A responsibility role allocation method, device, equipment and storage medium

Abstract

The application discloses a responsibility role allocation method and device, equipment and a storage medium. The method comprises the following steps: obtaining a task image of a target task, and identification information and a personnel image of each to-be-assigned personnel in a plurality of to-be-assigned personnel. A plurality of to-be-assigned responsibility roles in the target task are determined based on the task image. An individual score corresponding to each to-be-assigned personnel is generated according to the task image, each to-be-assigned responsibility role in the plurality of to-be-assigned responsibility roles, and the personnel image of each to-be-assigned personnel. The identification information of each to-be-assigned personnel is grouped based on the individual score, a plurality of candidate combinations are obtained, and a combination score of each candidate combination is obtained. According to the combination score of each candidate combination, a first target combination is determined from the plurality of candidate combinations, and the identification information of the candidate personnel in the combination corresponds to the to-be-assigned responsibility role one by one. It can be seen that the present scheme can improve the rationality of responsibility role allocation, improve the execution efficiency and execution quality of the target task.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of computers, and more particularly to a method, apparatus, device, and storage medium for assigning responsibilities and roles. Background Technology

[0002] Responsibility role allocation refers to the process of determining the appropriate personnel for the responsibilities of a target task by analyzing information such as target task requirements, personnel capabilities, personnel workload, and organizational relationships. Based on this, existing responsibility role allocation typically adopts a profile-driven approach, that is, assigning an executor to a target task based on the personnel profiles of multiple personnel to be assigned and the task profile of the target task.

[0003] However, when the target task is complex and requires the collaboration of multiple people, the allocation model of a single executor is difficult to meet the personnel configuration requirements of complex tasks, thereby affecting the execution efficiency and quality of the target task. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This application provides a method, apparatus, device, and storage medium for assigning responsibility roles, so as to improve the rationality of responsibility role assignment and improve the execution efficiency and quality of target tasks.

[0005] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for assigning responsibility roles, including: Obtain the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned; Based on the task profile, multiple roles to be assigned in the target task are identified; Based on the task profile, each of the multiple assigned responsibility roles, and the personnel profile of each assigned person, an individual score is generated for each assigned person. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each assigned person and each assigned responsibility role. Based on the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, the identification information of each person to be assigned is grouped to obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates. Based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a combination score is obtained for each candidate combination. The combination score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the multiple responsibilities to be assigned. Based on the combination score of each candidate combination, a first target combination is determined from the plurality of candidate combinations, and the plurality of candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned.

[0006] Optionally, generating an individual score for each person to be assigned based on the task profile and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned includes: Obtain the weight configuration information corresponding to each responsibility role to be assigned; Based on the weight configuration information corresponding to each role to be assigned, the task profile, and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned, an individual score is generated for each person to be assigned.

[0007] Optionally, the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned include execution responsibility roles and review responsibility roles, and the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned includes the execution responsibility role score and the review responsibility role score corresponding to each person to be assigned; The process involves grouping the identifier information of each candidate person based on their individual score to obtain multiple candidate combinations, including: The identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose performance responsibility role score is greater than the performance score threshold is formed into a first identification set, and the identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose review responsibility role score is greater than the review score threshold is formed into a second identification set. The identification information of each person to be assigned in the first identification set and the identification information of all persons to be assigned in the second identification set are combined one by one to obtain multiple candidate combinations. The identification information of the execution candidate in each of the multiple candidate combinations is different from the identification information of the review candidate.

[0008] Optionally, obtaining the combined score of each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination includes: Based on the person profiles corresponding to multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a compatibility score is obtained between the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The compatibility score is used to indicate the degree of fit between multiple candidates in each candidate combination. Based on the compatibility score and the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, the combined score of each candidate combination is obtained.

[0009] Optionally, the target task includes multiple subtasks, and the multiple subtasks include a first subtask; After determining the first target combination from the plurality of candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, the method further includes: Assign the first subtask to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination.

[0010] Optionally, the plurality of subtasks may further include a second subtask, which is the next subtask after the first subtask; After assigning the first sub-task to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination, the method includes: If the first subtask ends, obtain the execution identifier of the first subtask, which is used to indicate whether to execute the second subtask or re-execute the first subtask; When the execution identifier is used to indicate the execution of the second sub-task, a second target combination is determined based on the second sub-task and the personnel profile corresponding to each candidate personnel identifier, and the second sub-task is assigned to the identifier information of multiple candidates in the second target combination; When the execution identifier is used to indicate that the first subtask is to be re-executed, the identification information of the multiple candidates in the first target combination is reassigned to the first subtask.

[0011] Optionally, after assigning the second sub-task to the identification information of multiple candidates in the second target combination, the method further includes: Upon completion of the target task, obtain the evaluation data of the candidates associated with the target task; Based on the evaluation data, the personnel profiles of the candidates associated with the target task are updated.

[0012] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide a responsibility role assignment device, including: The information acquisition module is used to acquire the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned. The responsibility role determination module is used to determine multiple responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task based on the task profile. The individual score generation module is used to generate an individual score for each person to be assigned based on the task profile, each of the multiple assigned responsibility roles, and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each person to be assigned and each assigned responsibility role. The candidate combination generation module is used to group the identification information of each person to be assigned according to the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, and obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates. The combined score generation module is used to obtain the combined score of each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The combined score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned. The target combination determination module is used to determine a first target combination from the multiple candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, wherein the multiple candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned.

[0013] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide an electronic device, the device including: a processor, a memory, and a system bus; The processor and the memory are connected via the system bus; The memory is used to store a program, the program including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform any of the implementation steps of the above-described responsibility role allocation method.

