基于行为特征分析的情境化评价方法及应用

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2021.1411

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

个体行为分析与诱导是组织管理的重要方面，面向管理需求展开的行为分析及评价方法设计能够为组织、个体发展提供基于数据的有力支撑。本文以行为特征分析为切入点，在评价过程中融入激励与惩罚的管理需求，提出了一种面向不同奖惩需求的情境化评价方法。首先，基于指标数据从综合发展水平和竞争激励程度两个方面对被评价对象的行为特征进行分析，并以此为基础，将被评价对象的评价指标分为优势、比较优势、劣势、比较劣势四种类别；然后，基于常见的“奖励优秀”“惩罚短板”“奖惩并重”奖惩需求界定了三种评价情境，并结合不同情境奖惩规则设计相应的指标权重，以期通过权重在指标层面实现对被评价对象发展行为的诱导管理。最后，将方法应用至辽宁省地级市综合发展水平的情境化评价中，通过排序结果与相应指标排序之间的相关性分析，验证了本文方法的有效性，进一步通过与已有方法的比较分析，总结了本文方法的特征。通过研究发现“惩罚短板”的效果比较明显，建议优先采用此种评价策略；然而，若实践中决策者期望形成良好的评价氛围，可采用“奖惩并重”的策略；一般不建议单独使用“奖励优秀”的策略，以避免导致“畸形”发展的情形。该研究可为奖惩导向下面向行为管理的评价问题提供方法支撑，能够有效提升综合评价的管理服务功能。

关键词: 综合评价, 行为特征, 管理需求, 综合发展水平, 竞争激励程度

Abstract:

Individual behavior analysis and induction is an important aspect of organization management. The behavior analysis and evaluation method oriented to management requirements can provide strong data-based support to the development of individual and organization.In this paper， the management needs of incentive and punishment are integrated into the evaluation process based on the analysis of behavior characteristics， and a contextualized evaluation method for different reward and punishment needs is proposed. Firstly， the behavior characteristics of the alternatives are identified by the combination analysis of the comprehensive development level and competition degree of the indicators. Based on this， all the indicators are divided into four groups： advantage indicators， comparative advantage indicators， disadvantage indicators， and comparative disadvantage indicators. Secondly， three types of evaluation situations are defined based on the common demands of reward and punishment such as “reward excellence”，“punish weakness” and “reward and punishment equal emphasis”. Based on the rules of reward and punishment in different situations， the determination method of indicator weights is discussed to induce the development behavior of the alternatives through weight design. Lastly， the proposed methods are applied to evaluate the comprehensive development of 14 cities in Liaoning province. The effectiveness of the proposed method is verified by the correlation analysis between the ranking results and that of the corresponding indicators. And the characteristics of the proposed method are illustrated by comparing with the existing methods.The results indicate that the effect of “punish weakness” is obvious， so it is suggested that this kind of strategy should be preferred in applications. However， if the decision-makers expect to form a good evaluation atmosphere， they can adopt the strategy of “reward and punishment equal emphasis” in practice. The “reward excellence” strategy alone is generally not recommended to avoid situations that lead to “malformation” development.The research work in this paper can provide theoretical and methodological support for the incentive management of individuals in organizations and systems. The use of reward and punishment strategies can highlight the differences between individuals， so the proposed methods have a good application prospect in differential performance management problems. In addition， this method can lay a foundation for in-depth analysis and management of individual development behavior by classifying and identifying individual advantages and disadvantages. Therefore， the methods also have certain application prospects in individual behavior induction management and development planning.The main contributions of the research reflect on the following three aspects　（1） The behavior characteristics of the alternatives are analyzed in the evaluation process， and a contextualized evaluation model oriented to behavior guidance is proposed；（2） The classification and identification of indicators makes the alternatives’ judgment of their own advantages and disadvantages more clear；（3） The proposed methods implement rewards and punishments to the indicators level， which makes the effect of reward and punishment more obvious， and the induction of development behavior of the alternatives more direct.

Key words: comprehensive evaluation, behavior characteristics, management demands, comprehensive development level, competitive incentive degree

中图分类号:

C934

李伟伟,易平涛,王露. 基于行为特征分析的情境化评价方法及应用[J]. 中国管理科学, 2024, 32(10): 171-180.

