賀 政楚

陳 文俊

馬 駿

University of Toyama Repository

Appraising Enterprise Technology Innovation Project Method Based on PROMETHEE　　Taking the Iron and Steel Enterprise as an ExampleCHEN Wen-jun,  HE Zheng-chu,  Ma JunAbstract:In view of the question on the choice of the iron and steel enterprisetechnology innovation project, this paper establishes the technology in-novation project appraisal index system on the iron and steel enterprise,it uses the PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method forEnrichment Evaluations) method, which is a class of out ranking methodsin multicriteria analysis, and it ranks various projects reasonably with theindeÀnite weight information. Comparing with the TOPSIS method, it illu-minates that the conclusion of this method is valid and credible.Keywords: Iron and Steel Enterprise; Technology Innovation; Project Ap-praisal; PROMETHEE1. IntroductionFacing with the dynamic technology, the potential market, the mas-sive investments, as well as a bigger risk, it is the key for the iron and steelenterprise to choose suitable project from the multitudinous innovationproject. According to the research[1], the technical innovation in the ap-         plied research stage defeat rate is 75%, the development research stage is50%~75%, the industry or the commercialized stage is 30%~50%. The correctchoice at innovation technology project, is effectively to carry on controlsin advance, reduces rate of the defeat and consumption of the organizationresources, thus the organization's core competitive ability is strengthened.The choice of the iron and steel enterprise technology innovation proj-ect is influenced by many kinds of factors. The question of the differentproject choice, in the essence, is the question of the limited project multi-attribute decision-making. It can't rely on only a few indexes to makingthe decision. The synthesis appraisal under many kinds of indexes has tobe carried. Because of certain appraisal indexes with difÀculty measures,the linguistic appraisal applied to decision-making allows a more Áexibleframework, where by it is possible to simulate humans’ability to deal withthe fuzziness of human judgments quantitatively. This paper carries on theappraisal to 4 technology innovation projects in the iron and steel enter-prise, because the new project cannot be estimated with exact numericalvalue. Then a more realistic approach may be to use linguistic assessmentsinstead of numerical values.In uncertain environments, several authors have proposed differentmethods in selection problems[2-4]. Here, in the condition that the impor-tance of the attributes is not given, we will apply PROMETHEE[4-8]tochoose the reasonable innovation project, in purpose to reduce the decision-making at will or blindness.The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 shows the index to ap-praise the iron and steel enterprise technology innovation project; Section 3presents a method base on PROMETHEE; Section 4 illustrates its applica-tion with some example; and Ànally, section 5 presents our conclusions.         2. The index system establishmentIn order to make the systemic and comprehensive appraisal to the ironand steel enterprise technology innovation project, it must have a set ofintegrity, science and the comprehensive synthesis appraisal index system.The technology innovation alternatives appraisal, in essence, is to get fullunderstand at the relative importance during the technology innovationprojects. It also provides the important reference for the investor to makedecision.Here we present the principles of the Appraisal index system estab-lishment: scientiÀc, systematic, operational and so on. When establishingthe index system, we must consider that the appraisal data should be easyto obtain. The iron and steel enterprise technology innovation project in-volves many Àelds, including the technology, the market, the Ànance, theenvironment, the policy and various departments, some indexes at presentin theoretically do not have the strict limits, also not have the uniÀcationstandard. Except for the above principle, technological advance and suit-able principles, economic efÀciency principle, social efÀciency also should betaken. Base on different principles, referring to the technology innovationproject appraisal index system, which is presented in the literature[9], ac-cording to the characteristic of the steel and iron industry, this paper pro-poses the appraisal index system, the details of the index system is shownin Figure 1，it divides in six main factors.         