[0014] Fourthly, embodiments of this application provide a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform any of the implementation steps of the above-described responsibility role allocation method.

[0015] As can be seen from the above technical solutions, the embodiments of this application have the following advantages: In this embodiment, a task profile of the target task and the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned can be obtained. Based on the task profile, multiple responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task are determined. Subsequently, based on the task profile, each responsibility role to be assigned, and the personnel profile of each personnel to be assigned, an individual score is generated for each personnel to be assigned, reflecting the degree of fit between each personnel to be assigned and each responsibility role to be assigned. Further, based on the individual scores of each personnel to be assigned, the identification information of each personnel to be assigned is grouped to obtain multiple candidate combinations. Based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of the multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a combination score for that candidate combination is obtained. Finally, a first target combination is determined based on the combination scores of each candidate combination, so that the multiple candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned.

[0016] Therefore, this application embodiment can evaluate the compatibility between each person to be assigned and each of the multiple responsibility roles in a target task, and form multiple candidate combinations based on this evaluation. It then evaluates the overall compatibility between the candidate personnel within each candidate combination and their corresponding responsibility roles. Thus, this application embodiment can determine candidate combinations that are well-suited to multiple responsibility roles from among multiple personnel to be assigned, configuring appropriate personnel for multiple responsibility roles in the target task. This satisfies the multi-personnel configuration requirements of complex tasks, improves the rationality of responsibility role allocation, and enhances the execution efficiency and quality of the target task. Attached Figure Description

[0017] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a method for assigning responsibility roles as provided in this application embodiment; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a responsibility role assignment processing device provided in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0018] As mentioned earlier, in practical applications, existing methods for assigning responsibilities and roles typically determine an executor with a high degree of match to the target task based on the task profile of the target task and the personnel profiles of multiple personnel to be assigned. This approach mainly considers the overall matching relationship between a single person to be assigned and the target task, making it difficult to determine suitable personnel for the multiple responsibilities and roles required for complex tasks, and also making it difficult to evaluate the overall suitability when multiple personnel share different responsibilities and roles, resulting in an unreasonable personnel allocation for complex tasks.

[0019] For example, when a target task requires the collaboration of both execution and review roles, the requirements for personnel capabilities, workload, and responsibilities may differ between these roles. Selecting only one executor based on the overall match between the assigned personnel and the target task would not meet the staffing needs of multiple roles. Even if one person is selected for each role, without further consideration of the compatibility between each assigned person and each role, and the overall compatibility of the resulting personnel combination with multiple roles, situations may arise where an individual is mismatched with their assigned role, or where an individual is highly compatible but the overall compatibility of the personnel combination is low. This could negatively impact the efficiency and quality of the target task's execution.

[0020] Based on this, embodiments of this application provide a method for assigning responsibility roles, including: obtaining a task profile of a target task, and identification information and personnel profile of each of a plurality of personnel to be assigned; determining a plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task based on the task profile; generating an individual score corresponding to each personnel to be assigned based on the task profile, each of the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned, and the personnel profile of each personnel to be assigned, wherein the individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each personnel to be assigned and each of the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned; grouping the identification information of each personnel to be assigned based on the individual score corresponding to each personnel to be assigned to obtain a plurality of candidate combinations, wherein each candidate combination includes the identification information of a plurality of candidate personnel; obtaining a combination score for each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of the plurality of candidate personnel in each candidate combination, wherein the combination score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned; and determining a first target combination from the plurality of candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, wherein the plurality of candidate personnel in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned.

[0021] As can be seen, this responsibility role allocation method can identify multiple responsibility roles to be assigned based on the task profile of the target task. Individual scores are generated based on the task profile, the individual responsibility roles, and the personnel profile of each candidate, reflecting the degree of fit between each candidate and each assigned responsibility role. Simultaneously, by grouping the identification information of each candidate based on their individual scores, multiple candidate combinations are obtained. A combination score is determined based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of each candidate in each combination. This allows for the evaluation of the overall fit between each candidate combination and the multiple assigned responsibility roles, avoiding the lack of consideration for the overall fit of personnel combinations when selecting personnel solely based on the fit of individual individuals. Therefore, the first target combination determined based on the combination score can include candidates who are well-suited to each assigned responsibility role, improving the rationality of responsibility role allocation and the execution efficiency and quality of the target task.

[0022] It should be noted that the embodiments of this application do not limit the executing entity of the responsibility role allocation method. For example, the responsibility role allocation method of this application embodiment can be applied to data processing devices such as terminal devices or servers. The terminal device can be an electronic device such as a smartphone, computer, personal digital assistant (PDA), or tablet computer. The server can be a standalone server, a cluster server, or a cloud server.

[0023] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of this application clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of this application, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0024] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating a responsibility role allocation method provided in an embodiment of this application. (In conjunction with...) Figure 1 As shown, the responsibility role allocation method provided in this application embodiment may specifically include the following steps S101-S106.

[0025] S101: Obtain the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned.

[0026] The target task refers to the task requiring role assignment. The task profile is structured data describing the characteristics of the target task, which may include task type, required skill tags, task priority, role requirements, and task stage information. Identification information is used to uniquely identify the corresponding personnel to be assigned, and may include personnel ID and other information. The personnel profile is structured data describing the characteristics of the corresponding personnel to be assigned, which may include skill tags and their weights, current number of tasks, maximum number of tasks they can handle, job level, department affiliation, job qualifications, and historical performance information.

