A method for analyzing the value of the transformation of an electric power technological achievement into a technical standard

Abstract

The present application relates to a kind of power technology achievement to the value analysis method of conversion to technical standard, belong to the technical field of electric power industry.First, the multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model including technical parameter deconstruction model, application scene deconstruction model and compatibility deconstruction model and electric power field basic scene library are constructed;The electric power technology achievement information to be analyzed and basic scene library are imported into the model, and technical parameter set is extracted, the scene coverage and compatibility are calculated;Based on parameter set, scene coverage and compatibility, the technical maturity level is judged;Three layers of value judgment system, target layer and standard layer are constructed, and the technical maturity level and external evaluation parameter are input into the system, and the conversion feasibility and specific conversion suggestion are output.The present application realizes the multi-dimensional quantitative analysis of electric power technology achievement and the automatic judgment of conversion value, reduces the subjective dependence of expert, and provides scientific decision-making support for the conversion of electric power technology achievement to technical standard.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards, belonging to the technical field of the power industry. Background Technology

[0002] The transformation of scientific and technological achievements into technical standards is a crucial pathway for the high-quality development of the power industry. As a fundamental energy industry, the power sector has made significant progress in areas such as ultra-high-voltage power transmission and transformation, and new energy sources, yielding abundant scientific and technological achievements that have laid a solid foundation for the export of technical standards. However, the current system for transforming power system scientific and technological achievements into technical standards is still imperfect, and the transformation process faces multiple challenges: there are gaps in the transformation mechanism; insufficient technological maturity leads to low transformation effectiveness; and the complexity of the power system also restricts the progress and path of transformation. Therefore, effective evaluation methods are urgently needed to support transformation decisions.

[0003] Existing technologies already include methods for evaluating scientific and technological achievements in the power industry. For example, Chinese invention patent application CN110135742A discloses a method for evaluating the technological value of scientific and technological achievements in the power industry. This method constructs a technological value evaluation index system comprising a target layer, a criterion layer, and an indicator layer. It uses the G1 method to determine the weight of each indicator and employs a matter-element extension model to calculate the comprehensive correlation degree to assess the technological value level of the achievement. However, in the evaluation process of the above-mentioned technical solution, many indicators rely on experts to rank and assign importance to the indicators, resulting in strong subjectivity and low reproducibility of the evaluation results. Furthermore, the comprehensive correlation degree output by the matter-element extension model in this technical solution can only reflect the relative position of the achievement within a preset level range, making it difficult to directly characterize the actual state of the achievement in dimensions such as technological maturity and scenario adaptability. The evaluation results have limited support for transformation decisions. In addition, the evaluation process of the above-mentioned technical solution relies on expert experience, making it impossible to achieve batch and automated evaluation of a large number of power scientific and technological achievements.

[0004] To address the aforementioned issues, there is an urgent need for a value analysis method that can reduce reliance on expert subjectivity and achieve multi-dimensional quantitative analysis. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the problems existing in the prior art, this invention proposes a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards.

[0006] The technical solution of the present invention is as follows: This invention provides a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards, the method comprising: Construct a multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model for power technology achievements, including a technical parameter deconstruction model, an application scenario deconstruction model, and a compatibility deconstruction model; and build a basic scenario library for the power field. The information on power technology achievements to be analyzed and the basic scenario library are imported into a multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model, which outputs the parameter set, scenario coverage, and compatibility of the power technology achievements. Among them, the technical parameter deconstruction model is used to extract technical parameters and their threshold ranges from the power technology achievement information and output the parameter set; the application scenario deconstruction model is used to associate and match the parameter set with the basic scenario library and calculate the scenario coverage; and the compatibility deconstruction model is used to calculate the compatibility with the parameter set as input. The technology maturity level of power technology achievements is determined based on parameter sets, scenario coverage, and compatibility. A three-tiered value judgment system is constructed, comprising an indicator layer, a purpose layer, and a standard layer. The indicator layer inputs the technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility, while the purpose layer and the standard layer input the technology maturity level and external evaluation parameters obtained according to preset evaluation rules. The system outputs the feasibility and transformation suggestions for the conversion of power technology achievements into technical standards.

[0007] Preferably, the steps for extracting technical parameters and their threshold ranges from power technology achievement information include: The text of information on power technology achievements is input into a pre-trained deep learning BERT model to identify and extract technical parameter names, performance indicators and their threshold expressions; the extracted threshold expressions are then standardized, including unit conversion, interval parsing and comparison operator standardization, and a structured parameter set is output.

[0008] Preferably, the steps for calculating scene coverage include: A correlation matrix is ​​constructed using scenarios in the basic scenario library as rows and technical parameters in the parameter set as columns. The correlation strength values ​​between each scenario and each parameter in the correlation matrix are labeled according to the preset correlation strength scoring rules. The number of scenarios whose correlation strength values ​​exceed the preset correlation strength threshold is counted, and the ratio of the number of scenarios to the total number of scenarios in the basic scenario library is calculated to obtain the scenario coverage.

