GB/T 39734-2020.Specification for evaluation of "on-the-spot" and "online" administrative service.
1 Scope
GB/T 39734 specifies the evaluation principles, content, channels, rules, guarantees, classification and disposal of evaluation, and application of evaluation results for the "once-for-all" and "on-the-job" work of government services.
GB/T 39734 is applicable to the "once-for-all" and "on-the-job" work of government services carried out by government service agencies at all levels across the country. Units that undertake service functions in the Party and Mass Sequence can refer to this document for use.
2 Normative Reference Documents
The contents of the following documents constitute the essential terms of this document through normative references in this text. Among them, for dated reference documents, only the version corresponding to that date applies to this document; for undated reference documents, the latest version (including all amendments) applies to this document.
GB/T 39735 Guidelines for the Evaluation of Government Services
3 Terms and Definitions
The terms and definitions defined in GB/T 39735 apply to this document.
4 Evaluation Principles
4.1 Voluntary and Authentic
The evaluation activities adhere to the principle of fully respecting the will of the service recipients. It is strictly forbidden to force or interfere with the evaluation behavior of the service recipients, and the information of the service recipients is strictly protected.
4.2 Unified Standards
The selection of evaluation indicators adheres to the principle of scientific and standardized, and strictly follows the evaluation process. When the same type of government service items are handled by government service agencies and government service platforms, the service standards and evaluation standards are kept unified.
4.3 Objective and Effective
The setting of evaluation rules adheres to the principles of scientific and reasonable, authentic and effective evaluation data, and objective and fair evaluation process, so as to achieve open, transparent, and verifiable results, and timely discover and solve problems in government services.
4.4 Responsibility for the First Handler
The handling of negative reviews adheres to the principle of "whoever handles, whoever is responsible". The functional department responsible for handling negative reviews shall initiate the procedure at the first time and arrange for a special person to visit and verify.
5 Evaluation Content.
The evaluation content generally includes service attitude, service quality, service efficiency and service environment. The evaluation content and indicators of negative reviews in "one review per time" and "one review per matter" are shown in Appendix A.
6 Evaluation Channels
6.1 On-site Service Evaluation Channels
6.1.1 Government service agencies should place evaluators, QR codes, written evaluation forms, etc. at the service window to facilitate the service recipients to evaluate themselves, or provide service recipients with QR code receipts and other methods at the window for scanning and evaluation. Staff should actively prompt service recipients to evaluate.
This document stipulates the evaluation principles, evaluation content, evaluation channels, evaluation rules, evaluation guarantees, evaluation classification and disposal, and application of evaluation results for government service one review per time, one review per matter, and one review per matter. This document is applicable to the work of government service agencies at all levels across the country to carry out one-on-one evaluation of government services. Units in the Party and Mass Organization sequence that undertake service functions can refer to this document for use.

ICS03.160
CCS A 00
National Standard of the People's Republic of China
GB/T39734—2020
Specification for evaluation of \on-the-spot and“\online\administrative service2020-12-14Release
State Administration for Market Regulation
Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China
Release
2021-01-01Implementation
Foreword
Scope
Normative references
Terms and definitions
Evaluation principles
Evaluation content
Evaluation channels
On-site service evaluation channels
Online service evaluation channels
Evaluation rules
Evaluation frequency rules
Evaluation time limit rules
Evaluation Evaluation level and option setting
Evaluation guarantee
Data collection
Data security
Internal supervision
Evaluation classification and disposal
Classification and judgment
Poor rating classification
Poor rating disposal
10 Application of evaluation results·bzxZ.net
10.1
10.2
10.3
Public release of evaluation results
Incentive mechanism·.
Data analysis and judgment
Appendix A (normative) Evaluation content of “one evaluation per time” and “one evaluation per matter” for government services Appendix B (normative) (References to the public evaluation index values ??of "one evaluation per time and one evaluation per matter" for government services
rKaeerKAca-
GB/T39734—2020
Foreword
GB/T39734—2020
This document is drafted in accordance with the provisions of GB/T1.1-2020 "Guidelines for Standardization Work Part 1: Structure and Drafting Rules for Standardization Documents".
