基于组合赋权VIKOR的器材代储工厂选择研究

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2025.10.20

Abstract

Abstract:

A vlsekriterijumska optimizecija i kompromisno resenje （VIKOR） equipment substitute storage factory decision-making method based on group fuzzy analytic hierarchy process （GFAHP） and the improved criteria importance through intercriteria correlation （CRITIC） method is proposed to address the problems in determining the demand for equipment maintenance and support, slow response time, and poor storage efficiency. On the basis of constructing an optimization index system for equipment maintenance equipment substitute storage factories, combine the advantages of subjective and objective weighting, GFAHP and improved CRITIC are used to weight and combine the criterion layer and indicator layer separately. Then, the VIKOR method is used to rank alternative substitute storage factories to determine the optimal solution. Through case analysis, the impact of different compromise coefficients, weighting methods, decision-making methods, and selection scenarios on the decision-making results is compared. And the rationality and effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated.

Key words: multi-attribute decision-making, group fuzzy hierarchical analysis process（GFHAP）, criteria importance through intercriteria correlation （CRITIC） method, vlsekriterijumska optimizacija i kompromisno resenje method

CLC Number:

E 92

Zhiqiang CUI, Hongli JIA, Bing HAO, Lili GAO. Research on selection of equipment substitute storage plant based on combination weighting VIKOR[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 47(10): 3353-3366.

Figures/Tables 25

Table 1

Selecting optimal indicator system for equipment and maintenance equipment substitute storage factories"

准则层	指标层	定义
综合实力	市场占有率	特定器材销售占整个行业的市场份额
	盈利能力	经营活动产生利润的能力
	信誉度	工厂在经营活动中遵守法律法规、维护用户权益、诚信经营等方面的综合表现
	专业资质	工厂拥有的专业资质和材料，如国家行业准入证书、保密认证证书等
员工综合素质	员工技术水平	员工在特定器材生产维护拥有的专业知识和技能水平
	技术专家比例	取得高级职称专家数量占全部技术人员的比重
	员工离职率	一定时期内工厂员工离职比重
	规范化管理水平	工厂对员工管理所采用的一系列标准化、系统化的管理方法和措施
器材质量	器材合格率	一定数量的器材产品中，满足质量标准和性能要求的器材所占的比例
	质量认证体系	供应器材能够持续满足的既定质量标准，如国家标准等
	器材返厂率	一定时间内，因质量问题、性能故障等需要返回工厂进行维修、更换或升级的器材数量与出厂产品总数的比例
器材费用	器材单价	单件器材报价
	存储维护费用	保证一定数量器材处于良好技术状况所消耗的存储及维护费用总和
	配送费用	一定数量器材由工厂配送至客户端所需的费用
仓库保障条件	设施配套水平	为满足特定器材生产、存储和物流需求配备的设施、设备的完整程度
	仓库使用空间	仓库内部可用于存放器材的空间
	仓库环境适应度	仓库的物理条件是否满足特定存储需求的能力，如温湿度控制、通风照明等
生产交付能力	柔性生产能力	制造系统在没有大量成本损失的前提下，能够适应客户需求变化、生产不同型号、数量器材的能力
	交货提前期	客户下订单到工厂完成订单并将其交付客户所需的全部时间，通常包括订单处理、生产、拣选、打包、运输等多个环节
	交货准确率	一定时间内，器材按照客户的要求准时、完整且无误地交付与出厂产品总数的比例
	地理及交通优势	器材工厂在地理位置和交通连接方面的有利条件
服务水平	信息交流平台	为便于客户掌握器材调拨动态，工厂所提供的交流平台
	售后服务能力	工厂在器材交付后向客户提供的支持和服务的总体表现，通常包括产品维护、修理、技术支持等
	客户满意度	客户对工厂提供的器材或服务体验的满足程度的一种度量，通常基于客户的期望与实际体验之间的比较
创新能力	智能化水平	工厂在器材生产、存储、供应过程中应用信息技术、自动化技术、分析工具等，实现智能化管理的程度
	研发经费投入	一定时间内，工厂实施研究与试验发展活动产生的全部经费
	产品研发能力	一定时间内，成功研发新型器材及配套产品的数量
供应安全稳定性	原材料供应稳定性	原材料供应商能够持续、及时，并且以一致的质量标准向生产者提供所需原材料的能力
	核心技术外购比例	工厂在器材生产所采用的核心技术中，通过外部采购方式获得的比例
	突发事件处理能力	工厂在面对突发危机或紧急情况，能够迅速、有效地采取行动以减轻负面影响、恢复正常运营的能力

