| Literature DB >> 35685163 |
Aifang Guo1, Lina Zhu1, Lingjie Chang1.
Abstract
An enterprise's development and growth are inextricably linked to rational and efficient resource integration and optimization. This study focuses on the reorganization and integration of industrial elements inside the firm from the standpoint of resource integration. The ideal resource integration strategy is investigated by integrating the industrial parts of a certain enterprise in order to increase the efficiency of project completion and lower enterprise expenses. The enterprise's internal material and human resources are limited, but it is frequently necessary to execute numerous activities at the same time, and each activity must meet multiple goals. This research investigates how to properly integrate and schedule resources while attaining different goals. This research proposes using an enhanced particle swarm optimization technique (IPSO) to combine firms' internal resources. In order to address the issue of uneven particle dispersion caused by random population initialization, IPSO incorporates chaos theory into particle population initialization. The logistic mapping sequence generates a huge number of particles, and the particles with the highest quality are chosen for initialization. This can increase particle quality, allowing particles to be spread equally during setup. In the late stage, the classic particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) has a slow convergence rate, causing the algorithm to readily slip into a local optimal solution. This research proposes a dynamic inertia weight update approach based on fitness value. In the later stages of the algorithm, this strategy can improve the convergence speed and quality of the global optimal solution, allowing the particles to do a global search and eventually identify the population's ideal solution. Furthermore, IPSO creates a fitness function depending on task completion time. IPSO is used to test the performance of an enterprise's resource integration case. Experiments show that the method utilized can swiftly locate the ideal solution, complete the integration, and optimization of enterprise resources in the shortest job completion time, and for the least amount of money.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35685163 PMCID: PMC9173945 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6928989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Architecture of enterprise resource integration platform.
Figure 2Optimization of enterprise resource integration.
Figure 3Enterprise resource integration assessment process.
Figure 4PSO flow chart.
Details of enterprise resource requirements.
| Project | Process | Required time | Time difference | Resource R1 | Resource R2 | Resource R2 |
|
| ||||||
| P1 | P11 | 4 | 0 | 18 | 25 | 9 |
| P12 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 27 | 16 | |
| P13 | 5 | 2.5 | 10 | 16 | 35 | |
|
| ||||||
| P2 | P21 | 3.5 | 3 | 29 | 18 | 18 |
| P22 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 23 | 12 | |
|
| ||||||
| P3 | P31 | 5 | 1.5 | 13 | 26 | 11 |
| P32 | 4 | 2 | 21 | 10 | 14 | |
|
| ||||||
| P4 | P41 | 4.5 | 3 | 16 | 18 | 23 |
| P42 | 3 | 1 | 23 | 15 | 14 | |
| P43 | 5 | 3 | 18 | 22 | 8 | |
|
| ||||||
| Resource requirements |
|
|
| |||
| Max supplies | 150 | 190 | 150 | |||
Figure 5Comparison of project loss costs obtained by different algorithms.
Details of the actual allocation of enterprise resources based on PSO.
| Project | Process | Required time | Time difference | Resource R1 | Resource R2 | Resource R2 | Partition coefficient | Delay value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P11 | 4 | 0 | 13.33 | 18.51 | 6.66 | 0.7403 | 1.489 |
| P12 | 2 | 2 | 12.38 | 22.28 | 13.20 | 0.8251 | 3.119 | |
| P13 | 5 | 2.5 | 6.56 | 10.49 | 22.95 | 0.6557 | 2.765 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P2 | P21 | 3.5 | 3 | 13.20 | 8.20 | 8.20 | 0.4553 | 2.120 |
| P22 | 5 | 2 | 9.29 | 12.57 | 6.56 | 0.5465 | 2.221 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P3 | P31 | 5 | 1.5 | 13.00 | 26.00 | 11.00 | 1 | 1.765 |
| P32 | 4 | 2 | 19.50 | 9.29 | 13.00 | 0.9287 | 0.815 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P4 | P41 | 4.5 | 3 | 14.08 | 15.84 | 20.24 | 0.8798 | 2.642 |
| P42 | 3 | 1 | 23.00 | 15.00 | 14.00 | 1 | 0 | |
| P43 | 5 | 3 | 11.84 | 14.47 | 5.26 | 0.6576 | 2.812 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Original resource requirement | 180 | 200 | 160 | |||||
| Actual allocation of each resource | 136.17 | 152.63 | 121.07 | |||||
| Max supplies | 160 | 190 | 150 | |||||
Details of the actual allocation of enterprise resources based on IPSO.
| Project | Process | Required time | Time difference | Resource R1 | Resource R2 | Resource R2 | Partition coefficient | Delay value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | P11 | 4 | 0 | 17.21 | 23.90 | 8.60 | 0.9561 | 1.622 |
| P12 | 2 | 2 | 15.00 | 27.00 | 16.00 | 1 | 2.120 | |
| P13 | 5 | 2.5 | 7.76 | 12.41 | 27.14 | 0.7755 | 3.235 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P2 | P21 | 3.5 | 3 | 24.54 | 15.23 | 15.23 | 0.8462 | 1.522 |
| P22 | 5 | 2 | 12.48 | 16.88 | 8.81 | 0.7341 | 1.767 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P3 | P31 | 5 | 1.5 | 11.33 | 22.66 | 9.59 | 0.8715 | 0.521 |
| P32 | 4 | 2 | 21.00 | 10.00 | 14.00 | 1 | 0 | |
|
| ||||||||
| P4 | P41 | 4.5 | 3 | 12.06 | 13.57 | 17.34 | 0.7539 | 2.764 |
| P42 | 3 | 1 | 22.20 | 14.48 | 13.51 | 0.9652 | 1.656 | |
| P43 | 5 | 3 | 16.16 | 19.75 | 7.18 | 0.8978 | 2.701 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Original resource requirement | 180 | 200 | 160 | |||||
| Actual allocation of each resource | 159.74 | 175.89 | 137.41 | |||||
| Max supplies | 160 | 190 | 150 | |||||
Figure 6Comparison of resource allocation of different algorithms.