activating the conflict pre-detection mechanism, the timing of fault detection is advanced from "when the new department operates after the transfer is completed" to "the moment the transfer application is submitted". The fault occurrence rate is reduced from about 100% to less than 2%, and the time for cross-departmental communication and repair is shortened from 2-5 working days to less than 30 minutes.

[0103] Effect 2: Improved fairness in scoring for boundary scenarios. Through the three-dimensional weight correction model, the fairness index of scoring for boundary relocation scenarios (relocation time nodes close to the assessment cycle boundary) increased from 0.65 to 0.91, and the unfairness caused by time ratio weight distortion decreased from 35% to 4%.

[0104] Effect 3: Ensuring the quality of multi-source scoring data. Through DCS three-dimensional automatic verification, the accuracy rate of anomaly detection in assessment data reaches 94.3%, effectively replacing the passive mode of existing technologies that rely entirely on employee complaints to discover data errors after the fact.

[0105] Effect 4: Achieve verifiable zero-loss data migration. Through SHA256 bidirectional hash verification, the data migration integrity verification coverage reaches 100%, eliminating the workload of IT personnel manually checking the database, and automatically triggering rollback in the event of anomalies, shortening fault recovery time.

[0106] Effect 5: Significantly improves batch processing efficiency. In a batch processing scenario of 50 people, the entire process takes about 15 minutes, compared to about 5 working days for the traditional manual process, which is about 480 times more efficient.

[0107] Corresponding to the personnel performance evaluation and management method described above, this invention also provides a personnel performance evaluation and management system. See [link to relevant documentation]. Figure 3 The diagram shown illustrates the structure of a personnel performance evaluation management system. The system includes: The conflict pre-detection module 301 is used to perform performance conflict pre-detection on the target employee based on the performance activity record of the target employee in the original department after detecting the submission of the personnel transfer application. The conflict alarm module 302 is used to issue an assessment conflict alarm, including displaying a list of conflicting activities, when the assessment conflict pre-detection fails. The relationship adjustment module 303 is used to adjust the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target employees to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table when the assessment conflict pre-detection is passed.

[0108] In this embodiment of the invention, the system automatically triggers performance conflict pre-detection the moment a personnel transfer application is submitted. This fundamentally breaks down the technical barriers between the personnel transfer module and the performance appraisal module in the prior art, and proactively intercepts the risk of "the new department cannot find the employee" that would normally only surface after the transfer is completed. When the performance conflict pre-detection fails, the system displays a list of conflicting activities to issue an assessment conflict alert, guiding HR to resolve conflicts before changing organizational relationships. This eliminates the technical drawback of high costs associated with manual investigation, thus ensuring the logical completeness and validity of the assessment activity data before organizational relationship adjustments, laying a solid technical foundation for the smooth execution of subsequent assessment processes.

[0109] Furthermore, the aforementioned conflict pre-detection module 301 is specifically used to: query the records of assessment activities of the target employee who is incomplete in the original department, and use them as a list of conflict activities; calculate the conflict severity score based on the status blocking score, time pressure score and assessment type importance score of each assessment activity in the conflict activity list; and determine the detection result of the assessment conflict pre-detection based on the comparison result of the conflict severity score and the first preset threshold.

[0110] Furthermore, the aforementioned conflict alarm module 302 is specifically used to: issue a reminder alarm when the conflict severity score reaches a first preset threshold and is less than a second preset threshold; wherein, the second preset threshold is greater than the first preset threshold; the reminder alarm includes displaying a list of conflicting activities and allowing the operator to choose to ignore the alarm and continue submitting the operation; when the conflict severity score reaches the second preset threshold, issue a blocking alarm; wherein, the blocking alarm includes displaying a list of conflicting activities, recommended processing paths and estimated processing time for each path, and blocking the submission operation.

[0111] Furthermore, the aforementioned personnel performance evaluation management system also includes a performance evaluation scoring module. This module is used to: adjust the organizational relationship and performance evaluation activity relationship of the target employee to the target department based on the performance evaluation activity change method in the preset performance evaluation configuration table; and, upon monitoring the performance evaluation time node, obtain the first performance evaluation score of the original department and the second performance evaluation score of the target department, respectively; obtain department weight data determined based on preset weight calculation rules; wherein the weight calculation rules include weighting based on time proportion, superimposed with task completion rate correction factors and performance trend correction factors; and, based on the department weight data, perform a weighted sum of the first and second performance evaluation scores to obtain the final performance evaluation score of the target employee.

