Cigarette paper supplier evaluation method and device

Abstract

The invention provides a cigarette paper supplier evaluation method and device, and the method comprises the following steps: constructing a hierarchical evaluation index system of a cigarette paper supplier, the hierarchical evaluation index system comprises five first-level indexes of qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability and product quality, and each first-level index comprises a plurality of second-level indexes; calculating the weight of the first-level index based on an AHP subjective hierarchy method; calculating the weight of the secondary index by using a CRITIC objective evaluation method, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the secondary index in combination with the weight of the primary index to which the secondary index belongs; cigarette paper supplier data are obtained and subjected to normalization preprocessing, and normalized values of all the second-level indexes are obtained; and calculating supply scores of different suppliers by integrating the comprehensive weight of each secondary index and the normalized value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of evaluation of cigarette paper supplier data, and in particular to a cigarette paper supplier evaluation method and device. Background Art

[0002] As various industries increasingly demand higher quality from suppliers, objective supplier evaluation criteria are becoming increasingly crucial. Traditional supplier selection methods are often limited to cost control, overlooking a supplier's comprehensive performance in multiple key areas, including qualifications, technical capabilities, support capabilities, supply capacity, and product quality. This one-sided and unsystematic evaluation approach fails to fully and accurately reveal a supplier's true capabilities. This not only impacts product supply stability but also increases potential product quality risks, posing a threat to the company's long-term development. Therefore, to provide companies with an objective supplier evaluation platform, helping them accurately identify and select high-quality suppliers that meet their needs, and improving their product quality management and market competitiveness, a systematic supplier evaluation model is needed. Regular supplier evaluation and continuous monitoring can promptly identify and correct potential product quality issues, effectively preventing quality incidents and promoting the improvement of quality standards and the healthy development of the entire industry.

[0003] In the tobacco industry, with the intensification of market competition and the improvement of consumers' requirements for product quality, industrial enterprises are facing increasingly higher challenges in selecting tobacco paper suppliers. Therefore, the evaluation of cigarette paper supplier data has become an indispensable and important link for industrial enterprises.

[0004] Currently, the selection strategy for cigarette paper supplier data generally favors cost control. While this approach reduces costs in the short term, in the long term, due to the neglect of core factors such as company qualifications, technology, security, supply capacity, and product quality, companies often face a series of problems such as inconsistent quality, slow service response, and delayed delivery. This leads to high remediation costs and fails to achieve true long-term cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, supplier evaluation relies on the personal judgment of relevant experts, making the evaluation process overly subjective and affecting its fairness and accuracy.

[0005] To fully understand key information such as supplier strength, reputation, and product quality, screen high-quality suppliers, reduce procurement costs and time costs, improve procurement efficiency, effectively avoid procurement risks, and encourage suppliers to continuously improve their service quality and management level, thereby promoting the healthy and sustainable development of the tobacco industry, it is particularly important to establish a scientific, comprehensive, and systematic supplier evaluation model for tobacco industry enterprises. This evaluation model requires a multi-dimensional and multi-level assessment system to accurately identify and screen high-quality suppliers that can provide high-quality materials in a long-term and stable manner, have a good reputation, and have strong service support capabilities. This provides tobacco industry enterprises with an objective and fair supplier evaluation standard, helping them to enhance their competitiveness and lay a solid foundation for their long-term development.

[0006] In order to solve the above problems, people have been seeking an ideal technical solution. Summary of the Invention

[0007] To avoid the situation where existing tobacco industry enterprises only focus on cost control when selecting cigarette paper supplier data, while ignoring core factors such as enterprise qualifications, technology, security, supply capacity and product quality, which leads to enterprises facing a series of problems such as unstable product quality, slow service response and untimely delivery, the present invention provides a cigarette paper supplier evaluation method and device. These methods comprehensively consider the supplier's qualifications, technical capabilities, security capabilities, supply capacity and product quality, and combine methods such as the AHP subjective hierarchical analysis method and the CRITIC objective evaluation method to evaluate and analyze all cigarette paper suppliers.

[0008] In order to achieve the above-mentioned object, the first aspect of the present invention provides a method for evaluating cigarette paper suppliers, the steps of which include:

[0009] Establish a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers, which includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability, and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators.

[0010] Calculate the weight of the first-level indicators based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method;

[0011] The weights of the secondary indicators are calculated using the CRITIC objective evaluation method, and the comprehensive weights of the secondary indicators are calculated by combining the weights of the primary indicators to which the secondary indicators belong.

[0012] Obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain the normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator;

[0013] The supply scores of different suppliers are calculated based on the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

[0014] This paper constructs a hierarchical system of primary and secondary evaluation indicators based on the data of cigarette paper suppliers in key areas such as qualification, technical capabilities, guarantee capabilities, supply capabilities, and product quality. Secondly, in the weight determination phase, the subjective analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the expert-defined relative importance matrix between indicators are combined to analyze the primary evaluation indicators and scientifically and rationally determine their weights. Simultaneously, the objective CRITIC method is used to analyze the secondary evaluation indicators to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of the weights. The final weights of each evaluation indicator are obtained by combining the weights of the subjective and objective methods. Finally, the final score of each supplier is obtained by combining the values ​​and weights of the supplier evaluation indicators. This allows companies to quickly identify and compare the differences in the capabilities of different suppliers on the same indicator, providing a comprehensive and objective supplier evaluation basis for cigarette industry companies, helping them maintain their leading position in the fierce market competition.

