# Enterprise Management Model Innovation and Performance Index Evaluation Based on the Era of Big Data

Authors: Yun Xie
Journal: Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

The innovation of enterprise management model has increasingly become one of the important sources of competitive advantage for enterprises. At present, the market environment is changing rapidly, and information technology is changing the nature and structure of enterprise competition. In the competitive landscape of enterprises under the background of network economy, only relying on technological innovation can no longer meet the needs of enterprise development. In recent years, the successful practice of a large number of enterprises has shown that the innovation of enterprise management mode is also an indispensable and important factor to promote the sustainable development of enterprises. In the new format of competition among enterprises, the innovation of enterprise management mode is playing an important role. Scholars have very rich research contents on the innovation of enterprise management model. First, they focus on the research between the innovation of enterprise management model and the value creation of enterprises. They believe that determining the structure of new business and innovation of enterprise management model can create value for enterprises. The innovation of enterprise management model can effectively explain the differences in enterprise performance; secondly, the research of enterprise management model innovation has been extended to its classification research; that is, different types of enterprise management model innovation have different effects on performance; finally, in the existing research, in this paper, some progress has been made in the exploration of the mediating variables between enterprise management model innovation and performance. The example verification shows that the performance of the momentum-adaptive algorithm is the best. Using the BP network model can effectively evaluate the innovation of enterprise management mode and performance indicators, so as to guide the implementation of enterprise management mode innovation activities. Although this paper has made some innovative achievements, there are still many limitations and deficiencies in the research. The depth of literature search, the breadth of data measurement collection, and the subjectivity of questionnaires will affect the accuracy of the results. The practicality of the research results needs to be further improved in the follow-up research.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Dataization and informatization integrate various types of things such as equipment, people, and enterprises, thus forming the operating form and framework of the network economy [1]. In the context of the new economy, there is both cooperation and competition among enterprises, and the competition form has gradually evolved from individual competition to competition in the entire transaction network. The process of value creation also shows that the behavior of a single enterprise evolves into a network of enterprise members and collaborative activities [2].With the rapid development of big data and the Internet of Things, along with the gradual integration of the consumer Internet and the industrial Internet, the traditional enterprise management model will be completely subverted, and the industry competition rules will be completely changed [3]. Therefore, under the new economy, the continuous innovation of enterprise management model has become an important rule to obtain sustainable competitive advantage [4].The long-term goal of an enterprise should be to maximize enterprise value, and the process of value creation in the traditional economy is entirely from the efforts of the enterprise itself [5]. The rapid development of information technology and network has brought about profound changes in the process of enterprise value creation and realization. There are three aspects to the concept of network value creation: first, the enterprise value creation originates from the internal; secondly, the competitors backlash against the value and the value creation assisted by the partners; and thirdly, the value creation will be affected by the supplier’s assistance and the customer’s bargaining [6]. Obviously, this is a cross-border operation system, including the collaborative activities of the enterprise itself, partners, and customers. Information technology and the Internet economy make the above-mentioned value creation process possible [7].New communication and computing technologies and the establishment of an open global trading system mean that customers have more choices and diverse customer needs can find diverse expressions and provide more transparent alternatives [8].The store model is the initial form of the enterprise management model, that is, opening stores in places where consumers are concentrated [9]. Fedex’s “centralized network operation mode” and Dell’s “customized + direct” enterprise management mode. However, fundamentally speaking, its profit model still does not deviate from the essence of the traditional model [10].The traditional enterprise management has been developed for hundreds of years, and the enterprise management mode of production-agent-retail-customer has been maintained [11]. Businesses are profitable and profitable, and their value creation process can continue. As shown in Figure 1, what followed was a backlog of products, an increase in inventory, and an increase in storage costs, which eventually led to a break in the company’s cash flow, making it unsustainable for the company to operate [12].Figure 1
Fuzzy controller.The innovation of enterprise management model in various industries is showing diversification, appearing one after another in various forms [13]. Since the innovation of enterprise management mode provides new paths and possibilities for enterprise development, new enterprise management modes will inevitably emerge one after another in the future enterprise competition [14].The accelerating process of globalization has made market competition ruthless. With the continuous emergence of innovative products, there are many examples of corporate management giants failing miserably, resulting in the disappearance of their former glory. But as the changes continue to accelerate, some dazzling superstars have been born [15]. These business miracles have sparked a lot of thinking from practitioners and scholars [16]. The innovation of enterprise management mode can effectively improve the consumption and purchase experience of customers and then bring greater benefits to the enterprise itself [17]. The development of technology always precedes the birth of enterprise management model innovation, because the enterprise management model innovation needs to conform to the development situation of society, economy, and culture in order to play its due role [18].The enterprise management model has gradually stabilized, and its position in the entire transaction network and the way of interaction with other transaction parties are also gradually fixed [19]. Customer preferences, market orientation, and policy changes are changing all the time, and even the entire ecological structure of the enterprise will change. If incumbent companies are greedy for the existing success and inherent stable model, they will be overtaken by latecomers and lose their former glory [20].Even if there are good products and technologies, they have not found a suitable enterprise management model innovation. Therefore, the innovation of enterprise management mode and the rapid replication of successful enterprise management mode will be a normal state of enterprise competition. In order to gain the recognition of customers and create value for customers continuously, an enterprise must continuously innovate its management model [21].


