Method and system for recommending urban combustion enterprises to LNG receiving station

Abstract

The invention discloses a method and system for recommending urban combustion enterprises to an LNG receiving station, and the method comprises the steps: generating an evaluation matrix of each underlying index based on a comprehensive evaluation index system according to the actual value of each underlying index in the system corresponding to each to-be-evaluated urban combustion enterprise; according to each underlying index evaluation matrix, generating a target index evaluation value of each to-be-evaluated urban combustion enterprise by using a comprehensive evaluation index system; and according to the target index evaluation value of each to-be-evaluated urban combustion enterprise, the urban combustion enterprise having the best cooperation relationship with the current LNG receiving station is optimized. Through the comprehensive evaluation index system, the feasibility of the urban combustion enterprises participating in the business cooperation of the LNG receiving station is screened and evaluated, a reference basis is provided for the LNG receiving station to search for favorable cooperative partners, and the utilization rate and profitability of the LNG receiving station are further improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of natural gas technology, and in particular to a method and system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals. Background Technology

[0002] The collaboration between LNG receiving terminal equity holders and city gas companies will fully leverage the asset and resource advantages of both parties, creating a powerful synergy and achieving a win-win situation. Through equity transfer, LNG receiving terminal equity holders can alleviate investment pressure and operate more efficiently during project construction. In the operational phase, they can increase the load factor of existing facilities, improve profitability, or agree on an annual gas supply quota or share from the LNG receiving terminal to secure market share. Alternatively, LNG receiving terminal equity holders can participate in the construction and operation of city gas facilities, effectively extending the integrated industrial chain. Simultaneously, city gas companies can replenish their gas supply and storage capacity. By obtaining and securing the right to use LNG receiving terminals in the medium to long term, they can promote the signing of direct overseas gas procurement agreements, which will help increase the stability of gas supply, reduce gas procurement costs, and enhance emergency supply and peak-shaving capabilities.

[0003] Currently, evaluations of city gas companies primarily focus on general indicators, resulting in fragmented and less targeted approaches. Furthermore, existing evaluation systems aim to help city gas companies accurately position themselves within the industry. Existing evaluation methods include a profitability evaluation system for city gas companies that considers four dimensions: quantitative profitability, cash flow profitability, profitability stability, and profitability growth. Additionally, there are risk warning mechanisms that analyze risk factors in the supply and demand processes of city gas companies from multiple perspectives, based on their supply business processes.

[0004] In summary, existing methods are limited by their general comprehensive indicators and influencing factors for city gas companies, and lack specific indicators to analyze whether there is potential for cooperation in the liquefied natural gas business. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The purpose of this invention is to provide a scheme for determining the feasibility of city gas companies participating in LNG receiving terminal business cooperation through a comprehensive evaluation index system, so as to overcome the limitation of existing technologies that lack relevant index analysis on whether there is potential for cooperation in natural gas business.

[0006] To address the aforementioned technical problems, this invention provides a method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, comprising: generating an evaluation matrix for each underlying indicator based on a comprehensive evaluation index system, according to the actual values ​​of each underlying indicator corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated in the system; generating a target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated using the comprehensive evaluation index system based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator; and selecting the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal based on the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas company to be evaluated.

[0007] Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation index system includes, from top to bottom: target layer indicators, intermediate layer indicators affecting the target layer indicators, and bottom layer indicators under each intermediate layer indicator. The step of generating the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated based on the evaluation matrix of each bottom layer indicator and using the comprehensive evaluation index system includes: generating an intermediate layer indicator evaluation model for each intermediate layer indicator based on the bottom layer indicator evaluation matrix of each bottom layer indicator and using the weight vector of each intermediate layer indicator, wherein the weight vector of the intermediate layer indicator is composed of the weights of each bottom layer indicator belonging to the same intermediate layer indicator; and generating the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated based on the intermediate layer indicator evaluation model of each intermediate layer indicator and using the weight vector of the target layer indicator, wherein the weight vector of the target layer indicator is composed of the weights of each intermediate layer indicator.

[0008] Preferably, the step of generating an evaluation matrix for each underlying indicator based on a comprehensive evaluation index system and the actual values ​​of each underlying indicator corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated in the system includes: determining the evaluation level of each underlying indicator corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated based on the actual values ​​of all underlying indicators corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated using an evaluation set, wherein the evaluation set includes an evaluation subset of each underlying indicator, the evaluation subset including multiple underlying indicator rating levels and indicator boundary values ​​used to distinguish different indicator levels; generating a membership matrix of the corresponding underlying indicator based on the evaluation level of each underlying indicator, and using the membership matrix as the underlying indicator evaluation matrix.

