基于群组DEMATEL与灰关联投影的供应商质量绩效评价

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2021.04.15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对装备采购供应链的供应商准入评价中较少同时考虑主观判断模糊偏好及评价指标内在关联的问题, 提出一种基于决策实验室分析法(decision making trial and evaluation laboratory, DEMATEL)与灰关联投影的混合多属性群决策模型, 用以评价装备采购供应商质量绩效。该模型考虑了定量与定性融合的属性形式, 将定性评价转化为直觉模糊数形式。首先, 通过考虑专家偏好关联的λ模糊测度广义Shapley Choquet积分算子来集结主观群决策模糊信息。然后, 拓展群组DEMATEL来确定模糊环境下的指标相关权重。最后, 基于改进灰关联投影法集结主客观评价信息, 得到供应商的优劣排序。通过实例对比及敏感性分析进一步表明模型的实用性较强、可操作性好, 能有效解决混合多属性群决策问题。

关键词: 模糊测度, 决策实验室分析法, 灰关联投影, Choquet积分, Shapley函数

Abstract:

Aiming at the problem that the supplier access evaluation model in the early stage of the construction of the existing equipment procurement supply chain rarely considers the fuzzy preference of subjective judgment and the internal correlation of evaluation indicators, a mixed multi-attribute group decision model is proposed based on decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and gray correlation projection to evaluate the quality performance of equipment procurement suppliers. The model takes into account the combination of quantitative and qualitative attribute forms, and transforms the qualitative evaluation information into the form of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. First, it aggregates the subjective group decision fuzzy information by considering the fuzzy measure generalized Shapley Choquet integral operator associated with expert preference. Then, the group DEMATEL method is extended to a fuzzy environment to determine the index weights with intrinsic associations. Finally, the improved grey association projection method is used to aggregate subjective and objective evaluation information to obtain the ranking of the final suppliers. The comparison of examples and sensitivity analysis show that the model has a strong practicability and a good operability, and can effectively solve the group decision problem under mixed attributes.

Key words: fuzzy measure, decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL), grey correlation projection, Choquet integral, Shapley function

中图分类号:

C934

何杜博, 黄栋, 石文成. 基于群组DEMATEL与灰关联投影的供应商质量绩效评价[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43(4): 980-990.

Dubo HE, Dong HUANG, Wencheng SHI. Evaluation of supplier quality performance based on group DEMATEL and grey correlation projection[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43(4): 980-990.