## 2. State of the Art

### 2.1. Research Status of Enterprise Management Model Innovation

Generally speaking, compared to other businesses, the capital required to operate a service in a service enterprise is relatively low. Platform companies license their technology to other pharmaceutical or biotech-advanced companies. The advantage of this type of business is that the nature of their development is very stable and cumulative. This means that most of these techniques have broad applicability, and the number of application areas can be extended over time. Enterprises that adopt the product enterprise management model innovation take drug development as their main activity, and such enterprises can be divided into early and late-stage drug development enterprises, mainly depending on the stage of their product development. The products of early-stage development companies have reached clinical trial stage I/II, and the products of late-stage drug development have reached at least stage III clinical trials. Therefore, there are three possible modes: hybrid service and product mode, hybrid platform and product mode, and hybrid service and platform mode.Yuan Lei (2007) proposed the “3-4-8” composition system of enterprise management model innovation. Yuan Lei (2009) proposed that the innovation of enterprise management mode of retail enterprises can be divided into three types: enterprise management mode that seeks profit from customer value, enterprise management mode that seeks profit from partner value, and enterprise management mode that seeks profit from enterprise value. Wikström et al. (2009) took product-driven, innovation and technology-driven, profit-driven, and service-driven as the basic types of enterprise management model innovation.Morris, Shirokova, and Shatalow (2013) took Russian food service enterprises as a sample, identified seven innovations in enterprise management models in this industry, and pointed out the relationship between them and performance.Saeb and Foss (2014) divided enterprise management model innovation into four categories: efficiency-oriented, user-centric, cooperation-oriented, and open platform. Rasmussen and Foss (2014) took the pharmaceutical industry as a sample and distinguished three types of enterprise management modes: traditional mode, service mode, and intermediate mode.After sorting out and analyzing the literature, this study found that the classification and characterization of the innovation classification of enterprise management model by researchers are related to the business model of the enterprise and different economic environments and situations. Among all the classifications, two types of enterprise management model innovations, efficiency and novelty (Zott & Amit, 2007), can best reflect the structure of enterprise management models. The nature of the elements.


### 2.2. Research Status of Enterprise Performance Evaluation

The domestic research on enterprise performance evaluation started relatively late, and two research trajectories have formed: one is the construction of a government-led state-owned enterprise performance evaluation system. The five-star relationship table of the performance assessment of enterprises is shown in Figure2.Figure 2
Five-star chart of performance appraisal.The Chinese government has successively The enterprise performance evaluation system has been revised and improved several times, and the evaluation idea has also developed from the initial evaluation of “growth rate” and “economic benefits” to evaluation of “operational performance” and “comprehensive performance.” There are 4 items of operation status, solvency status, and development capacity status. These 4 items are composed of 3 levels of basic indicators, revised indicators and expert evaluation indicators, and a total of 32 indicators. Improve the level of return on capital, and correctly guide the business behavior of enterprises.The research on enterprise performance evaluation conducted by scholars has mostly introduced and borrowed foreign evaluation theories, and on this basis, they have carried out research innovations in theory and application, such as Shi Jiafang, Liu Qiaoqin, Yan Mei, and Yan Zhigang, and many other scholars have published relevant academic research results.The fuzzy neural network structure can be used in the enterprise performance evaluation aspect, and the operation diagram of this structure is shown in Figure3. On the whole, domestic research on enterprise performance evaluation has made certain achievements, but there are still some deficiencies: (1) In terms of timeliness, the existing enterprise performance evaluation system is past-oriented and single, mainly for enterprises that have already The economic business that has occurred is confirmed after the fact. (2) In terms of index setting, the evaluation index is still mainly based on financial indicators, and there is a lack of non-financial performance indicators such as customer satisfaction, market share, basic management level, development strategy, social impact, and ecological environment impact. (3) In terms of analysis methods, there is no original evaluation method, which is mostly limited to the improvement of foreign performance evaluation methods, and has not formed an overall performance evaluation theoretical system.Figure 3
Fuzzy neural network structure.


## 2.1. Research Status of Enterprise Management Model Innovation

Generally speaking, compared to other businesses, the capital required to operate a service in a service enterprise is relatively low. Platform companies license their technology to other pharmaceutical or biotech-advanced companies. The advantage of this type of business is that the nature of their development is very stable and cumulative. This means that most of these techniques have broad applicability, and the number of application areas can be extended over time. Enterprises that adopt the product enterprise management model innovation take drug development as their main activity, and such enterprises can be divided into early and late-stage drug development enterprises, mainly depending on the stage of their product development. The products of early-stage development companies have reached clinical trial stage I/II, and the products of late-stage drug development have reached at least stage III clinical trials. Therefore, there are three possible modes: hybrid service and product mode, hybrid platform and product mode, and hybrid service and platform mode.Yuan Lei (2007) proposed the “3-4-8” composition system of enterprise management model innovation. Yuan Lei (2009) proposed that the innovation of enterprise management mode of retail enterprises can be divided into three types: enterprise management mode that seeks profit from customer value, enterprise management mode that seeks profit from partner value, and enterprise management mode that seeks profit from enterprise value. Wikström et al. (2009) took product-driven, innovation and technology-driven, profit-driven, and service-driven as the basic types of enterprise management model innovation.Morris, Shirokova, and Shatalow (2013) took Russian food service enterprises as a sample, identified seven innovations in enterprise management models in this industry, and pointed out the relationship between them and performance.Saeb and Foss (2014) divided enterprise management model innovation into four categories: efficiency-oriented, user-centric, cooperation-oriented, and open platform. Rasmussen and Foss (2014) took the pharmaceutical industry as a sample and distinguished three types of enterprise management modes: traditional mode, service mode, and intermediate mode.After sorting out and analyzing the literature, this study found that the classification and characterization of the innovation classification of enterprise management model by researchers are related to the business model of the enterprise and different economic environments and situations. Among all the classifications, two types of enterprise management model innovations, efficiency and novelty (Zott & Amit, 2007), can best reflect the structure of enterprise management models. The nature of the elements.


