Comprehensive evaluation of emergency logistics suppliers based on cloud TOPSIS method

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0581

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to achieve the goal of cost reduction and efficiency enhancement in emergency logistics, the comprehensive capabilities of emergency logistics suppliers were evaluated from the perspective of suppliers by utilizing the Cloud TOPSIS. Based on the characteristics of emergency logistics, a comprehensive evaluation index system for emergency logistics suppliers was constructed from five aspects: emergency response capability, material quality, cost control, emergency response flexibility, and internal and external conditions of the enterprise. Drawing on the ideas of game theory, the objective weights obtained by the improved entropy weight method and the subjective weights obtained by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were taken as game opponents to determine the optimal combination of weights. The cloud model was used to solve for the decision-making cloud of indicators and the weighted cloud for the fuzzy qualitative evaluation semantics quantification of suppliers. Finally, using the TOPSIS method, the positive and negative ideal solution sets were constructed, and the relative closeness to these ideal solutions was determined by calculating the distance of alternative solutions, thus identifying the optimal alternative. Research indicates that the Indicator Decision Cloud can accurately quantify evaluative language, and the results of the Cloud-TOPSIS method are more reasonable. In the ranking of suppliers' relative closeness, the difference between the best and worst calculated by the Cloud-TOPSIS method is 0.331 5, while for the TOPSIS method, it is 0.088 2, with a difference of 0.243 3. This suggests that the evaluation results of the Cloud-TOPSIS method have a greater degree of differentiation, which can more intuitively assist decision-makers in making optimal choices.

Key words: cloud model, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), emergency logistics, supplier, comprehensive evaluation

CLC Number:

X915.4安全经济学

HUANG Guoping, LEI Haoxiang. Comprehensive evaluation of emergency logistics suppliers based on cloud TOPSIS method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 217-224.

Figures/Tables 10

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

Evaluation criteria cloud computing approach

语言标度	云模型	E_x	E_n	H_e
差	C_-2=(E_x-2,E_n-2,H_e-2)	X_min	E_n-1/0.618	H_e-1/0.618
较差	C_-1=(E_x-1,E_n-1,H_e-1)	$E x 0$ -0.382(X_max+X_min)/2	0.382(X_max-X_min)/6	$H e 0$ /0.618
中等	C₀=( $E x 0$ , $E n 0$ , $H e 0$ )	(X_max+X_min)/2	$E n 0$ =0.618E_n-1	k
较好	C₁=( $E x 1$ , $E n 1$ , $H e 1$ )	E_x0+0.382(X_max+X_min)/2	0.382(X_max-X_min)/6	$H e 0$ /0.618
好	C₂=( $E x 2$ , $E n 2$ , $H e 2$ )	X_max	$E n 1$ /0.618	$H e 1$ /0.618

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

Tab.8

Results of vendors evaluations

备选方案	$d i +$	$d i -$	$U i$	综合排序
A₁	0.448 0	0.216 0	0.325 3	4
A₂	0.232 6	0.445 0	0.656 8	1
A₃	0.322 3	0.290 6	0.474 2	3
A₄	0.290 5	0.291 1	0.500 5	2