图/表 14

表1

图1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

表11

表12

图2

参考文献 33

1	秦娟, 李延来, 陈振颂. 基于极大熵配置模型与Choquet积分的物流供应商选择群决策方法[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2015, 21 (10): 2746- 2759.
	QIN J , LI Y L , CHEN Z S . Group decision method for logistics supplier selection based on maximum entropy allocation model and Choquet integral[J]. Computer Integrated Manufacturing System, 2015, 21 (10): 2746- 2759.
2	张亮, 王坚浩, 郑东良, 等. 基于直觉模糊熵和VIKOR的装备器材供应商选优决策[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41 (7): 1568- 1575.
	ZHANG L , WANG J H , ZHENG D L , et al. Equipment supplier decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and VIKOR[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (7): 1568- 1575.
3	NAYAGAM V L G , JEEVARAJ S , DHANASEKARAN P . An intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method based on non-hesitance score for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets[J]. Soft Computing, 2017, 21 (23): 216- 222.
4	ABDULLAH M S . Multicriteria group decision-making for supplier selection based on intuitionistic Cubic fuzzy aggregation operators[J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40815-019-00768-x
5	SHUAI G , LI J L , YU Y , et al. Loan approval evaluation framework of public-private partnership project of battery storage power station under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020,
6	潘亚虹, 耿秀丽. 基于Mo-RVIKOR的混合多属性决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27 (12): 143- 151.
	PAN Y H , GENG X L . Hybrid multi-attribute decision-making method based on Mo-RVIKOR[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2019, 27 (12): 143- 151.
7	张永政, 叶春明, 耿秀丽. 考虑决策者心理行为的概率语义术语集多属性决策方法[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2020, 37 (7): 12- 18.
	ZHANG Y Z , YE C M , GENG X L . Probabilistic semantic term set multi-attribute decision making method considering the psychological behavior of decision makers[J]. Journal of Computer Applications, 2020, 37 (7): 12- 18.
8	LU J P , HE T T , WEI G W , et al. Cumulative prospect theory: performance evaluation of government purchases of home-based elderly-care services using the pythagorean 2-tuple linguistic TODIM method[J]. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020, 17 (6): 21- 42.
9	KANG D , HONG J Y . Interval-valued intuitionistic 2-tuple linguistic bonferroni mean operators and their applications in multi-attribute group decision making[J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2019, 21 (8): 1- 19. doi: 10.1007/s40815-019-00720-z
10	KAI X Q , QING S W , QIANG L D , et al. A multi criteria comprehensive evaluation approach for emergency response capacity with interval 2-tuple linguistic information[J]. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 2018, 43 (7): 1- 52.
11	RENGARAJ M , SUBBARAJ S . Decision making on the state of transformers based on insulation condition using AHP and TOPSIS methods[J]. IET Science, Measurement & Technology, 2020, 14 (2): 137- 145.
12	CHIA C S . A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2010, 37 (12): 7745- 7754. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.066
13	弓晓敏, 耿秀丽, 孙绍荣. 基于二元语义DEMATEL和DEA的多属性群决策方法[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2016, 22 (8): 1992- 2000.
	GONG X M , GENG X L , SUN S R . Multi-attribute group decision-making method based on binary semantic DEMATEL and DEA[J]. Computer Integrated Manufacturing System, 2016, 22 (8): 1992- 2000.
14	何宜庆, 李论, 白彩全. 基于G1-DEA和TOPSIS-灰色关联分析的供应链绩效评价方法——以企业内部供应链为例[J]. 科技管理研究, 2016, 36 (16): 68- 73.
	HE Y Q , LI L , BAI C Q . Supply chain performance evaluation method based on G1-DEA and TOPSIS-gray correlation analysis——taking enterprise internal supply chain for example[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2016, 36 (16): 68- 73.
15	王天虹, 宋业新, 宋长青. 基于模糊修正熵权TOPSIS的战时装备供应链风险评估[J]. 计算机与数字工程, 2012, 40 (2): 6- 8, 39. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9722.2012.02.003
	WANG T H , SONG Y X , SONG C Q . Risk assessment of wartime equipment supply chain based on fuzzy modified entropy weight TOPSIS[J]. Computer and Digital Engineering, 2012, 40 (2): 6- 8, 39. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9722.2012.02.003
16	曲国华, 张汉鹏, 刘增良, 等. 基于直觉模糊λ-Shapley Choquet积分算子TOPSIS的多属性群决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2016, 36 (3): 726- 742.
	QU G H , ZHANG H P , LIU Z L , et al. Multi-attribute group decision-making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy λ-Shapley Choquet integral operator TOPSIS[J]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 2016, 36 (3): 726- 742.
17	陈晓红, 李喜华. 基于直觉梯形模糊TOPSIS的多属性群决策方法[J]. 控制与决策, 2013, 28 (9): 1377- 1381, 1388.
	CHEN X H , LI X H . Multi-attribute group decision-making method based on intuitionistic trapezoid fuzzy TOPSIS[J]. Control and Decision, 2013, 28 (9): 1377- 1381, 1388.
18	梁昌勇, 戚筱雯, 丁勇, 等. 一种基于TOPSIS的混合型多属性群决策方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2012, 20 (4): 109- 117.
	LIANG C Y , QI X W , DING Y , et al. A TOPSIS-based hybrid multi-attribute group decision-making method[J]. China Management Science, 2012, 20 (4): 109- 117.
19	徐永杰, 孙涛, 李登峰. 直觉模糊POWA算子及其在多准则决策中的应用[J]. 控制与决策, 2011, 26 (1): 129- 132.
	XU Y J , SUN T , LI D F . Intuitionistic fuzzy POWA operator and its application in multi-criteria decision making[J]. Control and Decision, 2011, 26 (1): 129- 132.
20	伍之前, 李登峰. 基于GOWA算子的直觉模糊多属性决策方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2010, 19 (3): 60- 64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3221.2010.03.010
	WU Z Q , LI D F . Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method based on GOWA operator[J]. Operations Research and Management, 2010, 19 (3): 60- 64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3221.2010.03.010
21	ATANASSOV K T . Intuitionistic fuzzy sets[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1986, 20 (1): 87- 96. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
22	袁宇, 关涛, 闫相斌, 等. 基于混合VIKOR方法的供应商选择决策模型[J]. 控制与决策, 2014, 29 (3): 551- 60.
	YUAN Y , GUAN T , YAN X B , et al. Supplier selection decision model based on hybrid VIKOR method[J]. Control and Decision, 2014, 29 (3): 551- 60.
23	LIN L , YUAN X H , XIA Z Q . Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets[J]. Mathematics in Practice & Theory, 2007, 73 (1): 84- 88.
24	戚筱雯, 梁昌勇, 黄永青, 等. 基于混合型评价矩阵的多属性群决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2013, 33 (2): 473- 481. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6788.2013.02.024
	QI X W , LIANG C Y , HUANG Y Q , et al. Multi-attribute group decision-making method based on hybrid evaluation matrix[J]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 2013, 33 (2): 473- 481. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6788.2013.02.024
25	XU Z . Choquet integrals of weighted intuitionistic fuzzy information[J]. Information Sciences, 2010, 180 (5): 726- 36. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2009.11.011
26	MUROFUSHI T , SUGENO M . An interpretation of fuzzy measures and the Choquet integral as an integral with respect to a fuzzy measure[J]. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 1989, 29 (2): 201- 227. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(89)90194-2
27	曲国华, 张汉鹏, 刘增良, 等. 基于直觉模糊λ-Shapley Choquet积分算子TOPSIS的多属性群决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2016, 36 (3): 726- 742.
	QU G H , ZHANG H P , LIU Z L , et al. Multiple attribute group decision-making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy λ-Shapley Choquet integral operator TOPSIS[J]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 2016, 36 (3): 726- 742.
28	GRABISCH M , LABREUCHE C . A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2008, 6 (1): 1- 44. doi: 10.1007%2Fs10288-007-0064-2
29	MENG F , ZHANG Q , CHENG H . Approaches to multiple-criteria group decision making based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral with respect to the generalized λ-Shapley index[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2013, 37, 237- 49. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2012.08.007
30	柯宏发, 陈永光, 夏斌. 一种基于逼近于理想灰关联投影的多目标决策算法[J]. 电子学报, 2007, 35 (9): 1757- 1761. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0372-2112.2007.09.029
	KE H F , CHEN Y G , XIA B . A multi-objective decision-making algorithm based on approximation to ideal grey relation projection[J]. Acta Electronica Sinica, 2007, 35 (9): 1757- 1761. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0372-2112.2007.09.029
31	包宇航, 李宝君, 于丽英. 基于直觉模糊的群组DEMATEL决策方法的企业创新能力影响因素评价[J]. 上海大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 24 (5): 819- 828.
	BAO Y H , LI B J , YU L Y . Influencing factors evaluation of enterprise innovation ability based on intuitionistic fuzzy group DEMATEL Decision method[J]. Journal of Shanghai University (Natural Science Edition), 2018, 24 (5): 819- 828.
32	刘满凤, 任海平. 基于一类新的直觉模糊熵的多属性决策方法研究[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2015, 35 (11): 2909- 2916. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2015)11-2909
	LIU M F , REN H P . Research on multi-attribute decision-making method based on a new class of intuitionistic fuzzy entropy[J]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice, 2015, 35 (11): 2909- 2916. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2015)11-2909
33	ZHEN Y , QI G . A new decision method for service supplier selection based on Choquet integral and generalized evidence theory[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2020, 234 (8): 1- 12.

