营商便利度:使用灰色MCDM的G20国家绩效比较

Kalyana C. Chejarla, O. Vaidya
{"title":"营商便利度:使用灰色MCDM的G20国家绩效比较","authors":"Kalyana C. Chejarla, O. Vaidya","doi":"10.1142/s021962202250078x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ubiquity of data, and in particular in MCDM situations, makes it challenging for the Decision Makers (DM) to figure out a way of making proper use of data. This paper presents a three-stage decision framework for DMs to consider the performance range of alternatives holistically. The framework consists of (i) data preparation, (ii) two distance-based Gray Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM-G) methods using gray interval data to rank the alternatives and (iii) a decision analysis template. For comparison, gray Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) and gray Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC) methods that rely on arithmetic and geometric mean respectively are used to generate the ranks. The mean-based ranking methods produce stable and efficient ranks in comparison to extremum-based comparison methods, due to their innate nature. The correlation of ranks is analyzed to conclude that the stability of ranks is better when gray interval data is considered. As an example, this paper considers performance range of the 10 criteria used in computing Ease of Doing Business (EDB) index as the gray interval. The sample performance of the G20 countries during the period 2004 to 2020 was used to illustrate the calculations. Further, a general analytic template based on the rank deviation on account of differences in upper and lower bounds of performance helped in classifying the economies as stable leaders, predictable middle and volatile followers. The paper contributes a suitable MCDM and analysis approach when the DM is presented with a gray interval as the alternatives’ performance.","PeriodicalId":13527,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ease of Doing Business: Performance Comparison of G20 Countries Using Gray MCDM\",\"authors\":\"Kalyana C. Chejarla, O. Vaidya\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/s021962202250078x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ubiquity of data, and in particular in MCDM situations, makes it challenging for the Decision Makers (DM) to figure out a way of making proper use of data. This paper presents a three-stage decision framework for DMs to consider the performance range of alternatives holistically. The framework consists of (i) data preparation, (ii) two distance-based Gray Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM-G) methods using gray interval data to rank the alternatives and (iii) a decision analysis template. For comparison, gray Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) and gray Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC) methods that rely on arithmetic and geometric mean respectively are used to generate the ranks. The mean-based ranking methods produce stable and efficient ranks in comparison to extremum-based comparison methods, due to their innate nature. The correlation of ranks is analyzed to conclude that the stability of ranks is better when gray interval data is considered. As an example, this paper considers performance range of the 10 criteria used in computing Ease of Doing Business (EDB) index as the gray interval. The sample performance of the G20 countries during the period 2004 to 2020 was used to illustrate the calculations. Further, a general analytic template based on the rank deviation on account of differences in upper and lower bounds of performance helped in classifying the economies as stable leaders, predictable middle and volatile followers. The paper contributes a suitable MCDM and analysis approach when the DM is presented with a gray interval as the alternatives’ performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/s021962202250078x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s021962202250078x","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

数据的无所不在,特别是在MCDM情况下,使得决策者(DM)很难找到正确使用数据的方法。本文提出了一个三阶段的决策框架,以全面考虑备选方案的性能范围。该框架包括(i)数据准备,(ii)两种基于距离的灰色多准则决策(MCDM-G)方法,使用灰色区间数据对备选方案进行排序,以及(iii)决策分析模板。为了进行比较,分别采用基于平均解距离的灰色评价(EDAS)和基于算术均值和几何均值的灰色多属性边界逼近面积比较(MABAC)方法生成排名。与基于极值的比较方法相比,基于均值的排名方法由于其固有的性质,产生了稳定和有效的排名。通过对秩的相关性分析,得出考虑灰色区间数据时秩的稳定性更好的结论。作为一个例子,本文考虑在计算营商环境便利度(EDB)指数中使用的10个标准的表现范围作为灰色区间。本文以G20国家在2004年至2020年期间的经济表现为样本来说明计算结果。此外,基于绩效上界和下界差异的排名偏差的一般分析模板有助于将经济体分类为稳定的领导者,可预测的中间和不稳定的追随者。本文提出了一种合适的多目标决策模型和分析方法,并将多目标决策模型以灰色区间作为备选方案的性能。
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
Ease of Doing Business: Performance Comparison of G20 Countries Using Gray MCDM
The ubiquity of data, and in particular in MCDM situations, makes it challenging for the Decision Makers (DM) to figure out a way of making proper use of data. This paper presents a three-stage decision framework for DMs to consider the performance range of alternatives holistically. The framework consists of (i) data preparation, (ii) two distance-based Gray Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM-G) methods using gray interval data to rank the alternatives and (iii) a decision analysis template. For comparison, gray Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) and gray Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC) methods that rely on arithmetic and geometric mean respectively are used to generate the ranks. The mean-based ranking methods produce stable and efficient ranks in comparison to extremum-based comparison methods, due to their innate nature. The correlation of ranks is analyzed to conclude that the stability of ranks is better when gray interval data is considered. As an example, this paper considers performance range of the 10 criteria used in computing Ease of Doing Business (EDB) index as the gray interval. The sample performance of the G20 countries during the period 2004 to 2020 was used to illustrate the calculations. Further, a general analytic template based on the rank deviation on account of differences in upper and lower bounds of performance helped in classifying the economies as stable leaders, predictable middle and volatile followers. The paper contributes a suitable MCDM and analysis approach when the DM is presented with a gray interval as the alternatives’ performance.
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
Guest Editors' Introduction for the Special Issue on The Role of Decision Making to Overcome COVID-19 The Behavioral TOPSIS Based on Prospect Theory and Regret Theory Instigating the Sailfish Optimization Algorithm Based on Opposition-Based Learning to Determine the Salient Features From a High-Dimensional Dataset Optimized Deep Learning-Enabled Hybrid Logistic Piece-Wise Chaotic Map for Secured Medical Data Storage System A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM
×
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