[0015] Furthermore, the present invention converts all supplier primary indicators into percentages, using the highest score as the baseline. This step converts each supplier's primary indicator score to a scale of 0 to 100, thereby improving the comparability and intuitiveness of the scores, helping companies quickly and accurately identify and compare the capabilities of different suppliers on the same indicator.

[0016] Furthermore, in the hierarchical evaluation index system, the qualification and capability include 11 secondary indicators, namely: whether the business license, tax registration certificate, and organization code certificate are complete and valid; whether the laboratory is CNAS accredited; the number of accredited projects; whether it has passed the ISO9001 standard certification; whether it has passed the environmental management system ISO14001 certification; whether it has passed the food safety management system ISO22000 / HACCP certification; whether it has passed the measurement management system ISO10012 certification; whether it has passed the energy management system GB / T23331 certification; whether it has passed the tobacco industry enterprise qualification certification; corporate credit rating; the number of honors for production, operation, scientific research, and management obtained from local governments in the past three years;

[0017] The technical capabilities include 10 secondary indicators, namely: whether it is a national-level technology center; whether it is a provincial-level technology center; whether it is a municipal-level technology center; the number of provincial and ministerial-level technical awards; the number of invention patents related to the supplied products; the number of industry standards formulated; the number of industry capability verifications participated in; the proportion of satisfactory capability verification results; the proportion of problematic capability verification results; and the proportion of unsatisfactory capability verification results.

[0018] The guarantee capability includes seven secondary indicators, namely: whether the company has its own factory and warehouse; the area of ​​the factory and warehouse; whether it has the ability to conduct quality inspections for all indicators; whether it has the ability to conduct physical indicator inspections; whether it has the ability to conduct chemical indicator inspections; the proportion of qualified inspection personnel; and the testing equipment for all indicators.

[0019] The supply capacity includes four secondary indicators, namely: number of cigarette paper specifications; number of cigarette brands used; total amount of products supplied; number of products supplied to China Tobacco Corporation;

[0020] The product quality includes 6 secondary indicators, namely: quantitative judgment of the number of unqualified times; air permeability judgment of the number of unqualified times; smoldering rate judgment of the number of unqualified times; quantitative score; air permeability score; smoldering rate score.

[0021] A second aspect of the present invention provides a cigarette paper supplier data evaluation device, comprising:

[0022] A hierarchical evaluation index system construction module is used to construct a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers. The hierarchical evaluation index system includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability, and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators.

[0023] The first-level subjective weight determination module is configured to calculate the weight of the first-level indicator based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method;

[0024] a secondary objective weight determination module configured to calculate the weights of the secondary indicators using the CRITIC objective evaluation method;

[0025] The secondary comprehensive weight acquisition module is used to calculate the comprehensive weight based on the weight of the secondary indicator and the weight of the primary indicator to which it belongs;

[0026] A data preprocessing module is configured to obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator;

[0027] The scoring module is used to calculate the supply scores of different suppliers by combining the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

[0028] A third aspect of the present invention provides a computer device, comprising a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and a communication bus, wherein the processor, the communication interface, and the memory communicate with each other via the communication bus;

[0029] Memory for storing computer programs;

[0030] The processor is configured to implement the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method as described in the first aspect when executing the program stored in the memory.

[0031] A fourth aspect of the present invention provides a computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method as described in the first aspect.

[0032] A fifth aspect of the present invention provides a computer program product, comprising a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to the first aspect. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0033] Figure 1 A flowchart showing the method for evaluating cigarette paper suppliers according to Example 1 of the present invention is shown;

[0034] Figure 2 A table of a hierarchical evaluation index system constructed in the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method in Example 1 of the present invention is provided;

[0035] Figure 3 The technical roadmap of the AHP analytical hierarchy process constructed in Example 1 of the present invention is shown;

[0036] Figure 4 The index system of the AHP analytic hierarchy process constructed in Example 1 of the present invention is shown;

[0037] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the cigarette paper supplier evaluation results obtained in Example 1 of the present invention;

[0038] FIG6( a ) shows a schematic diagram of the annual comprehensive ranking of cigarette paper suppliers in Example 1 of the present invention;

[0039] FIG6( b ) is a schematic diagram showing product quality scores of cigarette paper suppliers in Example 1 of the present invention;

[0040] Figure 7 A block diagram showing a cigarette paper supplier data evaluation device according to embodiment 2 of the present invention;

[0041] Figure 8 A block diagram illustrating a computer device of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0042] The present invention will be further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0043] It should be noted that the following detailed descriptions are exemplary and are intended to provide further explanation of the present application. Unless otherwise specified, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by those skilled in the art to which the present application belongs.

[0044] It should be noted that the terms used herein are only for describing specific embodiments and are not intended to limit the exemplary embodiments according to the present application. As used herein, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the singular form is also intended to include the plural form. In addition, it should be understood that when the terms "comprise" and / or "include" are used in this specification, they indicate the presence of features, steps, operations, devices, components and / or combinations thereof.

[0045] Example 1

[0046] Currently, tobacco material supplier capabilities are primarily evaluated through on-site assessments and document evaluations, primarily based on tobacco industry regulations governing procurement and supplier management. Supplier evaluation results are categorized as qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative results indicate compliance with requirements or the degree of excellence, while quantitative evaluations typically employ a weighted approach, assigning different weights to each evaluation metric. After benchmarking and scoring, a final score is aggregated to assess supplier capabilities. Furthermore, supplier evaluations rely on the individual judgment of relevant experts, making the process subjective and impacting fairness and accuracy.