评价指标		指标含义	指标类型
质量控制能力	生产故障发生率	生产运作的质量水平	精确数
	产品返修率	产品售后使用质量水平	精确数
	质量保障体系	内部质量管理成熟度	语义变量
技术支撑能力	产品研发能力	供应商新产品研发周期	区间数
	产品设计升级能力	供应商技术升级水平衡量	语义变量
	先进设备比例	供应商生产设备先进性	精确数
服务协同能力	售后服务能力	供应商售后服务满意度	语义变量
	服务需求响应	供应商响应客户需求时间周期	语义变量
	变更生产能力	供应商紧急订货交货时间周期	语义变量
产品交付能力	提前交货能力	供应商交货提前期	区间数
	按期交付能力	供应商按时交付产品比率	精确数
	订单履行能力	供应商订单履行率	精确数

评价准则	准则属性	数据类型	分类
生产故障发生率C₁	客观	精确数	C
产品返修率C₂	客观	精确数	C
质量保障体系C₃	主观	语义变量	B
产品研发能力C₄	客观	区间数	C
产品设计升级能力C₅	主观	语义变量	B
先进设备比例C₆	客观	精确数	B
售后服务水平C₇	主观	语义变量	B
服务需求响应C₈	主观	语义变量	B
变更生产能力C₉	主观	语义变量	B
提前交货能力C₁₀	客观	区间数	B
按期交付能力C₁₁	客观	精确数	B
订单履行能力C₁₂	客观	精确数	B

供应商	成本型指标
供应商	C₃	C₅	C₇	C₈	C₉
S₁	(0.8, 0.1)	(0.8, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.2)
S₂	(0.8, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.4)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.2)
S₃	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.5, 0.2)	(0.7, 0.1)
S₄	(0.5, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.1)	(0.5, 0.2)

供应商	成本型指标
供应商	C₃	C₅	C₇	C₈	C₉
S₁	(0.8, 0.2)	(0.7, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.2)
S₂	(0.7, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.4)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.2)
S₃	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.3)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.8, 0.1)
S₄	(0.4, 0.3)	(0.5, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.2)

供应商	成本型指标
供应商	C₃	C₅	C₇	C₈	C₉
S₁	(0.7, 0.2)	(0.8, 0.1)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.2)
S₂	(0.7, 0.2)	(0.5, 0.4)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.2)
S₃	(0.7, 0.3)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.6, 0.4)	(0.7, 0.1)	(0.7, 0.2)
S₄	(0.6, 0.1)	(0.6, 0.2)	(0.7, 0.3)	(0.7, 0.1)	(0.7, 0.2)