## 2.2. Research Status of Enterprise Performance Evaluation

The domestic research on enterprise performance evaluation started relatively late, and two research trajectories have formed: one is the construction of a government-led state-owned enterprise performance evaluation system. The five-star relationship table of the performance assessment of enterprises is shown in Figure2.Figure 2
Five-star chart of performance appraisal.The Chinese government has successively The enterprise performance evaluation system has been revised and improved several times, and the evaluation idea has also developed from the initial evaluation of “growth rate” and “economic benefits” to evaluation of “operational performance” and “comprehensive performance.” There are 4 items of operation status, solvency status, and development capacity status. These 4 items are composed of 3 levels of basic indicators, revised indicators and expert evaluation indicators, and a total of 32 indicators. Improve the level of return on capital, and correctly guide the business behavior of enterprises.The research on enterprise performance evaluation conducted by scholars has mostly introduced and borrowed foreign evaluation theories, and on this basis, they have carried out research innovations in theory and application, such as Shi Jiafang, Liu Qiaoqin, Yan Mei, and Yan Zhigang, and many other scholars have published relevant academic research results.The fuzzy neural network structure can be used in the enterprise performance evaluation aspect, and the operation diagram of this structure is shown in Figure3. On the whole, domestic research on enterprise performance evaluation has made certain achievements, but there are still some deficiencies: (1) In terms of timeliness, the existing enterprise performance evaluation system is past-oriented and single, mainly for enterprises that have already The economic business that has occurred is confirmed after the fact. (2) In terms of index setting, the evaluation index is still mainly based on financial indicators, and there is a lack of non-financial performance indicators such as customer satisfaction, market share, basic management level, development strategy, social impact, and ecological environment impact. (3) In terms of analysis methods, there is no original evaluation method, which is mostly limited to the improvement of foreign performance evaluation methods, and has not formed an overall performance evaluation theoretical system.Figure 3
Fuzzy neural network structure.


## 3. Methodology

### 3.1. Additional Momentum Term Algorithm

The standard BP algorithm only adjusts according to the gradient descent direction of the error at a certain moment and lacks the consideration of the gradient direction before this moment. Therefore, fluctuations often occur in the process of weight adjustment, and the convergence speed is slow. The additional momentum term takes into account the weights after the last correction, and has a damping effect on the weight adjustment at this time, preventing the network from falling into a local minimum point. On the basis of the weight change formula, add a factor proportional to the last weight change, namely:(1)Δωjkn=αΔωjkn−1+ηδkonyjn=αΔωjkn−1−η∂En∂ωjkn,where α is the momentum term, which is generally a positive number, which determines the impact of the last weight change on the current weight change.


### 3.2. Adaptive Learning Rate Algorithm

The inappropriate learning rate is one of the important reasons for the slow convergence of the standard BP algorithm. Due to the complexity and randomness of the network error, the error surface corresponding to the weight change will have different characteristics in different intervals. Some places are relatively flat, and the gradient of the error changes is small. If the step size is chosen to be a definite constant, it cannot be the optimal learning rate all the time. If the learning rate is too large, the network is prone to oscillation or even divergence during the training process, and the system is unstable. At this time, the learning rate is required to be small enough; if the learning rate is too small, the convergence process will be very slow, and it is required to increase the learning rate. This problem can be solved by the adaptive learning rate method. The basic idea is to increaseη and shorten the learning time when learning converges, and reduce η in time when η is too large to converge. The rules for adaptive learning rate are as follows:On the entire training set of the neural network, if the error functionE increases after the weight adjustment and exceeds a predetermined percentage μ (generally 1% to 5%), the weight adjustment is cancelled, and the learning rate η is multiplied by with the factor ρ (0 < ρ <1), and the additional momentum term (i.e., α=0) is cancelled at the same time. Usually μ=4%, ρ=0.7. If the error function E decreases after the weight adjustment, the adjusted weight is accepted, the learning rate η is multiplied by the factor ρ (ρ>1), and the accessory momentum term is restored (i.e., α≠0); if the error functionEincreases less thanμ, the learning rateηremains unchanged and the additional momentum term (α≠0) is restored. The above rule can be expressed by the following equation:
(2)ηk+1=aηkEk+1<EkηkEk<Ek+1<Ek×1.04bηkEk+1>Ek×1.04,where η is the learning rate, k is the number of training times, and E is the error function. Generally, take a=1.05, b=0.7. The selection range of the initial learning rate η0 can be more arbitrary. The adaptive learning rate method can enable the network to learn at an acceptable maximum rate, so that the convergence speed of the network can be effectively improved.