This document is proposed and managed by the National Administrative Approval Standardization Working Group (SAC/SWG14). Drafting units of this document: Office of Government Function Transformation of the General Office of the State Council, State Council Office of E-Government of the General Office, China National Institute of Standardization, Administrative Service Center of Taizhou Municipal People's Government of Zhejiang Province, Big Data Management Center of Jiangsu Province, Administrative Approval Service Bureau of Tai'an City of Shandong Province, Beijing Municipal Government Service Management Bureau, Guizhou Provincial Government Service Center, Meishan Municipal Government Service Management Bureau of Sichuan Province, Xicheng District Government Service Management Bureau of Beijing, Administrative Approval Bureau of Taicang City of Jiangsu Province, Government Service and Data Resources Management Office of Jiaxing City of Zhejiang Province, Southwest University of Political Science and Law. The main drafters of this document: Dong Gao, Chen Yang, Feng Lei, Wu Xiaobo, He Zhengqing, Zhang Yingzi, Liu Yan, Zhao Lei, Wang Dun, Zhu Yonggang, Tan Junjie, Ma Haosong, Shen Xiaohua, Hu Jilin, Zhang Caihua, and Xu Xiaowen. Use
rrKaeerkAca-
1 Scope
Government Service "One Evaluation per Time" "One Evaluation per Item" Work Specification GB/T39734—2020
This document specifies the evaluation principles, evaluation content, evaluation channels, evaluation rules, evaluation guarantees, evaluation classification and disposal, and application of evaluation results of the government service "One Evaluation per Time" and "One Evaluation per Item" work. This document is applicable to government service agencies at all levels across the country to carry out the government service "One Evaluation per Time" and "One Evaluation per Item" work. Units that undertake service functions in the Party and Mass Sequence can refer to this document for use. Normative Reference Documents
The contents of the following documents constitute the indispensable provisions of this document through normative references in the text. Among them, dated references For documents, only the version corresponding to that date applies to this document; for undated referenced documents, the latest version (including all amendments) applies to this document.
GB/T39735
Terms and Definitions
Guidelines for Government Service Evaluation
The terms and definitions defined in GB/T39735 apply to this document. 4 Evaluation Principles
4.1 Voluntary and Authentic
Evaluation activities adhere to the principle of fully respecting the wishes of service recipients, and it is strictly forbidden to force or interfere with the evaluation of service recipients, and the information of service recipients shall be strictly protected.
4.2 Unified Standards
The selection of evaluation indicators adheres to the principle of scientific and standardized, strictly follows the evaluation process, and achieves the same type of government service items in government affairs. When handling matters, service agencies and government service platforms shall maintain uniform service standards and evaluation standards. 4.3 Objectivity and Effectiveness
The evaluation rules shall be set up in accordance with the principles of scientific rationality, authenticity and validity of evaluation data, and objectivity and fairness of evaluation process, so as to ensure that the results are open, transparent, and verifiable, and problems in government services can be discovered and resolved in a timely manner. 4.4 First-handling Responsibility
The handling of negative reviews shall adhere to the principle of "whoever handles it, is responsible for it", and the functional department responsible for handling negative reviews shall initiate the procedure as soon as possible and arrange for a special person to return and verify.
Evaluation Content
The content of the evaluation generally includes service attitude, service quality, service efficiency, and service environment. Among them, "one evaluation per time" and "one evaluation per matter" 1
nKaeerKAca-
GB/ T39734—2020
For the evaluation content and indicators of negative reviews, please see Appendix A.
6 Evaluation channels
On-site service evaluation channels
6.13
6.1.1 Government service agencies should place evaluators, QR codes, written evaluation forms, etc. at the service window to facilitate the service recipients to evaluate themselves, or provide service recipients with QR code receipts and other methods for scanning and evaluation. Staff should actively remind service recipients to evaluate.
6.1.2 Areas with conditions can set up a self-service evaluation area in the government service hall to guide service recipients to conduct independent evaluation. 6.1.3 After the service is completed, if the service recipient does not conduct an evaluation on site, the system should remind the service recipient to evaluate by SMS, message, etc. 6.2 Online service evaluation channels
6.2.1 After the service recipient completes the government service matters on the government service platform, the system should push a unified evaluation page to remind the service recipient to evaluate.