Table 1

Fig.1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.2

Fig.3

Table 7

Fig.4

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 12

Fig.7

Table 13

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Table 14

References 31

1	LUNDGREN C, BOKRANTZ J, SKOOGH A. Factors influencing maintenance-related investments in industry: a multiple-case study[J]. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 2021, 27 (1): 203- 224.
2	GOVINDAN K, ADITI, DHINGRA DARBARI J, et al. Structural model for analysis of key performance indicators for sustainable manufacturer-supplier collaboration: a grey-decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory-based approach[J]. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2021, 30 (4): 1702- 1722. doi: 10.1002/bse.2703
3	ZEYDAN M, ÇOLPAN C, ÇOBANOĞLU C. A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2011, 38 (3): 2741- 2751. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.064
4	NG W L. An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier selection problem[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 186 (3): 1059- 1067. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.018
5	梁欢. 汽车零部件新开发项目供应商选择的影响因素研究[D]. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2024.
	LIANG H. Research on the influencing factors of supplier selection for new development projects of automotive parts and components[D]. Nanchang: Nanchang University, 2024.
6	WANG Q, WANG J X, LI H, et al. Research on financing efficiency and influencing factors of equipment manufacturing industry—regression model based on SFA panel data[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2021, 40 (4): 8117- 8126.
7	HO W, XU X, DEY P K. Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 202 (1): 16- 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.05.009
8	CUI Z Q, JIA H L, GAO Q, et al. Maintenance spare parts prediction based on multilevel migration learning CNN-ISE-Attention-BiLSTM[J]. IEEE Access, 2024, 12, 15208- 15221. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3357994
9	张亮, 王坚浩, 郑东良, 等. 基于直觉模糊熵和VIKOR的装备器材供应商选优决策[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41 (7): 1568- 1575. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2019.07.18
	ZHANG L, WANG J H, ZHENG D L, et al. Optimisation decision of equipment and equipment supplier selection based on intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and VIKOR[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (7): 1568- 1575. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2019.07.18
10	QURESHI S A, NASEEM A, AHMAD Y. Outsourcing or in-house manufacturing in Hi-tech industry: supply chain process with Delphi-AHP approach[J]. Kybernetes, 2024, 53 (9): 2799- 2823. doi: 10.1108/K-08-2022-1172
11	YAO Z H, JIANG H. Research on capacities to undertake the automobile manufacturing industry of cities in Hebei Province based on entropy-TOPSIS model[C]//Proc. of the Asia-Pacific Conference on Economics & Finance, 2023: 237−251.
12	LIU B Y, CHEN T, YANG H D, et al. Supplier evaluation and selection in a sustainable supply chain based on fuzzy-BWM, entropy method and grey relational TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2023, 44 (6): 9919- 9932.
13	RABIEH M, FADAEI RAFSANJANI A, BABAEI L, et al. Sustainable supplier selection and order allocation: an integrated Delphi method, fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-objective programming model[J]. Scientia Iranica, 2019, 26 (4): 2524- 2540.
14	TRONNEBATI I, JAWAB F, FRICHI Y, et al. Green supplier selection using fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOSIS, and fuzzy WASPAS: a case study of the moroccan automotive industry[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16 (11): 4580.
15	LIN G H, CHUANG C A, TAN C L, et al. Supplier selection criteria using analytical hierarchy process（AHP）-based approach: a study in refractory materials manufacturers[J]. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2023, 123 (6): 1814- 1839.