### 3.3. Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) Algorithm

The most prominent problem of the BP algorithm is the problem of convergence speed. The convergence speed of standard BP algorithm is too slow and even loses practical value. The LM algorithm is a standard nonlinear least squares optimization algorithm, which converges 10-100 times faster than the ordinary BP algorithm. Its basic idea is to allow each iteration of the error to search in the direction of deterioration, rather than along a single negative gradient direction, while making the weights of the network adaptively adjusted between the gradient descent method and the Gauss-Newton method, improving the convergence speed of the network. Let the error function be:(3)Eω=12∑i=1nei2ω=12eTωeω.Among them,(4)eTω=e1,e2,⋯,en,where wk represents the weight and threshold vector of the k-th iteration, then:
(5)ωk+1=ωk+Δω.Newton’s algorithm adjusts the size of the weights according to the second-order derivative information and expands the error functionEwaccording to the second-order Taylor formula to obtain:
(6)Eωk+1≈Eωk+gTkΔωk+12ΔωTkAkΔωk,where gTk is the gradient vector of Ew, Ak is the Hessian matrix of Ew, and its element value is the second derivative of Ew to each weight; that is, Ak=∂2Ew/∂wi∂wj, the weight. The corrected error function change is:
(7)ΔEk=gTkΔωk+12ΔωTkAkΔωk.In order to obtain the minimum value of the above formulaΔEk, it is necessary to satisfy:
(8)Δωk=−A−1kgk.This is the basic principle of Newton’s method, namely:(9)Δωk=−∇2Eω−1⋅∇Eω,where ▽Ewrepresents the gradient vector and ▽2Ewrepresents the Hessian matrix of the error function Ew.The gradient ofEw is:
(10)∇Eω=∑i=1neiω∂eiω∂ω=JTωeω.In the formula,(11)JTω=∂e1ω∂ω1∂e1ω∂ω2⋯∂e1ω∂ωn∂e2ω∂ω1∂e2ω∂ω2⋯∂e2ω∂ωn⋮⋮⋱⋮∂enω∂ω1∂enω∂ω2⋯∂enω∂ωn,is the Jacobian matrix.
(12)∇2Eω=JTω⋅Jω+Sω,where Sω=∑i=1neiω⋅∇2eiω,∇2eiω is the Hessian matrix of eiw.WhenSw≈0 near the extreme point, it can be modified to Gauss-Newton method:
(13)Δω=‐JTω⋅Jω−1⋅Jω⋅Eω.The LM algorithm adjusts the Gauss-Newton method again, and the adjusted weight rules are:(14)Δω=‐JTω⋅Jω+μI−1⋅Jω⋅Eω,where w is the adjustment increment of the weight and threshold vector, e is the error vector, J is the Jacobian matrix of the error to the weight threshold, μ is a scalar, and I is the identity matrix. During the learning process, the value of μ determines the properties of the learning algorithm. If the value of μ increases, the learning process is mainly based on the gradient descent method with a small learning rate; if the value of μ decreases to 0, the learning algorithm becomes the Gauss-Newton method. Since the matrixJTJ+μIis ​​positive definite equation (14).The solution always exists. The LM algorithm smoothly reconciles between the gradient descent method and the Gauss-Newton method. If the expected error is met, the maximum number of training times is reached, or if the μ reaches the maximum value, the network stops training. The LM method requires approximate calculation of the Hessian matrix, which requires a large amount of computation and storage, and is suitable for smaller networks.


## 3.1. Additional Momentum Term Algorithm

The standard BP algorithm only adjusts according to the gradient descent direction of the error at a certain moment and lacks the consideration of the gradient direction before this moment. Therefore, fluctuations often occur in the process of weight adjustment, and the convergence speed is slow. The additional momentum term takes into account the weights after the last correction, and has a damping effect on the weight adjustment at this time, preventing the network from falling into a local minimum point. On the basis of the weight change formula, add a factor proportional to the last weight change, namely:(1)Δωjkn=αΔωjkn−1+ηδkonyjn=αΔωjkn−1−η∂En∂ωjkn,where α is the momentum term, which is generally a positive number, which determines the impact of the last weight change on the current weight change.


## 3.2. Adaptive Learning Rate Algorithm

The inappropriate learning rate is one of the important reasons for the slow convergence of the standard BP algorithm. Due to the complexity and randomness of the network error, the error surface corresponding to the weight change will have different characteristics in different intervals. Some places are relatively flat, and the gradient of the error changes is small. If the step size is chosen to be a definite constant, it cannot be the optimal learning rate all the time. If the learning rate is too large, the network is prone to oscillation or even divergence during the training process, and the system is unstable. At this time, the learning rate is required to be small enough; if the learning rate is too small, the convergence process will be very slow, and it is required to increase the learning rate. This problem can be solved by the adaptive learning rate method. The basic idea is to increaseη and shorten the learning time when learning converges, and reduce η in time when η is too large to converge. The rules for adaptive learning rate are as follows:On the entire training set of the neural network, if the error functionE increases after the weight adjustment and exceeds a predetermined percentage μ (generally 1% to 5%), the weight adjustment is cancelled, and the learning rate η is multiplied by with the factor ρ (0 < ρ <1), and the additional momentum term (i.e., α=0) is cancelled at the same time. Usually μ=4%, ρ=0.7. If the error function E decreases after the weight adjustment, the adjusted weight is accepted, the learning rate η is multiplied by the factor ρ (ρ>1), and the accessory momentum term is restored (i.e., α≠0); if the error functionEincreases less thanμ, the learning rateηremains unchanged and the additional momentum term (α≠0) is restored. The above rule can be expressed by the following equation:
(2)ηk+1=aηkEk+1<EkηkEk<Ek+1<Ek×1.04bηkEk+1>Ek×1.04,where η is the learning rate, k is the number of training times, and E is the error function. Generally, take a=1.05, b=0.7. The selection range of the initial learning rate η0 can be more arbitrary. The adaptive learning rate method can enable the network to learn at an acceptable maximum rate, so that the convergence speed of the network can be effectively improved.