6.2.2 After the matter is handled, the self-service terminal will automatically jump to the evaluation interface, display the name of the matter and evaluation indicators, and prompt the service recipient to make an evaluation. 6.2.3 The hotline platform should open the "good or bad review" prompt function, and the service recipient can make an evaluation by pressing the phone button. 7 Evaluation rules
Evaluation frequency rules
7.1.1 Single business
7.1.1.1
The service recipient can make one evaluation after each government service he receives at the window. 7.1.1.2 For matters handled online or at the self-service terminal, the service recipient can make one evaluation after the matter is completed. 7.1.2 Batch business
If a single If two or more businesses are reported for the same matter, they will be regarded as batch businesses and will be subject to "one evaluation". After handling the batch business, the service recipient will conduct one evaluation, and the result of the "one evaluation" will apply to all businesses handled in this batch. 7.1.3 Thematic Business
For "thematic" and "one thing" services, the service recipient can conduct an overall evaluation, and the evaluation result will apply to all matters related to the theme business. The related matters can also be evaluated separately. 7.2 Evaluation Time Limit Rules
7.2.1 For completed service items, if the service recipient does not make an evaluation within 24 hours, a text message or message can be sent to remind the service recipient to make an evaluation.
7.2.2 The service recipient can make an evaluation within 5 working days after the item is completed. If the evaluation is not made within the time limit, the system will record it as "not evaluated". 7.2.3 For service items that are not completed within the time limit, the service recipient can make an evaluation. 7.3 Evaluation Level and Option Settings
7.3.1 Evaluation Level Settings
Should be set to "very good", "good", "average", "poor", "very poor" or "very satisfied", "satisfied" "Basically satisfied", "Unsatisfied" and "Very dissatisfied" are five 2
nKaeerKAca-
levels, and the last two levels are bad reviews.
7.3.2 Evaluation option settings
GB/T39734—2020
On-site service "one review per time" and online service "one review per matter" can guide service recipients to check the bad review reason option or fill in other reasons according to the prompts, see Appendix A.
Evaluation guarantee
Data collection
8.1.1. Relying on the national integrated online government service platform, a data generation, collection, transmission, analysis and feedback mechanism for "one review per time" and "one review per event" should be established, which will connect all kinds of online and offline evaluation channels, and realize the same standard provision of "one review per time" and "one review per event", the same source of evaluation results, online feedback on rectification of negative reviews, and automatic generation of evaluation data. 8.1.2 Government service platforms in various regions and departments should unify the evaluation information elements of "one review per time" and "one review per event" to ensure that evaluation data is collected completely and transmitted in a timely manner.
8.2 Data security
8.2.1 Establish an evaluation data security guarantee mechanism. It is advisable to use blockchain and other technologies to ensure that data is authentic and reliable, and evaluation results are automatically generated and cannot be changed.
8.2.2 Encourage business and the public to evaluate in real name, and promptly deal with the behavior of brushing good reviews and intentional negative reviews. 8.2.3 Establish and improve the privacy protection system for personal information of enterprises and the public, strictly protect the personal information of enterprises and the public, and standardize the query authority of information related to negative reviews.
8.3 Internal Supervision
The “one review per time” and “one review per matter per time” work should be supervised by means of irregular inspections, unannounced visits, video surveillance or performance monitoring. 9 Evaluation classification and disposal
9.1 Classification and judgment
“Poor”, “very poor” or “unsatisfactory”, “very unsatisfactory” are two levels of poor evaluation, which should be further classified and handled. 9.2 Poor evaluation classification
9.2.1 Immediate rectification (simple) category
Poor evaluations by service recipients due to the uncomfortable service environment of government service agencies, inadequate service facilities or dissatisfaction with the service attitude of staff.
9.2.2 Time-limited rectification (general) category
Poor evaluations by service recipients due to incorrect business procedures, unreasonable link settings and unsatisfactory service efficiency. 9.2.3 Comprehensive coordination (complex) category
Poor evaluations by service recipients due to handling difficult and complex issues or overlapping business of multiple departments and unsmooth links. Note: Difficult and complex problems refer to those involving historical legacy, policy and regulatory applicability, or institutional functions and powers.nKaeerKAca-
GB/T39734—2020
9.3 Handling of negative reviews
9.3.1
Identification and verification
9.3.1.1 The specific functional department responsible for handling negative reviews should be clearly identified. 9.3.1.2 After receiving the negative review, the functional department responsible for handling the negative review shall initiate the immediate response mechanism 9.3.1.3 For on-site negative reviews, the functional department responsible for handling the negative review shall verify the situation as soon as possible and handle it in accordance with the classification and handling procedures. 9.3.1.4 For online negative reviews, the functional department responsible for handling the negative reviews shall contact the service recipients, clarify the reasons for the negative reviews and the responsible units, and handle them in accordance with the classification and handling procedures.