[0112] Furthermore, the aforementioned departmental weight data is calculated as follows: For both the original department and the target department, the basic time weight of each department is determined based on the tenure information of the target-transferred employees in both departments during the assessment period; the task completion rate correction factor of each department is determined based on the task execution data of the target-transferred employees in each department during the assessment period; the performance trend correction factor of each department is determined based on the historical performance data of the target-transferred employees in each department during the assessment period; the basic time weight of each department is corrected based on the task completion rate correction factor and the performance trend correction factor to obtain the comprehensive corrected weight of each department; the comprehensive corrected weights of the two departments are normalized to obtain the final departmental weights of the two departments.

[0113] Furthermore, the aforementioned personnel assessment management system also includes a consistency verification module. The consistency verification module is used to: verify the consistency of the scoring data of the first assessment score result and the scoring data of the second assessment score result based on the integrity index, the scope rationality index, and the logical consistency index; when the consistency verification fails, a manual review alarm is triggered, and the writing of the final assessment score is temporarily suspended.

[0114] Furthermore, the aforementioned relationship adjustment module 303 is specifically used to: migrate the performance evaluation data of the target employee in the original department to the target department; calculate the hash values ​​of the source data set and the target data set before and after the performance evaluation data migration; and automatically trigger a migration rollback and issue a data integrity alarm when the hash value of the source data set is inconsistent with the hash value of the target data set.

[0115] The personnel assessment management system provided in this embodiment has the same implementation principle and technical effects as the aforementioned personnel assessment management method embodiment. For the sake of brevity, any parts not mentioned in the personnel assessment management system embodiment can be referred to the corresponding content in the aforementioned personnel assessment management method embodiment.

[0116] For ease of understanding, such as Figure 4As shown, the personnel performance evaluation management system includes six core functional modules: (1) Conflict pre-detection module: When the personnel transfer application is submitted, it automatically queries the list of unfinished assessment activities of the target employee, quantifies the severity of the conflict through a three-dimensional weighted scoring formula, and sends progressive alarms to HR based on the scoring results; (2) Assessment configuration engine: used to route configuration types based on pre-stored assessment configuration tables, generate assessment activity change configuration pages and perform configuration validity verification; (3) Organizational Relationship and Assessment Activity Adjustment Module: Used to perform assessment data migration operations and ensure migration integrity through a two-way hash verification mechanism; (4) Assessment Task Scheduling Module: Used to automatically trigger task distribution at assessment time nodes, send task instructions to the target department assessment system and receive scoring results; (5) Multi-dimensional weighted scoring engine: used to superimpose task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor on the basis of basic time proportion weight to calculate the final assessment score; (6) Data consistency verification module: used to automatically verify multi-source scoring data from three dimensions: completeness, scope rationality and logical consistency.

[0117] The personnel performance evaluation management system also involves a personnel transfer application layer and a data layer; HR submits transfer applications in the personnel transfer application layer, and the aforementioned progressive alarms can be sent to the personnel transfer application layer; the data layer is equipped with a performance evaluation database, an evaluation configuration table, and an organizational relationship table.

[0118] For ease of understanding, the process for pre-detection of transfer conflicts can be as follows: When HR clicks to submit a transfer request, the system intercepts the submission and triggers the conflict pre-detection module; then, it queries the employee's list of unfinished performance appraisal activities in the current department. A conflict ;judge A conflict Is it empty? If empty (i.e., no unfinished activities), it is considered conflict-free, and the process continues. If not empty, then for each activity... a i Calculating three-dimensional components – state blocking score S i Time pressure score D i Assessment type importance score P i The conflict severity score was then compiled. C conflict ; then C conflict Perform interval judgment, if C conflictIf the value is less than 0.3, it is considered conflict-free, and the transfer process continues; if 0.3 ≤ C conflict If <0.6, a warning alert will be triggered; if C conflict A value ≥0.6 will trigger a blocking alarm. In the case of an alert alarm, HR can choose to confirm ignoring it (in this case, it is determined that HR has ignored it, and the process continues) or choose a processing path (after HR selects and executes the processing path, it will re-query the employee's list of unfinished performance appraisal activities in the current department). A conflict (The conflict detection process will resume). In blocking alarm scenarios, HR can only choose the processing path.