[0027] In this embodiment, the user can describe the target task using only natural language. The system will parse the description of the target task using a pre-trained natural language understanding model, extracting the task type, required skill tags, and task priority, and matching the corresponding default stage template according to the task type to generate an initial target task profile. After the initial task profile is generated, it can be displayed to the user for previewing the various task features and the default stage template. The user can adjust any deviations in the task features or the default stage template, and the user-confirmed or adjusted task profile will be used for subsequent responsibility role assignment. Furthermore, the user's adjustments to the task profile can be used as feedback data to optimize the natural language understanding model, enabling it to generate task profiles more accurately in the future.

[0028] After the target task is created, multiple personnel to be assigned can be identified from the preset personnel allocation range, and the identification information of each personnel can be obtained. For personnel to be assigned whose profiles have already been established, their identification information can be used as the basis to obtain information such as their associated skill tags, the number of currently executed tasks, the maximum number of tasks they can handle, their job level, department affiliation, job qualifications, and historical performance information, thereby obtaining the corresponding personnel profile. For personnel to be assigned whose profiles have not yet been established or whose profile data is insufficient, the initial weight of skill tags can be set according to their job information, the initial value of the current number of tasks can be set to 0, and the maximum number of tasks they can handle can be set according to their job level, thereby obtaining an initial personnel profile.

[0029] In this way, by acquiring the task profile of the target task and the identification information and personnel profile of each person to be assigned, structured data can be obtained to characterize the target task requirements, personnel capabilities, personnel workload, and organizational relationships. The acquired personnel profiles can reflect the personnel characteristics of each person to be assigned at the current assignment time, providing a data foundation for subsequently determining multiple assigned responsibility roles and calculating the fit between each person to be assigned and each assigned responsibility role.

[0030] S102: Based on the task profile, identify multiple roles to be assigned in the target task.

[0031] In this embodiment, a pre-established correspondence between different task types and implicit responsibility role requirements can be created within the system. After obtaining the task profile, multiple responsibility roles to be assigned for the target task can be determined based on this profile and by referring to the implicit responsibility role requirements corresponding to the task type of the target task.

[0032] For example, the task profile for a target task can include execution and review roles. Based on the task type, it's known that data consultation with the data department is required, and the task's progress and results need to be communicated to relevant personnel. Therefore, there's an implicit need for consultation and information sharing roles. Consequently, it's determined that the target task requires four roles to be assigned: execution, review, consultation, and information sharing.

[0033] In this way, based on the types of responsibilities to be assigned corresponding to the task profile, and combined with the implicit responsibilities required by the task type of the target task, the responsibilities required for the target task can be supplemented, reducing the possibility of omissions when determining the responsibilities to be assigned.

[0034] S103: Based on the task profile, the personnel profile of each of the multiple assigned responsibility roles and each assigned personnel, generate an individual score for each assigned personnel. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each assigned personnel and each of the multiple assigned responsibility roles.

[0035] The multiple roles to be assigned can include executive responsibility role, review responsibility role, consultation responsibility role and informed responsibility role. The individual score for each person to be assigned includes the score for the executive responsibility role, the score for the review responsibility role, the score for the consultation responsibility role and the score for the informed responsibility role.

[0036] In this embodiment, the weight configuration corresponding to each responsibility role can first be obtained. This weight configuration may include skill weight W1, load weight W2, and role adaptation weight W3, and the sum of these three is 1. The weight configurations corresponding to different responsibility roles are shown in Table 1 below.

[0037] Table 1

[0038] As shown in Table 1, different responsibility roles have different work focuses, and therefore different weight configurations. For example, the execution responsibility role needs to carry out the target task, and its mastery of professional skills and current workload are more important. Therefore, the skill weight W1 and workload weight W2 of the execution responsibility role are higher than those of other responsibility roles.

[0039] After obtaining the weight configuration corresponding to each responsibility role, based on the task profile and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned, the skill matching score, load adaptation score, and role adaptation score of each person to be assigned for each responsibility role can be calculated respectively: Skill matching score is used to measure the degree of matching between personnel skills and task requirements. Its calculation formula is shown in the following formula (1): (1) Where n represents the total number of skills required for the target task, and i represents the index of the required skill, where i is a positive integer and 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Skill matching degree i This represents the similarity between the i-th skill possessed by the person to be assigned and the i-th required skill for the target task, with skill label weights. i This indicates the proficiency of the personnel to be assigned with the skills of the i-th person.

[0040] Specifically, n required skills for the target task can be obtained from the task profile. For the i-th required skill, the corresponding i-th personnel skill can be obtained from the personnel profile of the personnel to be assigned. Then, the i-th required skill and the i-th personnel skill are converted into a task requirement skill vector and a personnel skill vector, respectively, and the cosine similarity between the two vectors is calculated to obtain the skill matching degree.

[0041] Skill matching i The value of is between 0 and 1. The closer it is to 1, the better the i-th skill of the person to be assigned matches the i-th required skill of the target task.

[0042] Skill tag weight i This can be obtained from the personnel profiles of those to be assigned, with values ​​ranging from 0 to 1. Skill tag weight. i The larger the value, the more proficient the person to be assigned is in the i-th skill. Skill Tag Weight i The initial value can be determined based on the job information of the personnel to be assigned, and updated based on the corresponding performance evaluation data after the personnel to be assigned complete their tasks.

[0043] For the i-th required skill, the skill matching degree can be... i With skill tag weight i Multiply these values ​​to obtain the weighted matching value for the i-th required skill of the person to be assigned. After obtaining the weighted matching values ​​for each of the n required skills in the same way, sum these n weighted matching values ​​to obtain the skill matching score of the person to be assigned. The higher the skill matching score, the better the overall match between the skills of the person to be assigned and the multiple required skills of the target task.