9.3.1.5 During the verification of the negative reviews, if it is found that the review is false or erroneous, the evaluation result will not be adopted, and it will be deemed as an invalid negative review and recorded as "not rated".
9.3.2 Classification and disposal procedures
9.3.2.1 Immediate rectification and improvement (simple) disposal should be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:
For simple negative reviews occurring on site, the functional department responsible for handling the negative reviews shall take the lead in coordinating the disposal, give a reply on the spot, and immediately rectify the problems arising from the disposal of the negative reviews; For simple negative reviews feedback online, the functional department responsible for handling the negative reviews shall make a telephone return call within 1 working day and give a preliminary b)
oral reply. After the return visit, a reply shall be given in the corresponding government service platform in a timely manner. 9.3.2.2 Time-limited rectification (general) type disposal shall be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:
For general negative reviews that occur on site, the department responsible for handling the negative reviews shall coordinate with the relevant responsible departments to give the service recipients a preliminary reply on the spot or arrange a return visit within 1 working day, and reply to the rectification results within 5 working days: b) For general negative reviews pushed by the government service platform, the department responsible for handling the negative reviews shall respond as soon as possible, and the response time shall not exceed 1 working day:
The responsible unit shall reply to the rectification results within 5 working days, and report to the department responsible for handling the negative reviews for record; c
d) If the rectification cannot be completed within the deadline, it shall actively communicate with the service recipients before the due date to explain the reasons and rectification deadline. 9.3.2.3 Comprehensive coordination (complex) type disposal shall establish a negative review consultation mechanism, coordinate relevant departments to participate in the consultation and reply to the service recipients within 15 working days, and form relevant written opinions or meeting minutes when necessary.
9.3.3 Negative Review Appeal Review Mechanism
9.3.3.1 Establish an appeal review mechanism to protect the right of the evaluation object to provide evidence and explanation and to appeal and defend, and exclude erroneous and false negative reviews. 9.3.3.2 After receiving the negative evaluation, the department responsible for handling the negative evaluation may submit a review application to the government service management agency within 1 working day and provide relevant evidence.
9.3.3.3 After receiving the review application, the government service management agency shall follow the following requirements a) Review the negative evaluation results through various forms such as telephone verification, interview, video retrieval, and review of materials, and issue a review result confirmation letter within 2 working days;
b) If the review result is determined to be a valid negative evaluation, the relevant department shall handle it in accordance with the requirements of 9.3.2 after receiving the review result confirmation letter. If the review result is determined to be an invalid negative evaluation, the evaluation result shall not be adopted and recorded as "not evaluated". 4
nKaeerKAca-
Application of evaluation results
10.1 Public release of evaluation results
GB/T39734—2020
10.1.1 The evaluation results should include simple and easy-to-understand evaluation index values, such as the “good review” rate, the “good review” rate of active evaluation, the “no review” rate, the “bad review” reply rate, the “bad review” follow-up rectification rate, the “bad review” follow-up rectification satisfaction rate, etc. For specific calculation methods, see Appendix B. 10.1.2 The evaluation results of government services in various regions and departments should be made public through the integrated online government service platform and government websites, and typical cases of "good reviews" and "bad reviews" should be published to accept social supervision. 10.2
Incentive mechanism
The evaluation results shall be used as an important basis for performance appraisal and selection of advanced units and individuals. Data analysis and judgment
10.3
Use the Internet, cloud computing, big data, artificial intelligence, blockchain and other technologies to strengthen the evaluation Full-caliber tracking analysis and comprehensive mining of data, timely summarize and discover the bottlenecks and difficulties of government services, analyze and judge the demands and expectations of service recipients, and promote government service agencies at all levels to improve services in a targeted manner.