[0009] Preferably, the weight vectors of the intermediate layer indicators and the weight vectors of the target layer indicators are obtained through the following steps: generating an initial matrix composed of all indicators to be calculated; using the 1-9 scaling method, assigning importance values ​​between any two indicators to be calculated to obtain the judgment matrix of the corresponding initial matrix; and based on the judgment matrix, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to generate a weight vector containing the weight of each indicator to be calculated.

[0010] Preferably, the step of generating a weight vector containing the weight of each indicator to be calculated using the analytic hierarchy process based on the judgment matrix includes: S1: performing column normalization on the judgment matrix, and then performing row-wise addition on the normalized judgment matrix to obtain a sum vector; S2: performing normalization on the sum vector, and performing consistency verification on the normalized sum vector; S3: when the normalized sum vector passes the consistency verification, using the normalized sum vector as the weight vector; when the normalized sum vector fails the consistency verification, adjusting the data in the judgment matrix using expert experience, and repeating S1 until the weight vector is generated.

[0011] Preferably, the step of generating an intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator and the weight vector of each intermediate-level indicator includes: generating an initial evaluation matrix for each intermediate-level indicator based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator; and performing vector multiplication operations between the initial evaluation matrix of each intermediate-level indicator and the weight vector of the corresponding intermediate-level indicator to obtain an intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator.

[0012] Preferably, the step of generating the target indicator evaluation value for each urban gas company to be evaluated by using the weight vector of the target layer indicator based on the intermediate layer indicator evaluation model of each intermediate layer indicator includes: constructing an initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicator based on the intermediate layer indicator evaluation model of each intermediate layer indicator; and performing a vector multiplication operation between the initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicator and the weight vector of the target layer indicator to generate the target indicator evaluation value of the current urban gas company to be evaluated.

[0013] Preferably, the intermediate-layer indicators include: enterprise category, enterprise size, enterprise structure, enterprise profitability, and enterprise LNG business demand. The underlying indicators under the enterprise category include, but are not limited to: enterprise nature and enterprise qualifications; the underlying indicators under the enterprise size include, but are not limited to: total assets, gas supply, pipeline length, total number of users, and number of employees; the underlying indicators under the enterprise structure include, but are not limited to: the proportion of non-residential gas consumption and the supply-demand difference rate; the underlying indicators under the enterprise profitability include, but are not limited to: return on total assets, return on net assets, debt-to-equity ratio, market share, revenue cash conversion ratio, net profit growth rate, and user growth rate; and the underlying indicators under the enterprise LNG business demand include, but are not limited to: import demand and existing LNG receiving capacity.

[0014] On the other hand, embodiments of the present invention provide a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the method described in any one or more of the above embodiments.

[0015] On another front, embodiments of the present invention provide a system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, comprising: a formation index evaluation module configured to generate an evaluation matrix for each underlying index based on a comprehensive evaluation index system and the actual values ​​of each underlying index corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated in the system; a comprehensive evaluation result generation module configured to generate a target index evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying index and the comprehensive evaluation index system; and a recommendation result generation module configured to preferentially select city gas companies with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal based on the target index evaluation values ​​of each city gas company to be evaluated.

[0016] Compared with the prior art, one or more embodiments of the above solutions may have the following advantages or beneficial effects:

[0017] This invention discloses a method and system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals. The method and system establish a comprehensive evaluation index system based on five aspects: company category, company size, company structure, company profitability, and company LNG business needs. By using this comprehensive evaluation index system to screen and evaluate the feasibility of city gas companies participating in LNG receiving terminal business cooperation, it provides a reference for LNG receiving terminal equity holders to find favorable partners, further improving the utilization rate and profitability of LNG receiving terminals.

[0018] Other features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and will be apparent in part from the description, or may be learned by practicing the invention. The objects and other advantages of the invention may be realized and obtained by means of the structures particularly pointed out in the description, claims, and drawings. Attached Figure Description

[0019] The accompanying drawings are provided to further illustrate the invention and form part of the specification. They are used in conjunction with the embodiments of the invention to explain the invention and do not constitute a limitation thereof. In the drawings:

[0020] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the steps of a method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, as provided in an embodiment of this application.

[0021] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, as provided in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0022] The embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and examples, so that the process of how the present invention uses technical means to solve technical problems and achieve technical effects can be fully understood and implemented accordingly. It should be noted that, as long as there is no conflict, the various embodiments and features in the various embodiments of the present invention can be combined with each other, and the resulting technical solutions are all within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0023] Furthermore, the steps illustrated in the flowcharts of the accompanying drawings can be executed in a computer system such as a set of computer-executable instructions. Also, although a logical order is shown in the flowcharts, in some cases the steps shown or described may be performed in a different order than that shown here.

