多准则决策方法下创新项目排序的比较

Martin Mizla, Denisa Šefčíková, Jozef Gajdoš
{"title":"多准则决策方法下创新项目排序的比较","authors":"Martin Mizla, Denisa Šefčíková, Jozef Gajdoš","doi":"10.15584/nsawg.2021.3.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the case of the integration process, economic and social differences between economic units represent a barrier. There are reasonable and active efforts of many administrative bodies to transfer the existing inequalities to equalities. In practical life, it is often necessary to order different objects and take a decision based on it. Decision-making can be intuitive or, conversely, based on various quantitative methods. The paper discusses some quantitative methods of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), namely Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC); and their use for innovation projects. Autonomous orders of objects (projects) are performed on the same basic data set by the above-mentioned methods, and they are compared with each other. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for mutual comparison. The test results showed that the investigated methods do not provide results with a close dependence, which means that the order of objects (projects) created depends on the method used.","PeriodicalId":265236,"journal":{"name":"Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ordering of innovation projects by multi-criteria decision-making methods – a comparison\",\"authors\":\"Martin Mizla, Denisa Šefčíková, Jozef Gajdoš\",\"doi\":\"10.15584/nsawg.2021.3.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the case of the integration process, economic and social differences between economic units represent a barrier. There are reasonable and active efforts of many administrative bodies to transfer the existing inequalities to equalities. In practical life, it is often necessary to order different objects and take a decision based on it. Decision-making can be intuitive or, conversely, based on various quantitative methods. The paper discusses some quantitative methods of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), namely Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC); and their use for innovation projects. Autonomous orders of objects (projects) are performed on the same basic data set by the above-mentioned methods, and they are compared with each other. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for mutual comparison. The test results showed that the investigated methods do not provide results with a close dependence, which means that the order of objects (projects) created depends on the method used.\",\"PeriodicalId\":265236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15584/nsawg.2021.3.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15584/nsawg.2021.3.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一体化进程中,经济单位之间的经济和社会差异是一种障碍。许多行政机关合理而积极地努力将现有的不平等转化为平等。在实际生活中,经常需要对不同的对象进行排序,并据此做出决定。决策可以是直观的,也可以是基于各种定量方法的。本文讨论了多准则决策的定量方法,即层次分析法(AHP)、理想解相似偏好排序法(TOPSIS)和加权线性组合法(WLC);以及它们在创新项目中的应用。采用上述方法对同一基础数据集进行对象(项目)的自治排序,并进行相互比较。采用Spearman等级相关系数进行相互比较。测试结果表明,所研究的方法并没有提供紧密依赖的结果,这意味着创建对象(项目)的顺序取决于所使用的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ordering of innovation projects by multi-criteria decision-making methods – a comparison
In the case of the integration process, economic and social differences between economic units represent a barrier. There are reasonable and active efforts of many administrative bodies to transfer the existing inequalities to equalities. In practical life, it is often necessary to order different objects and take a decision based on it. Decision-making can be intuitive or, conversely, based on various quantitative methods. The paper discusses some quantitative methods of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), namely Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Weighted Linear Combination (WLC); and their use for innovation projects. Autonomous orders of objects (projects) are performed on the same basic data set by the above-mentioned methods, and they are compared with each other. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for mutual comparison. The test results showed that the investigated methods do not provide results with a close dependence, which means that the order of objects (projects) created depends on the method used.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bezpieczeństwo ekologiczne w poszerzonej domenie bezpieczeństwa Dynamiczna analiza porównawcza rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego i jakości życia w Polsce na tle krajów UE Sukces wyborczy i polityka rządu Prawa i Sprawiedliwości w opiniach wybranych kategorii mieszkańców Podkarpacia Koncepcja spójności a efektywność organizacyjna Nierówności dochodowe i przeciwdziałanie im w poglądach Sismondiego
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1