16	KAYA I, KARAŞAN A, GÜVERCIN Ö, et al. Appraisal of smart factory design for advance manufacturing plants based on transition strategies by using an integrated fuzzy decision-making methodology[J]. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2023, 36 (8): 1153- 1177. doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2023.2177735
17	GONG Y, YAN Y, LIU Z, et al. Remanufacturing benefit comprehensive evaluation for an automotive alternator based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2024, 21 (4): 4547- 4564. doi: 10.1007/s13762-023-05314-9
18	ZAVADSKAS E K, TURSKIS Z, STEVIC Z, et al. Modelling procedure for the selection of steel pipes supplier by applying fuzzy AHP method[J]. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2020, 3 (2): 39- 53.
19	ALTHAQAFI T. Environmental and social factors in supplier assessment: fuzzy-based green supplier selection[J]. Sustainability, 2023, 15 (21): 15643. doi: 10.3390/su152115643
20	MIJALKOVSKI S, STEFANOV V, MIRAKOVSKI D. Application of the TOPSIS method for selecting the location of the main warehouse[J]. Transport & Logistics: the International Journal, 2024, 24(56): 51−58.
21	王坚浩, 王龙, 张亮, 等. 灰色群组聚类和改进CRITIC赋权的供应商选择VIKOR多属性决策[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2023, 45 (1): 155- 164.
	WANG J H, WANG L, ZHANG L, et al. Grey cluster clustering and improved CRITIC assignment for supplier selection VIKOR multi-attribute decision making[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2023, 45 (1): 155- 164.
22	United States Department of Defense. The defense acquisition system: DOD directive5000.1[EB/OL]. [2024-05-09]. https://www.defense.gov/Resources/Forms-Directives-Instructions/.
23	徐泽水. 模糊互补判断矩阵排序的一种算法[J]. 系统工程学报, 2001, 16 (4): 311- 314. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5781.2001.04.012
	XU Z S. An algorithm for ranking fuzzy complementary judgement matrices[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering, 2001, 16 (4): 311- 314. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5781.2001.04.012
24	何鹏, 王晖, 黎云兵, 等. 军民融合陆军装备维修保障体系能力评估研究[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2021, 46 (11): 73- 81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.11.011
	HE P, WANG H, LI Y B, et al. Research on the capability assessment of military-civilian integration of army equipment maintenance and guarantee system[J]. Fire and Command and Control, 2021, 46 (11): 73- 81. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0640.2021.11.011
25	何立华, 王栎绮, 张连营. 基于聚类的多属性群决策专家权重确定方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2014, 23 (6): 65- 72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3221.2014.06.011
	HE L H, WANG L Q, ZHANG L Y. Clustering-based expert weight determination method for multi-attribute group decision-making[J]. Operations Research and Management, 2014, 23 (6): 65- 72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-3221.2014.06.011
26	李琳, 刘雅奇, 李双刚. 一种群决策专家客观权重确定的改进方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2011, 20 (8): 77- 81.
	LI L, LIU Y Q, LI S G. An improved method for determining objective weights of group decision-making experts[J]. Operations Research and Management, 2011, 20 (8): 77- 81.
27	ALINEZHAD A, KHALILI J. CRITIC method[M]// New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Berlin: Springer, 2019: 199−203.
28	KONDA V R, TSITSIKLIS J N. Onactor-critic algorithms[J]. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 2003, 42(4): 1143−1166.
29	HAN Y G, ZHANG S S, DENG D X. An integrated methodology for commercial concrete supplier selection with intuitionistic fuzzy CPT-VIKOR[J]. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2023, 44 (2): 2643- 2654.
30	RODRIGUEZ A R S C, OLIVEIRA P V D. An extension of systematic layout planning by using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods: a case study[J]. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2022, 16 (1): 1- 30.
31	NAFEI A, HUANG C Y, JAVADPOUR A, et al. Neutrosophic fuzzy decision-making using TOPSIS and autocratic methodology for machine selection in an industrial factory[J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2024, 26 (3): 860- 886. doi: 10.1007/s40815-023-01640-9