[0047] To address these issues, this embodiment proposes a cigarette paper supplier evaluation method. Based on the indicator data of cigarette paper suppliers in multiple key areas such as qualification capabilities, technical capabilities, guarantee capabilities, supply capabilities and product quality, a hierarchical system of primary evaluation indicators and secondary evaluation indicators is constructed; at the same time, qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods are combined, which not only retains the professionalism and depth of expert evaluation, but also enhances the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation by introducing objective data and quantitative indicators, thereby providing tobacco companies with a more scientific, reasonable and efficient basis for supplier selection, helping companies to screen out high-quality suppliers that truly meet their needs and ensure the stability of corporate product quality.

[0048] Specifically, such as Figure 1 As shown, the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method includes the following steps:

[0049] Step S1: constructing a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers. The hierarchical evaluation index system includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators.

[0050] Specifically, in order to understand the strength, reputation, product quality and other conditions of suppliers, and screen out high-quality suppliers, the applicant combined the research results of cigarette paper suppliers and the quality inspection results of suppliers' products, classified and screened a large number of evaluation indicators and conducted data analysis. Following the principles of specificity, objectivity and guidance, the applicant finally determined that the comprehensive evaluation index system of cigarette paper suppliers consists of 5 first-level indicators (criteria layer, respectively recorded as X1, X2, X3, X4, X5) such as qualification ability, technical ability, guarantee ability, supply ability and product quality, and 38 second-level indicators (indicator layer, respectively recorded as X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5) 11 ,…,X 1B X 21 ,…,X 2A X 31 ,…,X 37 X 41 ,…,X 44 X 51 ,…,X 55 , X 56 , the secondary indicator serial number is composed of hexadecimal, and the indicator information category is divided into two types: qualitative description and quantitative information, such as Figure 2 The above indicators are key areas of focus during the bidding process for industrial enterprises and have a significant impact on the purchasing decisions and cooperative relationships of cigarette factories.

[0051] During subsequent use, the applicant will collect five first-level indicators of suppliers' qualifications, technical capabilities, guarantee capabilities, supply capabilities and product quality from the National Tobacco Quality Supervision and Inspection Center, industrial enterprise quality inspection agencies and commercial enterprise quality inspection agencies.

[0052] For example, a supplier's supply capacity is directly related to whether it can meet the production needs of industrial enterprises and whether it can deliver on time, thereby affecting the production plan and delivery cycle of the cigarette factory, that is, affecting the on-time delivery rate.

[0053] The supplier's product quality reflects the quality level of its products, and thus has an important impact on the quality control of cigarette factory products and user satisfaction.

[0054] The technical capabilities of suppliers determine whether they can continue to provide competitive products and services, and are of great significance to the technological progress and competitiveness of cigarette factories.

[0055] Step S2: Calculate the weight of the first-level index based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method.

[0056] Specifically, the AHP subjective hierarchy method is to decompose the problem into different hierarchical structures in the order of overall goal, sub-goals at each level, evaluation criteria and specific solutions before analyzing a problem. Then, through experience or experts, the relative importance of low-level factors to high-level factors is judged and measured, and the weight ranking is obtained according to the degree of importance, which can then be quantitatively analyzed and compared.

[0057] like Figure 3 As shown in the figure, the weight of the first-level indicator is calculated based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method. Specifically, it refers to the construction principle of the judgment matrix in the AHP subjective hierarchy method, combined with expert experience to judge the relative importance of the supplier's first-level evaluation indicators to form a judgment matrix, and then calculate the weight of the first-level indicator.

[0058] The steps for constructing a judgment matrix are as follows: construct an evaluation index system at the first-level target layer, use a specific index at the second-level criterion layer as the evaluation criterion, compare each index in this layer to determine relative importance, use numbers 1 to 9 and their reciprocals to identify matrix elements, and construct a judgment matrix A. The order n of A is the number of criterion layer factors; in this study, n is 9. The specific construction principle is shown in Table 2, where the scale represents the importance of row indicators relative to column indicators. The constructed first-level indicator judgment matrix in this embodiment is shown in Table 2.

[0059] Table 1 Construction principle of AHP judgment matrix

[0060] scale Meaning (comparing the two indicators) 1 Of equal importance 3 One metric is slightly more important than another 5 One indicator is significantly more important than another 7 One indicator is more important than another 9 One indicator is extremely more important than another 2,4,6,8 The median of the two adjacent judgments above reciprocal <![CDATA[Judgment a for comparison of index i with j ij , then judgment a for comparison of index j with i ji = 1 / a ij >

[0061] Table 2 Supplier first-level indicator judgment matrix

[0062] Qualifications and abilities Technical capabilities Support capability Supply Capacity Product quality Qualifications and abilities 1 1 / 4 1 / 2 1 / 5 1 / 3 Technical capabilities 4 1 2 1 1 Support capability 2 1 / 2 1 1 / 3 1 / 2 Supply Capacity 5 1 3 1 2 Product quality 3 1 2 1 / 2 1

[0063] For example, the number 2 in the first column of the third row in Table 2 indicates that the guarantee capability is between equally important and slightly important relative to the qualification capability (the equally important scale is 1, and the slightly important scale is 3), and the number 5 in the first column of the fourth row indicates that the supply capability is obviously important relative to the qualification capability (the obviously important scale is 5).

[0064] Next, calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix and its corresponding eigenvector, and then normalize the eigenvector to obtain the weight vector, that is, the weight value of the first-level indicator. The specific calculation formula is as follows:

[0065]

[0066] in, It is to multiply each row element of the judgment matrix A and take the nth power, w i is the weight vector corresponding to the judgment matrix, λ max is the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix A, and n is the order of the judgment matrix.

[0067] Furthermore, based on Table 2, the AHP method was used to calculate the subjective weight of the first-level indicators, and the weight coefficient of the first-level indicators was obtained, as shown in Table 3.