[0044] For example, if a candidate's data analysis skills match score is 0.9 and their project management skills match score is 0.4, and the corresponding skill tag weights for data analysis skills and project management skills are 0.7 and 0.3 respectively, then the candidate's skill matching score can be expressed as: 0.9 × 0.7 + 0.4 × 0.3 = 0.75.

[0045] The load adaptability score is used to measure the current task load of the personnel to be assigned, and its calculation formula is shown in the following formula (2): (2) The current task count indicates the number of tasks the person to be assigned is currently undertaking, while the maximum task capacity indicates the maximum number of tasks the person can undertake simultaneously. The current task count and maximum task capacity can be obtained from the person's profile, and the maximum task capacity can be preset according to the person's job level.

[0046] The result of dividing the current number of tasks by the maximum number of tasks in equation (2) is used to represent the current load ratio of the personnel to be assigned. In this case, min(1, current number of tasks / maximum number of tasks) is used to indicate that: if the current load ratio is less than 1, the current load ratio is used; if the current load ratio reaches or is greater than 1, 1 is used to avoid the load matching score being less than 0.

[0047] For example, if a person awaiting assignment has 2 current tasks and a maximum capacity of 5 tasks, then their current load ratio is 2 / 5 = 0.4, and their load balancing score is 1 - 0.4 = 0.6. If the person awaiting assignment has no tasks currently, their load balancing score is 1; if their current number of tasks reaches or exceeds the maximum capacity, their load balancing score is 0.

[0048] This shows that the fewer tasks a person is currently undertaking, the higher their load fit score, indicating that they have a more sufficient task-bearing capacity; conversely, the more tasks a person is currently undertaking, the lower their load fit score.

[0049] Role suitability score is used to measure whether the job qualifications and organizational affiliation of the personnel to be assigned meet the requirements of the corresponding assigned responsibility role. Since the responsibilities of execution, review, consultation, and information-gathering roles differ, different calculation methods are used for the role suitability score corresponding to different responsibility roles.

[0050] For roles that fulfill responsibilities, the role fit score can be the organization fit score. The organization fit score is calculated based on the job level matching degree and the department affiliation matching degree, and its calculation formula is shown in the following formula (3): (3) Among them, the job grade matching degree indicates the degree of matching between the job grade of the person to be assigned and the job grade required by the target task, and the department affiliation matching degree indicates the degree of association between the department to which the person to be assigned belongs and the task-leading department of the target task. The job grade and department of the person to be assigned can be obtained from the personnel profile, and the job grade and task-leading department required by the target task can be obtained from the task profile.

[0051] For example, when the job level of the person to be assigned perfectly matches the job level required by the target task, the job level matching degree can be 1.0; when the job level of the person to be assigned is one level higher, the job level matching degree can be 0.8; when the job level of the person to be assigned is one level lower or more, the job level matching degree can be 0.4. When the department to be assigned is the same as the department leading the task, the department affiliation matching degree can be 1.0; when they belong to different second-level departments under the same first-level department, the department affiliation matching degree can be 0.6; when they belong to different first-level departments, the department affiliation matching degree can be 0.3. The higher the organizational fit score, the more suitable the person to be assigned is for the role of execution responsibility.

[0052] For the review responsibility role, the role suitability score can be the independence comprehensive score. The independence comprehensive score is calculated based on the job qualification matching score and the department independence score, and its calculation formula is as follows (4): (4) Among them, the job qualification matching score is used to indicate whether the professional level of the personnel to be assigned meets the qualification requirements of the review responsibility role, and the department independence score is used to indicate the degree of organizational independence between the personnel to be assigned and the performance responsibility role.

[0053] For example, if the professional level of the person to be assigned is higher than the professional level corresponding to the performance responsibility role, the job qualification matching score can be 1.0; if the professional levels are the same, the job qualification matching score can be 0.7; if the professional level of the person to be assigned is lower than the professional level corresponding to the performance responsibility role, the job qualification matching score can be 0. When the person to be assigned and the performance responsibility role belong to different departments, the department independence score can be 1.0; when they belong to different work groups within the same department, the department independence score can be 0.5; when they belong to the same work group, the department independence score can be 0. If a person to be assigned has a job qualification matching score of 0.7 and a department independence score of 1.0, then the comprehensive independence score for that person regarding the review responsibility role is: 0.7 × 0.6 + 1.0 × 0.4 = 0.82. The higher the comprehensive independence score, the more the professional qualifications of the person to be assigned meet the review requirements, and the higher the degree of organizational independence between them and the performance responsibility role.

[0054] For the roles of consultant and informant, the role fit score can be the organizational affinity score. The organizational affinity score can be calculated based on the distance between reporting lines and the frequency of historical collaboration, and its calculation formula is shown in the following formula (5): (5) The reporting line distance represents the distance between the person to be assigned and the relevant personnel of the target task in the organizational reporting relationship. For example, when they are direct superiors and subordinates, the reporting line distance can be 1; when there is an organizational level between them, the reporting line distance can be 2. Historical collaboration frequency can be the number of times the person to be assigned and the relevant personnel of the target task have participated in tasks together within a preset time period. For example, it can count the number of times they have participated in tasks together in the last 12 months. The upper limit of the organizational affiliation score can be set to 1.

[0055] The shorter the reporting line distance, the shorter the information transmission path between the person to be assigned and the relevant personnel for the target task; the higher the frequency of historical collaboration, the more collaboration the two have had in the past. Therefore, the higher the organizational affinity score, the more suitable the person to be assigned is for a consulting or informed responsibility role.