Weiwei Li,Pingtao Yi,Lu Wang. Situation Oriented Evaluation Approaches Based on Behavior Characteristics Analysis and the Application[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2024, 32(10): 171-180.

图/表 6

表1

表2

图1

表3

表4

参考文献 30

1	江兵，徐美波.基于三角模糊数及其贴近度的小微企业创新能力评价［J］.中国管理科学，2016，24（S1）： 685-692.
	Jiang B， Xu M B. Study on innovation ability evaluation of small and micro enterprises based on triangular fuzzy number and fuzzy closeness degree［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2016， 24（S1）： 685-692.
2	Cui D， Chen X， Xue Y L， et al. An integrated approach to investigate the relationship of coupling coordination between social economy and water environment on urban scale： A case study of Kunming［J］. Journal of Environmental Management， 2019， 234： 189-199.
3	Yi P T， Dong Q K， Li W W. Evaluation of city sustainability using the deviation maximization method［J］. Sustainable Cities and Society， 2019， 50： 101529.
4	王丽萍，阎晓冉，王渤权，等. 基于多维关联抽样的区间数灰靶决策模型及其应用［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2019， 39（6）： 1610-1622.
	Wang L P， Yan X R， Wang B Q， et al. Interval number grey target decision-making model based on multi-dimensional association sampling and its application［J］. Systems Engineering — Theory & Practice， 2019， 39（6）： 1610-1622.
5	徐选华，杜志娇，陈晓红，等.保护少数意见的冲突型大群体应急决策方法［J］.管理科学学报，2017，20（11）： 10-23.
	Xu X H， Du Z J， Chen X H， et al. Conflict large-group emergency decision-making method while protecting minority opinions［J］. Journal of Management Sciences in China， 2017， 20（11）： 10-23.
6	Chan C K， Zhou Y， Wong K H. An equilibrium model of the supply chain network under multi-attribute behaviors analysis［J］.European Journal of Operational Research， 2019， 275（2）： 514-535.
7	张磊，韩可可，叶鑫．广义Z-numbers证据下考虑专家影响力和评价值一致性的应急决策方法［J/OL］. 中国管理科学， 2023， .
	Zhang L， Han K K， Ye X. Emergency decision-making method considering the influence of expert and the consistency of valuation from the perspective of generalized Z-numbers evidence［J/OL］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2023， .
8	易平涛，李伟伟，郭亚军. 综合评价理论与方法（第二版）［M］. 北京：经济管理出版社， 2019.
	Yi P T， Li W W， Guo Y J. Comprehensive evaluation theory and methods （second edition）［M］. Beijing： Economic Management Press， 2019.
9	尤筱玥，雷星晖，毛人杰，等. 基于ITL-VIKOR扩展模型的供应商企业社会责任评价［J］. 管理学报， 2019， 16（12）： 1830-1840.
	You X Y， Lei X H， Mao R J， et al. Evaluating supplier corporate social responsibility using an extended ITL-VIKOR method［J］. Chinese Journal of Management， 2019， 16（12）： 1830-1840.
10	Sitorus F， Cilliers J J， Brito-Parada P R. An integrated constrained fuzzy stochastic analytic hierarchy process method with application to the choice problem［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2019， 138： 112822.
11	Lee S W， Xue K. An integrated importance-performance analysis and modified analytic hierarchy process approach to sustainable city assessment［J］. Environmental Science and Pollution Research， 2021， 28（44）， 63346-63358.
12	程砚秋. 基于区间相似度和序列比对的群组G1评价方法［J］. 中国管理科学， 2015， 23（S1）： 204-210.
	Cheng Y Q. A group G1 evaluation method based on interval similarity and sequence comparison［J］. Chinese Journal of Management Science， 2015， 23（S1）： 204-210.
13	Torkayesh A E， Ecer F， Pamucar D， et al. Comparative assessment of social sustainability performance： Integrated data-driven weighting system and CoCoSo model［J］. Sustainable Cities and Society， 2021， 71， 102975.
14	黄山，张学军. 基于相对熵的公路建设项目可行性综合评价分析研究［J］. 工程管理学报， 2017， 31（3）： 97-101.