[0024] The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the exemplary embodiments. Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the singular forms “a” and “an” as used herein are also intended to include the plural. It should also be understood that the terms “comprising” and / or “including” as used herein specify the presence of the stated features, integers, steps, operations, units, and / or components, without excluding the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, units, components, and / or combinations thereof.

[0025] The collaboration between LNG receiving terminal equity holders and city gas companies will fully leverage the asset and resource advantages of both parties, creating a powerful synergy and achieving a win-win situation. Through equity transfer, LNG receiving terminal equity holders can alleviate investment pressure and operate more efficiently during project construction. In the operational phase, they can increase the load factor of existing facilities, improve profitability, or agree on an annual gas supply quota or share from the LNG receiving terminal to secure market share. Alternatively, LNG receiving terminal equity holders can participate in the construction and operation of city gas facilities, effectively extending the integrated industrial chain. Simultaneously, city gas companies can replenish their gas supply and storage capacity. By obtaining and securing the right to use LNG receiving terminals in the medium to long term, they can promote the signing of direct overseas gas procurement agreements, which will help increase the stability of gas supply, reduce gas procurement costs, and enhance emergency supply and peak-shaving capabilities.

[0026] Currently, evaluations of city gas companies primarily focus on general indicators, resulting in fragmented and less targeted approaches. Furthermore, existing evaluation systems aim to help city gas companies accurately position themselves within the industry. Existing evaluation methods include a profitability evaluation system for city gas companies that considers four dimensions: quantitative profitability, cash flow profitability, profitability stability, and profitability growth. Additionally, there are risk warning mechanisms that analyze risk factors in the supply and demand processes of city gas companies from multiple perspectives, based on their supply business processes.

[0027] In summary, existing methods are limited by their general comprehensive indicators and influencing factors for city gas companies, and lack specific indicators to analyze whether there is potential for cooperation in the liquefied natural gas business.

[0028] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the steps of a method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals according to an embodiment of this application. See below for reference. Figure 1 The specific process steps of the method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals as described in the embodiments of the present invention will be explained.

[0029] Step S110: Based on the comprehensive evaluation index system, generate an evaluation matrix for each underlying index according to the actual values ​​of each underlying index of each city gas enterprise to be evaluated in the comprehensive evaluation index system.

[0030] Based on the comprehensive evaluation index system and the actual values ​​of each underlying index in the comprehensive evaluation index system for the city gas companies to be evaluated, an evaluation matrix for each underlying index is obtained, and the target index evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated is generated using the evaluation matrix of each underlying index.

[0031] In this embodiment, the comprehensive evaluation index system includes, from top to bottom, target-level indicators, intermediate-level indicators that influence the target-level indicators, and bottom-level indicators under each intermediate-level indicator. The target-level indicators can represent the company's overall capabilities, used to express the overall evaluation of the company's comprehensive performance.

[0032] In one embodiment, the intermediate-layer indicators are determined based on the target-layer indicators and are a set of factors that influence the target-layer indicators, denoted by U, where U = (u1, ..., u2). i ,…,u m ), where u1 represents the first factor affecting the target layer index, u i U represents the i-th factor influencing the target layer metric. m This represents the m-th factor influencing the target-level indicator. This intermediate-level indicator includes: company type, company size, company structure, company profitability, and company LNG business demand.

[0033] Specifically, the underlying indicators under enterprise categories include, but are not limited to: enterprise nature and enterprise qualifications. Underlying indicators under enterprise size include, but are not limited to: total assets, gas supply volume, pipeline length, total number of users, and number of employees. Underlying indicators under enterprise structure include, but are not limited to: the proportion of non-residential gas consumption and the supply-demand difference ratio. Underlying indicators under enterprise profitability include, but are not limited to: return on total assets, return on net assets, debt-to-equity ratio, market share, revenue cash conversion ratio, net profit growth rate, and user growth rate. Underlying indicators under enterprise LNG business demand include, but are not limited to: import demand and existing LNG receiving capacity.

[0034] In one embodiment, during the generation of the underlying evaluation matrix, firstly, the evaluation level of each underlying indicator is determined based on the pre-constructed evaluation set and the actual values ​​of the underlying indicators. Then, the membership matrix of the corresponding underlying indicators is generated based on the evaluation level, and the membership matrix is ​​used as the underlying indicator evaluation matrix. Specifically, step S110 includes the following sub-steps A1-A2:

[0035] Sub-step A1: Based on the actual values ​​of all underlying indicators in the comprehensive evaluation index system for each city gas company to be evaluated, use the evaluation set to determine the evaluation level of each underlying indicator for each city gas company to be evaluated.

[0036] Sub-step A2 generates a membership matrix for each underlying indicator based on its evaluation level, and uses the membership matrix as the evaluation matrix for the underlying indicators.