[0009] Preferably, the steps for calculating compatibility include: The internal parameter matching score is calculated based on the deviation of the actual values ​​of each parameter in the parameter set from the preset parameter threshold range; the external system integration capability score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set supports the power industry standard protocol; the system standard compliance score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set conforms to the power industry standard specifications; and the environmental adaptability score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set covers various physical and electromagnetic environment requirements. The scores for internal parameter matching, external system integration capability, system standard compliance, and environmental adaptability are weighted and summed to output the total compatibility score.

[0010] Preferably, the technology maturity level of power technology achievements is determined based on parameter set, scenario coverage, and compatibility, specifically as follows: When the parameter set has not been fully validated in the laboratory, the technology maturity level is determined to be level zero, which corresponds to technology maturity level TRL 1 to 2. When the parameter set has completed laboratory verification and the scenario coverage is lower than the first preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the first level, which corresponds to the technology maturity level TRL 3 to 4. When the scene coverage reaches the first preset threshold and the compatibility does not reach the second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the second level, which corresponds to a technology maturity level TRL 5 to 6. When the scene coverage reaches the third preset threshold and the compatibility reaches the second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the third level, which corresponds to the technology maturity level TRL 7 to 9.

[0011] Preferably, the external evaluation parameters include policy fit, technological leadership, sustainable value, cost savings, market size, return on investment, and the absence of original technical standards; The preset evaluation rule is as follows: The degree of policy alignment is determined by the alignment between the technical field of the power technology achievement and national and industry policies; the degree of technological leadership is determined by the extent to which core parameters exceed current standards; the sustainable value is determined by the contribution of the power technology achievement to the long-term development benefits of the power industry; the cost savings are determined by the cost reduction across the entire industry chain brought about by standardization; the market size is determined by the market demand volume and growth rate; the return on investment is determined by comparing the equipment investment payback period with the industry average; and the original technical standard gap is determined by whether there are dedicated standards or key indicator gaps corresponding to the achievement in the current standard system.

[0012] Preferably, the indicator layer is used for: The application value score is calculated based on the technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility; the industry value score is calculated based on policy alignment, technological leadership, and sustainable value; and the economic value score is calculated based on cost savings, market size, and return on investment. The application value score, industry value score, and economic value score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the indicator layer.

[0013] Preferably, the target layer is used for: The initial score of the target layer is calculated based on policy fit and the lack of original technical standards. The initial score of the target layer is then adjusted according to the technology maturity level. Specifically, when the technology maturity level is lower than the preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer is reduced by a first correction coefficient. When the technology maturity level reaches the preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer remains unchanged.

[0014] Preferably, the standard layer is used to determine the standard type adaptability score based on the technology maturity level, specifically: When the technology maturity level is lower than the first adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the enterprise standard level; when the technology maturity level is between the first and second adaptation thresholds, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the group standard level; when the technology maturity level is higher than the second adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the industry standard or national standard level. The standard type adaptability score and the scene coverage score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the standard layer.

[0015] Preferably, the three-tiered value judgment system outputs feasibility and transformation suggestions for the conversion of power technology achievements into technical standards, including: The three-tiered value judgment system calculates the overall conversion value score by weighted summing of the total scores of the indicator layer, the target layer, and the standard layer. When the overall conversion value score reaches the first preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs decision suggestions for prioritizing conversion; When the overall conversion value score is between the first preset conversion threshold and the second preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs decision suggestions for improved conversion. When the overall conversion value score is between the second preset conversion threshold and the third preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs a decision suggestion to postpone conversion; When the overall conversion value score is lower than the third preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs a decision suggestion not to promote conversion.

[0016] The present invention has the following beneficial effects: 1. This invention provides a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards. It extracts parameter sets from achievement information through a technical parameter deconstruction model, calculates scenario coverage values ​​through an application scenario deconstruction model, and calculates the total compatibility score by weighting four dimensions: internal parameter matching, external system integration capability, system standard compliance, and environmental adaptability through a compatibility deconstruction model. This transforms power technology achievements into three quantifiable indicators: parameter sets, scenario coverage values, and compatibility scores. The evaluation can be completed without relying on subjective qualitative judgments from experts, thus improving the objectivity and reproducibility of the evaluation results. 2. This invention provides a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards. The method calculates application value score, industry value score and economic value score through the indicator layer and weights them to obtain the total score of the indicator layer. The initial score of the target layer is corrected by the technology maturity level through the target layer. The total score of the standard layer is calculated by the standard layer according to the technology maturity level and scenario coverage. The three-layer value judgment system outputs four decision suggestions after weighted summation of the three-layer scores: priority transformation, improved transformation, postponed transformation and no transformation. This makes the evaluation results directly correspond to specific transformation actions and improves the operability of decision-making. 3. This invention provides a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards. By constructing a basic scenario library in the power field covering power transmission and transformation systems, distribution networks, new energy power plants, energy storage systems, electricity consumption side, special environments, extreme climates, and emergency scenarios, a correlation matrix is ​​constructed with scenarios as row parameters and correlation strength is labeled to calculate scenario coverage. The total compatibility score is calculated by weighting four dimensions: internal parameter matching, external system integration capability, system standard compliance, and environmental adaptability. This makes the evaluation model deeply bound to the actual application scenarios in the power industry, improving the generalization ability of the evaluation method across different technical fields in the power industry and the industry-specific accuracy of the evaluation results. Attached Figure Description

[0017] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the method corresponding to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0018] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. 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] It should be understood that the step numbers used in the text are for ease of description only and are not intended to limit the order in which the steps are performed.