## 3.3. Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) Algorithm

The most prominent problem of the BP algorithm is the problem of convergence speed. The convergence speed of standard BP algorithm is too slow and even loses practical value. The LM algorithm is a standard nonlinear least squares optimization algorithm, which converges 10-100 times faster than the ordinary BP algorithm. Its basic idea is to allow each iteration of the error to search in the direction of deterioration, rather than along a single negative gradient direction, while making the weights of the network adaptively adjusted between the gradient descent method and the Gauss-Newton method, improving the convergence speed of the network. Let the error function be:(3)Eω=12∑i=1nei2ω=12eTωeω.Among them,(4)eTω=e1,e2,⋯,en,where wk represents the weight and threshold vector of the k-th iteration, then:
(5)ωk+1=ωk+Δω.Newton’s algorithm adjusts the size of the weights according to the second-order derivative information and expands the error functionEwaccording to the second-order Taylor formula to obtain:
(6)Eωk+1≈Eωk+gTkΔωk+12ΔωTkAkΔωk,where gTk is the gradient vector of Ew, Ak is the Hessian matrix of Ew, and its element value is the second derivative of Ew to each weight; that is, Ak=∂2Ew/∂wi∂wj, the weight. The corrected error function change is:
(7)ΔEk=gTkΔωk+12ΔωTkAkΔωk.In order to obtain the minimum value of the above formulaΔEk, it is necessary to satisfy:
(8)Δωk=−A−1kgk.This is the basic principle of Newton’s method, namely:(9)Δωk=−∇2Eω−1⋅∇Eω,where ▽Ewrepresents the gradient vector and ▽2Ewrepresents the Hessian matrix of the error function Ew.The gradient ofEw is:
(10)∇Eω=∑i=1neiω∂eiω∂ω=JTωeω.In the formula,(11)JTω=∂e1ω∂ω1∂e1ω∂ω2⋯∂e1ω∂ωn∂e2ω∂ω1∂e2ω∂ω2⋯∂e2ω∂ωn⋮⋮⋱⋮∂enω∂ω1∂enω∂ω2⋯∂enω∂ωn,is the Jacobian matrix.
(12)∇2Eω=JTω⋅Jω+Sω,where Sω=∑i=1neiω⋅∇2eiω,∇2eiω is the Hessian matrix of eiw.WhenSw≈0 near the extreme point, it can be modified to Gauss-Newton method:
(13)Δω=‐JTω⋅Jω−1⋅Jω⋅Eω.The LM algorithm adjusts the Gauss-Newton method again, and the adjusted weight rules are:(14)Δω=‐JTω⋅Jω+μI−1⋅Jω⋅Eω,where w is the adjustment increment of the weight and threshold vector, e is the error vector, J is the Jacobian matrix of the error to the weight threshold, μ is a scalar, and I is the identity matrix. During the learning process, the value of μ determines the properties of the learning algorithm. If the value of μ increases, the learning process is mainly based on the gradient descent method with a small learning rate; if the value of μ decreases to 0, the learning algorithm becomes the Gauss-Newton method. Since the matrixJTJ+μIis ​​positive definite equation (14).The solution always exists. The LM algorithm smoothly reconciles between the gradient descent method and the Gauss-Newton method. If the expected error is met, the maximum number of training times is reached, or if the μ reaches the maximum value, the network stops training. The LM method requires approximate calculation of the Hessian matrix, which requires a large amount of computation and storage, and is suitable for smaller networks.


## 4. Result Analysis and Discussion

It can be seen from the results of the 7 experiments that the mean square error of the first training is the smallest, and the average absolute error and relative error of the second training are small, but the step size is too large. Therefore, the BP neural network of this enterprise knowledge management performance evaluation adopts the network of the first training. The training error performance curve of the network is shown in Figure4. It can be seen that after 438 times of learning, the network has converged.Figure 4
Training error performance curve of momentum-adaptive algorithm.The topology of the network is 20-8-1 with 785 iterations per training. The requirement of error target goal = 0.001 is reached. The network training change curve is shown in Figure5.Figure 5
Graph of network training change.The prediction model output by the neural network training sample model after the index data reduction is shown in Figure6.Figure 6
The output prediction curve of the network model.


### 4.1. Reliability and Validity Test Results

#### 4.1.1. Enterprise Management Model Innovation Scale

The enterprise management model innovation scale contains two dimensions: the efficient enterprise management model innovation and the novel enterprise management model innovation. There are 16 items on the scale of enterprise management model innovation. This paper uses the Likert 5-level score as the scoring standard for the scale assignment. The scale is composed of a group of statements. Each statement has five responses, namely, “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not necessarily,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree,” which are recorded as 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The total score of each respondent’s attitude is the sum of his answers to each question. This total score can explain his attitude or his different status on the scale. The degree of matching with the real situation of the enterprise is expressed in order from 1 to 5, as shown in Table1.Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA12.850.917A23.050.809A33.170.985A42.560.873A52.790.861A63.121.015A73.171.101Novel enterprise management model innovationA83.010.813A92.730.923A103.370.926A113.310.810A123.030.901A132.810.892A143.070.814A153.260.961A162.980.911This method can find out a few key indicators among a large number of indicators, so that researchers can understand and analyze the data more accurately, and can also understand the relationship between variables and factors more clearly and clearly, so this method has been obtained, which has been unanimously favored by the majority of researchers.Since the factor loading results of the 16 items of enterprise management model innovation are all higher than the value of 0.5, the items A1-A16 in the scale are all suitable for measuring enterprise management model innovation. Through the test, the KMO value is 0.820, which is above 0.7, which meets the requirements of factor analysis, and the Bartlett sphericity test shows significance. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of the factor variance is 62.221% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark value above 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Two factors are identified, as shown in Table2:Table 2
Analysis of innovation factors of enterprise management model.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.585A20.765A30.651A40.705A50.672A60.718A70.573Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.523A90.751A100.565A110.702A120.742A130.758A140.742A150.505A160.577This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single project of enterprise management model innovation to all projects is greater than 0.35, and thea value of the excluded index is smaller than the “a value of the overall factor” and all projects The Cronbach’s value of Cronbach’s is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the scale of enterprise management model innovation meet the requirements, no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table 3 for details).Table 3
Reliability analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.4650.7100.798A20.5370.596A30.6420.637A40.6480.689A50.5570.584A60.5860.700A70.6000.631Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.5210.6850.715A90.6010.703A100.6240.618A110.5990.580A120.2050.568A130.5740.610A140.2010.528A150.5960.620A160.6580.699According to the combination of measurement items in the scale and the tendency of its prediction range, it can be concluded that the two factors should be named as the innovation of efficient enterprise management mode and the innovation of novel enterprise management mode. Validity analysis shows that the validity of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is satisfactory.We take the first 16 groups of data as training samples, the last 4 groups of data as test samples for the system, and the expected error of the network is 0.001. After 785 times of training, input the 4 sets of data as test samples into the trained network, and get the training results, the actual evaluation value, and the error. The comparison chart between the test results and the expert evaluation value is drawn as shown in Figure7.Figure 7
Comparison of RS-BP test results and expert evaluation values.