[0037] In sub-step A1, the evaluation set includes an evaluation subset for each underlying indicator. Each evaluation subset includes multiple evaluation levels for the underlying indicators and indicator thresholds used to distinguish between different evaluation levels. These thresholds are determined based on market research, expert experience, and historical data.

[0038] Specifically, the evaluation set is a collection of all possible evaluation levels for the actual values ​​of all underlying indicators in the comprehensive evaluation index system for each city gas company to be evaluated, and the evaluator determines the indicator boundary values ​​for different evaluation levels. This evaluation set is usually represented by V, where V = (v1, ... v2). j ,…,v n ), where v1 represents the first evaluation level, v j V represents the j-th evaluation level. n This represents the nth evaluation level.

[0039] In sub-step A2, the actual values ​​of all bottom-level indicators in the comprehensive evaluation indicator system for each city gas company to be evaluated are standardized. Then, based on the standardized values ​​of the bottom-level indicators, the degree of conformity with different evaluation levels is determined. For the bottom-level indicator u... i For example, for each evaluation level, the membership degree is a fuzzy subset on V, and the underlying index u i The judgment can be expressed in the following form R i =[r i1 ,…r ij ,…,r in ], R i Let r represent the membership matrix of the i-th factor. i1 Indicates the underlying indicator u i The membership degree r of the first evaluation levelij Indicates the underlying indicator u i The membership degree r of the j-th evaluation level in Indicates the underlying indicator u i Membership degree to the nth evaluation level.

[0040] For each underlying indicator, if its actual value falls within the range of a certain evaluation level, then the membership degree of that underlying indicator at that evaluation level is 1; otherwise, the membership degree is 0. In this way, a membership degree matrix reflecting the relationship between each underlying evaluation indicator and the evaluation level can be constructed. The membership degree matrix can be used as the evaluation matrix of the underlying indicators, thereby providing a basis for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.

[0041] Step S120: Based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, use the comprehensive evaluation indicator system to generate the target indicator evaluation value for each urban gas enterprise to be evaluated.

[0042] After obtaining the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas company to be evaluated is obtained by using the comprehensive evaluation indicator system. Then, city gas companies that will cooperate with LNG receiving terminals are selected based on the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas company.

[0043] In one embodiment, a hierarchical comprehensive evaluation method is used to obtain the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated. First, the weight vector of each intermediate-level indicator is used to obtain the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator. Then, the weight vector of the target-level indicator and the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator are used to obtain the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated. Specifically, the weight vector of the intermediate-level indicator is composed of the weights of each underlying indicator belonging to the same intermediate-level indicator, and the weight vector of the target-level indicator is composed of the weights of each intermediate-level indicator.

[0044] Specifically, the weight vectors of the intermediate layer indicators and the target layer indicators are obtained through the following steps B1-B3:

[0045] Step B1: Generate an initial matrix consisting of all the indicators to be calculated.

[0046] Step B2: Using the 1-9 scale method, assign values ​​to the importance between any two indicators to be calculated to obtain the judgment matrix of the corresponding initial matrix.

[0047] Step B3: Based on the judgment matrix, the analytic hierarchy process is used to generate a weight vector containing the weight of each indicator to be calculated.

[0048] In this embodiment, in step B1, when calculating the intermediate layer indicator weight vector, the indicator to be calculated is all the bottom-level indicators under the same intermediate layer indicator. When calculating the target layer indicator weight vector, the indicator to be calculated is all intermediate layer indicators.

[0049] In this embodiment, in step B1, the indicators to be calculated are scored using the expert experience method to obtain the importance scores of different indicators to be calculated, and an initial matrix is ​​generated based on the importance scores and the corresponding indicators to be calculated.

[0050] In this embodiment, in step B2, the 1-9 scale method is used to quantify the expert's subjective judgment into specific numerical values ​​to represent the degree of relative importance between the two indicators to be calculated, so as to construct a judgment matrix and perform subsequent weight vector calculation and analysis.

[0051] In this embodiment, in step B3, after obtaining the judgment matrix, the judgment matrix is ​​subjected to column normalization, row-wise addition, and normalization to generate a weight vector containing the weight of each indicator to be calculated. Specifically, step B3 includes the following sub-steps S1-S3:

[0052] Sub-step S1: Perform column normalization on the judgment matrix, and then perform row-wise addition on the normalized judgment matrix to obtain the sum vector.

[0053] Sub-step S2: Normalize the sum vector and perform a consistency check on the normalized sum vector.

[0054] Sub-step S3: When the normalized sum vector passes the consistency check, use the normalized sum vector as the weight vector. When the normalized sum vector fails the consistency check, adjust the data in the judgment matrix using expert experience method, and repeat sub-step S1 until the weight vector is generated.