-rKaeerKAca-
GB/T39734—2020
Appendix A
(Normative)
Table A.1 of the negative evaluation content of "one review per time" and "one review per matter" for government services gives the negative evaluation content of "one review per time" and "one review per matter" for government services. Table A.1
Evaluation content of negative reviews of government services "one review per time" and "one review per matter"Evaluation dimensions
1. Service attitude
(check)
2. Service quality
(check)
3. Service efficiency
(check)
4. Service environment
(check)
5.Others
(fill in the box)
(1) Not notified at once;
(2) Staff members were evasive;
(3) Staff members were rude in their service attitude
(1) Cannot complete the process in one hall;
Negative review options
(2) Service guide is difficult to understand, contains errors, lacks samples, and lacks checklists;(3) Application materials are cumbersome, and the same materials are submitted multiple times;(4) There are many procedures and complicated procedures;(5) Multiple visits to windows and departments, and the number of visits is Inconsistency in promises: (6) Promised to process online but unable to do so; (7) Service charges are not transparent and reasonable; (8) Adding new approval conditions outside the service guide (1) Inconvenient consultation and untimely response; (2) Online application is not convenient; (3) Long waiting time in line and repeated number queuing: (4) Staff are not proficient in their business; (5) Failure to complete the process within the promised time limit (1) Inadequate service guidance; (2) Unclear service signs;
(3) Window division is unreasonable;
(4) Service network (system) is unstable; (5) Service facilities and equipment are inconvenient for the public
Items to be filled in by the service recipients
-rKaeerKAca-
Appendix B
(Normative)
Public evaluation index values ??of "one evaluation per time" and "one evaluation per matter" for government services GB/T39734—2020
Government service agencies at all levels should carry out the work of "good and bad evaluation" for government services. The data collected by the background is statistically evaluated according to the calculation method, and the evaluation results are announced to the public. The algorithm for public evaluation index values ??is as follows. a) The "good review" rate Si is calculated according to formula (B.1). Si=1-
Where:
S——"good review" rate;
T Total number of valid bad reviews;
×100%
Total number of evaluations (i.e. the sum of the number of active evaluations and the number of "no evaluations" due to timeout). b) The "active evaluation\good review" rate S is calculated according to formula (B.2). S2
Where:
The rate of "favorable" active evaluations;
×100%
The total number of "favorable" active evaluations from service recipients: The total number of active evaluations (the number of negative evaluations that have been verified to be invalid must be deducted) c) The "unrated" rate S is calculated according to formula (B.3): S
Where:
The rate of "unrated";
X100%
The sum of the number of "unrated" items that have exceeded the time limit and the number of invalid negative evaluations; L
The total number of evaluations (i.e. the sum of the number of active evaluations and the number of "unrated" items that have exceeded the time limit). d) The "negative evaluation\reply rate R" is calculated according to formula (B.4). R
Where:
The "negative evaluation" reply rate;
N. The number of negative evaluations that have been replied;
The total number of negative evaluations.
e) The “bad review” follow-up rectification rate R is calculated according to formula (B.5). R
Where:
R2———“bad review” follow-up rectification rate; the number of bad reviews that have been rectified after follow-up; N
Total number of valid bad reviews.
X100%
X100%
rKaeerKAca-
B.1)
（B.2）
（B.3)
（B.4)
+.（B.5)
GB/T39734—20 20
The satisfaction rate of follow-up rectification of “bad reviews” R is calculated according to formula (B.6): N
X100%
Where:
R.——Satisfaction rate of follow-up rectification of “bad reviews”; N The number of cases that were satisfied with the rectification results after follow-up; N The number of bad reviews that have been rectified after follow-up
rKaeerkAca-
(B.6)
References
GB/T39734—2020
【1］National NPC Standing Committee. Administrative Licensing Law of the People's Republic of China (Order No. 7 of the President of the People's Republic of China) [2] Office of the Leading Group for Administrative Approval System Reform of the State Council, National Standardization Administration. Notice of the State Council Approval Reform Office and the National Standardization Administration on Promoting Administrative Licensing Standardization (Approval Reform Office [2016] No. 4) [3] General Office of the CPC Central Committee and General Office of the State Council. Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Convenience of Approval Services [4] General Office of the State Council. Construction Plan for the Government Service "Good and Bad Reviews" System of the National Integrated Online Government Service Platform (State Council Office of the State Council Letter [2019] No. 242
[5] General Office of the State Council. Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Establishing a Government Service "Good and Bad Reviews" System to Improve the Level of Government Service (State Council Office of the State Council Letter [2019] No. 51)
[6] General Office of the State Council. Notice on Conducting a Third-Party Survey and Evaluation of the Integrated Government Service Capacity (Government Service "Good and Bad Reviews") of Provincial Governments in 2020 (State Council Office of the State Council Letter [2020790]) -iiKaeerkAca
Tip: This standard content only shows part of the intercepted content of the complete standard. If you need the complete standard, please go to the top to download the complete standard document for free.