CN-121981685-A - Project review method, system and computer readable storage medium

CN121981685ACN 121981685 ACN121981685 ACN 121981685ACN-121981685-A

Abstract

The application provides a project review method, a system and a computer-readable storage medium, and belongs to the technical field of project evaluation. The method aims at solving the technical problems that the existing single review mode causes one-sided and biased review results. The method comprises the steps of grouping bid projects according to preset classification standards, independently evaluating the projects by a plurality of first evaluation experts, outputting qualitative evaluation results containing recommendation grades, converting the recommendation grades into quantitative scores according to preset grading rules to obtain first-stage evaluation total scores, carrying out centralized discussion type joint evaluation on at least part of the bid projects by at least one second evaluation expert to form uniform evaluation opinions, and finally determining final stand projects based on the first-stage evaluation total scores and the uniform evaluation opinions. According to the application, by combining independent quantitative initial evaluation with centralized discussion reexamine, the defect of a single evaluation mode is effectively overcome, and the fairness, scientificity and efficiency of project evaluation are improved.

Inventors

WANG MEI
WANG HAO
QI BAOYU
WANG MIN
WANG JIE

Assignees

中国中医科学院望京医院(中国中医科学院骨伤科研究所)

Dates

Publication Date: 20260505
Application Date: 20260128

Claims (8)

1. A method of project review, comprising: dividing a plurality of bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to a preset classification standard; assigning a plurality of first review experts to the project groups, independently reviewing the bidding projects in the group by each of the first review experts, and outputting qualitative review results including recommendation grades; Converting the recommended grades in the qualitative review results into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules, and counting to obtain first-stage review total scores of each bidding item; Assigning at least one second review expert, carrying out centralized discussion type co-review on at least part of the bid projects, and forming uniform review comments; And determining a final stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, wherein determining the final stand item comprises determining whether the bid item subjected to the common review is a stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, and determining whether the bid item not subjected to the common review is a stand item according to preset rules.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined classification criteria comprises a subject area to which the item belongs, or a property type of the item.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first review expert further outputs a comprehensive review of the bid item when performing independent review, the evaluation dimension of the comprehensive review including at least one of subject tasks and goals, feasibility of evaluation indicators, research and development content and technical routes, rationality of organizational implementation and management measures, and economic and social benefit analysis.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the second review expert performs a co-review with a review focus comprising at least one of a clinical actual value of the prescription, a coverage of a disease population, a degree of detail of a pre-study basis, and a likelihood of success of the intra-hospital formulation declaration.
5. The project review method of claim 1, characterized in that the method further comprises: Screening out partial bid items according to the first-stage total score after converting the recommendation grades in the qualitative review results into quantitative scores and before conducting the co-review; wherein the co-review by the second review expert is performed on the screened portion of the bid items.
6. An item review system, comprising: The project management module is used for dividing a plurality of bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to a preset classification standard; The first review module is used for providing independent review interfaces for a plurality of first review experts to receive the output qualitative review results containing the recommendation grades, and converting the recommendation grades into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules so as to obtain first-stage review total scores of each bidding item in a statistics mode; The second review module is used for providing a collaboration interface for at least one second review expert so as to record unified review comments formed after the second review expert performs centralized discussion type common review on at least part of the bidding projects; And the decision support module is used for determining whether the bid item which receives the unified review opinion is a stand item or not based on the first-stage review total score and the unified review opinion, and determining whether the bid item which does not receive the unified review opinion is a stand item or not according to a preset rule.
7. The project review system of claim 6 wherein the decision support module is further configured to screen out a portion of bid projects based on the first stage total score before the second review module records the unified review opinion; The second review module is used for recording unified review comments formed after the screened partial bid items are reviewed together.
8. A computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program when executed by a processor implements a method for project review, the method comprising: dividing a plurality of bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to a preset classification standard; assigning a plurality of first review experts to the project groups, independently reviewing the bidding projects in the group by each of the first review experts, and outputting qualitative review results including recommendation grades; Converting the recommended grades in the qualitative review results into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules, and counting to obtain first-stage review total scores of each bidding item; Assigning at least one second review expert, carrying out centralized discussion type co-review on at least part of the bid projects, and forming uniform review comments; And determining a final stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, wherein determining the final stand item comprises determining whether the bid item subjected to the common review is a stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, and determining whether the bid item not subjected to the common review is a stand item according to preset rules.

Description

Project review method, system and computer readable storage medium Technical Field The application relates to the technical field of project evaluation, in particular to a project review method and a system combining independent quantification and concentrated discussion. Background In many fields of scientific research, investment, bid recruitment and the like, project review is a key link in the decision making process. Existing project review methods can be generally divided into two main categories, namely online letter review or independent communication review, and offline conference centralized review. The on-line independent review has the advantages that the review expert can independently judge under the condition of not being interfered by the outside, the improper influence of the opinion of the authoritative expert on other experts is avoided, and the independence of the review opinion is ensured. However, the disadvantages are also obvious, the expert lacks communication and thought collision, and it is difficult to form deep consensus on some complex aspects of the project, such as clinical practical value, deep risk of technical implementation, market prospect and the like, and the review opinion may be biased to surfacing. The on-line conference centralized review can deeply and comprehensively analyze the project through face-to-face discussion, inquiry and debate among experts, and unified and deep review comments are easy to form. However, this mode has the disadvantage that the review efficiency is relatively low and an "authoritative effect" is easily generated, i.e. the opinion of a small number of highly priced or heavily speaking experts may dominate the whole review result, thereby affecting the objectivity of the independent judgment of other experts and possibly resulting in a bias of the review result. In order to overcome the subjectivity of pure qualitative assessment, some prior art schemes attempt to introduce a quantization method, for example, using a mathematical model such as a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, to convert the qualitative language judgment of the review expert into a computable quantization value, and rank or rank the items according to the final comprehensive assessment value. However, these quantification methods are generally applied in the above single review mode, which essentially quantifies the judgment of an expert at a specific link, and are not optimized from the review process itself. Therefore, independent communication review or centralized conference review, even if combined with a quantification tool, the method still cannot fundamentally solve the inherent defects of lack of thought collision and deep inquiry among experts, and the method is still easy to guide by authoritative opinions, so that one-sided or bias of review results possibly exists, and the overall fairness and scientificity of project review are affected. Disclosure of Invention In view of the drawbacks of the prior art, an object of the present invention is to provide a project review method, system, and computer-readable storage medium. The project review method provided by the invention comprises the following steps: dividing a plurality of bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to a preset classification standard; assigning a plurality of first review experts to the project groups, independently reviewing the bidding projects in the group by each of the first review experts, and outputting qualitative review results including recommendation grades; Converting the recommended grades in the qualitative review results into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules, and counting to obtain first-stage review total scores of each bidding item; Assigning at least one second review expert, carrying out centralized discussion type co-review on at least part of the bid projects, and forming uniform review comments; And determining a final stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, wherein determining the final stand item comprises determining whether the bid item subjected to the common review is a stand item based on the first-stage total score and the unified review opinion, and determining whether the bid item not subjected to the common review is a stand item according to preset rules. Preferably, the preset classification standard comprises the subject field to which the project belongs or the property type of the project. Preferably, when the first review expert performs independent review, the first review expert also outputs comprehensive comments on the bidding projects, wherein the evaluation dimension of the comprehensive comments comprises at least one of task and objective tasks, feasibility of evaluation indexes, research and development contents and technical routes, reasonability of organization implementation and management measures and economic and social benefit analysis. Prefer