标度	定义	说明
0.1	极端不重要	一个因素比另一个极端不重要
0.2	强烈不重要	一个因素比另一个强烈不重要
0.3	明显不重要	一个因素比另一个明显不重要
0.4	稍微不重要	一个因素比另一个稍微不重要
0.5	同等重要	两个因素同样重要
0.6	稍微重要	一个因素比另一个稍微重要
0.7	明显重要	一个因素比另一个明显重要
0.8	强烈重要	一个因素比另一个强烈重要
0.9	极端重要	一个因素比另一个极端重要

准则层	指标层	Y^（1）	Y^（2）	Y^（3）	Y^（4）	主客观	类型
综合实力	市场占有率/%	25	35	15	10	客观	效益型
	盈利能力/万元	23652	54725	25321	8456	客观	效益型
	企业信誉度	0.9	0.9	0.7	0.7	主观	效益型
	专业资质/个	4	4	3	3	客观	效益型
员工综合素质	员工能力水平	0.9	0.8	0.85	0.8	主观	效益型
	技术专家比例/%	30	25	15	12	客观	效益型
	员工离职率/%	5	3	10	5	客观	成本型
	规范化管理水平	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.7	主观	效益型
器材质量	器材合格率/%	98	96	93	95	客观	效益型
	质量认证体系/个	5	4	3	3	客观	效益型
	器材返厂率/%	3	6	3	4	客观	成本型
器材费用	器材单价/（万元/件）	55.4	49.7	53.2	57.3	客观	成本型
	存储维护费用/（万元/年）	1.3	0.78	1.7	0.6	客观	成本型
	配送费用/次	0.3	0.5	0.5	0.5	客观	成本型
仓库保障条件	设施配套水平	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.7	主观	效益型
	仓库使用空间/$ {{\mathrm{m}}^3} $	2344	3520	1200	1300	客观	效益型
	仓库环境适应度	0.85	0.7	0.82	0.6	主观	效益型
生产交付能力	柔性生产综合能力/%	75	80	60	60	客观	效益型
	交货提前期/天	7	10	15	15	客观	效益型
	交货准确率/%	90	85	80	80	客观	效益型
	地理及交通优势	0.9	0.7	0.8	0.7	主观	效益型
服务水平	`信息交流平台	0.75	0.9	0.75	0.75	主观	效益型
	售后服务能力	0.9	0.85	0.5	0.7	主观	效益型
	客户满意度/%	98	95	90	92	客观	效益型
创新能力	智能化生产水平	0.8	0.65	0.2	0.4	主观	效益型
	研发经费投入比重/%	10	5	5	3	客观	效益型
	产品研发能力/个	57	38	21	15	客观	效益型
供应安全稳定性	原材料供应稳定性	0.85	0.8	0.7	0.7	主观	效益型
	核心技术外购比例/%	10	25	30	35	客观	成本型
	突发事件处理能力	0.85	0.85	0.7	0.8	主观	效益型

专家1	企业综合实力	员工综合素质	器材质量	器材费用	仓库保障条件	生产交付能力	服务水平	创新能力	供应安全稳定性
企业综合实力	0.5	0.6	0.1	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.4
员工综合素质	0.4	0.5	0.1	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.4	0.4
器材质量	0.9	0.9	0.5	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.7	0.7	0.7
器材费用	0.6	0.6	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.6	0.4
仓库保障条件	0.7	0.7	0.3	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.6	0.7	0.6
生产交付能力	0.8	0.8	0.4	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.7
服务水平	0.7	0.6	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.6
创新能力	0.6	0.6	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.4
供应安全稳定性	0.6	0.6	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.6	0.5

权重	专家1	权重	专家1
$ {w_1} $	0.0931	$ {w_6} $	0.1278
$ {w_2} $	0.0917	$ {w_7} $	0.1139
$ {w_3} $	0.1375	$ {w_8} $	0.1014
$ {w_4} $	0.1069	$ {w_9} $	0.1083
$ {w_5} $	0.1194	—	—