[0119] For ease of understanding, the calculation process of the three-dimensional weight correction model can be as follows: First, obtain the input data, including the adjustment time. Assessment period start and end time / And the number of completed assessment sub-tasks in the original department / target department. Total number of assessment sub-tasks and the month-on-month change in performance over the past three months Then it is calculated in three dimensions, including the base time weight ( , Task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor Then comes the comprehensive correction and normalization phase, where the comprehensive correction weight for each department is calculated first. Then, normalize the original department and the target department separately to obtain... w orig and w new Finally, the scoring and output stage begins, where the final assessment score is displayed. S final It also provides a preview of HR weights (basic time weights and revised final department weights).

[0120] For ease of understanding, the process for DCS multi-source data consistency verification can be as follows: First, calculate three sub-indicators sequentially, including the integrity index. I complete Scope rationality indicators I range Logical consistency index I logicThe DCS score is then compiled and determined to be ≥0.85. If DCS <0.85, a manual review alert is sent to the HR administrator. The alert report may include the scores of each sub-indicator, a list of specific abnormal fields, a comparison of the original department's score with the target department's converted score, and suggested review steps. The HR administrator then reviews the conclusion—if special circumstances are confirmed to be acceptable, then... S final The data is entered into the performance system and the process is complete. If a resubmission of the score is required, return to the step of "obtaining the first performance score result of the original department and the second performance score result of the target department" to recalculate. If DCS ≥ 0.85, then directly... S final Write it into the performance system and the process is complete.

[0121] To facilitate understanding, the process of assessing data migration and bidirectional hash verification can be described as follows: First, determine the migration dataset D. src (Including assessment activity records and organizational relationship data); then calculate the source hash value, i.e. H src =SHA256(serialize(D src Then, a data migration operation is performed, whereby the original department deletes employee performance evaluation activity data and organizational relationships, and the target department adds the corresponding performance evaluation activity data and organizational relationships. Afterwards, the target hash value is calculated. H dst =SHA256(serialize(D dst )), and judge H src = H dst Is it true? If true, the data migration integrity verification passes, zero loss is confirmed, and the process continues. If false, calculate the difference set, i.e., D. diff =D src D dst The system records the list of missing fields; then it performs a migration rollback to restore the state before migration and issues a data integrity alarm to notify the system administrator (including details of the differences in fields); then it determines whether a retry is triggered. If a retry is triggered (yes, automatic retry ≤ 3 times), it returns to the "execute data migration operation" step to re-migrate; if no retry is triggered (no, limit exceeded), the process is suspended and awaits manual processing.

[0122] For ease of understanding, the following detailed descriptions are provided through several embodiments.

[0123] Example 1: Cross-company transfer, full process of conflict pre-detection.

[0124] This example describes the complete process for employee M (P6 level) to be transferred from the Credit Card Center Product Department to the E-commerce Business Department of the Chengdu Branch. Assessment period: January 1 to March 31 (90 days in total), transfer date: February 15 (day 46).

[0125] 1. Conflict pre-detection phase: When HR Xiao Y submitted the transfer application, the system immediately triggered a conflict pre-detection and found that employee M had 3 unfinished performance appraisal activities in the current department, as shown in Table 1 below.

[0126] Table 1

[0127] Calculate the conflict severity score C conflict =0.793+0.418+0.334=1.545≥0.6, triggering a blocking alarm. The system displays a structured conflict alarm to HR Xiao Y, with the recommended handling path: Q1 KPI → Set up a proxy evaluator (estimated 30 minutes); OKR self-assessment → Request an extension to February 20th (estimated 10 minutes); Project milestones → Can be ignored (score 0.334<0.6).

[0128] HR Xiao Y selected the first two processing paths and completed them. The system then re-checked: the Q1 KPI status changed to "transferred to a proxy," the OKR status changed to "delayed," and the project milestones remained unchanged. At this point, the conflict activity list only contained the project milestones (with a weighted score of 0.334). C conflict =0.334, at 0.3 The 0.6 range triggered a warning. After HR Xiao Y confirmed that the warning was ignored, the transfer application was successfully submitted.

[0129] 2. Three-dimensional weight correction stage: Base time weights: =46 / 90=0.511, =0.489; Task completion rate correction factor: =12 / 15=0.800, =5 / 8=0.625; Performance trend correction factor: , ; Overall Adjusted Weights: =0.511×(1+0.15×0.800+0.10×0.998)=0.623, =0.489×(1+0.15×0.625+0.10×0.880)=0.578; Final department weights: w orig =0.519, w new =0.481; Final assessment score: S final =0.519×85+0.481×90=87.41 points.

[0130] 3. DCS Validation Phase: I complete =1.0, I range =1.0, I logic =1.0; DCS =1.0≥0.85, consistency verification passed. S final =87.41 points were entered into the performance system, and the entire process was completed.