[0068] Table 3 Weights of first-level indicators

[0069] index Qualifications and abilities Technical capabilities Support capability Supply Capacity Product quality Weight 0.0654 0.2610 0.1192 0.3401 0.2143

[0070] As shown in Table 3, supply capability has the highest weight among the subjective weights of the first-level indicators, indicating that supply capability, as the most basic capability and production factor of cigarette paper suppliers, is the most important factor in supplier evaluation, followed by technical capability and product quality.

[0071] After the weight calculation, in order to avoid errors in the weights and make the results of the judgment matrix more realistic, a consistency test is required to check whether the relative importance of the indicators defined in the judgment matrix is ​​logical. If the judgment matrix meets the consistency requirements, the weight vector is valid; otherwise, the judgment matrix needs to be reconstructed.

[0072] The calculation formula of the consistency test index is as follows:

[0073]

[0074] Among them, CI is the consistency index and n is the order of the judgment matrix.

[0075] The values ​​of the average random consistency index RI for the 1st to 9th order judgment matrices are shown in the following table, which reflects the consistency level of the random judgment matrix.

[0076] Table 4 Average random consistency index RI of 1st to 9th order judgment matrices

[0077]

[0078]

[0079] The formula for calculating the random consistency ratio (CR) is: CR = CI / RI. If CR is less than 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix is ​​considered acceptable; otherwise, the judgment matrix needs to be revised.

[0080] For example, as can be seen from Table 2, in the judgment matrix, supply capability is more important than guarantee capability, and guarantee capability is more important than qualification capability. Therefore, supply capability will also be more important than qualification capability, and its importance will be higher than guarantee capability. If the judgment matrix meets the consistency requirements, the weight vector is valid; otherwise, the judgment matrix is ​​reconstructed.

[0081] Furthermore, in this embodiment, after consistency test, λ max=5.041, CR=0.009<0.1, the judgment matrix passed the consistency test.

[0082] Step S3: Calculate the weight of the secondary indicator using the CRITIC objective evaluation method, and calculate the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator by combining the weight of the primary indicator to which the secondary indicator belongs.

[0083] Specifically, such as Figure 3 As shown in the figure, the calculation steps of the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator are: multiply the weight of the secondary indicator by the weight of its corresponding primary indicator, and normalize the product to obtain the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator.

[0084] like Figure 4 As shown, in this embodiment, the AHP hierarchical analysis method and the CRITIC objective method are combined to calculate the comprehensive weights of supplier indicators. Therefore, the target layer is the optimal supplier selection; the criterion layer is the first-level indicator of the supplier, including the supplier's qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability and product quality; the sub-criterion layer is the second-level indicator of the supplier.

[0085] The weight of the criterion layer relative to the target layer is calculated using the subjective AHP method, and the weight of the sub-criteria layer is calculated using the objective CRITIC method. The comprehensive score of the supplier is obtained by combining the weights of the two layers and the values ​​of each supplier indicator.

[0086] Furthermore, the CRITIC objective evaluation method considers the variability and conflict between different supplier indicator data from the perspective of indicator correlation, objectively determining weights and more accurately reflecting changes in supplier capabilities. The variability of each indicator is measured by the standard deviation of the test values; a larger standard deviation indicates a higher weight. The conflict of each indicator is calculated using the correlation coefficient of the test values. A higher correlation indicates less conflict between indicators, resulting in a lower weight for that indicator.

[0087] Specifically, the standard deviation calculation method is shown in formula (5).

[0088]

[0089] Where σ j represents the standard deviation of the j-th indicator; x mj represents the j-th indicator value of the m-th supplier; represents the average value of the j-th indicator; n represents the number of suppliers.

[0090] The conflict index calculation formula is shown in formula (6) and formula (7):

[0091]

[0092] Where c jIndicates the conflict of the jth indicator; r ij It represents the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator, r ij represents the correlation coefficient between the i-th indicator and the j-th indicator; x mi represents the i-th indicator of the m-th supplier; represents the average value of the i-th indicator; x mj represents the j-th indicator of the m-th supplier; Represents the average value of the j-th indicator.

[0093] The weight coefficient is obtained by integrating the variability and conflict of each secondary indicator. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0094]

[0095] Where w j Represents the weight coefficient of the j-th indicator; σ j represents the standard deviation of the j-th indicator; c j Indicates the conflict of the j-th indicator.

[0096] It can be understood that after obtaining the weights of the secondary indicators and the primary indicators respectively, the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicators is further calculated.

[0097] Specifically, the steps for calculating the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator are as follows: multiply the weight of the secondary indicator by the weight of its corresponding primary indicator and normalize the product to obtain the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator:

[0098]

[0099] Where w ij is the comprehensive weight, w AHPi is the weight of the first-level indicator of AHP method, w CRIij is the weight of the secondary indicator of the CRITIC method, and k is the number of secondary indicators under the i-th primary indicator.

[0100] If the “number of approved projects” belongs to the qualification capability range of the first-level indicator, its comprehensive weight is equal to w AHP1 *w CRI11 .

[0101] The weights of the secondary indicators are calculated using the CRITIC objective evaluation method, and combined with the weights of the primary indicators to which the secondary indicators belong (see Table 3), the comprehensive weights of the secondary indicators are calculated, see Table 5.

[0102] Table 5 Evaluation index weights of cigarette paper suppliers

[0103]

[0104]

[0105] The CRITIC weights and AHP-CRITIC weights of the indicators in Table 5 were analyzed, and the top ten indicators in terms of objective weights and comprehensive weight coefficients were counted, as shown in Table 6.