	Huang S， Zhang X J. Relative entropy analysis on highway construction feasibility project evaluation［J］. Journal of Engineering Management，2017，31（3）： 97-101.
15	Wang Q， Li S Q， Li R R. Evaluating water resource sustainability in Beijing， China： Combining PSR model and matter-element extension method［J］. Journal of Cleaner Production， 2019， 206， 171-179.
16	王国红，许达，黄昊. 基于网络层次分析法的新兴产业创业合成能力评价模型研究［J］. 科技管理研究， 2019， 23： 75-81.
	Wang G H， Xu D， Huang H. Research of evaluation model of business dynamic ability in emerging industries based on ANP theory［J］. Science and Technology Management Research， 2019， 23： 75-81.
17	Rad T G， Sadeghi-Niaraki A， Abbasi A， et al. A methodological framework for assessment of ubiquitous cities using ANP and DEMATEL methods［J］. Sustainable Cities and Society， 2018， 37： 608-618.
18	Pinar M. Choquet-integral aggregation method to aggregate social indicators to account for interactions： An application to the Human development index［J］. Social Indicators Research， 2022， 159（1）， 1-53.
19	Yi P T， Li W W， Zhang D N. Assessment of city sustainability using MCDM with interdependent criteria weight［J］. Sustainability， 2019（11）： 1632.
20	余鹏，马珩，周福礼. 基于级差最大化组合赋权TOPSIS灰关联投影法的区域碳效率动态评价［J］. 运筹与管理， 2019， 28（12）： 170-177.
	Yu P， Ma H， Zhou F L. Dynamic evaluation of regional carbon efficiency based on combined weighting of level difference maximization and TOPSIS grey incidence projection method［J］. Operations Research and Management Science， 2019， 28（12）： 170-177.
21	苏为华. 多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究［D］. 厦门：厦门大学博士学位论文， 2000.
	Su W H. Research on the theory and method of multi-attributes comprehensive evaluation［D］. Xiamen： Xiamen University Doctoral Dissertation， 2000.
22	易平涛，郭亚军，张丹宁. 基于双激励控制线的多阶段信息集结方法［J］. 预测， 2007， 26（3）： 39-43.
	Yi P T， Guo Y J， Zhang D N. A multi-phase information aggregation method based on double inspiriting control lines［J］. Forecasting， 2007， 26（3）： 39-43.
23	易平涛，张丹宁，郭亚军. 基于泛激励控制线的多阶段信息集结方法［J］. 运筹与管理， 2010， 19（1）： 49-55.
	Yi P T， Zhang D N， Guo Y J. A multi-phase information aggregation method based on extensive inspiriting control lines［J］. Operations Research and Management Science， 2010， 19（1）： 49-55.
24	刘薇薇，石春生，赵圣斌. 具有速度特征的动态综合评价模型［J］. 系统工程理论与实践， 2013， 33（3）： 705-710.
	Liu W W， Shi C S， Zhao S B. Dynamic comprehensive evaluation model with the feature of speed［J］. Systems Engineering—Theory & Practice，2013，33（3）： 705-710.
25	张发明. 基于双重激励模型的动态综合评价方法及应用［J］. 系统工程学报， 2013， 28（2）： 248-255.
	Zhang F M. Dynamic comprehensive evaluation method based on double incentives model and its application［J］. Journal of Systems Engineering，2013，28（2）： 248-255.
26	周世军. 一种具有奖惩特征的动态主成分综合评价法［J］. 统计教育， 2008， 109（10）： 60-62.
	Zhou S J. Dynamic comprehensive evaluation of principal component with incentive feature［J］. Statistical Thinktank， 2008， 109（10）： 60-62.
27	李莉. 一种带有奖惩参数的动态因子分析综合评价法［J］. 渭南师范学院学报， 2013， 28（6）： 17-19.
	Li L. A dynamic comprehensive evaluation method of factor analysis with incentive parameter［J］. Journal of Weinan Teachers College， 2013， 28（6）： 17-19.
28	Chen P Y. Effects of normalization on the entropy-based TOPSIS method［J］. Expert Systems with Applications， 2019， 136： 33-41.
29	Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making［J］. IEEE Transactions on Systems， Man and Cybernetics B， 1988， 18（1）：183-190.
30	Harmati I A， Fuller R， Felde I. On stability of maximal entropy OWA operator weights［J］. Fuzzy Sets and Systems， 2022， 448： 145-156.