专家	w₁	w₂	w₃	w₄	w₅	w₆	w₇	w₈	w₉
专家2	0.0903	0.0889	0.1389	0.1069	0.1194	0.1250	0.1139	0.1056	0.1111
专家3	0.0958	0.1056	0.1306	0.1000	0.1139	0.1167	0.1028	0.1167	0.1181
专家4	0.0944	0.1069	0.1319	0.0972	0.1153	0.1153	0.1056	0.1194	0.1139
专家5	0.1014	0.0931	0.1361	0.0889	0.1181	0.1264	0.1153	0.1097	0.1111
专家6	0.0986	0.0944	0.1375	0.0958	0.1222	0.1250	0.1167	0.1014	0.1083

Research on selection of equipment substitute storage plant based on combination weighting VIKOR

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 25

References 31

Related Articles 8

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

权重	综合	权重	综合
$ {w_1} $	0.0957	$ {w_6} $	0.1245
$ {w_2} $	0.0942	$ {w_7} $	0.1133
$ {w_3} $	0.1365	$ {w_8} $	0.1066
$ {w_4} $	0.0995	$ {w_9} $	0.1107
$ {w_5} $	0.119	—	—

企业综合实力	权重
$ w_1^2 $	0.1351
$ w_2^2 $	0.3729
$ w_3^2 $	0.2460
$ w_4^2 $	0.2460

指标	权重	指标	权重
$ {w_1} $	0.0129	$ {w_{16}} $	0.0410
$ {w_2} $	0.0357	$ {w_{17}} $	0.0522
$ {w_3} $	0.0235	$ {w_{18}} $	0.0261
$ {w_4} $	0.0235	$ {w_{19}} $	0.0212
$ {w_5} $	0.0283	$ {w_{20}} $	0.0212
$ {w_6} $	0.0143	$ {w_{21}} $	0.0231
$ {w_7} $	0.0296	$ {w_{22}} $	0.0477
$ {w_8} $	0.0219	$ {w_{23}} $	0.0307
$ {w_9} $	0.0347	$ {w_{24}} $	0.0349
$ {w_{10}} $	0.0296	$ {w_{25}} $	0.0481
$ {w_{11}} $	0.0722	$ {w_{26}} $	0.0387
$ {w_{12}} $	0.0333	$ {w_{27}} $	0.0198
$ {w_{13}} $	0.0366	$ {w_{28}} $	0.0198
$ {w_{14}} $	0.0297	$ {w_{29}} $	0.0351
$ {w_{15}} $	0.0258	$ {w_{30}} $	0.0558

工厂	$ {S_i} $	$ {R_i} $	$ {Q_i} $	$ {S_i} $排序	$ {R_i} $排序	$ {Q_{v = 0.5}} $排序
$ {Y^{(1)}} $	0.2260	0.0542	0.1847	1	2	1
$ {Y^{(2)}} $	0.3738	0.0722	0.6345	2	4	3
$ {Y^{(3)}} $	0.7342	0.0558	0.6353	3	3	4
$ {Y^{(4)}} $	0.7470	0.0522	0.5805	4	1	2

折衷系数	$ {Q_{{Y^{(1)}}}} $	$ {Q_{{Y^{(2)}}}} $	$ {Q_{{Y^{(3)}}}} $	$ {Q_{{Y^{(4)}}}} $	方案排序	折衷方案
0.0	0.3455	1	0.4036	0.2727	$ {Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(4)}} $$ {Y^{(1)}} $
0.1	0.3133	0.9269	0.4500	0.3343	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(4)}} $
0.2	0.2811	0.8538	0.4963	0.3958	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(4)}} $
0.3	0.2490	0.7807	0.5426	0.4574	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(4)}} $
0.4	0.2168	0.7076	0.5890	0.5189	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(4)}} $
0.5	0.1847	0.6345	0.6353	0.5805	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
0.6	0.1525	0.5614	0.6816	0.6420	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
0.7	0.1204	0.4884	0.7280	0.7036	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
0.8	0.0882	0.4153	0.7743	0.7651	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(2)}} $
0.9	0.0560	0.3422	0.8206	0.8266	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(2)}} $
1.0	0.0239	0.2691	0.8670	0.8882	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $$ {Y^{(2)}} $