[0106] Table 6 Top 10 indicators with objective weights and comprehensive weights

[0107]

[0108]

[0109] As shown in Table 6, some qualitative indicators have excessively large objective weights, such as the secondary indicator in X1, which has five of the top 10. Meanwhile, some significantly more important quantitative indicators, due to their inherent numerical range, have too small calculated objective weights, such as the secondary indicator in X4, which did not make it into the top 10. This study corrected these issues by using a method of combining subjective and objective weights. None of the secondary indicators in X1 were among the top 10 in the combined weighting, while four of the secondary indicators in X4 were. Ultimately, a reasonable comprehensive weight ranking was established, demonstrating the advantages of combining subjective and objective evaluation methods in evaluation applications.

[0110] Step S4: Obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator.

[0111] Specifically, in step S4, before obtaining the cigarette paper supplier data and normalizing it, it also includes operations such as missing value filling, categorical indicator conversion, and Boolean value processing. Among them, missing value data is filled with categorical data and discrete data. The missing categorical data is filled with the mode method, and the missing discrete data is filled with the mean method. Categorical indicator conversion refers to converting categorical data into quantitative data that can be used for mathematical operations and statistical analysis in combination with expert opinions. Among them, the size relationship between categorical indicators remains unchanged after conversion, and the specific values ​​of each indicator are determined by experts based on their professional knowledge. For example, for indicators whose results are rating results, the lowest rating indicator is assigned a value of 0, and it is increased by 1 in order of rank. Boolean value processing is to convert Boolean type indicators into quantifiable data. Usually, the value of Boolean indicators, such as positive or negative, is converted into 1 or 0, or into 0.7 or 0.3. For example, for indicators with a "yes / no" type result, if the indicator is a positive indicator, the value is assigned to 1 / 0, and if the indicator is a negative indicator, the value is assigned to 0 / 1. Among them, positive indicators have a positive effect on supplier evaluation, and negative indicators have a negative effect on supplier evaluation.

[0112] The purpose of the above steps is to quantify the qualitative data of the secondary indicators, narrow the gap between indicators, and ensure that the indicators do not take infinite values ​​during normalization.

[0113] Furthermore, the normalization preprocessing of indicators includes normalization of positive indicators, normalization of negative non-proportional indicators, and normalization of negative proportional indicators. Among them, normalization of negative non-proportional indicators adopts the minimum and maximum value normalization method, and normalization of negative proportional indicators adopts the result conversion of subtracting 1.

[0114] The formula for normalizing positive indicators is:

[0115]

[0116] in, is the normalized result of the jth positive indicator of the i-th supplier, is the maximum value of the jth positive indicator, is the minimum value of the jth positive indicator, X ij is the value of the jth positive indicator of the i-th supplier.

[0117] The formula for normalizing negative non-proportional indicators is:

[0118]

[0119] in, is the result of normalizing the jth negative non-proportional index of the i-th supplier, is the maximum value of the jth negative non-proportional index, is the minimum value of the jth negative non-proportional index, X ij is the value of the jth negative non-proportional indicator of the i-th supplier.

[0120] The formula for normalizing the negative proportional indicator is:

[0121]

[0122] in, is the normalized result of the jth negative proportion index of the i-th supplier, X ij is the value of the jth negative proportion indicator of the i-th supplier.

[0123] Table 7 shows that this embodiment takes all domestic cigarette paper suppliers as analysis objects, collects all the latest basic information data (X1, X2, X3, X4); and generates product quality data X5 based on the annual cigarette paper market supervision and spot check results, wherein the annual cigarette paper market supervision and spot check results include at least the measured values ​​of the cigarette paper's air permeability index, smoldering rate index, and quantitative indicators.

[0124] Table 7 Basic information of cigarette paper suppliers

[0125]

[0126]

[0127] In Table 7, “Y” represents “yes” and “N” represents “no”, and the supplier names are anonymized.

[0128] Based on the statistics of the number of unqualified products and the calculation of the efficacy score coefficient of the annual cigarette paper market supervision and spot check results, the product quality information of cigarette paper suppliers in a single year was obtained.

[0129] Specifically, by counting the number of unqualified results of the annual cigarette paper market supervision spot check, we can obtain the number of quantitative judgment unqualified results, the number of unqualified results of air permeability judgment, and the number of unqualified results of smoldering rate judgment;

[0130] By calculating the efficacy score coefficient based on the annual market supervision and random inspection results of cigarette paper, the quantitative score, air permeability score and smoldering rate score are obtained.

[0131] Specifically, the basis weight in this embodiment refers to the mass of paper per unit area (unit: g / m 2 ), which reflects the thickness and density of the paper, and directly affects the burning performance, air permeability, flexibility of the paper and the smoking experience of the final cigarette.

[0132] Specifically, the efficacy score coefficient is calculated as follows: based on the measured and designed values ​​of the cigarette paper's basis weight, air permeability, and smoldering rate, the relative distance between the measured and designed values ​​is determined, and the corresponding score is calculated based on the relative distance. The specific calculation formula is as follows:

[0133]

[0134] Among them, S m,j represents the score calculated based on the measured value of the jth indicator of the mth supplier; x m,j represents the measured value of the jth indicator of the mth supplier; k j Indicates the design value of this indicator; L j Indicates the lower limit of the design value of this indicator, U j Indicates the upper limit of the design value of this indicator.

[0135] From the above formula, we can know that when the cigarette supplier index detection value x m,j Equal to the design value k j The highest score is 100 points; when the test value is distributed within the upper and lower limits of the design value [L j ,U j ], the closer to the design value k j The closer the score is to 100 points, the closer it is to the upper and lower limits of the design value, and the closer the score is to 60 points; when the test exceeds the design value range, the score is equal to 0 points.

