Practice of establishing performance evaluation mechanism for military research institutes

In the process of advancing its own development, the military research institute continuously explores and practices, establishing a performance evaluation mechanism that aligns with actual needs and industry characteristics. By establishing the mechanism, continuously exploring, and persistently innovating, the performance evaluation mechanism ensures and promotes the overall professional development and economic benefits of the institute. This article elaborates on the specific practices of how the military research institute establishes its performance evaluation mechanism, analyzes the main issues encountered in the practical implementation of the mechanism, and proposes ideas for further improving the evaluation mechanism, with the aim of engaging in discussions and exchanges with colleagues in the same industry and other industries.

The military industry plays a pivotal role in the national defense cause. Compared to research institutions in other industries, military research institutes face a relatively narrow market application scope, but their technological content far exceeds conventional products. As the domestic military industry becomes increasingly market-oriented and competitive, to break through the encirclement, it is essential to maintain leadership in specialized fields, surpass international and domestic advanced levels, continuously innovate in management models and mechanisms, establish performance evaluation mechanisms suitable for military research institutes, drive steady growth in various performance evaluation indicators, and achieve comprehensive and sustainable development in professional leadership, market expansion, and profitability enhancement.

Corporate performance requires that every task must be aimed at achieving the overall goals of the enterprise. Managers must list the performance that the units under their jurisdiction should achieve in the objectives. Performance appraisal ensures that the organization gradually achieves its strategic goals, with performance targets derived from the step-by-step decomposition of the organizational strategic goals. Performance appraisal helps individuals and organizations better understand expectations and standards, provides a reliable basis for decision-making, encourages continuous improvement by individuals and organizations, and enhances the performance of both individuals and organizations.

The management practices discussed in this article are aimed at the overall organization of military research institutes, with target management as the core, establishing a performance evaluation mechanism suitable for military research institutes, including key elements such as three-dimensional departmental targets, comprehensive annual and quarterly indicators, process monitoring, and evaluation systems. This mechanism implements performance evaluation, result feedback, and continuous improvement for different types of departments within the research institute in areas such as technological innovation, market development, and management enhancement, thereby continuously improving the efficiency and effectiveness of both departments and the research institute.

I. Establish a Performance Evaluation Mechanism for Military Industry Research Institutes

(1) Formulate three-dimensional departmental performance objectives.

Organizational goals are the most critical component in the performance evaluation mechanism of military research institutes. Establishing goals that align with organizational strategic needs serves as the basis and origin for subsequent development of evaluation indicators. Based on the assessment requirements of higher authorities, the five-year plan, annual work conference reports, and annual plans, military research institutes formulate enterprise-level goals, which are then decomposed into department-level goals. Achieving department-level goals leads to the realization of enterprise-level goals. The institute develops departmental goals from three dimensions: goal areas, department types, and goal levels. For goals involving different business domains, various department types, and different level requirements, it creates three-dimensional departmental goals that meet the needs of various lines, fit the characteristics of each department, and meet the standards at all levels.

The business covers multiple areas including professional development, scientific research and production tasks, economic indicators, market and industry, capacity building, functional management, legal compliance, corporate governance, major safety, and Party construction. Departments are categorized into four types based on their business characteristics: research and technology departments focused on technological innovation, product development, and research; production and support departments primarily responsible for completing production tasks and delivering products; management departments that coordinate and organize scientific research and production or implement comprehensive management; and industrial companies that develop civilian product markets and achieve the transformation of military technology into civilian applications. The level of target requirements is divided into three tiers: high line, standard line, and bottom line. The high line refers to goals that are significantly above conventional requirements, have not been achieved historically, or are newly added high-standard requirements. The standard line represents goals that meet general work requirements. The bottom line is a binding goal that, if not achieved, would result in significant negative impacts.

Different types of departments are evaluated based on both common and specific objectives. The common objectives are related to functional management and major safety, which are targets that all departments need to achieve. The specific objectives reflect the different focuses of various departments. For research departments, the focus is on achieving goals in professional development areas. Production and support departments focus on completing various production tasks. Management departments focus on achieving economic indicators and functional management goals. While civilian product companies focus on achieving economic indicators and corporate governance goals.

(2) Form a comprehensive performance indicator system

Department-level assessment indicators include those derived from the enterprise's assessment indicators that are broken down to the department level, departmental responsibility assessment indicators, and departmental workflow assessment indicators. The research institute has established a comprehensive performance assessment indicator system by decomposing the institute's assessment indicators and objectives into each department, combined with the business requirements of each department. The performance assessment indicators for each department are formulated on an annual and quarterly basis. Different types of departments involve different indicators, and the weight of each indicator varies, reflecting the differences in the impact of different types and responsibilities of departments on achieving the institute's objectives and indicators. This scientific and precise implementation of performance assessment promotes the effective improvement of the research institute's overall performance.

