| Literature DB >> 24707196 |
Shuai Zhang1, Dejian Yu1, Yan Wang1, Wenyu Zhang1.
Abstract
The evaluation is an important approach to promote the development of the E-Government. Since the rapid development of E-Government in the world, the E-Government performance evaluation has become a hot issue in the academia. In this paper, we develop a new evaluation method for the development of the E-Government based on the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set which is a powerful technique in expressing the uncertainty of the real situation. First, we extend the geometric Heronian mean (GHM) operator to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment and proposed the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy GHM (IIFGHM) operator. Then, we investigate the relationships between the IIFGHM operator and some existing ones, such as generalized interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy HM (GIIFHM) and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy weighted Bonferoni mean operator. Furthermore, we validate the effectiveness of the proposed method using a real case about the E-Government evaluation in Hangzhou City, China.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24707196 PMCID: PMC3953636 DOI: 10.1155/2014/234241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Scores obtained by the IIFGHM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 2Scores obtained by the GIIFHM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).
The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix B.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ([0.2, 0.3], [0.6, 0.7]) | ([0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) | ([0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]) |
|
| ([0.3, 0.5], [0.1, 0.3]) | ([0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.6]) | ([0.7, 0.9], [0.0, 0.1]) |
|
| ([0.4, 0.6], [0.3, 0.4]) | ([0.7, 0.9], [0.0, 0.1]) | ([0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6]) |
|
| ([0.4, 0.6], [0.2, 0.3]) | ([0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) | ([0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) |
The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix B.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ([0.6, 0.7], [0.2, 0.3]) | ([0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) | ([0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]) |
|
| ([0.1, 0.3], [0.3, 0.5]) | ([0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.6]) | ([0.7, 0.9], [0.0, 0.1]) |
|
| ([0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.6]) | ([0.7, 0.9], [0.0, 0.1]) | ([0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6]) |
|
| ([0.2, 0.3], [0.4, 0.6]) | ([0.3, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) | ([0.2, 0.4], [0.4, 0.5]) |
Aggregated IIFNs based on IIFGWHM operator.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ([0.6107, 0.7546], [0.1246, 0.1830]) | ([0.6569, 0.7705], [0.1098, 0.1944]) | ([0.7351, 0.8111], [0.0913, 0.1675]) | ([0.6226, 0.7181], [0.1570, 0.2222]) |
|
| ([0.5398, 0.7056], [0.1727, 0.2278]) | ([0.5950, 0.7004], [0.1752, 0.2892]) | ([0.6862, 0.7564], [0.1181, 0.2027]) | ([0.6140, 0.6985], [0.1790, 0.2389]) |
|
| ([0.5363, 0.7016], [0.1732, 0.2296]) | ([0.5848, 0.7069], [0.1718, 0.2824]) | ([0.7006, 0.7646], [0.1193, 0.2030]) | ([0.6151, 0.6997], [0.1771, 0.2378]) |
|
| ([0.5236, 0.6902], [0.1839, 0.2425]) | ([0.5710, 0.7007], [0.1779, 0.2944]) | ([0.6954, 0.7605], [0.1210, 0.2071]) | ([0.6093, 0.6898], [0.1861, 0.2459]) |
|
| ([0.5140, 0.6836], [0.1916, 0.2497]) | ([0.5665, 0.6836], [0.1916, 0.3145]) | ([0.6762, 0.7450], [0.0000, 0.2117]) | ([0.6049, 0.6834], [0.1916, 0.2512]) |
Score values obtained by the IIFGWHM operator and the rankings of Districts.
|
|
|
|
| Ranking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.5288 | 0.5616 | 0.6437 | 0.4807 |
|
|
| 0.4224 | 0.4155 | 0.5609 | 0.4473 |
|
|
| 0.4176 | 0.4188 | 0.5715 | 0.4500 |
|
|
| 0.3937 | 0.3997 | 0.5640 | 0.4335 |
|
|
| 0.3781 | 0.3720 | 0.6048 | 0.4228 |
|
Figure 3Scores of IIFWGHM (p = 1, q ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 4Scores of IIFGWHM (q = 1, p ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 5Scores for District A 1 obtained by the IIFGWHM operator (p ∈ (0,6], q ∈ (0,6]).
Figure 6Scores for District A 2 obtained by the IIFGWHM operator (p ∈ (0,6], q ∈ (0,6]).
Figure 7Scores for District A 3 obtained by the IIFGWHM operator (p ∈ (0,6], q ∈ (0,6]).
Figure 8Scores for District A 4 obtained by the IIFGWHM operator (p ∈ (0,6], q ∈ (0,6]).
Aggregated IIFNs based on IIFWBM operator.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ([0.1006, 0.1855], [0.6761, 0.7619]) | ([0.1347, 0.2312], [0.5041, 0.7337]) | ([0.1523, 0.2290], [0.5928, 0.7507]) | ([0.0839, 0.1392], [0.7424, 0.8139]) |
|
| ([0.1636, 0.2286], [0.6689, 0.7444]) | ([0.2107, 0.3510], [0.2351, 0.6386]) | ([0.2985, 0.4560], [0.2717, 0.5350]) | ([0.1172, 0.1695], [0.7129, 0.7777]) |
|
| ([0.1388, 0.2171], [0.6718, 0.7493]) | ([0.1890, 0.2966], [0.3952, 0.6917]) | ([0.2147, 0.3227], [0.4655, 0.6632]) | ([0.0982, 0.1543], [0.7297, 0.7963]) |
|
| ([0.1770, 0.2391], [0.6658, 0.7395]) | ([0.2267, 0.3783], [0.1772, 0.6136]) | ([0.3287, 0.5029], [0.2059, 0.4899]) | ([0.1256, 0.1790], [0.7005, 0.7658]) |
|
| ([0.0000, 0.2282], [0.6673, 0.7392]) | ([0.1939, 0.2947], [0.4418, 0.7035]) | ([0.1871, 0.2751], [0.5412, 0.7157]) | ([0.0000, 0.1593], [0.7309, 0.7951]) |
Score values obtained by the IIFWBM operator and the rankings of Districts.
|
|
|
|
| Ranking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.2453 | −0.1364 | −0.1819 | −0.3016 |
|
|
| −0.2201 | 0.0579 | 0.0922 | −0.2717 |
|
|
| −0.2273 | −0.0493 | −0.0714 | −0.2877 |
|
|
| −0.2133 | 0.1006 | 0.1485 | −0.2608 |
|
|
| −0.2196 | −0.0735 | −0.1331 | −0.2858 |
|
Figure 9Scores for District A 1 obtained by the IIFWBM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 10Scores for District A 2 obtained by the IIFWBM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 11Scores for District A 3 obtained by the IIFWBM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).
Figure 12Scores for District A 4 obtained by the IIFWBM operator (p ∈ (0,10], q ∈ (0,10]).