[0136] Taking the quantitative index as an example, a supplier is selected and the actual test value x of the quantitative index of the corresponding cigarette paper is extracted. m,j , according to the design value k corresponding to the quantitative index of cigarette paper j , design value lower limit L j and the design upper limit U j , calculate the ratio of the gap between the measured value and the test value to the gap between the design value and the lower limit of the design value. If the measured value of the quantitative indicator is within the upper and lower limits of the design value and is close to the design value, the higher the value of the quantitative score indicator will be. If the measured value of the quantitative indicator exceeds the upper and lower limits of the design value, the value of the quantitative score indicator will be 0.

[0137] Since a supplier has multiple types of cigarette papers and each type of cigarette paper is inspected multiple times, in order to ensure the accuracy and stability of the calculation of cigarette paper index scores, the results of multiple inspections of all cigarette papers of a supplier are summarized. The score of each inspection is calculated using the efficacy score coefficient, and the average of the index scores is taken as the final score.

[0138] Taking the random inspection results in 2018, 2020 and 2021 as an example, the product quality of cigarette paper suppliers is shown in Table 8.

[0139] Table 8 Product quality of cigarette paper suppliers

[0140]

[0141] Step S5, calculating the supply scores of different suppliers by combining the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

[0142] Furthermore, in step S5, the supply scores of different suppliers are calculated by combining the comprehensive weights of the secondary indicators and the normalized values. The specific formula is as follows:

[0143]

[0144] Among them, w ij Indicates the comprehensive weight value of the secondary indicator j, F m It represents the score after comprehensive weight and supplier secondary index data, that is, the score of supplier m, p mj It is the normalized value of the j-th secondary indicator of the m-th supplier.

[0145] In the above steps, this example uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to calculate the weights of the first-level indicators. Starting from an expert-defined judgment matrix, this method systematically considers the logical relationships and importance differences between the first-level indicators, resulting in a relatively objective and reasonable weight distribution. The CRITIC objective method is then used to calculate the weights of the second-level indicators. This method, based on correlation analysis and comparative strength between indicators, not only considers the correlation between indicators but also their variability, thus more comprehensively reflecting the importance of the second-level indicators in supplier evaluation. The weights of the supplier's first-level indicators and the weights of the second-level indicators are combined to obtain the overall weights of the second-level indicators. Finally, this example combines these overall weights with the specific indicator data to calculate the supplier's score. This involves multiplying the normalized actual value of each indicator by its overall weight, and then summing the weighted scores of all indicators to obtain the supplier's final score. This score intuitively reflects the supplier's overall performance across various evaluation indicators, providing strong data support for selecting high-quality suppliers.

[0146] Furthermore, the comprehensive weight of the obtained indicators is multiplied by the normalized result to obtain the score of each indicator, and the final sum is obtained to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score of the cigarette paper supplier for three years, such as Figure 5 Shown are the comprehensive evaluation results.

[0147] It can be seen that through Figure 5 The comprehensive score can be used to rank the comprehensive capabilities of cigarette paper suppliers, and the sub-scores of the first-level indicators can be used to evaluate the suppliers' capabilities in all aspects. Suppliers can make targeted improvements on indicators with lower scores. For example, supplier A scored very high in all indicators except product quality, and can focus on improving product quality in the next step; suppliers G and E have relatively weak guarantee and supply capabilities, and their comprehensive rankings can be improved by expanding production scale; supplier H has weak capabilities in all aspects and needs to be improved comprehensively.

[0148] Based on the annual supervision and random inspections of cigarette paper in 2018, 2020, and 2021, suppliers were evaluated annually, and the overall ranking trend and product quality scores were obtained, as shown in Figures 6(a) and 6(b).

[0149] Analyzing the changes in supplier rankings according to Figure 6(a), suppliers C, E, F, and G experienced ranking changes, while the rankings of the remaining suppliers remained unchanged. The main reason for the change in the comprehensive score is the change in product quality score. The annual product quality scores are shown in Figure 6(b). Supplier C's ranking dropped due to significant deviations from the designed values ​​for indicators such as basis weight and air permeability, resulting in a product quality score of 0. Supplier F's ranking rose due to substandard indicators in both 2018 and 2020, resulting in a score of 0. Quality improvements avoided substandard performance in 2021. The changes in the product scores of suppliers E and G were also due to changes in indicator tolerance control.

[0150] The ranking changes indicate that: (1) the evaluation method described in this example is sensitive to product quality failures, which result in a quality score of 0, consistent with the rules used in supervisory spot checks. (2) Suppliers can make targeted corrections based on low-scoring items to improve their overall evaluation scores and rankings.

[0151] Furthermore, this embodiment also accumulates the scores of the first-level indicators of all suppliers to obtain the scores corresponding to the first-level indicators of each supplier. The highest score under each indicator is used as the benchmark, which is regarded as the full score. The scores of the remaining suppliers are then converted to a percentage system based on this benchmark. This method uses the idea of ​​"benchmarking management" to set the best performance as the standard, thereby converting each first-level indicator score of each supplier into a range of 0 to 100, so as to improve the comparability and intuitiveness of the scores, and help enterprises quickly and accurately identify and compare the ability differences of different suppliers on the same indicator.

[0152] Specifically, the formula for converting indicators into scores is as follows:

[0153]

[0154] in, F represents the result of converting the first-level indicator score of the m-th supplier into a percentage system. mi It represents the untransformed result of the first-level indicator score of the m-th supplier, It represents the maximum value of the i-th first-level indicator among all suppliers.