㪝㫀㪾㪅㪈㩷㪫㪿㪼㩷㫀㫅㪻㪼㫏㩷㫊㫐㫊㫋㪼㫄㩷㪽㫆㫉㩷㪸㫇㫇㫉㪸㫀㫊㫀㫅㪾㩷㫋㪿㪼㩷㫀㫉㫆㫅㩷㪸㫅㪻㩷㫊㫋㪼㪼㫃㩷㪼㫅㫋㪼㫉㫇㫉㫀㫊㪼㩷㫋㪼㪺㪿㫅㫆㫃㫆㪾㫐㩷㫀㫅㪄㫅㫆㫍㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㫇㫉㫆㫁㪼㪺㫋3. The multi-attribute decision-making method based on PRO-METHEEThe PROMETHEE method firstly introduced by Brans et al. (1984)belongs to the category of outranking procedures by the help of which oneis able to Ànd the most preferable alternative among a whole set of alterna-tives. A big advantage of the PROMETHEE approach is its fairly low de-gree of mathematical complexity which should make its results transparentfor decision makers and stakeholders, who are often non-experts.There are many methods to deal with the incomplete information[2-4].Under the condition that the weight information is incomplete, this paperuses the PROMETHEE II method to choose the best project, its concrete(1)---- w1The economies,technical policy(2) -----w2Environmentapolicy(3)-----w3Tax policy Appraising the iron and steel enterprise technology innovation project Policyappraisal Financial appraisal Product appraisal Marketappraisal Social, economic efficiencyappraisalRisk appraisal (1)---- w4Technique(2)---- w5Craft (1)---w8Recycletime(2)---w9incomes rate(1)-----w6Marketcharacteristics (2)------w7Competition inProduct market(1)----w10socialefficiencies(2)----w11Economicefficiency(1)----w12Risk of the projects Alternative 1 ------------ Alternative 2 Alternative n          application steps as follows:(1) Constructing the appraisal matrixSuppose we have a set of n alternatives A={a1,a2,…,an}, and U={u1,u2,…,um}be the set of attributes. Let a Ànite and totally ordered label set S= {Si}, i∈H= {0,…, T}, each label set with odd cardinals, each alternative has m attri-butes. Then we produce the following decision-making matrix Anm.Where aij∈ S is the linguistic label value of i-th alternative and the j-th at-tribute.(2) Selecting a preference functionLet fk (Ai) be the appraisal value of alternative Ai (i=1,2,…,n) in the at-tribute K(K=1,2,…,m). for the increase index, the function Pk (Ai,Aj) is ex-pressed the preference intensity by the alternative Ai surpasses the alterna-tive Aj. And where:①　Pk (Ai,Aj) =0 indicates the indifference between Ai and Aj ;②　Pk (Ai,Aj) =1 indicates the strict preference of Ai over Aj. Decreaseindex on the contrary.The usual preference function has the linear, the level, the Gauss pref-erence function and so on. In view of the fact that the unit increase of thevarious indexes is respectively dissimilar under the different level to thecontribution in synthesis appraisal, as the linear function cannot reÁect ac-tual situation, this paper use the thought in literature[8]for reference, andselects one kind of the improved Gauss preference function. Its expressionas follows:m212222111211..................nnnijmmnmaaaaaaaaaaA         Where I1, I2 separately represent a set of increase index and decreaseindex. V2k is the variance of the appraisal value fk (Ai):(3) Calculating the synthesis preference intensityFor each pair of alternatives, the synthesis preference intensityR (Ai,Aj) can be written as　　　　　(3-1)where Z k are weights associated with each criterion.(4) Calculating the attribute weightsAccording to the concept of the rank relations, the ranking the alter-natives is by net current of the various alternatives, the attribute weightshould make the‘positive current’max, and the‘negative current’min.Namely transforms to make the net current max:.00,0)2/exp(1),(22kkkkjik difdifdAAp12( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( )k i k jkk j k if A f A k Idf A f A k I 	   	),...,2,1()(11222 mkananniikikk  1( , ) ( , )mi j k k i jkR A A P A A         By making the maximum value to the‘net current’, then we haveM-3.1whereZik are weights associated with the i-th alternative and the k-th cri-terion. Each weight is obtained by M-3.1, suppose the decision-maker hasno preference on the alternatives, therefore, solving this problem we Àndthat the optimal attribute weight:　　　　　 (3-6)(5) Generating a complete rankingObtained weight is set in the formula 3-4, then ranking the alterna-tives by the‘net current’. The bigger value, the better.	   mknitsAAPAAPAMaxRikmjijkmknijikiki,...,2,1;,...,2,1..)),(),(()(11 1  mkniikniikkw1 11),...,2,1( mk M-3.1         4. Example of applicationThe decision-making data of the technology innovation project was ob-tained from a large-scale steel and iron enterprise in China, and was usedfor the model simulating. The original date is omitted due to limited space,and little inÁuence on the model simulating.With sum of money supposed to be invested into the steel and ironenteiprise above mentioned,there are 4 possible alternatives. Among themonly the most reasonable technology innovation project can be selected dueto limited resources. In view of the established index system, we use crite-rions U={u1,u2,…,u12} in part 2.Let the linguistic scale S={S0=extremely bad,S1 =very bad, S2 = bad, S3 = slightly bad, S4 = medium, S5 = slightly good, S6 =good, S7=very good, S8=extremely good}.And the incomplete weight is given as follow:then constructs the appraisal table:},,,,,,,,,,,|),,,({7125711651047967866756656548477264131221SwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSSwSwwww L 534 SwS          Tab.1 Linguistic appraisal value of each alternative　　A　　U　　a1 a2 a3 a4u1 S4 S5 S3 S4u2 S2 S1 S3 S4u3 S3 S3 S4 S3u4 S7 S4 S4 S5u5 S3 S2 S6 S3u6 S4 S3 S5 S4u7 S5 S3 S4 S2u8 S1 S6 S3 S4u9 S3 S4 S6 S5u10 S6 S2 S3 S3u11 S4 S5 S4 S3u12 S2 S3 S5 S4The matrix R not weighted on the‘net current’of each alternative iscalculated by 3-5.According to optimum model M-3.1,the weight of various alternatives iscompose a matrix  ,The Ànal weight is obtained by formal 3-6.wk = (0.0492　0.0985　0.0644　0.1098　0.0682　0.0795　0.0833　0.0985　0.0985　0.0644　0.0947　0.0909)With the weight above, the‘net current’is computed.   