[0056] After obtaining the skill matching score, load adaptation score, and role adaptation score for each person to be assigned to each assigned responsibility role, the individual score for each person to be assigned to each assigned responsibility role can be obtained based on the weight configuration of each person to be assigned to each assigned responsibility role in Table 1. The calculation formula is as follows (6): (6) In this way, the suitability between each candidate and their assigned role can be comprehensively evaluated from multiple aspects, including professional skills, current workload, job level, department affiliation, professional qualifications, and organizational affiliation. Furthermore, by setting different weightings and role suitability score calculation methods for different assigned roles, the same candidate can receive different individual scores for different roles, avoiding the problem of using the same evaluation criteria and failing to reflect the matching emphasis of different roles.

[0057] S104: Based on the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, the identification information of each person to be assigned is grouped to obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates.

[0058] In this embodiment, an execution score threshold and a review score threshold can be preset. The execution score threshold is the minimum score required for a candidate to assume an execution responsibility role, and the review score threshold is the minimum score required for a candidate to assume a review responsibility role.

[0059] After determining the execution score threshold and the review score threshold, all personnel awaiting assignment whose execution responsibility role scores reach the execution score threshold can be identified as execution candidates, and the identification information corresponding to all execution candidates can be formed into a first identification set. Similarly, all personnel awaiting assignment whose review responsibility role scores reach the review score threshold can be identified as review candidates, and the identification information corresponding to each review candidate can be formed into a second identification set. It is worth noting that the identification information of the same personnel awaiting assignment can exist in both the first and second identification sets simultaneously.

[0060] After obtaining the first and second identifier sets, for each identifier in the first identifier set, the identifier is combined with the identifiers in the second identifier set corresponding to other personnel to be assigned, resulting in multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identifier of an execution candidate and the identifier of a review candidate, and the two correspond to different personnel to be assigned.

[0061] For example, the first set of identifiers includes the identifiers of Xiao Wang, Xiao Li, and Lao Zhang, and the second set of identifiers includes the identifiers of Xiao Yang, Xiao Li, and Lao Zhao. Xiao Wang's identifier can be combined with the identifiers of Xiao Yang, Xiao Li, and Lao Zhao; Xiao Li's identifier can be combined with the identifiers of Xiao Yang and Lao Zhao; and Lao Zhang's identifier can be combined with the identifiers of Xiao Yang, Xiao Li, and Lao Zhao.

[0062] In this way, while ensuring that the execution and review responsibilities are undertaken by different personnel, multiple feasible combinations of execution and review candidates are retained, enabling subsequent comparisons of different candidate combinations based on the suitability of each candidate to the corresponding responsibility role and the compatibility among the candidates.

[0063] S105: Based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, the combination score of each candidate combination is obtained. The combination score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and multiple responsibilities to be assigned.

[0064] In this embodiment, each candidate combination includes the identification information of an execution candidate and the identification information of a review candidate. First, the compatibility score of each candidate combination can be calculated. The compatibility score can be obtained by weighting skill complementarity, style matching degree, and gradient reasonableness, and its calculation formula is shown in the following formula (7): (7) Wherein, C1, C2 and C3 represent the weights corresponding to skill complementarity, style matching and gradient rationality, respectively, with values ​​of 0.4, 0.3 and 0.3 respectively.

[0065] Skill complementarity is used to represent the degree to which the skill strengths of the review candidate compensate for the skill deficiencies of the execution candidate. Specifically, the skill tag weights of the execution and review candidates across various skill dimensions can be obtained from their personnel profiles. For each skill dimension, the difference between the skill tag weights of the review candidate and the execution candidate can be calculated, retaining the positive values. The positive values ​​for each skill dimension are then summed and normalized to obtain the skill complementarity. The higher the skill tag weight of the review candidate in a skill where the execution candidate is relatively lacking, the higher the skill complementarity.

[0066] Style matching degree is used to represent the degree of matching between the work response style of the performance candidate and the review style of the review candidate. Its calculation process can be shown in the following formula (8): (8) The review style score can be obtained by semantic analysis of the review candidates' historical review opinions. Based on the semantic analysis results, the review candidates' review styles can be categorized into meticulous, slightly meticulous, balanced, slightly principled, and principled styles, with corresponding review style scores of 1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, and 0, respectively. The response style score can be obtained by analyzing the execution candidates' records of handling historical review opinions. Based on the analysis results, the execution candidates' response styles can be categorized into rapid response, slightly responsive, balanced, slightly argumentative, and argumentative styles, with corresponding response style scores of 1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, and 0, respectively. "" represents the absolute value of the difference between the review style score and the response style score. The smaller the absolute value, the closer the review style of the review candidate and the response style of the execution candidate are. A higher style match indicates that the work style difference between the two candidates corresponding to the candidate combination is smaller. The style match range is from 0 to 1.

[0067] The gradient reasonableness score is used to indicate whether the difference in seniority level between the review candidate and the executive candidate meets the review requirements. The grade difference between the review candidate's and executive candidate's seniority levels can be calculated, and the gradient reasonableness score can be determined based on this difference. For example, if the review candidate is 1 or 2 grades higher than the executive candidate, the gradient reasonableness score can be 1.0; if they are at the same grade, the gradient reasonableness score can be 0.7; if the review candidate is 3 grades or more higher than the executive candidate, the gradient reasonableness score can be 0.4; and if the review candidate's seniority level is lower than the executive candidate's, the gradient reasonableness score can be 0.2.

[0068] After obtaining the skill complementarity, style matching and gradient rationality of each candidate combination, the compatibility score of each candidate combination can be calculated according to the above formula (7).