#### 4.1.2. Enterprise Performance Scale

The items of the enterprise performance scale include short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. Considering the time lag in the implementation effect of enterprise management model innovation, this study divides enterprise performance into two dimensions: short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. In this paper, the Likert 5-level scoring method is used in the assignment of measurement items. D1-D11 implies short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. The conclusions of factor analysis can show whether the expected design results can be verified. The scale of enterprise performance, the minimum value of the questionnaire respondents’ evaluation is 1, and the maximum value is 5 (see Table4 for details).Table 4
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD12.550.894D22.790.901D32.990.789D43.540.903D53.320.888Long-term market performanceD63.571.055D73.170.894D83.050.964D93.020.843D103.210.900D112.350.793The factor analysis of the enterprise performance scale shows that the KMO value is higher than 0.7, and the Bartlett sphericity test is required to show significance to meet the requirements of factor analysis. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of factor variance can be 61.545% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark of 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Factors were identified (see Table5 for details).Table 5
Analysis of enterprise performance factors.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.724D20.730D30.506D40.598D50.555Long-term market performanceD60.665D70.508D80.507D90.755D100.598D110.605This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single item of the institutional environment to all items is greater than 0.35, and the index is excluded. “a value” should be small, and the Cronbach’s a value of all items is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the enterprise performance scale meet the requirements, and there is no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the enterprise performance scale is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table6 for details).Table 6
Reliability analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.5610.6780.765D20.5010.690D30.4910.641D40.6780.701D50.6420.704Long-term market performanceD60.6660.7110.721D70.6800.707D80.5690.666D90.5400.670D100.5710.681D110.5550.700Through the analysis of the above data, it is found that the two dimensions of enterprise performance can be clearly reflected under the retained enterprise performance items and can accurately represent their meanings. It can be seen that the evaluation results of the RS-BP network neural model and the unknown-AHM model are basically the same, but the difference between the two errors for each test sample is obvious. The fitting effect of the unconfirmed training samples is shown in Figure8. It can be seen that although the unconfirmed-AHM has reached a high training accuracy, the test error of the unconfirmed-AHM is significantly higher than that of the RS-BP. It shows that the unsure AHM cannot guarantee a good generalization ability even if the training achieves a high accuracy; that is, the phenomenon of overlearning occurs.Figure 8
Comparison of unconfirmed-AHM test results and expert evaluation values.


## 4.1. Reliability and Validity Test Results

### 4.1.1. Enterprise Management Model Innovation Scale

The enterprise management model innovation scale contains two dimensions: the efficient enterprise management model innovation and the novel enterprise management model innovation. There are 16 items on the scale of enterprise management model innovation. This paper uses the Likert 5-level score as the scoring standard for the scale assignment. The scale is composed of a group of statements. Each statement has five responses, namely, “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not necessarily,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree,” which are recorded as 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The total score of each respondent’s attitude is the sum of his answers to each question. This total score can explain his attitude or his different status on the scale. The degree of matching with the real situation of the enterprise is expressed in order from 1 to 5, as shown in Table1.Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA12.850.917A23.050.809A33.170.985A42.560.873A52.790.861A63.121.015A73.171.101Novel enterprise management model innovationA83.010.813A92.730.923A103.370.926A113.310.810A123.030.901A132.810.892A143.070.814A153.260.961A162.980.911This method can find out a few key indicators among a large number of indicators, so that researchers can understand and analyze the data more accurately, and can also understand the relationship between variables and factors more clearly and clearly, so this method has been obtained, which has been unanimously favored by the majority of researchers.Since the factor loading results of the 16 items of enterprise management model innovation are all higher than the value of 0.5, the items A1-A16 in the scale are all suitable for measuring enterprise management model innovation. Through the test, the KMO value is 0.820, which is above 0.7, which meets the requirements of factor analysis, and the Bartlett sphericity test shows significance. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of the factor variance is 62.221% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark value above 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Two factors are identified, as shown in Table2:Table 2
Analysis of innovation factors of enterprise management model.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.585A20.765A30.651A40.705A50.672A60.718A70.573Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.523A90.751A100.565A110.702A120.742A130.758A140.742A150.505A160.577This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single project of enterprise management model innovation to all projects is greater than 0.35, and thea value of the excluded index is smaller than the “a value of the overall factor” and all projects The Cronbach’s value of Cronbach’s is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the scale of enterprise management model innovation meet the requirements, no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table 3 for details).Table 3
Reliability analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.4650.7100.798A20.5370.596A30.6420.637A40.6480.689A50.5570.584A60.5860.700A70.6000.631Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.5210.6850.715A90.6010.703A100.6240.618A110.5990.580A120.2050.568A130.5740.610A140.2010.528A150.5960.620A160.6580.699According to the combination of measurement items in the scale and the tendency of its prediction range, it can be concluded that the two factors should be named as the innovation of efficient enterprise management mode and the innovation of novel enterprise management mode. Validity analysis shows that the validity of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is satisfactory.We take the first 16 groups of data as training samples, the last 4 groups of data as test samples for the system, and the expected error of the network is 0.001. After 785 times of training, input the 4 sets of data as test samples into the trained network, and get the training results, the actual evaluation value, and the error. The comparison chart between the test results and the expert evaluation value is drawn as shown in Figure7.Figure 7
Comparison of RS-BP test results and expert evaluation values.