0 .3935      0 .1790-  0 .1037-   0 .1993    0 .5177     0 .2614-1.1863      0           0 .1037-   0 .6468    0 .5177-   0 .0769  0 .3935-    0 .1790    0 .2268-   0 .1993-  2 .8536     0 .0769-1.1863-    0           0 .4343     0 .6468-  2 .8536-   0 .2614  0           0 .3394-  0 .0197-   0 .0540-   1 .1863     0         0 .1790     1 .3758    0 .0979-   0 .1621     0 .3935     0 .1790-  0 .1790-   0 .6970-  0 .0979-   0 .0540-   1 .1863-   0 .1790     0           0 .3394-  0 .2155     0 .0540-   0 .3935-   0         R ={ ik }764775547473764766667573574675547464565666548463         From the values of net current, we have the ranking:Namely, the project A3 is best choice for this iron and steel enterprise,and the project A4 is next, project A2 is general, but the project A1 is worst.In order to explain the choice project 3 is reasonable, we use the TOPSIS torecompute the ranking, and obtain the proximities between various projectsand the ideal project:Then 2143 AAAA >>> is got.Through two methods comparisons, indicates project A3 is best one, thisconclusion is consistent with the PROMETHEE method.5. ConclusionIn order to solve the problem in the choice of the iron and steel enter-prise technology innovation project, this paper has established the technol-ogy innovation project appraisal index system, and has presented one kindbased on the PROMETHEE method with the incomplete weight informa-tion. Weight is solved by maximizing the‘net current’. The PROMETHEEranking method not only considers that the positive current which repre-sents each alternative surpasses other alternatives, and also considers the‘negative current’which is inferior to other alternatives. Then ranking ofthe alternatives is obtained by the size of‘net current’.This method is utilized to the iron and steel enterprise technology in-=)( 1AR -0.4445ˈ =)( 2AR 0.0376=)( 3AR 0.2580ˈ =)( 4AR 0.14901243 AAAA >>>=)( 1AT 0.4374, =)( 2AT 0.4071,=)( 3AT 0.5746, =)( 4AT 0.4847         novation project choice. With various index analysis, it carries on the rea-sonable choice to the innovation project, avoiding causing the losses. In theapplication example from this paper, the project A3 is superiority in the en-vironmental protection policy, the craft index, the income rate, the overallrisk and so on the important index. To be compare with the PROMETHEEmethod, we use the TOPSIS method and obtain the conclusion that thechoice of project A3 is reasonable, simultaneously explains it’s validity andreliability.         Reference[1] Peter M S. Guo Shilong translates. The fifth item practice----art and practice of thestudying organization [M]. Shanghai: Three Associations Publishing Houses, 1998[2] Liu De-feng. Two methods for multi-attribute decision making with incompleteinformation[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 1998, 21 (12) :59- 61.[3] Wang Jian-qiang. Superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteriadecision making with incomplete information on weights[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2004, 26 (9) :1205-1208.[4] Wang Jian-qiang. PROMETHEE method with incomplete certain information and itsapplication[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronic Technology 2005, 11: 1909-1912[5] Brans J P, Vincke P, Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: ThePROMETHEE Method [J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 1986, (24): 228-238.[6]Albadvi A. Formlaing national information technology strategies:A preference rankingmodel using PROMETHEE method [J]. European Journal of Operational Research.2004,153:290-296.[7] Macharis C, Springael J, Brucker K D, Verbeke A.PROMETHEE and AHP: The designof operational synergies in multi-criteria analysis strengthening PROMETHEE withideas of AHP [ J ]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2004,153:37-317.[8] Li Hu Yue Chao-yuan. The alternative Method of PROMETHEE And A Kind ofPreference Function[J]. System Engineering.1999,17(5):13-16 the systems 1999, 17(5):14-17[9] Zhang Jiong, Ye Yuan-xu, Zhang Shen. Choosing and appraising in technology of theinnovative projects and it’s index system.[J] Economic Restructuring, 2003,2:45-48[10] Jiang Yan-ping, Fan Zhi-ping. An Approach to Group Decision-Making ProblemsBased on Two-Tuple Linguistic Symbol Operation[J]. Systems Engineering and Elec-tronics.2003,11:1373-1376.提出年月日：2008年5月16日         

Appraising Enterprise Technology Innovation Project Method Based on PROMETHEE : Taking the Iron and Steel Enterprise as an Example

https://toyama.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=1915&item_no=1&attribute_id=18&file_no=1

Appraising Enterprise Technology Innovation Project Method Based on PROMETHEE : Taking the Iron and Steel Enterprise as an Example

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Toyama Repository