	t₁	t₂	…	t_k
	x₁x₂ … x_m	x₁x₂ … x_m	…	x₁x₂ … x_m
o₁	x₁₁(t₁) x₁₂(t₁) … x₁_m (t₁)	x₁₁(t₂) x₁₂(t₂) … x₁_m (t₂)	…	x₁₁(t_k ) x₁₂(t_k ) … x₁_m (t_k )
o₂	x₂₁(t₁) x₂₂(t₁) … x₂_m (t₁)	x₂₁(t₂) x₂₂(t₂) … x₂_m (t₂)	…	x₂₁(t_k ) x₂₂(t_k ) … x₂_m (t_k )
…	…	…	…	…
o_n	x_n₁(t₁) x_n₂(t₁) … x_nm (t₁)	x_n₁(t₂) x_n₂(t₂) … x_nm (t₂)	…	x_n₁(t_k ) x_n₂(t_k ) … x_nm (t_k )

城市	优势指标	比较优势指标	比较劣势指标	劣势指标
沈阳	x₁, x₂, x₃, x₈, x₁₀, x₁₁	x₅, x₆	x₄, x₉, x₁₂	x₇
大连	x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆, x₈, x₁₁	x₇	x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	-
鞍山	x₂, x₆	x₅, x₇, x₈	x₃, x₄, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₁₁
抚顺	-	x₇, x₈	x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₂, x₁₁
本溪	x₁₂	x₇, x₈	x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₁₀	x₆, x₉, x₁₁
丹东	x₇	x₂, x₈	x₁, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₆, x₉, x₁₁
锦州	x₁₁	x₇	x₁, x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₈
营口	x₆, x₁₁	x₂, x₅, x₇	x₃, x₄, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₈
阜新	x₉	x₇, x₁₁	x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₈, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₆
辽阳	x₆, x₈	x₇	x₂, x₃, x₄, x₅, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₁₁
盘锦	x₁, x₅, x₆, x₁₁	x₈	x₃, x₇, x₉, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₂, x₄,
铁岭	x₇, x₉, x₁₁	-	x₃, x₄, x₅, x₆, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₂, x₈
朝阳	x₅, x₆, x₉, x₁₁	x₇	x₂, x₃, x₄, x₁₀, x₁₂	x₁, x₈
葫芦岛	x₁₀, x₁₁	x₂, x₅,	x₃, x₄, x₉, x₁₂	x₁, x₆, x₇, x₈

城市	奖励优秀		惩罚短板		奖惩并重		无奖惩
城市	评价值	排序	评价值	排序	评价值	排序	评价值	排序
沈阳	0.720	2	0.489	2	0.672	2	0.618	2
大连	0.783	1	0.543	1	0.752	1	0.687	1
鞍山	0.537	5	0.342	7	0.433	5	0.425	5
抚顺	0.363	14	0.310	8	0.311	14	0.331	12
本溪	0.510	6	0.350	5	0.424	6	0.414	6
丹东	0.490	8	0.350	6	0.412	7	0.402	7
锦州	0.411	13	0.291	9	0.335	11	0.337	11
营口	0.545	4	0.361	4	0.457	4	0.436	4
阜新	0.481	9	0.288	10	0.339	10	0.374	8
辽阳	0.469	10	0.273	11	0.371	8	0.345	10
盘锦	0.601	3	0.376	3	0.506	3	0.481	3
铁岭	0.467	12	0.213	14	0.322	13	0.311	14
朝阳	0.496	7	0.241	13	0.353	9	0.352	9
葫芦岛	0.467	11	0.243	12	0.327	12	0.329	13

相关性	“奖励优秀”	“惩罚短板”	“奖惩并重”
与优势、比较优势指标的相关性	0.582	0.569	0.640
与劣势、比较劣势指标的相关性	0.248	0.679	0.349

表现情况	本文方法	基于双激励控制线的评价方法	熵值法	无奖惩评价方法
最优表现	0.752	0.761	0.705	0.687
最劣表现	0.310	0.325	0.323	0.311
整体差异	0.134	0.127	0.115	0.112