[0069] After obtaining the compatibility score for each candidate combination, the combination score for each candidate combination can be obtained as shown in equation (9): (9) Where S represents the execution responsibility role score of the corresponding executor in the candidate combination, and V represents the review responsibility role score of the corresponding reviewer in the candidate combination.

[0070] In this way, when evaluating candidate combinations, we can consider not only the fit between each candidate in the combination and their corresponding assigned responsibilities, but also the compatibility of each candidate in terms of skills, collaboration style and experience gradient. This avoids the formation of candidate combinations with high individual scores but low combination compatibility by determining personnel solely based on individual scores. The combination score can reflect the overall fit between the candidate combination and multiple assigned responsibilities.

[0071] S106: Based on the combination score of each candidate combination, determine the first target combination from multiple candidate combinations, and the multiple candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with multiple responsibilities to be assigned.

[0072] After obtaining the combined score for each candidate combination, the candidate combination with the highest combined score can be determined as the first target combination. The two candidates in the first target combination will respectively assume the roles of execution responsibility and review responsibility for the target task.

[0073] Furthermore, when multiple roles to be assigned include both advisory and informative roles, the individuals with the highest scores in the advisory and informative roles can be designated as advisory and informative roles, respectively. When the highest-scoring individual for either the advisory or informative role overlaps with candidates in the first target combination, the next candidate can be selected based on their individual scores in descending order, until non-overlapping candidates are selected.

[0074] After assigning multiple roles to be assigned, the target task can be executed. In practical applications, the target task may include multiple subtasks, that is, the target task can be divided into multiple nodes. Once the subtasks corresponding to each node are executed sequentially, the entire target task is considered to have been completed.

[0075] Accordingly, in specific implementation, multiple subtasks may include subtasks such as the first subtask and the second subtask. After determining the first target combination, the first subtask can be assigned to the identification information of the candidate personnel in the first target combination, so that the first subtask can be executed by the candidate personnel in the first target combination.

[0076] After the first subtask is completed, the execution identifier of the first subtask can be obtained. The execution identifier is used to indicate whether the completion status of the first subtask has met the conditions for executing the second subtask. If the execution identifier indicates that the second subtask can be executed, the execution responsibility role and the review responsibility role are reassigned based on the second subtask and the personnel profile corresponding to each personnel identifier to be assigned, thereby obtaining the second target combination for executing the second subtask. During the execution of the target task, the personnel corresponding to the consultation responsibility role and the informed responsibility role do not change.

[0077] Since the first and second subtasks may differ in terms of required skills, workload, or responsibilities, the second objective combination may be the same as or different from the first objective combination.

[0078] If the execution flag indicates that the first subtask should be re-executed, there is no need to re-match personnel; simply reassign the first subtask to candidates in the first target group. Simultaneously, relevant data generated during the execution of the first subtask can be retained as a reference for re-executing it.

[0079] For other subtasks following the second subtask, the same processing procedure as described above can be used. That is, after the current subtask is completed, the execution identifier of the current subtask is used to determine whether to execute the next subtask or re-execute the current subtask. When executing the next subtask, the responsibility role is re-determined based on the next subtask and the current personnel profile of each person to be assigned, until all subtasks in the target task are completed.

[0080] It is worth noting that during the execution of the target task, multiple personnel corresponding to the pending responsibility roles can be directly reassigned through manual intervention.

[0081] After the target task is completed, evaluation data of the candidates associated with the target task can be collected. The evaluation data may include timeliness rate (T), quality rate (Q), and collaboration rate (C).

[0082] The on-time rate T can be determined based on the deviation between the candidate's actual completion time and the planned completion time. When the actual completion time does not exceed the planned completion time, the on-time rate T can be 1.0; when the delay is no more than 1 day, the on-time rate T can be 0.8; when the delay is 1 to 3 days, the on-time rate T can be 0.6; and when the delay is more than 3 days, the on-time rate T can be 0.

[0083] The quality rate Q is used to measure the quality of a candidate's performance in fulfilling their assigned responsibilities. Specifically, it involves reviewing the candidate's performance results or task outputs in the target task, resulting in a review score ranging from 0 to 100. To ensure that the review score uses the same numerical range as the timeliness rate T and collaboration rate C, which also range from 0 to 1, the review score can be divided by 100 to obtain the quality rate Q.

[0084] The collaboration rate (C) measures the timeliness and smoothness of a candidate's responses during the execution of a target task. This value is calculated as the ratio of the number of responses within a specified time to the total number of response requests. Response requests refer to matters requiring a candidate's response during the execution of the target task. Each matter requiring a candidate's response increments the total number of response requests. A pre-set response time limit can be set for each response request. When a candidate responds within the time limit, the response count within the specified time increases by one; responses made after the time limit are not counted towards the total number of responses within the specified time.

[0085] For each candidate associated with the target task, the comprehensive evaluation score E of the candidate can be calculated based on the timeliness rate T, quality rate Q, and collaboration rate C of each candidate, according to the following formula (10): (10) Among them, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.2 are the evaluation weights corresponding to the timeliness rate T, quality rate Q and collaboration rate C, respectively. The higher the comprehensive evaluation score E, the better the candidate’s overall performance in the target task.

[0086] By using the comprehensive evaluation score of each candidate associated with the target task, the personnel profile corresponding to each candidate associated with the target task can be updated, and the updated personnel profile can be used in the next role matching.