[0020] It should be understood that the terminology used in this specification is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the invention. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0021] The terms “comprising” and “including” indicate the presence of the described feature, whole, step, operation, element and / or component, but do not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, wholes, steps, operations, elements, components and / or collections thereof.

[0022] The term “and / or” refers to any combination of one or more of the associated listed items, as well as all possible combinations, and includes these combinations.

[0023] Example 1: This embodiment provides a value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards, such as... Figure 1 As shown, the method includes: S1. Construct a multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model for power technology achievements, and build a basic scenario library for the power field, including: S11. The multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model includes a technical parameter deconstruction model, an application scenario deconstruction model, and a compatibility deconstruction model, specifically: S111. The technical parameter deconstruction model includes a dimensionality reduction model constructed based on principal component analysis. Since this embodiment uses the conventional principal component analysis method in the field, its specific mathematical derivation process will not be described in detail. When constructing the dimensionality reduction model, the first step is to obtain a sample parameter dataset of historical scientific and technological achievements in the power field, and then filter the sample parameters to form an initial parameter set. The parameters in the initial parameter set are then identified by type, distinguishing between linear and nonlinear parameters. Nonlinear parameters are linearized using power transformation or base transformation methods. All parameters after linearization are then processed to eliminate dimensional differences. Based on the data after eliminating dimensional differences, the covariance matrix is ​​calculated, and eigenvalue decomposition is performed on the covariance matrix. Principal components are selected based on the cumulative variance contribution rate to obtain the dimensionality reduction projection matrix, i.e., the dimensionality reduction model. When the dimensionality reduction model is running, the input parameter set is multiplied by the projection matrix, and the dimensionality-reduced feature parameter set is output. S112. The basic scenario library is constructed based on the current technical standards in the power field and the typical power science and technology achievement case library. It records the scenario number, scenario category, scenario name, key requirements and constraints of each scenario in the form of structured entries, covering the dimensions of scale, environment, application mode and key requirements. In this embodiment, for ease of understanding, a basic scene library as shown in Table 1 is constructed: Table 1 Basic Scene Library

[0024] S113. The application scenario deconstruction model is used to associate and match the technical parameters of power technology achievements with the basic scenario library to calculate the scenario coverage. S114. The compatibility deconstruction model is used to calculate compatibility using the technical parameters of power technology achievements as input. Furthermore, the compatibility deconstruction model includes an internal compatibility analysis module, an external compatibility analysis module, a system compatibility analysis module, and an environmental compatibility analysis module, wherein: The internal compatibility analysis module is used to assess internal compatibility based on parameter matching, interface and communication compatibility, and collaborative response capabilities among internal core hardware modules. The external compatibility analysis module is used to assess external compatibility based on interface matching with external supporting equipment (including power supply, signal, and installation structure compatibility), system integration capabilities (whether it supports industry standard protocols such as IEC61850 and Modbus), and forward and backward compatibility (whether it is compatible with old equipment and reserves interfaces for future upgrades). The system compatibility analysis module is used to assess system compatibility based on industry standard compliance (whether it complies with national and industry standards such as GB and DL / T), platform and network compatibility (whether it supports mainstream operating systems, cloud platforms, and communication protocols), and certification compliance (whether it has passed industry certifications such as CQC and CE and complies with quality management systems). The environmental compatibility analysis module is used to assess environmental compatibility based on physical environment adaptability (temperature, humidity, protection level, seismic performance), electromagnetic compatibility (anti-interference capability, electromagnetic emission control), and stability in special environments (high altitude, corrosive environment, long-term operational reliability).

