4.8 Article

A Dempster-Shafer-theory-based entry screening mechanism for small and medium-sized enterprises under uncertainty

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121719

关键词

Multi-criteria decision-making; probabilistic linguistic term set; Dempster-Shafer theory; small and medium-sized enterprise

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71771156, 71971145, 72171158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a multi-criteria decision-making model that combines the Dempster-Shafer theory with probabilistic linguistic settings to address the uncertainties in the evaluation of start-up SMEs. The applicability and reliability of the proposed model are validated through a case study.
The evaluation of star-up small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is an important part of ensuring the success of development, but it is not an easy task because of the multiple criteria to be considered and uncertainties caused by incomplete decision information, limited individual perceptions and differences in perceptions of experts. By integrating Dempster-Shafer theory into a probabilistic linguistic setting that takes into account the uncertainties in the evaluation process by combining linguistic terms with subjective probabilities, this study proposes a multi-criteria decision-making model for the management of SMEs. We incorporate different decision factors regarding (a) the risk attitude of decision makers, (b) the relative importance of criteria, (c) the unreliability and incompleteness of evaluation on alternatives in one preference model of multi-criteria decision making. The applicability of the proposed preference model is validated by a case study of the entry screening of SMEs for business incubators. Through comparative analysis and sensitive analysis, the reliability of the proposed model is verified, which can not only express uncertain evaluation information, but also avoid information loss and defuzzification in the aggregation process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据