Tab.8

References 22

[1]	梁瑾璠, 赵晗萍, 张家乐. 应急物资供应链快速构建模式[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):135-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.020
	LIANG Jinfan, ZHAO Hanping, ZHANG Jiale. Rapid construction mode of emergency material supply chain[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4):135-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.020
[2]	戢晓峰, 杨春丽, 郝京京, 等. 国内外应急物流研究热点对比与展望[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12):144-152. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.019
	JI Xiaofeng, YANG Chunli, HAO Jingjing, et al. Research prospects and hotspot comparison for emergency logistics in China and foreign countries[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(12) :144-152. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.019
[3]	张姣芳, 陈晓和. 我国军民融合应急物流体系建设研究[J]. 中国流通经济, 2011, 25(5):43-47.
	ZHANG Jiaofang, CHEN Xiaohe. Study on the emergency logistics system of civil-military integration[J]. China Business and Market, 2011, 25(5):43-47.
[4]	扈衷权, 田军, 冯耕中. 基于期权采购的政企联合储备应急物资模型[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2018, 38(8):2032-2044. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2018)08-2032-13
	HU Zhongquan, TIAN Jun, FENG Gengzhong. The model of joint emergency supplies reserves of governments and enterprises based on option procurement[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2018, 38(8):2032-2044.
[5]	李晟, 丰景春, 吴凯丽, 等. 政企联合储备应急物资的合作策略研究[J/OL]. 中国管理科学:1-11[2024-03-12].https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.0859.
	LI Sheng, FENG Jingchun, WU Kaili, et al. Study on cooperative strategy of government-enterprise joint reserve of emergency supplies[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Management Science:1-11[2024-03-12].https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.0859.
[6]	胡婉婷, 丁晶晶, 梁樑. 基于期权代储协议的应急物资政企联合储备模型研究[J/OL]. 中国管理科学:1-12[2023-12-02].https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.0768.
	HU Wanting, DING Jingjing, LIANG Liang. Joint reserve model of government and enterprise for relief materials based on a delegated reserve contract with cption[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Management Science:1-12[2023-12-02].https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2022.0768.
[7]	ÖZDAMAR L, EKINCI E, KUCUKYAZICI B. Emergency logistics planning in natural disasters[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2004, 129: 217-245. doi: 10.1023/B:ANOR.0000030690.27939.39
[8]	韩瑞珠, 曹国, 鲁邦旺. 基于FAHP的应急物流外包供应商绩效综合评价[J]. 东南大学学报:自然科学版, 2007, 37(增2):348-354.
	HAN Ruizhu, CAO Guo, LU Bangwang. performance evaluation for emergency logistic outsourcing vendor based on fuzzy analytical hierarchical process[J]. Journal of Southeast University:Natural Science Edition, 2007, 37(S2):348-354.
[9]	商丽媛, 谭清美. 基于灰熵模型的应急物流供应商评价[J]. 统计与决策, 2013(3):45-47.
	SHANG Liyuan, TAN Qingmei. Emergency logistics supplier evaluation based on grey entropy model[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2013, 29(3):45-47.
[10]	闫佳丽. 基于D Number和LINMAP的应急物资供应商评价方法研究[D]. 北京: 北京理工大学, 2015.
	YAN Jiali. Emergency materials supplier evaluation method research based on D Number and LINMAP[D]. Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology, 2015.
[11]	陕振沛, 郭亚丹, 宁宝权, 等. 基于组合赋权灰色关联改进TOPSIS法的应急物流供应商评价[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2019, 49(8):71-78.
	SHAN Zhenpei, GUO Yadan, NING Baoquan, et al. Evalution of emergency logistics providers based on combined weighting-grey correlation improved TOPSIS method[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2019, 49(8):71-78.
[12]	叶万红, 耿娟娟, 徐东胜. 基于矩估计—改进TOPSIS模型的应急物流供应商评价[J]. 甘肃科学学报, 2022, 34(3):134-139.
	YE Wanhong, GENG Juanjuan, XU Dongsheng. Evalution of emergency logistics suppliers based on moment estimation and improved TOPSIS model[J]. Journal of Gansu Sciences, 2022, 34(3):134-139.
[13]	郭子雪, 杨雅旭, 贺泽芳. 基于概率语言术语集改进TODIM法的应急物流供应商评价研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(6):196-203. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0202
	GUO Zixue, YANG Yaxu, HE Zefang. Evaluation of emergency logistics suppliers based on the improved TODIM method based on probabilistic linguistic term sets[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31(6):196-203. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0202
[14]	李德毅, 孟海军, 史雪梅. 隶属云和隶属云发生器[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 1995(6):15-20.
	LI Deyi, MENG Haijun, SHI Xuemei. Membership cloud and membership cloud generators[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 1995(6):15-20.
[15]	高志方, 杨青, 彭定洪. 基于云模型的TOPSIS决策方法研究[J]. 价值工程, 2013, 32(29):8-10.
	GAO Zhifang, YANG Qing, PENG Dinghong. Research on TOPSIS decision-making method based on cloud model[J]. Value Engineering, 2013, 32(29):8-10.
[16]	胡涛, 焦彦维, 王华兵, 等. 基于区间云模型对信息网络的效能评估[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2017, 37(2):478-485. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2017)02-0478-08
	HU Tao, JIAO Yanwei, WANG Huabing, et al. The efficiency evalution of information networks based on interval-based cloud model[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2017, 37(2):478-485.
[17]	董晓旭, 何安瑞, 孙文权, 等. 应用熵权-TOPSIS法的加热炉炉温在线设定模型[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报, 2017, 49(7):119-124.
	DONG Xiaoxu, HE Anrui, SUN Wenquan, et al. On-line temperature setup model of reheating furnace based on entropy weight-topsis method[J]. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2017, 49(7):119-124.
[18]	李英海, 周建中. 基于改进熵权和Vague集的多目标防洪调度决策方法[J]. 水电能源科学, 2010, 28(6):32-35.
	LI Yinghai, ZHOU Jianzhong. Modified entropy method and vague set based multi-objective flood control decision making approach[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2010, 28(6):32-35.
[19]	LAI Chengguang, CHEN Xiaohong, CHEN Xiaoyu, et al. A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flood risk based on the combination weight of game theory[J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 77: 1243-1259. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1645-6
[20]	赵坤, 高建伟, 祁之强, 等. 基于前景理论及云模型风险型多准则决策方法[J]. 控制与决策, 2015, 30(3):395-402.
	ZHAO Kun, GAO Jianwei, QI Zhiqiang, et al. Multi-criteria risky-decision-making approach based on prospect theory and cloud model[J]. Control and Decision, 2015, 30(3):395-402.
[21]	弓晓敏, 于长锐. 基于云模型的改进TODIM方案评价方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2018, 40(7):1539-1547.
	GONG Xiaomin, YU Changrui. Improved TODIM approach for alternative evaluation based on cloud mode[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 40(7):1539-1547.
[22]	徐士东, 耿秀丽. 云模型与TOPSIS相结合的多属性群决策方法[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2017, 34(10):2964-2967.
	XU Shidong, GENG Xiuli. Method of multi-attribute group decision-making by combining cloud model and TOPSIS[J]. Application Research of Computers, 2017, 34(10):2964-2967.