[0025] S2. Import the power technology achievement information to be analyzed and the basic scenario library into the multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model, and output the parameter set, scenario coverage, and compatibility corresponding to the power technology achievement, wherein: S21. The technical parameter deconstruction model also includes a BERT module. The BERT module extracts technical parameters and their threshold ranges from the power technology achievement information and outputs a parameter set. Specifically: First, the text of power technology achievement information is cleaned, segmented, and standardized to remove irrelevant symbols and stop words, and then converted into an input format that can be processed by BERT. The context-aware vector representation of each word is obtained through the BERT model. Using the BERT-CRF joint model, named entity recognition is performed based on context-aware vector representation to automatically label the names, values, or expressions of technical parameters in the text of power science and technology achievements. Based on the attention mechanism of BERT, we analyze the semantic dependency between the name of technical parameter and its context description, identify the performance index corresponding to the technical parameter and its threshold expression form, and construct the triple structure of parameter, index and threshold through relation extraction model. The extracted threshold expressions are standardized, including unifying unit conversion, parsing interval expressions, and identifying and standardizing comparison operators. The extracted technical parameters and thresholds are matched and verified with existing power industry-related standard terminology databases, filtering out results with low matching degrees, and the rationality of the values ​​is verified by combining a rule engine. The validated results will be output as a structured parameter set. Expressed as a formula: ; In the formula, The parameter name for the first parameter. This is the corresponding indicator for the first parameter. This is the lower threshold of the first parameter. This is the upper limit of the threshold for the first parameter, and so on; S22. The technical parameter deconstruction model inputs the structured parameter set into the dimension reduction projection matrix of step S111 and outputs the dimension reduction feature parameter set. S23. The application scenario deconstruction model associates and matches the dimensionality-reduced feature parameter set with the basic scenario library to calculate scenario coverage. Specifically: A correlation matrix is ​​constructed using the scenes in the basic scene library as rows and the technical parameters in the dimensionality-reduced feature parameter set as columns; the correlation strength values ​​between each scene and each parameter in the correlation matrix are labeled according to a preset correlation strength scoring rule. In this embodiment, the preset association strength scoring rule is: A score of 1.0 indicates that the parameter is a core requirement of the scenario and the scenario cannot run without the appropriate parameter; a score of 0.8 indicates that the parameter is an important requirement of the scenario and significantly affects the running efficiency and stability; a score of 0.6 indicates that the parameter is a general requirement of the scenario and only affects local performance; a score of 0.4 indicates that the parameter is a minor requirement of the scenario and has a minimal impact; a score of 0.2 indicates that the parameter is not directly related to the scenario. The number of scenes whose association strength values ​​exceed a preset association strength threshold is counted. In this embodiment, the preset association strength threshold is 0.7. The ratio of this number to the total number of scenes in the basic scene library is calculated to obtain the scene coverage, which is expressed by the formula: Scene coverage = Number of core scenes with an association strength ≥ 0.7 / Total number of scenes in the basic scene library; In this embodiment, if the scene coverage is less than 40%, scenes that are completely unrelated to the field of power technology achievements or are not universally applicable will be excluded. S24. The compatibility deconstruction model uses the reduced feature parameter set as input to calculate compatibility, specifically: S241. Calculate the internal compatibility score based on the reduced feature parameter set. The internal compatibility consists of three sub-dimensions: parameter matching, interface and communication compatibility, and collaborative response capability. Parameter matching score The calculation formula is: ; In the formula, The number of parameters; For the first The actual values ​​of each parameter and These are the lower and upper limits allowed for the parameter, respectively. The parameter value is normalized to between 0 and 1. When the actual value is better than the optimal boundary, it takes a full score of 1, and when the actual value is worse than the worst boundary, it takes a score of 0. Interface and communication compatibility score The determination is based on whether the reduced-dimensional feature parameters, including the IEC 61850 protocol identifier, Modbus protocol identifier, and data format identifier, are within a preset standard value range, expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, The number of communication protocol parameters; For the first The compliance flag for each communication protocol parameter (1 for compliance, 0 for non-compliance). Collaborative Response Capability Score The synchronization response time parameter between modules in the reduced feature parameter set is determined based on whether it falls within a preset threshold range, expressed by the following formula: ; In the formula, The number of parameters for collaborative response time; For the first The compliance indicator for each collaborative response time parameter (1 for compliance, 0 for non-compliance). Internal compatibility score is expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, , and The weights for the three sub-dimensions are respectively, satisfying... In this embodiment, the weights of the three sub-dimensions are all... ; S242. Calculate the external compatibility score based on the dimensionality-reduced feature parameter set. The external compatibility is comprised of three sub-dimensions: interface compatibility with supporting equipment, system integration capabilities (whether it supports industry standard protocols such as IEC 61850 and Modbus), and forward and backward compatibility. Specifically: In the In this scenario, the matching score of the supporting equipment interface is... The determination is based on whether the interface type field in the reduced feature parameter set matches the power specifications, signal type, and installation structure specifications of the external supporting equipment, expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, Match the number of parameters for the interface; For the first The interface matches parameters in the scenario. The following are the compliance indicators (1 for compliance, 0 for non-compliance). System integration capability sub-score The determination is based on whether the interface protocol type field in the reduced feature parameter set contains an IEC 61850 or Modbus protocol identifier, expressed by the following formula: ; In the formula, This refers to the number of protocol parameters. For the first The protocol parameters in the scenario The following are the compliance indicators (1 for compliance, 0 for non-compliance). Forward and backward compatibility sub-score The compatibility is determined based on whether the reduced feature parameter set includes forward and backward compatibility design specifications. ,otherwise ; No. The overall external compatibility score for each scenario is expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, , and The weights for the three sub-dimensions are respectively, satisfying... In this embodiment, the weights of all three sub-dimensions are... ; External compatibility score Expressed as a formula: ; In the formula, The total number of scenes in the basic scene library; For the first The overall correlation strength between a scenario and power technology achievements is determined by the maximum value among the correlation strength values ​​corresponding to that scenario in the correlation matrix described in step S23. S243. Calculate the system compatibility score based on the reduced feature parameter set. The system compatibility is comprised of three sub-dimensions: industry standard compliance, platform and network compatibility, and certification compliance. Specifically: Industry standard compliance score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set contains a GB or DL / T standard number field; if it contains either standard number... ,otherwise ; Platform and network compatibility sub-score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set contains adaptation information for mainstream operating systems, cloud platforms, or communication protocols, expressed by the following formula: ; In the formula, To accommodate the number of information types; For the first A flag indicating whether class adaptation information exists (1 if it exists, 0 if it does not exist); in this embodiment, the adaptation information types include operating system type, cloud platform type, and communication protocol type. Certification compliance sub-score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set contains CQC or CE certification marks; if either certification mark is included... ,otherwise ; The system compatibility score is expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, , and The weights for the three sub-dimensions are respectively, satisfying... In this embodiment, the weights of the three sub-dimensions are all... ; S244. Calculate the environment compatibility score based on the reduced feature parameter set. The environmental compatibility is composed of three sub-dimensions: physical environment adaptability, electromagnetic compatibility, and stability in special environments. Specifically: Physical environment adaptability score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set covers environmental parameters such as temperature range, humidity range, protection level, and seismic performance, expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, The number of physical environment parameters; For the first Coverage flags for each physical environment parameter (1 for coverage, 0 for no coverage); in this embodiment, physical environment parameters include temperature, humidity, protection level, and seismic performance; Electromagnetic compatibility score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set includes electromagnetic interference resistance or electromagnetic emission control indicators; if either indicator is included... ,otherwise ; Special environment stability score The determination is based on whether the reduced feature parameter set includes indicators for high-altitude adaptability, corrosive environment adaptability, or long-term operational reliability, expressed by the following formula: ; In the formula, For the number of special environmental parameters; For the first Coverage identifier for a special environmental parameter (1 for coverage, 0 for no coverage); in this embodiment, the special environmental parameters include high altitude adaptability, corrosive environment adaptability, and long-term operational reliability; The environmental compatibility score is expressed by the formula: ; In the formula, , and The weights for the three sub-dimensions are respectively, satisfying... In this embodiment, the weights of the three sub-dimensions are all... ; S26. Score for the internal compatibility. External compatibility score System compatibility score Environmental compatibility score Perform a weighted summation and output the total compatibility score. Expressed as a formula: ; In the formula, , , and The weights for the four compatibility sub-dimensions are respectively, satisfying... In this embodiment, the weights of all four dimensions are 0.25; when A value ≥0.7 indicates high compatibility, demonstrating good compatibility across all aspects and suitability for standard conversion; when 0.5 ≤ A value <0.7 indicates medium compatibility, with shortcomings requiring targeted improvements before standard conversion; when... A value less than 0.5 is considered low compatibility and is not suitable for standard conversion.