[0131] Employee M does not need to repeat their job description, HR Y and HR Z from the target department do not need to communicate across departments, and IT engineers do not need to manually search the database.

[0132] Example 2: The system is set up uniformly in the background to mobilize 50 people in batches.

[0133] This example describes an annual organizational restructuring scenario: transferring 50 employees from the East China region to the South China region. The performance evaluation configuration is preset with: cancellation of performance evaluation activities + separate scoring for the new department (types are uniformly set in the backend).

[0134] System parallel processing: Conflict pre-detection: 47 employees C conflict <0.3, pass directly; 3 trigger blocking alarms, the system automatically pushes handling suggestions to the HR of their corresponding original departments.

[0135] Data migration and hash verification: Batch migration of relationships for 47 employees was performed, and all bidirectional hash verifications passed. IT engineers received a system migration integrity verification report without the need for manual database spot checks.

[0136] Assessment task scheduling: When the assessment time arrives, the system automatically distributes 50 task instructions to the South China region in batches, without requiring manual operation by HR.

[0137] DCS verification: 49 employee data were verified successfully, and 1 case triggered a review alarm (the South China region score had missing fields). After the HR administrator handled the issue, the verification was retried and passed.

[0138] The group's HR director received the batch processing report generated by the system. There were no complaints about any abnormal data. The entire batch processing took about 15 minutes (the traditional manual process takes about 5 working days).

[0139] Example 3: Only organizational changes, no changes to assessment activities.

[0140] Employee N was transferred from Business Unit A to Business Unit B of the Group. The two business units share the same performance evaluation system. The HR configuration is "only organizational change, no change in performance evaluation activities + separate scoring for the new department".

[0141] Conflict pre-detection: C conflict =0.15 < 0.3, no alarm. The system only deleted the association of Business Unit A and added the association of Business Unit B in the organizational relationship table; the original assessment table remained unchanged. Two-way hash verification passed. At the assessment time, a third task instruction containing the full-cycle assessment content was sent to Business Unit B. Business Unit B scored 88 points, and DCS verification passed. S final =88 points were written to the system. The total HR operation took approximately 3 minutes.

[0142] like Figure 5 As shown, an electronic device 500 provided in this embodiment of the invention includes: a processor 501, a memory 502 and a bus. The memory 502 stores a computer program that can run on the processor 501. When the electronic device 500 is running, the processor 501 and the memory 502 communicate through the bus, and the processor 501 executes the computer program to implement the above-mentioned personnel assessment and management method.

[0143] Specifically, the memory 502 and processor 501 mentioned above can be general-purpose memory and processor, without any specific limitations here.

[0144] For example, in this embodiment, the electronic device includes a processor, memory, storage, a network communication interface, a computer program (all the logic of the method in this embodiment), and a communication bus connecting them. The processor loads and executes the computer program, which is stored in the storage and interacts with the memory and network communication interface through the communication bus. The network communication interface supports HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure), JDBC (Java Database Connectivity), REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface), and message queue / API protocols to communicate with external systems. The external systems include the HRSaaS front-end (transfer application page), performance appraisal database, appraisal configuration service, and appraisal subsystems of various departments. These external systems all interact with the components in the electronic device through the network communication interface. The processor can be a CPU (Central Processing Unit) / GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), the memory can be RAM (Random Access Memory), and the storage can be an SSD (Solid State Drive) / HDD (Hard Disk Drive).

[0145] This invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, performs the personnel assessment and management method described in the preceding method embodiments. The computer-readable storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, read-only memory (ROM), RAM, magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0146] In this document, the term "and / or" is merely a description of the relationship between related objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can represent three cases: A alone, A and B simultaneously, and B alone. Furthermore, the term "at least one" in this document means any combination of at least two of any one or more elements. For example, including at least one of A, B, and C can mean including any one or more elements selected from the set consisting of A, B, and C.

[0147] In all examples shown and described herein, any specific values ​​should be interpreted as merely exemplary and not as limitations; therefore, other examples of exemplary embodiments may have different values.

[0148] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which contains one or more executable instructions for implementing a specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions marked in the blocks may occur in a different order than those shown 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 diagrams and / or flowcharts, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowcharts, may 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.