Annual assessment indicators will use the department's annual target responsibility agreement as the sole indicator for all departments involved, with a maximum weight set at %. Sub-tasks outside the responsibility agreement will be included in the annual indicators for technological innovation, market development for models, international development, and industrial development. The annual indicators for research departments include indicators other than the personalized assessment indicators for industrial companies, while the annual indicators for production and management departments include indicators such as the target responsibility agreement, capability enhancement, and legal compliance construction. Among the indicators for industrial companies, the personalized assessment indicators for industrial companies are unique.

Unlike the annual assessment indicators which target major indicators for the entire year, the specific work plans or business requirements refined by various departments are incorporated into quarterly assessment indicators, which are divided into indicators such as plan completion, quality management, safety, process management, financial management, system and information, archival standardization and intellectual property, human resources, risk and internal control, and management quality. Quarterly indicators generally cover all types of departments, but the weight of each indicator varies depending on the department type. Production departments focus on task completion on time and product quality requirements, with plan completion and quality management indicators having the highest proportion among the four types of departments. For research departments, task completion on time and product quality are equally important, with their plan completion and quality management indicators ranking second only to production departments. Basic and constraining indicators such as safety, risk, and internal control are equally important for all departments, and their proportions remain the same. Indicators such as system and information, and financial management are primarily related to the functions of management departments, so the proportions of these indicators for management departments are higher than those for other types of departments. Compared to other departments, industrial companies have a relatively independent organizational structure, focusing on market capture and economic indicator completion, and do not assess quarterly indicators such as process management and management quality.

(III) Establishment of a Monitoring and Evaluation System for the Construction Process

The military research institute establishes a departmental performance appraisal team, implementing the assessment and scoring of annual and quarterly indicators for various departments based on the performance appraisal management system, and completing the evaluation of departmental performance indicators. Conduct process tracking of annual and quarterly indicators, utilize the planning management system to perform monthly statistics on plan completion, organize relevant departments to analyze reasons for incomplete plans, categorize the causes of issues, form thematic analysis reports, compile and release comprehensive planning briefs, remind departments with issues and their supervisory authorities to take measures for improvement, and provide data support for leadership decision-making.

Through regular or on-demand scientific research and production coordination meetings, special coordination meetings, and departmental joint meetings, weekly monitoring of short-term bottlenecks is conducted to address various issues affecting indicators. Meeting minutes and action items are tracked by the responsible department, with special oversight by regulatory bodies for key, important, or long-term matters, and the oversight results are included in the quarterly assessment of the responsible departments. The quarterly assessment results, after being reviewed and approved by the director's office meeting, are fed back to the departments, detailing the reasons for the deduction of quarterly indicators and the ranking among similar departments, providing quantitative references for departments to correct deviations. Annual assessments are conducted at the end of the year, focusing on the achievement of the target responsibility documents, with additional points for exceeding high-line targets or achieving outstanding results. The sum of the annual and quarterly assessment scores for various indicators is the department's annual performance assessment total score, which is a key factor in determining the department's total wage amount and serves as the basis for whether the department can be rated as outstanding.

II. Major Issues

(1) Insufficient correlation between objectives and indicators

The system uses target responsibility agreements to guide the annual work direction of various departments, with annual and quarterly assessments constraining the completion of detailed business tasks by these departments. However, there is not yet a strong correlation between targets and indicators; the realization of targets is not clearly reflected in the indicators, and indicators are not supplemented and refined simultaneously when setting targets.

(II) Some assessment indicators cannot be quantified.

The assessment indicators for management departments still cannot be fully quantified. The main reason is the lack of relevant statistical data or the inability to reflect through data. For similar departments, there are also differences in business expertise that cannot be accommodated by setting customized quantitative indicators.

(III) Lack of advanced data analysis methods

In the process of implementing process monitoring, typical issues such as information silos, data fragmentation, inconsistent data sources, or data gaps still exist in data application. Due to the industry's specificity, it is difficult to use conventional data analysis tools. At the same time, data urgently needs standardization and normalization, and advanced methods for data analysis are lacking.

III. Conclusion

Since the beginning of the "14th Five-Year Plan" period, military research institutes have established a relatively complete performance evaluation mechanism that aligns with their own characteristics. Through continuous improvement during its application, this mechanism has played a crucial role in achieving beyond-expectation results in multiple key areas such as professional innovation development, external market expansion, and management capability enhancement. It has laid a solid foundation for the comprehensive implementation of the "14th Five-Year Plan" for subsequent research institutes, accumulated relevant experience in the performance evaluation mechanism within the military industry, and also provided a reference for precise performance evaluation in other industries.