期刊文献+

企业土木类科研项目选择评价模型研究 被引量:1

Research on the Evaluation Model for the Selection of Civil Engineering Scientific Research Projects in Enterprises
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在科技强国的要求下,央企科研项目选择的重要性越来越凸显,土木类科研项目尤其如此。通过对建筑类央企的调研并结合现有的自然科学基金、社会科学基金的评价体系,使用德尔菲法通过五轮专家讨论形成评价体系,用层次分析法结合Matlab计算出指标。最后以某央企2017-2019年资料为依据验证该土木项目评价指标的适用性,为央企土木科研项目择优提供参考。 At the request of a powerful country in science and technology,the selection of scientific research projects for state-owned enterprises is becoming more and more important,especially for civil engineering research projects.This paper,through the investigation of the central construction enterprises and combined with the existing evaluation system of natural science fund and social science fund,uses the Delphi method to form the evaluation system through five rounds of expert discussion,and uses the analytic hierarchy process and Matlab to calculate the indicators.Finally,based on the data of a central enterprise from 2017 to 2019,verifies the applicability of the evaluation index for civil engineering projects,which provides reference for the selection of the most suitable civil engineering research projects for central enterprises.
作者 罗叶 彭赓 罗志文 孙樱萁 石云兴 LUO Ye;PENG Geng;LUO Zhiwen;SUN Yingqi;SHI Yunxing(China State Construction Technical Center,Beijing 101300,China;University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,Beijing 100049,China;China Construction First Group Corporation Limited,Beijing 100161,China;Beijing Fangshan District People’s Government,Beijing 102488,China)
出处 《建筑经济》 北大核心 2022年第S01期816-820,共5页 Construction Economy
关键词 土木建筑 项目立项 德尔菲法 层次分析法 civil engineering project establishment Delphi method Analytic hierarchy process
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献50

  • 1肖人毅,王长锐.科研基金项目立项评估方法的研究与改进[J].系统工程理论与实践,2004,24(5):66-71. 被引量:29
  • 2胡明铭,黄菊芳.同行评议研究综述[J].中国科学基金,2005,19(4):251-253. 被引量:67
  • 3吴钦缘,薛璐玲.试论对基金项目完成质量的评估[J].科学学与科学技术管理,1995,16(1):38-39. 被引量:2
  • 4陈媛.科学基金项目评审与选择的决策方法研究[D].沈阳:东北大学,2007.
  • 5Roy, R. , Ashburn, J. R.. The perils [J]. Nature, 2001, 414: 393-394.
  • 6Dalton, R.. Peer under pressure [J]. Nature, 2001, 413: 102-104.
  • 7Taffe, M.. Peer review and new investigators [J]. Science, 2006, 311: 775-775.
  • 8Finkel, E.. Peer review--Australia's proposed UK- style merit ranking stirs debate [J]. Science, 2006, 312: 176--176.
  • 9Cook, W. D. , Golany, B. , Kress, M. , etc. Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking[J]. Management Science, 2005, 51(4) : 655-661.
  • 10Hochbaum, D. S. , Levin, A.. Methodologies and algorithms for group--ranking decision [J].Management Science, 2006, 52(9): 1394-1408.

共引文献48

同被引文献10

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部