[0055] Specifically, the process of generating a weight vector containing the weights of each indicator to be calculated using the analytic hierarchy process is as follows:

[0056] 1) Perform column normalization on the judgment matrix A using the following expression:

[0057]

[0058] in, This represents the data in the i-th row and j-th column after column normalization, r ij This represents the data in the i-th row and j-th column of the judgment matrix, where m represents the number of indicators to be calculated.

[0059] 2) After column normalization, the judgment matrix A is summed row by row using the following expression to obtain the sum vector:

[0060]

[0061] Among them, W i Represents and vectors, This represents the data in the i-th row and j-th column after normalization, where m represents the number of indicators to be calculated.

[0062] 3) Normalize the sum vector using the following expression:

[0063]

[0064] in, W represents the normalized sum vector. i The vector represents the sum, and m represents the number of indices to be calculated.

[0065] 4) Perform a consistency check on the normalized sum vector using the following expression:

[0066]

[0067] Where, λ max Let represent the largest eigenvalue of judgment matrix A, m represent the number of indicators to be calculated, A represent judgment matrix A, CI and CR represent the operation parameters of consistency verification, and RI represent the order parameter of judgment matrix A. Let represent the sum vector after normalization, and T represents the transpose symbol, and n represents the order of the judgment matrix.

[0068] When CR is less than 0.1, it indicates that the judgment matrix and the normalized sum vector have passed the consistency check. The normalized sum vector is then used as the weight vector. Otherwise, the accuracy of the judgment matrix is ​​checked. After confirming that the judgment matrix is ​​correct, the expert needs to re-examine the importance between the indicators to be calculated and make appropriate adjustments to the data in the judgment matrix to ensure that the comparison relationship between the indicators to be calculated is more accurately reflected. After the adjustment is completed, step 1) is repeated until the requirements are met.

[0069] Furthermore, after obtaining the weight vectors of each intermediate-level indicator and the target-level indicator, the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas enterprise to be evaluated is generated using the comprehensive evaluation indicator system. Specifically, step S120 includes the following sub-steps C1-C2:

[0070] Sub-step C1: Based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, use the weight vector of each intermediate indicator to generate the intermediate indicator evaluation model for each intermediate indicator.

[0071] Sub-step C2: Based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator, and using the weight vector of the target-level indicators, generate the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas enterprise to be evaluated.

[0072] Furthermore, in sub-step C1, the intermediate-level evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator is obtained based on the evaluation matrix of each bottom-level indicator and the weight vector of the corresponding intermediate-level indicator. Specifically, sub-step C1 includes the following steps C11-C12:

[0073] Step C11: Generate the initial evaluation matrix for each intermediate-level indicator based on the evaluation matrix of the underlying indicator for each underlying indicator.

[0074] Step C12: Perform vector multiplication on the initial evaluation matrix of each intermediate-level indicator and the weight vector of the corresponding intermediate-level indicator to obtain the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator.

[0075] In step C11, the initial evaluation matrix of the intermediate layer indicators is obtained based on the evaluation matrix of the underlying indicators of all the underlying indicators corresponding to each intermediate layer indicator.

[0076] Furthermore, in sub-step C2, the evaluation values ​​of the target indicators for the city gas enterprise to be evaluated are obtained based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator and the weight vector of the target-level indicator. Specifically, sub-step C2 includes the following steps C21-C22:

[0077] Step C21: Construct the initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicators based on the intermediate layer indicator evaluation model for each intermediate layer indicator.

[0078] Step C22: Perform vector multiplication on the initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicators and the weight vector of the target layer indicators to generate the target indicator evaluation value of the current city gas enterprise to be evaluated.

[0079] Step S130: Based on the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas company to be evaluated, select the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal.

[0080] After obtaining the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated, the target indicator evaluation values ​​can be arranged in descending order, and the city gas company with the highest target indicator evaluation value can be regarded as the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal.

[0081] Example

[0082] Based on the above embodiments, the specific process of applying the method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals as described in the embodiments of the present invention to a certain LNG receiving terminal is described below.

[0083] A combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method was used to evaluate the overall performance of enterprises. A comprehensive evaluation index system was established for each city gas enterprise to be evaluated. The comprehensive evaluation index system, from top to bottom, includes: target-level indicators, intermediate-level indicators affecting the target-level indicators, and bottom-level indicators under each intermediate-level indicator. In the comprehensive evaluation index system, the target level is represented by U, and the intermediate-level indicators include: enterprise category, enterprise size, enterprise structure, enterprise efficiency, and enterprise LNG business demand, represented by u1, u2, u3, u4, and u5, respectively. The constructed comprehensive evaluation index system can be illustrated in Table 1.