[0026] S3. Based on the reduced feature parameter set, scenario coverage, and compatibility, the technology maturity level of power technology achievements is determined. In this embodiment, the TRL 9-level system is used for quantitative evaluation. Specifically: When the reduced feature parameter set has not been verified in the laboratory, the technology maturity level is determined to be level zero, corresponding to TRL level 1 to 2 (the stage of basic principle proposal and technical solution formation). When the reduced feature parameter set has been verified in the laboratory and the scene coverage is lower than the first preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the first level. In this embodiment, the first preset threshold is 40%, and the first level corresponds to TRL level 3 to 4 (key function experimental verification, component-level laboratory verification stage). When the scene coverage reaches the first preset threshold and the compatibility does not reach the second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the second level. In this embodiment, the second preset threshold is 0.7, and the second level corresponds to TRL level 5 to 6 (system-level simulation environment verification, typical scene prototype system verification stage). When the scenario coverage reaches a third preset threshold and the compatibility reaches a second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be level three. In this embodiment, the third preset threshold is 70%. Level three corresponds to TRL levels 7 to 9 (real-world system prototype verification, system completion and commercialization, and successful system application and continuous operation). Specifically, when the reduced feature parameter set includes the status of passing on-site pilot verification, it is determined to be level TRL 7; when the reduced feature parameter set includes the status of full scenario coverage and the status of passing standardized testing, it is determined to be level TRL 8; and when the reduced feature parameter set includes the status of long-term stable operation and industry promotion cases, it is determined to be level TRL 9. After determining the level, a comprehensive technology maturity score is calculated. In this embodiment, the comprehensive technology maturity score is... Expressed as a formula: ; In the formula, For the first The weight of each level; For the first The numerical values ​​corresponding to each level are as follows: 1 for TRL1, 2 for TRL2, and so on; the threshold for achieving the Technology Maturity Level (TML) standard is set at... ≥0.67 corresponds to TRL level ≥6; It is worth noting that in the specific calculation process of this embodiment, such as the comprehensive score of technology maturity, In the calculation process, the technology maturity level mentioned refers to the TRL9 system, not the zero level, first level, or other classification levels.