方法	$ Q_{{Y^{(1)}}}^{v = 0.5} $	$ Q_{{Y^{(2)}}}^{v = 0.5} $	$ Q_{{Y^{(2)}}}^{v = 0.5} $	$ Q_{{Y^{(2)}}}^{v = 0.5} $	工厂排序方式	最优工厂
VIKOR	0	0.1199	0.4809	0.5000	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
熵权-VIKOR	0	0.1199	0.4802	0.5000	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
CRITIC-VIKOR	0.5000	0.3508	0.5174	0.5000	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $
GFAHP-熵权-VIKOR	0.4009	0.1406	0.9713	1.0000	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}} $
GFAHP-CRITIC-VIKOR	0	0.6440	0.4803	0.5000	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
GFAHP-改进CRITIC-VIKOR（本文方法）	0.1847	0.6345	0.6353	0.5805	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $

方法	${C_{{Y^{(1)}}}} $	${C_{{Y^{(2)}}}} $	${C_{{Y^{(3)}}}} $	${C_{{Y^{(4)}}}} $	工厂排序方式	最优工厂
TOPSIS	0.4016	0.3181	0.1420	0.1383	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
熵权-TOPSIS	0.4827	0.3235	0.0993	0.0945	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
CRITIC-TOPSIS	0.2750	0.2488	0.2487	0.2275	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
GFAHP-熵权-TOPSIS	0.5254	0.3246	0.0816	0.0684	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
GFAHP-CRITIC- TOPSIS	0.4168	0.2883	0.1569	0.1381	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
GFAHP-改进CRITIC-TOPSIS（本文方法）	0.4138	0.278	0.1614	0.1468	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $

选择场景	决策方法	工厂排序$ Q_{}^{v = 0.5} $	最优工厂
	熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
	CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $
器材质量水平优先	GFAHP-熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
	GFAHP-CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
	GFAHP-改进CRITIC-VIKOR（本文方法）	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(2)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
	熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
	CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $
器材供应水平优先	GFAHP-熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
	GFAHP-CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}} $
	GFAHP-改进CRITIC-VIKOR（本文方法）	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}} $
	熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $
	CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $
器材保障经费优先	GFAHP-熵权-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(3)}}{Y^{(4)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
	GFAHP-CRITIC-VIKOR	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}} $
	GFAHP-改进CRITIC-VIKOR（本文方法）	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}}{Y^{(4)}}{Y^{(3)}} $	$ {Y^{(1)}}{Y^{(2)}} $

[1]	Tianqi XU, Wenqi JIANG, Li ZHU, Shanshan YANG, Jiali WANG. DPC-ELECTRE multi-attribute decision-making methods and applications based on integration attribute correlation [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 47(1): 202-209.
[2]	Xiaojie YU, Song WEI, Jialian SHENG, Lei ZHANG. Threat identification for low-altitude target track based on HMM [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2023, 45(5): 1399-1408.
[3]	Nuoxi ZHENG, Wu LI, Xiaoqiang ZHOU, Gang LIU. Projection decision method for consistency of multiple attribute similarity [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2022, 44(9): 2869-2877.
[4]	Jing BAI, Yehua CHEN, Rui SHI, Yaming ZHANG. Emergency decision-making based on the reliability distribution of weighted cross entropy in probabilistic language [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 43(2): 476-486.
[5]	JIANG Dengying, ZHANG Xujun. Multi-attribute group decision-making method with triangular fuzzy numbers based on the TFNCD operator [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41(9): 2065-2071.
[6]	LI He, JIANG Dengying. Hesitant fuzzy prospect theory decision-making method based on improved signed distance [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41(12): 2820-2826.
[7]	SUN Guidong, GUAN Xin, YI Xiao, ZHAO Jing. Numerical extending method for HFSs based on normative operator and its application in multi-attribute decision making [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 40(7): 1530-1538.
[8]	YIN Chun-wu, HOU Ming-shan, LI Ming-xiang. Construction of attitude stability controller preferential evaluation system [J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38(1): 130-135.