### 4.1.2. Enterprise Performance Scale

The items of the enterprise performance scale include short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. Considering the time lag in the implementation effect of enterprise management model innovation, this study divides enterprise performance into two dimensions: short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. In this paper, the Likert 5-level scoring method is used in the assignment of measurement items. D1-D11 implies short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. The conclusions of factor analysis can show whether the expected design results can be verified. The scale of enterprise performance, the minimum value of the questionnaire respondents’ evaluation is 1, and the maximum value is 5 (see Table4 for details).Table 4
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD12.550.894D22.790.901D32.990.789D43.540.903D53.320.888Long-term market performanceD63.571.055D73.170.894D83.050.964D93.020.843D103.210.900D112.350.793The factor analysis of the enterprise performance scale shows that the KMO value is higher than 0.7, and the Bartlett sphericity test is required to show significance to meet the requirements of factor analysis. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of factor variance can be 61.545% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark of 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Factors were identified (see Table5 for details).Table 5
Analysis of enterprise performance factors.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.724D20.730D30.506D40.598D50.555Long-term market performanceD60.665D70.508D80.507D90.755D100.598D110.605This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single item of the institutional environment to all items is greater than 0.35, and the index is excluded. “a value” should be small, and the Cronbach’s a value of all items is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the enterprise performance scale meet the requirements, and there is no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the enterprise performance scale is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table6 for details).Table 6
Reliability analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.5610.6780.765D20.5010.690D30.4910.641D40.6780.701D50.6420.704Long-term market performanceD60.6660.7110.721D70.6800.707D80.5690.666D90.5400.670D100.5710.681D110.5550.700Through the analysis of the above data, it is found that the two dimensions of enterprise performance can be clearly reflected under the retained enterprise performance items and can accurately represent their meanings. It can be seen that the evaluation results of the RS-BP network neural model and the unknown-AHM model are basically the same, but the difference between the two errors for each test sample is obvious. The fitting effect of the unconfirmed training samples is shown in Figure8. It can be seen that although the unconfirmed-AHM has reached a high training accuracy, the test error of the unconfirmed-AHM is significantly higher than that of the RS-BP. It shows that the unsure AHM cannot guarantee a good generalization ability even if the training achieves a high accuracy; that is, the phenomenon of overlearning occurs.Figure 8
Comparison of unconfirmed-AHM test results and expert evaluation values.


## 4.1.1. Enterprise Management Model Innovation Scale

The enterprise management model innovation scale contains two dimensions: the efficient enterprise management model innovation and the novel enterprise management model innovation. There are 16 items on the scale of enterprise management model innovation. This paper uses the Likert 5-level score as the scoring standard for the scale assignment. The scale is composed of a group of statements. Each statement has five responses, namely, “strongly agree,” “agree,” “not necessarily,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree,” which are recorded as 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The total score of each respondent’s attitude is the sum of his answers to each question. This total score can explain his attitude or his different status on the scale. The degree of matching with the real situation of the enterprise is expressed in order from 1 to 5, as shown in Table1.Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA12.850.917A23.050.809A33.170.985A42.560.873A52.790.861A63.121.015A73.171.101Novel enterprise management model innovationA83.010.813A92.730.923A103.370.926A113.310.810A123.030.901A132.810.892A143.070.814A153.260.961A162.980.911This method can find out a few key indicators among a large number of indicators, so that researchers can understand and analyze the data more accurately, and can also understand the relationship between variables and factors more clearly and clearly, so this method has been obtained, which has been unanimously favored by the majority of researchers.Since the factor loading results of the 16 items of enterprise management model innovation are all higher than the value of 0.5, the items A1-A16 in the scale are all suitable for measuring enterprise management model innovation. Through the test, the KMO value is 0.820, which is above 0.7, which meets the requirements of factor analysis, and the Bartlett sphericity test shows significance. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of the factor variance is 62.221% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark value above 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Two factors are identified, as shown in Table2:Table 2
Analysis of innovation factors of enterprise management model.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.585A20.765A30.651A40.705A50.672A60.718A70.573Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.523A90.751A100.565A110.702A120.742A130.758A140.742A150.505A160.577This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single project of enterprise management model innovation to all projects is greater than 0.35, and thea value of the excluded index is smaller than the “a value of the overall factor” and all projects The Cronbach’s value of Cronbach’s is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the scale of enterprise management model innovation meet the requirements, no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table 3 for details).Table 3
Reliability analysis of enterprise management model innovation.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness model innovationThe efficient enterprise management model innovationA10.4650.7100.798A20.5370.596A30.6420.637A40.6480.689A50.5570.584A60.5860.700A70.6000.631Novel enterprise management model innovationA80.5210.6850.715A90.6010.703A100.6240.618A110.5990.580A120.2050.568A130.5740.610A140.2010.528A150.5960.620A160.6580.699According to the combination of measurement items in the scale and the tendency of its prediction range, it can be concluded that the two factors should be named as the innovation of efficient enterprise management mode and the innovation of novel enterprise management mode. Validity analysis shows that the validity of the scale of enterprise management model innovation is satisfactory.We take the first 16 groups of data as training samples, the last 4 groups of data as test samples for the system, and the expected error of the network is 0.001. After 785 times of training, input the 4 sets of data as test samples into the trained network, and get the training results, the actual evaluation value, and the error. The comparison chart between the test results and the expert evaluation value is drawn as shown in Figure7.Figure 7
Comparison of RS-BP test results and expert evaluation values.