[0027] S4. Construct a three-layer value judgment system, inputting the technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility into the three-layer value judgment system, and outputting the feasibility and transformation suggestions for the transformation of the power technology achievement into a technical standard, wherein: S41. The three-layer value judgment system includes an indicator layer, a purpose layer, and a standard layer; The technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility are input into the indicator layer, and the technology maturity level and external evaluation parameters obtained according to the preset evaluation rules are input into the target layer and the standard layer. The external evaluation parameters include policy fit, technological leadership, sustainable value, cost savings, market size, return on investment, and the absence of original technical standards. The preset evaluation rule is as follows: The policy fit is determined based on the degree of matching between the technical field to which the power technology achievement belongs and national and industry policies. In this embodiment, the policy fit is 1.0 when it fully matches the national core policy, 0.8 when it matches the industry policy, 0.7 when it only matches the local policy, and 0.3 when it has no connection with the policy. The technological leadership is determined by the extent to which the core parameters exceed the current standards. In this embodiment, the core parameters are the parameters in the feature parameter set after dimensionality reduction. When the core parameters exceed the current standards and are better than more than 95% of the competing products in the industry, the technological leadership is 0.98. When the core parameters only exceed the standards but do not reach the top level in the industry, the technological leadership is 0.85. The sustainable value is determined based on the contribution of power technology achievements to the long-term development benefits of the power industry. In this embodiment, the industry average sustainable benefit is used as the benchmark. When the benefit exceeds the industry average by 50%, the sustainable value is 0.95; when it exceeds by 30%-50%, the sustainable value is 0.85; and when it is less than 30%, the sustainable value is 0.7. The cost savings are determined based on the cost reduction across the entire industry chain brought about by standardization. In this embodiment, the industry average cost is used as the benchmark value 1. The comprehensive cost reduction = selection cost reduction × 0.3 + debugging cost reduction × 0.4 + operation and maintenance cost reduction × 0.3. The cost savings are 0.95 when the comprehensive cost reduction is ≥ 40%, 0.85 when the cost reduction is 20%-40%, and 0.75 when the cost reduction is less than 20%. The market size is determined based on the market demand volume and growth rate. In this embodiment, the market size is calculated by weighting three dimensions: demand volume, growth rate, and compatibility rate. When the annual demand is ≥50,000 units and the compatibility rate is ≥80%, the market size is 0.98; when the demand is 30,000-50,000 units and the compatibility rate is 70%-80%, the market size is 0.85; and when the demand is <30,000 units, the market size is 0.75. The return on investment is determined by comparing the equipment investment payback period with the industry average, where return on investment = 1. (Results recovery period) (Industry-optimal payback period) / (Industry-average payback period) (Industry-leading payback period); The original technical standard gap situation is determined based on whether there are dedicated standards or key indicator gaps corresponding to the achievement in the current standard system. In this embodiment, the original technical standard gap situation is 1.0 when there are no dedicated industry or national standards corresponding to the achievement, 0.8 when there are some standards but key indicator gaps, and 0.5 when the standard system is complete. S42. The indicator layer is used to calculate the total score of the indicator layer, specifically: The application value score is calculated based on a comprehensive score of technology maturity, scenario coverage, and compatibility, expressed as a formula: ; In the formula, For scene coverage; The industry value score is calculated based on policy alignment, technological leadership, and sustainable value, expressed as a formula: ; The economic value score is calculated based on cost savings, market size, and return on investment, expressed by the following formula: ; The application value score, industry value score, and economic value score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the indicator layer. Expressed as a formula: ; In this embodiment, when A value ≥0.7 is considered high conversion value, and priority will be given to initiating industry standard development; when 0.5 ≤ When the value is less than 0.7, it is judged as a medium-level conversion value; after optimizing the shortcomings, standardization is promoted. A value of <0.5 is considered low and will only be retained as a company technical specification. S43, The target layer is used to calculate the total score of the target layer. Specifically: The initial score for the target layer is calculated based on policy fit and the lack of original technical standards, expressed by the following formula: ; The initial score of the target layer is adjusted based on the technology maturity level, specifically: A comprehensive technology maturity score is calculated based on the technology maturity level. When the comprehensive technology maturity score is lower than a preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer is adjusted downward by a first correction coefficient, expressed as follows: ; In the formula, The first correction factor and <1; When the overall technology maturity score reaches the preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer remains unchanged; In this embodiment, the preset maturity threshold corresponds to a technology maturity level of level two or above, and the first correction coefficient comprehensive score is 0.7; In this embodiment, when When the value is ≥0.8, the necessity of transformation is judged to be high, indicating extremely strong necessity for transformation; when 0.6≤ When the value is <0.8, it is judged as medium level, and the necessity for conversion is relatively high; when 0.4≤ When the value is less than 0.6, it is considered a low-level indicator, and the necessity for conversion is generally low; when... When the value is less than 0.4, it is determined to be without a grade and there is no need for conversion; S44. The standard layer is used to calculate the total score of the standard layer, specifically: A comprehensive technology maturity score is calculated based on the technology maturity level, and a standard type suitability score is determined based on this comprehensive technology maturity score. When the overall technology maturity score is lower than the first adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the enterprise standard level. In this embodiment, the first adaptation threshold is 0.6. When the overall technology maturity score is between the first and second adaptation thresholds, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the group standard level. In this embodiment, the second adaptation threshold is 0.8. When the overall technology maturity score is higher than the second adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the industry standard or national standard level. The standard type adaptability score and the scene coverage score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the standard layer. Expressed as a formula: ; In this embodiment, when A value ≥0.8 indicates a high compatibility level, allowing for direct advancement towards industry standard development; when 0.6 ≤ A score <0.8 is considered a medium adaptation level; after supplementing the uncovered scenarios, the group standard will be promoted. If the value is less than 0.6, it is considered a low level of compatibility. Enterprise standards will be established first, and the system will be upgraded after the scenario is improved. S45. The three-layer value judgment system outputs the feasibility and transformation suggestions for the conversion of this power technology achievement into technical standards, specifically: The total scores of the indicator layer, the target layer, and the standard layer are weighted and summed to obtain the overall conversion value score. Expressed as a formula: ; In this embodiment, when When the value is ≥0.8, priority should be given to conversion decisions, including initiating industry standard projects, conducting pilot projects, and incorporating them into the power industry standard system; when the value is ≤0.7, priority should be given to conversion decisions. When the value is less than 0.8, output decision-making suggestions for improvement and transformation, promote the formulation of group standards, and upgrade them to industry standards after improvement; when 0.6 ≤ When the value is less than 0.7, a decision to temporarily suspend conversion is recommended, with the focus on establishing enterprise standards, validating them, and then expanding the application market; when... When the value is less than 0.6, a decision to not promote the conversion is output, which has no standardized conversion value and is recommended to be retained as a corporate technical specification.

