期刊文献+

线性分配法及Bernardo方法的改进研究 被引量:2

Study on the Improvement of Linear Distribution Method and Bernardo Method
原文传递
导出
摘要 线性分配法是一种单人多属性决策方法,Bernardo方法是在线性分配法基础上的群决策方法。通过引入模糊大于关系与权重的思想对两种方法进行了改进,进一步细化了方案排序的优劣程度,避免了一些模棱两可的情况甚至错误情况出现,提高了两种方法的准确性。另外在Bernardo方法中引入加权重的ris,使之更加合理。从改进线性分配法谈起,讨论了改进多人多准则的Bernardo方法,并对两种改进方法分别进行示例研究,最后进行了总结。 Linear distribution method is a method for multi-attribute decision making by one person. Bernardo method is based on linear distribution method but for group decision-making. The paper improved the two methods by introducing fuzzy number operation and weight to thin the degree of alternative ranking which could avoid getting the ambiguous result. It also improved the ris in Bernardo method by introducing weight to it. The paper first improved the linear distribution method, then extended to Bernardo method, and examples followed each method. Finally, a conclusion is given.
作者 刘强 张强
出处 《工业工程与管理》 北大核心 2009年第1期5-10,共6页 Industrial Engineering and Management
基金 国家自然科学基金资助项目(70771010) 985工程二期资助项目(107008200400024)
关键词 线性分配法 Bernardo方法 群决策 模糊集合 linear distribution method bernardo method group decision-making fuzzy set
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

  • 1Bernardo J J. An assignment approach to choosing R & D experiments[J]. Decision Sciences, 1977,8 ( 2 ) : 489-501.
  • 2岳超源.决策理论与方法[M].北京:科学出版社,2004..
  • 3陈珽.决策分析[M].北京:科学出版社,1987..
  • 4胡运权.运筹学教程[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1999.112-120.
  • 5李荣均.模糊多准则决策理论与应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2002..

共引文献184

同被引文献25

  • 1胡善联.上市后药物的经济学评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,2005,5(5):353-356. 被引量:19
  • 2Gray BH, Gusmano MK, Collins SR. AHRQ and the changing politics of health services research [ C ]//Project HOPE -The Peo- ple-to-People Health Foundation. Health Affairs ,June 25, 2003, United States : HOPE, 2003 : w283-w307.
  • 3Department of Health. A first class service: quality in the new NHS [ EB/OL ]. [ 2011-1-17 ].http ://www.doh.gov.uk.
  • 4Chongtrakul P, Sumpradit N, Yoongthong W. ISafE and the evi- dence-based approach for essential medicines selection in Thai- land[J]. Essent Drug Monit, 2005, 34( 1 ) : 18-19.
  • 5Kaltenthaler E, Boland A, Carroll C, et al. Evidence Review Group approaches to the critical appraisal of manufacturer sub- missions for the NICE STA process: a mapping study and the- matic analysis[J]. Health Technol Assessment , 2012, 15(22) : 1- 8.
  • 6Hawkes N. NICE tells local authorities to involve public in heahh decisions or risk judicial review[J]. Br Med J, 2014:348 (1): 1.
  • 7Elmer F, Seifert I, Kreibich H, et al. A delphi method expert survey to derive standards for flood damage data collection [J]. RiskAnal, 2010, 30(1) : 107-124.
  • 8Suner A, Celikoglu CC, Diele O, et al. Sequential decision treeusing the analytic hierarchy process for decision support in rectal cancer[J]. Artiflntell Med, 2012, 56( 1 ) : 59-68.
  • 9Gundogdu CE. Selection of facility location under environmental damage priority and using ELECTRE method [J]. J Environ Biol,2011,32(2) :221-226.
  • 10Campos MS, Ferndndez-Montes A, Gavilan JM, et al. Public re- source usage in health systems: a data envelopment analysis of the efficiency of health systems of autonomous communities in Spain[J]. Public Health, 2016, 3 : 1-8.

引证文献2

二级引证文献19

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