[0087] In this way, suitable execution and review roles can be determined based on the combined scores, and personnel for multiple roles can be identified by combining the scores of the consulting and informed roles. When the target task moves from the current subtask to the next subtask, the personnel combination can be re-determined based on the task requirements of the next subtask and the current personnel profile, so that the personnel allocation of responsibility roles can be adjusted according to the subtask requirements and personnel status changes. When a subtask is rolled back (i.e., needs to be re-executed), the historical personnel combination of that subtask can be used to reduce unnecessary personnel changes and ensure the continuity of task processing. Furthermore, after the target task is completed, the timeliness, quality, and collaboration rates of each candidate can be used to update the corresponding personnel profiles, so that subsequent individual score calculations can reflect the latest performance of the candidates, thus forming a closed loop of responsibility role allocation, task execution, performance evaluation, and profile updates.

[0088] Based on the relevant content of steps S101 to S106 above, it is known that in this embodiment of the application, a task profile of the target task and identification information and personnel profiles of multiple personnel to be assigned can be obtained, and multiple responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task can be determined according to the task profile. Subsequently, for each responsibility role to be assigned, the individual score of each personnel to be assigned is calculated in combination with the task profile and personnel profile to reflect the degree of fit between each personnel to be assigned and different responsibility roles to be assigned. Further, multiple personnel to be assigned are combined according to the individual scores, and the combination score of each candidate within the combination and its compatibility is combined to obtain the combination score of each candidate combination, thereby determining the first target combination and the responsibility roles corresponding to each candidate. When the target task moves from the current subtask to the next subtask, the personnel combination can be re-determined according to the task requirements of the next subtask and the current personnel profile; when the subtask is rolled back, the historical personnel combination of the subtask can be used. After the target task is completed, the corresponding personnel profiles can be updated according to the timeliness, quality rate and cooperation rate of each candidate, and the updated personnel profiles can be used for subsequent responsibility role assignments.

[0089] In this way, this solution can evaluate the suitability of each candidate for a specific role individually, and also assess the overall suitability of multiple candidates sharing multiple roles from a personnel combination perspective. This avoids assigning roles solely based on individual scores while ignoring compatibility between personnel. Furthermore, by re-determining personnel combinations during sub-task switching and updating personnel profiles based on actual performance after the target task is completed, the responsibility role allocation results can be adjusted according to sub-task requirements, personnel status, and actual performance. This improves the rationality of responsibility role allocation and the efficiency and quality of target task execution.

[0090] Furthermore, based on the responsibility role allocation method provided in the above embodiments, this application embodiment can also provide a responsibility role allocation device. The responsibility role allocation device will now be described in conjunction with the embodiments and accompanying drawings.

[0091] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of a responsibility role allocation device provided in an embodiment of this application, combined with... Figure 2 As shown, the responsibility role assignment device 200 may include: The information acquisition module 201 is used to acquire the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned. The responsibility role determination module 202 is used to determine multiple responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task based on the task profile; The individual score generation module 203 is used to generate an individual score for each person to be assigned based on the task profile, each of the multiple roles to be assigned and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each person to be assigned and each role to be assigned. The candidate combination generation module 204 is used to group the identification information of each person to be assigned according to the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, and obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates. The combined score generation module 205 is used to obtain the combined score of each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The combined score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned. The target combination determination module 206 is used to determine a first target combination from the plurality of candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, wherein the plurality of candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned.

[0092] Optionally, the individual score generation module 203 is specifically used for: Obtain the weight configuration information corresponding to each responsibility role to be assigned; Based on the weight configuration information corresponding to each role to be assigned, the task profile, and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned, an individual score is generated for each person to be assigned.

[0093] Optionally, the plurality of responsibility roles to be assigned include execution responsibility roles and review responsibility roles, and the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned includes the execution responsibility role score and the review responsibility role score corresponding to each person to be assigned; The candidate combination generation module 204 is specifically used for: The identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose performance responsibility role score is greater than the performance score threshold is formed into a first identification set, and the identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose review responsibility role score is greater than the review score threshold is formed into a second identification set. The identification information of each person to be assigned in the first identification set and the identification information of all persons to be assigned in the second identification set are combined one by one to obtain multiple candidate combinations. The identification information of the execution candidate in each of the multiple candidate combinations is different from the identification information of the review candidate.

[0094] Optionally, the combined score generation module 205 is specifically used for: Based on the person profiles corresponding to multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a compatibility score is obtained between the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The compatibility score is used to indicate the degree of fit between multiple candidates in each candidate combination. Based on the compatibility score and the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, the combined score of each candidate combination is obtained.

[0095] Optionally, the target task includes multiple subtasks, and the multiple subtasks include a first subtask; The responsibility role allocation device 200 further includes: The first subtask allocation module is used to allocate the first subtask to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination after determining the first target combination from the multiple candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination.

[0096] Optionally, the plurality of subtasks may further include a second subtask, which is the next subtask after the first subtask; The responsibility role allocation device 200 further includes: An execution identifier acquisition module is used to acquire the execution identifier of the first subtask when the first subtask has ended. The execution identifier is used to indicate whether to execute the second subtask or re-execute the first subtask. The second subtask processing module is used to determine a second target combination based on the second subtask and the personnel profile corresponding to each candidate personnel identifier when the execution identifier is used to indicate the execution of the second subtask, and to assign the second subtask to the identifier information of multiple candidates in the second target combination. The first subtask reassignment module is used to reassign the first subtask to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination when the execution identifier is used to indicate that the first subtask should be re-executed.

[0097] Optionally, the responsibility role assignment device 200 further includes: The evaluation data acquisition module is used to acquire the evaluation data of the candidates associated with the target task when the target task is completed. The personnel profile update module is used to update the personnel profiles of candidates associated with the target task based on the evaluation data.