[0155] After calculating the scores of each secondary indicator for all suppliers in the previous step, the total scores of all secondary indicators under the first-level indicators are summarized according to the classification of the first-level indicators to ensure that the performance of each supplier in the first-level indicator field can be comprehensively and accurately quantified.

[0156] For example, after calculation by the scoring model, the guarantee capability index of supplier 1 is 0.2, the guarantee capability index of supplier 2 is 0.5, and 0.5 is the maximum value of this index among all suppliers. Then, based on the value of 0.5 for supplier 2 and converting it to 100 points, the guarantee capability value of supplier 1 is 40 points.

[0157] This conversion process ensures that each supplier's first-level indicator score can be converted into a range of 0 to 100. This standardized processing method not only simplifies the score comparison process, but also makes the evaluation results more intuitive and easy to understand.

[0158] Expressing supplier-level indicator scores on a percentage scale provides cigarette companies with an intuitive and easily comparable assessment tool. This innovation not only allows companies to quickly identify and compare the performance differences between suppliers on the same indicator, but also greatly improves the practicality and operability of the evaluation. With this tool, cigarette companies can more accurately select and manage suppliers, thereby maintaining a leading position in the fiercely competitive market.

[0159] It should be understood that, although the steps in the flowcharts of the above embodiments are shown in sequence as indicated by the arrows, these steps are not necessarily performed in the order indicated by the arrows. Unless otherwise specified herein, there is no strict order restriction on the execution of these steps, and these steps can be performed in other orders. Moreover, at least a portion of the steps in the flowcharts of the above embodiments may include multiple steps or multiple stages, and these steps or stages are not necessarily performed at the same time, but can be performed at different times. The execution order of these steps or stages is not necessarily to be performed in sequence, but can be performed in turn or alternately with other steps or at least a portion of steps or stages in other steps.

[0160] Example 2

[0161] Based on the same inventive concept, the present application also provides a cigarette paper supplier data evaluation device for implementing the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method described in Example 1. The solution provided by this device is similar to the solution described in the aforementioned method. Therefore, the specific limitations of one or more of the following embodiments of the cigarette paper supplier data evaluation device can be found in the above-mentioned limitations of the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method and will not be further elaborated here.

[0162] The cigarette paper supplier data evaluation device, such as Figure 7 As shown, including:

[0163] A hierarchical evaluation index system construction module is used to construct a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers. The hierarchical evaluation index system includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability, and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators.

[0164] The first-level subjective weight determination module is configured to calculate the weight of the first-level indicator based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method;

[0165] a secondary objective weight determination module configured to calculate the weights of the secondary indicators using the CRITIC objective evaluation method;

[0166] The secondary comprehensive weight acquisition module is used to calculate the comprehensive weight based on the weight of the secondary indicator and the weight of the primary indicator to which it belongs;

[0167] A data preprocessing module is configured to obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator;

[0168] The scoring module is used to calculate the supply scores of different suppliers by combining the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

[0169] Example 3

[0170] This embodiment provides a computer device, which may be a terminal, and its internal structure is shown in FIG. Figure 8 As shown. The computer device includes a processor, a memory, an input / output interface, a communication interface, a display unit and an input device. The processor, the memory and the input / output interface are connected via a system bus, and the communication interface, the display unit and the input device are connected to the system bus via the input / output interface. The processor of the computer device is used to provide computing and control capabilities. The memory of the computer device includes a non-volatile storage medium and an internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system and a computer program. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and the computer program in the non-volatile storage medium. The input / output interface of the computer device is used to exchange information between the processor and an external device. The communication interface of the computer device is used to communicate with an external terminal in a wired or wireless manner, and the wireless manner can be implemented through WIFI, a mobile cellular network, NFC (near field communication) or other technologies. When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements a cigarette paper supplier evaluation method described in Example 1.

[0171] The display unit of the computer device is used to produce a visually visible image and can be a display screen, a projection device, or a virtual reality imaging device. The display screen can be a liquid crystal display or an electronic ink display screen. The input device of the computer device can be a touch layer covering the display screen, a keypad, a trackball, or a touchpad provided on the computer device housing, or an external keyboard, touchpad, or mouse.

[0172] Those skilled in the art will understand that Figure 8 The structure shown in the figure is only a block diagram of a part of the structure related to the solution of the present application, and does not constitute a limitation on the computer device to which the solution of the present application is applied. The specific computer device may include more or fewer components than shown in the figure, or combine certain components, or have a different component arrangement.

[0173] Example 4

[0174] Based on the above embodiment, this embodiment provides a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method described in embodiment 1 is implemented.

[0175] Example 5

[0176] Based on the above embodiment, this embodiment provides a computer program product, including a computer program. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method described in embodiment 1 is implemented.

[0177] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that all or part of the processes in the above-mentioned embodiment methods can be implemented by instructing the relevant hardware through a computer program, and the computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium. When the computer program is executed, it can include the processes of the embodiments of the above-mentioned methods. Among them, any reference to memory, database or other media used in the embodiments provided in this application may include at least one of non-volatile and volatile memory. Non-volatile memory may include read-only memory (ROM), magnetic tape, floppy disk, flash memory, optical memory, high-density embedded non-volatile memory, resistive random access memory (ReRAM), magnetic random access memory (MRAM), ferroelectric random access memory (FRAM), phase change memory (PCM), graphene memory, etc. Volatile memory may include random access memory (RAM) or external cache memory, etc. By way of illustration and not limitation, RAM can be in various forms, such as static random access memory (SRAM) or dynamic random access memory (DRAM). The database involved in the various embodiments provided in this application may include at least one of a relational database and a non-relational database. Non-relational databases may include, but are not limited to, distributed databases based on blockchains. The processor involved in the various embodiments provided in this application may be a general-purpose processor, a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a digital signal processor, a programmable logic unit, a data processing logic unit based on quantum computing, etc., but are not limited to these.