[0084] Table 1 Comprehensive Evaluation Index System

[0085]

[0086]

[0087] Based on the comprehensive evaluation index system, an evaluation matrix for each underlying index is generated according to the actual values ​​of each underlying index of each city gas company to be evaluated in the comprehensive evaluation index system.

[0088] Specifically, in the process of generating the evaluation matrix of the underlying indicators for Enterprise 1, Enterprise 2, Enterprise 3, Enterprise 4, and Enterprise 5, firstly, based on the actual values ​​of all underlying indicators in the comprehensive evaluation indicator system for each urban gas enterprise to be evaluated, the evaluation level of each underlying indicator for each urban gas enterprise to be evaluated is determined using the evaluation set; then, based on the evaluation level of each underlying indicator, the membership degree matrix of the corresponding underlying indicator is generated; finally, the membership degree matrix is ​​used as the evaluation matrix of the underlying indicators.

[0089] In this example, the evaluation set is denoted by V, and V = {V1, V2, V3, V4}, representing the four evaluation levels of Excellent, Good, Average, and Poor, respectively. The actual values ​​of the underlying indicators for Enterprise 1, Enterprise 2, Enterprise 3, Enterprise 4, and Enterprise 5, as well as their membership information with different evaluation levels, are shown in Tables 2-6 below. In Tables 2-6, b1 represents the indicator threshold value for the Average evaluation level, b2 represents the indicator threshold value for the Good evaluation level, and b3 represents the indicator threshold value for the Excellent evaluation level.

[0090] Table 2: Actual Values ​​and Membership Information of Enterprise 1's Bottom-Level Indicators

[0091]

[0092]

[0093] Table 3: Actual Values ​​and Membership Information of Enterprise 2's Bottom-Level Indicators

[0094]

[0095] Table 4. Actual Values ​​and Membership Information of Enterprise 3 Bottom-Level Indicators

[0096]

[0097]

[0098] Table 5. Actual Values ​​and Membership Information of Enterprise 4 Bottom-Level Indicators

[0099]

[0100]

[0101] Table 6. Actual Values ​​and Membership Information of Enterprise 5 Bottom-Level Indicators

[0102]

[0103]

[0104] After obtaining the underlying indicator evaluation matrix, an initial matrix consisting of all indicators to be calculated is generated. Then, using the 1-9 scaling method, the importance between any two indicators to be calculated is assigned a value, resulting in the judgment matrix of the corresponding initial matrix. Table 7 shows the relationships between different underlying indicators of Company 1.

[0105] After obtaining the underlying evaluation index matrix, an initial matrix consisting of all the indices to be calculated is generated. Then, using the 1-9 scaling method, the importance between any two indices to be calculated is assigned a value, resulting in the judgment matrix of the corresponding initial matrix. Tables 7 and 8 show the importance assignment information of different underlying indices and different intermediate indices in Enterprise 1.

[0106] Table 7 Importance Assignment Information for Different Underlying Indicators of Enterprise 1

[0107]

[0108]

[0109] Table 8. Importance Assignment Information for Different Intermediate Level Indicators of Enterprise 1

[0110] u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u1 1 4 3 5 7 u2 1 / 4 1 1 3 3 u3 1 / 3 1 1 2 3 u4 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 / 2 1 1 u5 1 / 7 1 / 3 1 / 3 1 1

[0111] After obtaining the judgment matrix, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to generate a weight vector containing the weights of each indicator to be calculated. Then, based on the evaluation matrix of each bottom-level indicator, the weight vector of each intermediate-level indicator is used to generate an intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator. Finally, based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model of each intermediate-level indicator, the weight vector of the target-level indicator is used to generate the target indicator evaluation value for each urban gas company to be evaluated.

[0112] Using data from Company 1 as an example, we will illustrate the process of obtaining the evaluation value of the target indicator. Company category u1 = {u11, u12}, and the weight W1 = W1 of the company category is calculated using the judgment matrix. T = (0.33, 0.67), the initial evaluation matrix R1 corresponding to the enterprise category is:

[0113]

[0114] By performing vector multiplication on the initial evaluation matrix R1 corresponding to the enterprise category and the weight vector of the corresponding intermediate-level indicator, the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model B1 for the enterprise category is obtained as follows:

[0115]

[0116] Similarly, the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model B2 for enterprise size is:

[0117]

[0118] The evaluation model B3 for the intermediate layer indicators of enterprise structure is as follows:

[0119]

[0120] The intermediate-level indicator evaluation model B4 for enterprise efficiency is as follows:

[0121]

[0122] The intermediate-level indicator evaluation model B5 for enterprise LNG business demand is as follows:

[0123]

[0124] The initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicators is multiplied by the weight vector of the target layer indicators to generate the evaluation value of the target indicators for the current city gas enterprise to be evaluated.