[0028] It is worth noting that in this embodiment, the weighting coefficients and judgment thresholds involved in S4 are determined based on practical experience in the evaluation of power industry technical standards transformation. Standardization work in the power industry has the following characteristics: high safety requirements, strong policy guidance, long investment return cycles, and cost sensitivity across the entire industry chain. Based on these industry characteristics, the weighting allocation and threshold division in this embodiment follow the following principles: In the indicator layer, industry value has a higher weight than application value and economic value (0.4, 0.35, and 0.25 respectively) to reflect the power industry's priority focus on policy alignment and industry contribution; the weighting of each sub-dimension (such as policy alignment 0.4, sustainable value and leadership 0.3 each in industry value) also follows the above principle.

[0029] Among the judgment thresholds for each level, 0.7 is used as the threshold for high-level, 0.5 or 0.6 as the lower limit for medium-level, and 0.4 as the lower limit for low-level. These all correspond to the common judgment conventions in the percentage-based scoring system, which are excellent (≥70 points), passable (≥60 points), and failable (<60 points, or <40 points is extremely low). At the same time, combined with the actual experience of power industry standard conversion, 70 points (0.7) is used as the recommended threshold for prioritizing the conversion.

[0030] The above values ​​are all exemplary values ​​in this embodiment. Those skilled in the art can adjust them according to the specific type of power technology achievement and changes in industry policies, and all of them fall within the protection scope of this invention.

[0031] In this application embodiment, "at least one" refers to one or more, and "more than one" refers to two or more. "And / or" describes the relationship between related objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can represent the existence of A alone, the simultaneous existence of A and B, or the existence of B alone. The character " / " generally indicates that the preceding and following related objects have an "or" relationship.

[0032] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps described in the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented using electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution.

[0033] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the specific working processes of the systems, devices, and units described above can be referred to the corresponding processes in the aforementioned method embodiment one, and will not be repeated here.