[0149] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed systems and methods can be implemented in other ways. The system embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For example, the division of modules is only a logical functional division, and there may be other division methods in actual implementation. Furthermore, multiple modules or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Additionally, the coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some communication interface, and the indirect coupling or communication connection between modules may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0150] The modules described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. Similarly, the components shown as modules may or may not be physical modules; they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network modules. Some or all of the modules can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment, depending on actual needs.

[0151] In addition, the functional modules in the various embodiments of the present invention can be integrated into one processing module, or each module can exist physically separately, or two or more modules can be integrated into one module.

[0152] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit them; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some or all of the technical features; and these modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A personnel performance evaluation and management method, characterized in that, include: After detecting the submission of a personnel transfer application, a pre-detection of performance conflicts is performed on the target employee based on the performance record of the target employee in the original department. If the pre-detection of the assessment conflict fails, an assessment conflict alarm will be triggered, including displaying a list of conflicting activities. When the pre-detection of the assessment conflict passes, the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target employee are adjusted to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table.

2. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of performing performance conflict pre-detection on the target employee based on their performance evaluation activity records in their original department includes: Query the performance evaluation records of the target employee who is incomplete in their original department and compile them into a list of conflicting activities; The conflict severity score is calculated based on the status blocking score, time pressure score, and assessment type importance score of each assessment activity in the conflict activity list. Based on the comparison between the conflict severity score and the first preset threshold, the detection result of the pre-detection of the assessment conflict is determined.

3. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The assessment of conflict alerts, which includes displaying a list of conflicting activities, includes: When the conflict severity score reaches the first preset threshold but is less than the second preset threshold, a reminder alarm is issued; wherein, the second preset threshold is greater than the first preset threshold; the reminder alarm includes displaying a list of conflicting activities and allowing the operator to choose to ignore the alarm and continue the submission operation; When the conflict severity score reaches the second preset threshold, a blocking alarm is issued; wherein, the blocking alarm includes displaying a list of conflict activities, recommended processing paths and estimated processing time for each path, and blocking the submission operation.

4. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After adjusting the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target transferred employees to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table, the personnel assessment management method further includes: When the assessment time point is detected, the first assessment score result of the original department and the second assessment score result of the target department are obtained respectively. Obtain department weight data determined based on preset weight calculation rules; wherein, the weight calculation rules include weight adjustment based on time ratio as the base weight, plus task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor; Based on the departmental weight data, the first assessment score and the second assessment score are weighted and summed to obtain the final assessment score of the employee to be transferred.

5. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The departmental weight data is calculated in the following way: For the original department and the target department, the basic time weight of each department is determined based on the tenure information of the target employee in the two departments during the assessment period. Based on the stated objectives, mobilize the task execution data of employees in each of the departments within the assessment period, and determine the task completion rate correction factor for each of the departments. Based on the stated objectives, historical performance data of employees in each of the departments within the assessment period are mobilized to determine the performance trend correction factor for each department; Based on the task completion rate correction factor and performance trend correction factor of each department, the basic time weight is adjusted to obtain the comprehensive correction weight of each department; The combined adjusted weights of the two departments are normalized to obtain the final department weights of the two departments.

6. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Before writing the final performance scores of employees who have been motivated to achieve the stated goals into the database, the personnel performance management method further includes: Based on the completeness index, the scope rationality index, and the logical consistency index, the consistency of the scoring data of the first assessment scoring result and the scoring data of the second assessment scoring result is verified. If the consistency verification fails, a manual review alarm is triggered, and the writing of the final assessment score is temporarily suspended.

7. The personnel performance evaluation and management method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The adjustment of the organizational relationships and performance evaluation activities of the target employees to the target department includes: Migrate the performance evaluation data of the employees in the original department to the target department; Calculate the hash values ​​of the source and target data sets before and after the data migration for the assessment activity; When the hash value of the source data set is inconsistent with the hash value of the target data set, a migration rollback is automatically triggered, and a data integrity alarm is issued.

8. A personnel performance evaluation and management system, characterized in that, include: The conflict pre-detection module is used to perform performance conflict pre-detection on the target employee based on the performance record of the target employee in the original department after detecting the submission of a personnel transfer application. The conflict alarm module is used to issue an assessment conflict alarm, including displaying a list of conflicting activities, when the assessment conflict pre-detection fails. The relationship adjustment module is used to adjust the organizational relationship and assessment activity relationship of the target employee to the target department based on the assessment activity change method in the preset assessment configuration table when the assessment conflict pre-detection passes.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the personnel assessment and management method according to any one of claims 1-7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon, characterized in that, The computer program, when executed by the processor, performs the personnel assessment and management method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images