[0125]

[0126] Among them, the weight vector of the target layer indicators of Enterprise 1 is W = (0.50836888, 0.17816295, 0.17138228, 0.07672719, 0.06535869), and the comprehensive evaluation result is 61.3809603318562.

[0127] Similarly, the comprehensive evaluation results for companies 2, 3, 4, and 5 were obtained using the same method. The results are shown in Table 9 below.

[0128] Table 9. Enterprise Comprehensive Evaluation Results

[0129] name Score Ranking Company 1 61.38 4 Company 2 70.46 3 Company 3 84.72 1 Enterprise 4 63.70 5 Enterprise 5 70.95 2

[0130] The comprehensive evaluation results show that Company 3 scored the highest and has the strongest overall capabilities, while Company 4 scored the lowest and has the weakest overall capabilities. Based on these results, the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal was selected.

[0131] Based on the above method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, the present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the method described in any one or more of the above embodiments.

[0132] Based on the above-described method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, this invention also provides a system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals. This system is used to implement the method described above.

[0133] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, as described in an embodiment of this application. Figure 2 As shown in the embodiment of the present invention, the system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals includes: a formation index evaluation module 201, a comprehensive evaluation result generation module 202, and a recommendation result generation module 203.

[0134] Specifically, the formation index evaluation module 201 is implemented according to the method described in step S110 above, and is configured to generate an evaluation matrix for each underlying index based on the actual values ​​of each underlying index corresponding to each city gas company to be evaluated in the system, based on the comprehensive evaluation index system; the comprehensive evaluation result generation module 202 is implemented according to the method described in step S120 above, and is configured to generate the target index evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying index and the comprehensive evaluation index system; the recommendation result generation module 203 is implemented according to the method described in step S130 above, and is configured to select the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal based on the target index evaluation value of each city gas company to be evaluated.

[0135] This invention discloses a method and system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals. The method and system establish a comprehensive evaluation index system based on five aspects: company category, company size, company structure, company profitability, and company LNG business needs. By using this comprehensive evaluation index system to screen and evaluate the feasibility of city gas companies participating in LNG receiving terminal business cooperation, it provides a reference for LNG receiving terminal equity holders to find favorable partners, further improving the utilization rate and profitability of LNG receiving terminals.

[0136] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present invention, but the scope of protection of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any variations or substitutions that can be easily conceived by those skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present invention should be included within the scope of protection of the present invention. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present invention should be determined by the scope of the claims.

[0137] In the description of this invention, unless otherwise stated, "a plurality of" means two or more; the terms "upper," "lower," "left," "right," "inner," "outer," "front end," "rear end," "head," "tail," etc., indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the accompanying drawings, and are only for the convenience of describing the invention and simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the device or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation, and therefore should not be construed as a limitation of the invention. Furthermore, the terms "first," "second," "third," etc., are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0138] In the description of this invention, it should be noted that, unless otherwise explicitly specified and limited, the terms "connected" and "linked" should be interpreted broadly. For example, they can refer to a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; they can refer to a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; they can refer to a direct connection or an indirect connection through an intermediate medium. Those skilled in the art can understand the specific meaning of the above terms in this invention based on the specific circumstances.

[0139] It should be understood that the embodiments disclosed herein are not limited to the specific structures, processing steps, or materials disclosed herein, but should be extended to equivalent substitutions of these features as understood by those skilled in the art. It should also be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting.

[0140] The phrase "an embodiment" or "an embodiment" used in this specification means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the invention. Therefore, the phrase "an embodiment" or "an embodiment" appearing in various places throughout the specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment.

[0141] The embodiments of the present invention are given for illustrative and descriptive purposes only, and are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to better illustrate the principles and practical application of the invention, and to enable those skilled in the art to understand the invention and to design various embodiments with various modifications suitable for a particular purpose.

[0142] While the embodiments disclosed in this invention are as described above, the content is merely for the purpose of facilitating understanding of the invention and is not intended to limit the invention. Any person skilled in the art to which this invention pertains may make any modifications and changes in form and detail of the implementation without departing from the spirit and scope disclosed herein; however, the scope of patent protection of this invention shall still be determined by the scope defined in the appended claims.