[0098] Furthermore, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device, including: a processor, a memory, and a system bus; The processor and the memory are connected via the system bus; The memory is used to store one or more programs, the one or more programs including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform any of the implementation steps of the responsibility role allocation method described above.

[0099] Furthermore, embodiments of this application also provide a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform any of the implementation steps of the above-described responsibility role allocation method.

[0100] As can be seen from the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art can clearly understand that all or part of the steps in the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by means of software plus necessary general-purpose hardware platforms. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product can be stored in a storage medium, such as ROM / RAM, magnetic disk, optical disk, etc., and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, a server, or a network communication device such as a media gateway, etc.) to execute the methods described in various embodiments or some parts of the embodiments of this application. It should be noted that the various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner, and each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. The same or similar parts between the various embodiments can be referred to mutually.

[0101] The system disclosed in the embodiments is described in a relatively simple manner because it corresponds to the method disclosed in the embodiments. For relevant details, please refer to the method section.

[0102] It should also be noted that, in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used only to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. Furthermore, the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0103] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables those skilled in the art to make or use this application. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of this application. Therefore, this application is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for assigning responsibility roles, characterized in that, include: Obtain the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned; Based on the task profile, multiple roles to be assigned in the target task are identified; Based on the task profile, each of the multiple assigned responsibility roles, and the personnel profile of each assigned person, an individual score is generated for each assigned person. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each assigned person and each assigned responsibility role. Based on the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, the identification information of each person to be assigned is grouped to obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates. Based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a combination score is obtained for each candidate combination. The combination score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the multiple responsibilities to be assigned. Based on the combination score of each candidate combination, a first target combination is determined from the multiple candidate combinations, and the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination corresponds one-to-one with the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned.

2. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of generating an individual score for each person to be assigned based on the task profile and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned includes: Obtain the weight configuration information corresponding to each responsibility role to be assigned; Based on the weight configuration information corresponding to each role to be assigned, the task profile, and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned, an individual score is generated for each person to be assigned.

3. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to claim 1, characterized in that, The multiple roles to be assigned include execution roles and review roles, and the individual score for each person to be assigned includes the execution role score and the review role score for each person to be assigned. The process involves grouping the identifier information of each candidate person based on their individual score to obtain multiple candidate combinations, including: The identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose performance responsibility role score is greater than the performance score threshold is formed into a first identification set, and the identification information corresponding to all personnel to be assigned whose review responsibility role score is greater than the review score threshold is formed into a second identification set. The identification information of each person to be assigned in the first identification set and the identification information of all persons to be assigned in the second identification set are combined one by one to obtain multiple candidate combinations. The identification information of the execution candidate in each of the multiple candidate combinations is different from the identification information of the review candidate.

4. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method of obtaining the combined score of each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination includes: Based on the person profiles corresponding to multiple candidates in each candidate combination, a compatibility score is obtained between the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The compatibility score is used to indicate the degree of fit between multiple candidates in each candidate combination. Based on the compatibility score and the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination, the combined score of each candidate combination is obtained.

5. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to any one of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that, The target task includes multiple sub-tasks, and the multiple sub-tasks include a first sub-task; After determining the first target combination from the plurality of candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, the method further includes: Assign the first subtask to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination.

6. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to claim 5, characterized in that, The plurality of subtasks also includes a second subtask, which is the next subtask after the first subtask; After assigning the first sub-task to the identification information of multiple candidates in the first target combination, the method includes: If the first subtask ends, obtain the execution identifier of the first subtask, which is used to indicate whether to execute the second subtask or re-execute the first subtask; When the execution identifier is used to indicate the execution of the second sub-task, a second target combination is determined based on the second sub-task and the personnel profile corresponding to each candidate personnel identifier, and the second sub-task is assigned to the identifier information of multiple candidates in the second target combination; When the execution identifier is used to indicate that the first subtask is to be re-executed, the identification information of the multiple candidates in the first target combination is reassigned to the first subtask.

7. The method for assigning responsibility roles according to claim 6, characterized in that, After assigning the second sub-task to the identification information of multiple candidates in the second target combination, the method further includes: Upon completion of the target task, obtain the evaluation data of the candidates associated with the target task; Based on the evaluation data, the personnel profiles of the candidates associated with the target task are updated.

8. A responsibility role allocation device, characterized in that, include: The information acquisition module is used to acquire the task profile of the target task, as well as the identification information and personnel profile of each of the multiple personnel to be assigned. The responsibility role determination module is used to determine multiple responsibility roles to be assigned in the target task based on the task profile. The individual score generation module is used to generate an individual score for each person to be assigned based on the task profile, each of the multiple roles to be assigned, and the personnel profile of each person to be assigned. The individual score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each person to be assigned and each role to be assigned. The candidate combination generation module is used to group the identification information of each person to be assigned according to the individual score corresponding to each person to be assigned, and obtain multiple candidate combinations. Each candidate combination includes the identification information of multiple candidates. The combined score generation module is used to obtain the combined score of each candidate combination based on the individual scores corresponding to the identification information of multiple candidates in each candidate combination. The combined score is used to indicate the degree of fit between each candidate combination and the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned. The target combination determination module is used to determine a first target combination from the multiple candidate combinations based on the combination score of each candidate combination, wherein the multiple candidates in the first target combination correspond one-to-one with the multiple responsibility roles to be assigned.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that, The device includes: a processor, a memory, and a system bus; The processor and the memory are connected via the system bus; The memory is used to store a program, the program including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of the responsibility role assignment method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium is used to store a computer program that, when executed by a terminal device, implements the steps of the responsibility role allocation method according to any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images