GB/T 47693-2026Assessment of industrial digital twin system providers (English PDF)

Foreword

This document complies with the provisions of GB/T 1.1-2020 "Standardization Work Guidelines Part

1.Structure and Drafting Rules of Standardization Documents". Drafting. Please note that some content in this document may involve patents. The issuing organization of this document assumes no responsibility for identifying patents. This document was proposed by the China Machinery Industry Federation. This document is under the jurisdiction of the National Technical Committee on Standardization of Automation Systems and Integration (SAC/TC159). This document was drafted by: National Industrial Information Security Development Research Center, Beijing Institute of Mechanical Industry Automation Co., Ltd., and State Grid Corporation of China. Power Space Technology Co., Ltd., CRRC Qingdao Sifang Locomotive & Rolling Stock Co., Ltd., China Southern Power Grid Digital Operation Software Technology (Guangdong) Co., Ltd. Zhejiang Zhuanzhu Zhilian Technology Co., Ltd., Inspur Cloud Industrial Internet Co., Ltd., CRRC Information Technology Co., Ltd., and China National Building Materials Glass Co., Ltd. New Materials Research Institute Group Co., Ltd., China Cybersecurity Review and Certification and Market Supervision Big Data Center, Beijing Institute of Automation (Beijing) Technology Development Co., Ltd. Limited Liability Company, Jiangsu Yangtze Intelligent Manufacturing Research Institute Co., Ltd., Shanghai Baoxin Software Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jiayuntong Electronics Co., Ltd. Limited Liability Company, Saisheng Information Technology Research Institute Jiangsu Co., Ltd., and Beijing Xinyuan Electronic Information Technology Co., Ltd. The main drafters of this document are. Hu Bo, Luan Yan, Zhang Juanjuan, Du Hongtao, Sun Jiexiang, Wang Haidan, Wang Jiaying, Jiang Ximin, Quan Wenju, and Zheng Sijia. Ding Xinpei, Zhao Ming, Qiu Hongtao, Qi Guangpeng, Shang Guangyong, Du Lan, Zhou Yun, Guo Jiajia, Xu Hui, Pan Yanfei, Wang Sen, Liu Yongcai, Chen Zhen, Huang Wei Meng Xiangxi, Yao Huan, Wu Donghan, Li Yunzhi, Guo Dong, Xue Jingwan, Meng Xiaoqian, Ma Yongjing, Xiao Zhanhui, Xu Wei, Xie Wei, Suo Xinghe, Li Yan, Li Zhongshu Li Hesheng, Li Nan, Cao Huiming, Guo Yan. Industrial Digital Twin System Service Provider Evaluation

1.Scope This document specifies the evaluation framework and general requirements, evaluation elements, and descriptions of the corresponding evaluation criteria for industrial digital twin system service providers. method. This document is applicable to the assessment by the system construction and implementation entity of whether the system service provider has the corresponding capabilities to provide industrial digital twins that meet the requirements. The system and services should be selected from suitable service providers; this can also be used as a reference for system service providers or third-party organizations to evaluate the service capabilities of service providers.

2 Normative references

This document has no normative references.

4 General Requirements

4.1 Evaluation Framework The system service provider's capability elements include two capability domains. basic capabilities and products and services, comprising 14 capability items and 35 capability sub-items. By comprehensively evaluating the capabilities of various system service providers, the system service provider was selected as the industrial digital twin provider for the given implementation scope. The system construction and implementation capabilities include providing products and services, carrying out project implementation, etc., and in accordance with the credit qualifications and industrial digital twins. The system's construction and implementation capabilities are assessed comprehensively to determine the corresponding system service capability level. System service capability levels are categorized from highest to lowest as follows: Initial-level system service provider (L1 level), basic-level system service provider (L2 level), optimized-level system service provider (L3 level), intelligent-level system service provider (Level 4) Autonomous Level System Service Provider (Level 5) (see Figure 1). Within the same implementation scope, higher capability levels encompass lower capability levels. Characteristics. The system service provider's capabilities are divided into two primary indicators. basic capabilities and products and services, along with creditworthiness, financial status, model, and control. There are 14 secondary indicators, and 35 tertiary indicators, including credit status, qualification status, model fidelity, and model adaptability.

6 Evaluation Methods

6.1 Indicators and Weights In order to better enhance the relevance and suitability of the assessment, the evaluation comprehensively considers industry characteristics and the type of system service provider (including but not limited to...). In cases where the provider is not limited to technology product providers, integration solution providers, service providers, or providers that combine multiple types of service characteristics, according to The principle of maintaining consistency in primary indicators such as basic capabilities, products, and services, while progressively refining lower-level indicators, applies to the evaluation of industrial digital twin system service providers. The evaluation indicator system was refined and tailored, clearly defining specific evaluation indicators and their weights. The weights of each indicator can be determined based on expert experience, using the Delphi method. The method, which combines the methods of analytic hierarchy process (AHP), analytic hierarchy process (ANP), and entropy method, should meet the following requirements.

a) The weights of the indicators are determined based on their importance to the service capabilities of the system service provider;

b) Taking into account the characteristics of different industries and sectors, the indicators at each level are refined and assigned reasonable weights;

c) The sum of the weights of all sub-items under the same indicator is 1.

6.2 Scoring Method Based on the key evaluation criteria in the assessment indicator system, extensive data should be collected to demonstrate the service capabilities of industrial digital twin system service providers. Based on actual evidence and a comprehensive assessment of the actual situation of this influencing factor, and in accordance with the indicator system, address the system service provider's actual needs for each indicator. The satisfaction level was scored (see Table 1).

6.3 Calculation Method Based on the scores and weights of various indicators, a comprehensive evaluation of system service providers is conducted using a weighted average method. This is exemplified by industrial digital twins. Taking a three-tiered system service provider capability evaluation index system as an example, the scoring calculation method for system service providers is as follows:

6.4 Method for Determining Ability Levels Based on the comprehensive score of the system service provider's capabilities within the given implementation scope, and 14 elements under the basic capabilities, products and services, The scores of the secondary indicators, ranked from highest to lowest, determine the system service provider's capability level within a given implementation scope. (Achieving specific goals/achievements is not possible.) To determine a competency level, the assessment score, basic competency elements, and product and service elements must all simultaneously meet the score requirements for that level. (Scoring and...) The correspondence between capability levels is shown in Table

2.Service providers whose scores are lower than the initial level service provider score requirements are considered unrated.