Claims

1. A method for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, characterized in that, include: Based on the comprehensive evaluation index system, an evaluation matrix for each underlying index is generated according to the actual values ​​of each underlying index of each city gas enterprise to be evaluated in the system. Based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas enterprise to be evaluated is generated using the comprehensive evaluation indicator system. Based on the target indicator evaluation values ​​of each city gas company to be evaluated, the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal is selected.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The comprehensive evaluation index system, from top to bottom, includes: target-level indicators, intermediate-level indicators affecting the target-level indicators, and bottom-level indicators under each intermediate-level indicator. The step of generating the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas company to be evaluated based on the evaluation matrix of each bottom-level indicator and using the comprehensive evaluation index system includes: Based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, an evaluation model for each intermediate indicator is generated using the weight vector of each intermediate indicator. The weight vector of the intermediate indicator is composed of the weights of each underlying indicator belonging to the same intermediate indicator. Based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator, the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas enterprise to be evaluated is generated using the weight vector of the target-level indicators. The weight vector of the target-level indicators is composed of the weights of each intermediate-level indicator.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The step of generating an evaluation matrix for each underlying indicator based on a comprehensive evaluation index system, according to the actual values ​​of each underlying indicator for each city gas company to be evaluated, includes: Based on the actual values ​​of all underlying indicators in the system corresponding to each city gas enterprise to be evaluated, the evaluation level of each underlying indicator corresponding to each city gas enterprise to be evaluated is determined by using the evaluation set. The evaluation set includes an evaluation subset of each underlying indicator, and the evaluation subset includes multiple underlying indicator rating levels and indicator boundary values ​​used to distinguish different indicator levels. Based on the evaluation level of each underlying indicator, a membership matrix for the corresponding underlying indicator is generated, and the membership matrix is ​​used as the evaluation matrix for the underlying indicator.

4. The method according to claim 2 or 3, characterized in that, The weight vectors of the intermediate layer indicators and the weight vectors of the target layer indicators are obtained through the following steps: Generate an initial matrix consisting of all currently uncalculated metrics; Using the 1-9 scale method, the importance between any two indicators to be calculated is assigned a value, and the judgment matrix of the corresponding initial matrix is ​​obtained; Based on the judgment matrix, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to generate a weight vector containing the weight of each indicator to be calculated.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The step of generating a weight vector containing the weights of each indicator to be calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) based on the judgment matrix includes: S1: Perform column normalization on the judgment matrix, and then perform row-wise addition on the normalized judgment matrix to obtain the sum vector; S2: Normalize the sum vector and perform a consistency check on the normalized sum vector; S3: When the normalized sum vector passes the consistency check, the normalized sum vector is used as the weight vector. When the normalized sum vector fails the consistency check, the data in the judgment matrix is ​​adjusted using expert experience method, and S1 is repeated until the weight vector is generated.

6. The method according to any one of claims 2 to 5, characterized in that, The step of generating an intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator and the weight vector of each intermediate-level indicator includes: Based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator, generate the initial evaluation matrix for each intermediate indicator. The evaluation initial matrix of each intermediate-level indicator is multiplied by the weight vector of the corresponding intermediate-level indicator to obtain the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator.

7. The method according to any one of claims 2 to 6, characterized in that, The step of generating the target indicator evaluation value for each city gas enterprise to be evaluated, based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model of each intermediate-level indicator and using the weight vector of the target-level indicators, includes: Based on the intermediate-level indicator evaluation model for each intermediate-level indicator, construct the initial evaluation matrix for the target-level indicators; The initial evaluation matrix of the target layer indicators and the weight vector of the target layer indicators are multiplied by a vector to generate the target indicator evaluation value of the current city gas enterprise to be evaluated.

8. The method according to any one of claims 2 to 7, characterized in that, The intermediate-level indicators include: enterprise category, enterprise size, enterprise structure, enterprise profitability, and enterprise LNG business needs. The underlying indicators under the enterprise category include, but are not limited to: enterprise nature and enterprise qualifications; The underlying indicators for the enterprise size include, but are not limited to: total assets, gas supply, pipeline length, total number of users, and number of employees. The underlying indicators under the enterprise structure include, but are not limited to: the proportion of non-residential gas consumption and the supply-sales difference rate; The underlying indicators of the enterprise's profitability include, but are not limited to: return on total assets, return on net assets, debt-to-equity ratio, market share, revenue cash conversion ratio, net profit growth rate, and user growth rate. The underlying indicators for the enterprise's LNG business needs include, but are not limited to: import demand and existing LNG receiving capacity.

9. A computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the method as described in any one of claims 1 to 8.

10. A system for recommending city gas companies to LNG receiving terminals, characterized in that, include: The formation index evaluation module is configured to generate an evaluation matrix for each underlying index based on a comprehensive evaluation index system, according to the actual values ​​of each underlying index of each city gas enterprise to be evaluated in the system. The comprehensive evaluation result generation module is configured to generate the target indicator evaluation value for each urban gas enterprise to be evaluated based on the evaluation matrix of each underlying indicator and the comprehensive evaluation indicator system. The recommendation result generation module is configured to select the city gas company with the best cooperative relationship with the current LNG receiving terminal based on the target indicator evaluation value of each city gas company to be evaluated.

Images