[0034] In the several embodiments provided in this application, any function, if implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the part of the technical solution of this application that contributes to the prior art can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0035] The above description is merely an embodiment of the present invention and does not limit the patent scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A value analysis method for the transformation of power technology achievements into technical standards, characterized in that, The method includes: Construct a multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model for power technology achievements, including a technical parameter deconstruction model, an application scenario deconstruction model, and a compatibility deconstruction model; and build a basic scenario library for the power field. The information on power technology achievements to be analyzed and the basic scenario library are imported into a multi-dimensional characteristic analysis model, which outputs the parameter set, scenario coverage, and compatibility of the power technology achievements. Among them, the technical parameter deconstruction model is used to extract technical parameters and their threshold ranges from the power technology achievement information and output the parameter set; the application scenario deconstruction model is used to associate and match the parameter set with the basic scenario library and calculate the scenario coverage; and the compatibility deconstruction model is used to calculate the compatibility with the parameter set as input. The technology maturity level of power technology achievements is determined based on parameter sets, scenario coverage, and compatibility. A three-tiered value judgment system is constructed, comprising an indicator layer, a purpose layer, and a standard layer. The indicator layer inputs the technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility, while the purpose layer and the standard layer input the technology maturity level and external evaluation parameters obtained according to preset evaluation rules. The system outputs the feasibility and transformation suggestions for the conversion of power technology achievements into technical standards.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for extracting technical parameters and their threshold ranges from information on power technology achievements include: The text of information on power technology achievements is input into a pre-trained deep learning BERT model to identify and extract technical parameter names, performance indicators and their threshold expressions; the extracted threshold expressions are then standardized, including unit conversion, interval parsing and comparison operator standardization, and a structured parameter set is output.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating scene coverage include: A correlation matrix is ​​constructed using scenarios in the basic scenario library as rows and technical parameters in the parameter set as columns. The correlation strength values ​​between each scenario and each parameter in the correlation matrix are labeled according to the preset correlation strength scoring rules. The number of scenarios whose correlation strength values ​​exceed the preset correlation strength threshold is counted, and the ratio of the number of scenarios to the total number of scenarios in the basic scenario library is calculated to obtain the scenario coverage.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The steps for calculating compatibility include: The internal parameter matching score is calculated based on the deviation of the actual values ​​of each parameter in the parameter set from the preset parameter threshold range; the external system integration capability score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set supports the power industry standard protocol; the system standard compliance score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set conforms to the power industry standard specifications; and the environmental adaptability score is determined based on the evaluation results of whether the parameter set covers various physical and electromagnetic environment requirements. The scores for internal parameter matching, external system integration capability, system standard compliance, and environmental adaptability are weighted and summed to output the total compatibility score.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The technology maturity level of power technology achievements is determined based on parameter sets, scenario coverage, and compatibility, specifically as follows: When the parameter set has not been fully validated in the laboratory, the technology maturity level is determined to be level zero, which corresponds to technology maturity level TRL 1 to 2. When the parameter set has completed laboratory verification and the scenario coverage is lower than the first preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the first level, which corresponds to the technology maturity level TRL 3 to 4. When the scene coverage reaches the first preset threshold and the compatibility does not reach the second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the second level, which corresponds to a technology maturity level TRL 5 to 6. When the scene coverage reaches the third preset threshold and the compatibility reaches the second preset threshold, the technology maturity level is determined to be the third level, which corresponds to the technology maturity level TRL 7 to 9.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The external evaluation parameters include policy fit, technological leadership, sustainable value, cost savings, market size, return on investment, and the absence of original technical standards. The preset evaluation rule is as follows: The degree of policy alignment is determined by the alignment between the technical field of the power technology achievement and national and industry policies; the degree of technological leadership is determined by the extent to which core parameters exceed current standards; the sustainable value is determined by the contribution of the power technology achievement to the long-term development benefits of the power industry; the cost savings are determined by the cost reduction across the entire industry chain brought about by standardization; the market size is determined by the market demand volume and growth rate; the return on investment is determined by comparing the equipment investment payback period with the industry average; and the original technical standard gap is determined by whether there are dedicated standards or key indicator gaps corresponding to the achievement in the current standard system.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The indicator layer is used for: The application value score is calculated based on the technology maturity level, scenario coverage, and compatibility; the industry value score is calculated based on policy alignment, technological leadership, and sustainable value. Calculate the economic value score based on cost savings, market size, and return on investment; The application value score, industry value score, and economic value score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the indicator layer.

8. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The target layer is used for: The initial score of the target layer is calculated based on policy fit and the lack of original technical standards. The initial score of the target layer is then corrected based on the technology maturity level. Specifically, when the technology maturity level is lower than a preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer is lowered by a first correction coefficient. When the technology maturity level reaches the preset maturity threshold, the initial score of the target layer remains unchanged.

9. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The standard layer is used to determine the standard type suitability score based on the technology maturity level. Specifically: When the technology maturity level is lower than the first adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the enterprise standard level; when the technology maturity level is between the first and second adaptation thresholds, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the group standard level; when the technology maturity level is higher than the second adaptation threshold, the standard type adaptation score corresponds to the industry standard or national standard level. The standard type adaptability score and the scene coverage score are weighted and summed to obtain the total score of the standard layer.

10. The method according to any one of claims 7-9, characterized in that, The three-tiered value judgment system outputs feasibility and transformation suggestions for the conversion of power technology achievements into technical standards, including: The three-tiered value judgment system calculates the overall conversion value score by weighted summing of the total scores of the indicator layer, the target layer, and the standard layer. When the overall conversion value score reaches the first preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs decision suggestions for prioritizing conversion; When the overall conversion value score is between the first preset conversion threshold and the second preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs decision suggestions for improved conversion. When the overall conversion value score is between the second preset conversion threshold and the third preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs a decision suggestion to postpone conversion; When the overall conversion value score is lower than the third preset conversion threshold, the three-layer value judgment system outputs a decision suggestion not to promote conversion.

Images