一级指标	二级指标	指标属性
应急响应能力S₁	准时交货率S₁₁	效益型
	快速生产能力S₁₂	效益型
	订单完整执行率S₁₃	效益型
	售后服务S₁₄	效益型
物资质量S₂	包装质量S₂₁	效益型
	产品合格率S₂₂	效益型
	产品故障率S₂₃	成本型
	质量保证能力S₂₄	效益型
成本控制S₃	价格成本S₃₁	成本型
	订单处理成本S₃₂	成本型
	库存成本S₃₃	成本型
	运输成本S₃₄	成本型
应急响应柔性S₄	数量柔性S₄₁	效益型
	时间柔性S₄₂	效益型
	品种柔性S₄₃	效益型
内外部条件S₅	地理位置S₅₁	效益型
	企业信誉S₅₂	效益型
	信息化水平S₅₃	效益型
	发展潜力S₅₄	效益型

指标	主观权重	客观权重	组合赋权
S₁₁	0.053 0	0.053 1	0.053 0
S₁₂	0.053 0	0.055 5	0.054 1
S₁₃	0.059 4	0.049 1	0.055 1
S₁₄	0.046 7	0.049 2	0.047 7
S₂₁	0.052 7	0.051 2	0.052 1
S₂₂	0.055 6	0.056 7	0.056 0
S₂₃	0.049 2	0.054 3	0.051 3
S₂₄	0.049 8	0.051 2	0.050 4
S₃₁	0.052 6	0.051 0	0.051 9
S₃₂	0.048 5	0.052 0	0.050 0
S₃₃	0.054 6	0.053 0	0.053 9
S₃₄	0.050 6	0.050 5	0.050 5
S₄₁	0.056 6	0.057 2	0.056 9
S₄₂	0.058 0	0.051 6	0.055 3
S₄₃	0.054 5	0.050 8	0.052 9
S₅₁	0.051 6	0.059 7	0.055 0
S₅₂	0.052 9	0.050 5	0.051 9
S₅₃	0.049 6	0.053 0	0.051 0
S₅₄	0.051 2	0.050 5	0.050 9

备选方案	S₁₁	S₁₂	…	S₅₄
A₁	(5.318,0.216 1,0.054 9)	(4.363,0.199 3,0.050 7)	…	(6.273,0.231 6,0.058 9)
A₂	(6.788,0.268 1,0.068 1)	(7.622,0.311 5,0.079 2)	…	(6.470,0.254 8,0.064 7)
A₃	(4.682,0.216 1,0.054 9)	(5.318,0.181 0,0.046 0)	…	(5.637,0.199 3,0.050 7)
A₄	(5.000,0.199 3,0.050 7)	(5.637,0.199 3,0.050 7)	…	(4.682,0.181 0,0.046 0)

备选方案	S₁₁	S₁₂	…	S₅₄
A₁	(0.282 1,0.011 5,0.002 9)	(0.235 9,0.010 8,0.002 7)	…	(0.319 4,0.011 8,0.003 0)
A₂	(0.360 1,0.014 2,0.003 6)	(0.412 1,0.016 8,0.004 3)	…	(0.329 4,0.013 0,0.003 3)
A₃	(0.248 4,0.011 5,0.002 9)	(0.287 6,0.009 8,0.002 5)	…	(0.287 0,0.010 1,0.002 6)
A₄	(0.265 2,0.010 6,0.002 7)	(0.304 8,0.010 8,0.002 7)	…	(0.238 4,0.009 2,0.002 3)
r⁺	(0.360 1,0.014 2,0.003 6)	(0.412 1,0.016 8,0.004 3)	…	(0.329 4,0.013 0,0.003 3)
r^-	(0.248 4,0.011 5,0.002 9)	(0.235 9,0.010 8,0.002 7)	…	(0.238 4,0.009 2,0.002 3)