[0178] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention and are not intended to limit the present invention. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to preferred embodiments, ordinary technicians in the field should understand that the specific implementation methods of the present invention can still be modified or some technical features can be replaced by equivalents without departing from the spirit of the technical solutions of the present invention. They should all be included in the scope of the technical solutions claimed for protection by the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating cigarette paper suppliers, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Establish a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers, which includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability, and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators. Calculate the weight of the first-level indicators based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method; The weights of the secondary indicators are calculated using the CRITIC objective evaluation method, and the comprehensive weights of the secondary indicators are calculated by combining the weights of the primary indicators to which the secondary indicators belong. Obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain the normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator; The supply scores of different suppliers are calculated based on the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

2. The cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The calculation steps of the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator are: multiply the weight of the secondary indicator by the weight of its corresponding primary indicator, and normalize the product to obtain the comprehensive weight of the secondary indicator.

3. A cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: The qualification and capability mentioned above include 11 secondary indicators, namely: whether the business license, tax registration certificate, and organization code certificate are complete and valid; whether the laboratory is CNAS accredited; the number of accredited projects; whether it has passed ISO9001 standard certification; whether it has passed ISO14001 environmental management system certification; whether it has passed ISO22000 / HACCP food safety management system certification; whether it has passed ISO10012 measurement management system certification; whether it has passed GB / T23331 energy management system certification; whether it has passed tobacco industry enterprise qualification certification; and corporate credit rating. Number of honors received from local governments in production, operation, scientific research, and management in the past three years; The technical capabilities include 10 secondary indicators, namely: whether it is a national-level technology center; whether it is a provincial-level technology center; whether it is a municipal-level technology center; the number of provincial and ministerial-level technical awards; the number of invention patents related to the supplied products; the number of industry standards formulated; the number of industry capability verifications participated in; the proportion of satisfactory capability verification results; the proportion of problematic capability verification results; and the proportion of unsatisfactory capability verification results. The guarantee capability includes seven secondary indicators, namely: whether the company has its own factory and warehouse; the area of ​​the factory and warehouse; whether it has the ability to conduct quality inspections for all indicators; whether it has the ability to conduct physical indicator inspections; whether it has the ability to conduct chemical indicator inspections; the proportion of qualified inspection personnel; and the testing equipment for all indicators. The supply capacity includes four secondary indicators, namely: the number of cigarette paper specifications; the number of cigarette brands used; the total amount of products supplied; the number of specific enterprises supplied; The product quality includes 6 secondary indicators, namely: quantitative judgment of the number of unqualified times; air permeability judgment of the number of unqualified times; smoldering rate judgment of the number of unqualified times; quantitative score; air permeability score; smoldering rate score.

4. The method for evaluating cigarette paper suppliers according to claim 3, wherein: The cigarette paper supplier data includes the annual cigarette paper market supervision and random inspection results, which at least include the actual measured values ​​of the cigarette paper's air permeability index, smoldering rate index, and quantitative index; By counting the number of unqualified results of the annual cigarette paper market supervision spot check, we can obtain the number of quantitative judgment unqualified times, the number of unqualified times for air permeability, and the number of unqualified times for smoldering rate. By calculating the efficacy score coefficient based on the annual market supervision and random inspection results of cigarette paper, the quantitative score, air permeability score and smoldering rate score are obtained.

5. A cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to claim 1, 2 or 4, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: For all suppliers' first-level indicators, the highest score is used as the full score baseline, and each score data is converted into a percentage system.

6. A cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to claim 1, 2 or 4, characterized in that: The normalization processing includes positive indicator normalization processing, negative non-proportional indicator normalization processing, and negative proportional indicator normalization processing; among them, the negative non-proportional indicator normalization adopts the minimum and maximum value normalization method; the negative proportional indicator normalization adopts the result conversion method of subtracting 1.

7. A cigarette paper supplier evaluation device, characterized in that: include: A hierarchical evaluation index system construction module is used to construct a hierarchical evaluation index system for cigarette paper suppliers. The hierarchical evaluation index system includes five first-level indicators: qualification capability, technical capability, guarantee capability, supply capability, and product quality. Each first-level indicator includes multiple second-level indicators. The first-level subjective weight determination module is configured to calculate the weight of the first-level indicator based on the AHP subjective hierarchy method; a secondary objective weight determination module configured to calculate the weights of the secondary indicators using the CRITIC objective evaluation method; The secondary comprehensive weight acquisition module is used to calculate the comprehensive weight based on the weight of the secondary indicator and the weight of the primary indicator to which it belongs; A data preprocessing module is configured to obtain cigarette paper supplier data and perform normalization preprocessing to obtain normalized values ​​of each secondary indicator; The scoring module is used to calculate the supply scores of different suppliers by combining the comprehensive weights of each secondary indicator and the normalized values.

8. A computer device, characterized in that: The processor, the communication interface, the memory and the communication bus are connected to each other via the communication bus. Memory for storing computer programs; The processor is configured to implement the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 when executing the program stored in the memory.

9. A computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, wherein when the instructions are executed by a processor, the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 is implemented.

10. A computer program product comprising a computer program, characterized in that When the computer program is executed by a processor, the cigarette paper supplier evaluation method according to any one of claims 1 to 6 is implemented.

Images