## 4.1.2. Enterprise Performance Scale

The items of the enterprise performance scale include short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. Considering the time lag in the implementation effect of enterprise management model innovation, this study divides enterprise performance into two dimensions: short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. In this paper, the Likert 5-level scoring method is used in the assignment of measurement items. D1-D11 implies short-term financial performance and long-term market performance. The conclusions of factor analysis can show whether the expected design results can be verified. The scale of enterprise performance, the minimum value of the questionnaire respondents’ evaluation is 1, and the maximum value is 5 (see Table4 for details).Table 4
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemScoreStandard deviationBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD12.550.894D22.790.901D32.990.789D43.540.903D53.320.888Long-term market performanceD63.571.055D73.170.894D83.050.964D93.020.843D103.210.900D112.350.793The factor analysis of the enterprise performance scale shows that the KMO value is higher than 0.7, and the Bartlett sphericity test is required to show significance to meet the requirements of factor analysis. The reason why the cumulative contribution rate of factor variance can be 61.545% is that all measurement items can reach the benchmark of 0.5 to correspond to the load on the factor. Factors were identified (see Table5 for details).Table 5
Analysis of enterprise performance factors.
Independent variableDimensionItemFactor loadings 2Business performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.724D20.730D30.506D40.598D50.555Long-term market performanceD60.665D70.508D80.507D90.755D100.598D110.605This paper finds that the corrected correlation coefficient of a single item of the institutional environment to all items is greater than 0.35, and the index is excluded. “a value” should be small, and the Cronbach’s a value of all items is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the items of the enterprise performance scale meet the requirements, and there is no need to delete any items, and the validity of the reliability of the scale is proved. Accordingly, the reliability of the enterprise performance scale is good, and the items involved can be retained (see Table6 for details).Table 6
Reliability analysis of enterprise performance.
Independent variableDimensionItemItem-to-item corrected correlation coefficientDelete thisOverall projectBusiness performanceShort-term financial performanceD10.5610.6780.765D20.5010.690D30.4910.641D40.6780.701D50.6420.704Long-term market performanceD60.6660.7110.721D70.6800.707D80.5690.666D90.5400.670D100.5710.681D110.5550.700Through the analysis of the above data, it is found that the two dimensions of enterprise performance can be clearly reflected under the retained enterprise performance items and can accurately represent their meanings. It can be seen that the evaluation results of the RS-BP network neural model and the unknown-AHM model are basically the same, but the difference between the two errors for each test sample is obvious. The fitting effect of the unconfirmed training samples is shown in Figure8. It can be seen that although the unconfirmed-AHM has reached a high training accuracy, the test error of the unconfirmed-AHM is significantly higher than that of the RS-BP. It shows that the unsure AHM cannot guarantee a good generalization ability even if the training achieves a high accuracy; that is, the phenomenon of overlearning occurs.Figure 8
Comparison of unconfirmed-AHM test results and expert evaluation values.


## 5. Conclusion

Through empirical research, it can be considered that a successful enterprise is bound to have a set of suitable and effective enterprise management models or innovations of enterprise management models that are constantly adjusted according to the needs of enterprise development, so as to improve the competitive advantage of the enterprise and improve the enterprise and performance. For enterprises of different types and levels of development, their emphasis on the choice of enterprise management model innovation will be different. In order to study which kind of enterprise management model innovation is most suitable for the development of enterprises, it is necessary to classify the types of enterprise management model innovation. The effects produced are relatively obvious, and they are all core designs that enterprises pay attention to. However, for different types of enterprises, according to themselves and the market conditions they face, the focus on the choice of enterprise management model innovation will be different. The innovation of the novel enterprise management model is to include the transaction parties that have not participated before and then to connect the transaction parties in a new way to form a new transaction mechanism. The innovation of novel enterprise management mode is mainly centered on brand-new service concepts and innovative operation methods, which stimulates customers’ willingness to purchase and expand the market share of the enterprise itself.Only by innovating management models and promoting knowledge acquisition, dissemination, sharing, and innovation can enterprises improve their competitiveness in the knowledge age. The performance index evaluation of management mode innovation. By evaluating the status quo of innovation and finding out its deficiencies, a reasonable allocation of enterprise resources can be achieved, thereby maximizing enterprise profits. The primary problem in implementing performance evaluation is the construction of an index system, and a scientific and reasonable index system can produce scientific and reasonable evaluation results. This paper designs a two-level evaluation index system by reading the relevant literature and according to the enterprise practice and uses the analytic hierarchy process to select 8 important indexes as evaluation indexes.Then, the method of BP neural network is used to evaluate the innovation and performance indicators of the enterprise’s management model. After the model parameters are selected, we first use the standard BP algorithm to train the network, but the training effect is not very good, and sometimes even the training fails, which is caused by the inherent defects in the standard BP neural network algorithm; that is, there are local minimum point, slow convergence speed, and poor generalization ability. In response to these problems, it is proposed to use the momentum-adaptive learning rate algorithm, LM algorithm, and genetic neural network algorithm to train the network. The momentum-adaptive learning rate algorithm combines the advantages of the adaptive learning rate and the additional momentum term algorithm, not only improving the network The convergence performance is suppressed, and the convergence speed is significantly accelerated; the LM algorithm is converted between the standard algorithm and the Gauss-Newton method, which greatly improves the convergence speed; the genetic neural network algorithm uses the genetic method to search for the optimal weight threshold. The convergence accuracy and convergence speed are also greatly improved. The example verification shows that the performance of the momentum-adaptive algorithm is the best. Using the BP network model can effectively evaluate the innovation of enterprise management mode and performance indicators, so as to guide the implementation of enterprise management mode innovation activities.



---

*Source: 2714892-2022-07-09.xml*