越览（182）——精读硕士论文的4.2 软件供应商评价指标权重的确定

摘要：This issue of tweets will introduce 4.2 Determination of the weights of evaluation indicators for BIM software suppliers in constr

分享兴趣，传播快乐，

增长见闻，留下美好。

亲爱的您，这里是LearningYard学苑！

今天小编为大家带来

“越览（182）——精读博士论文

《建筑施工企业BIM软件供应商的选择与评价研究》

的4.2 建筑施工企业 BIM 软件供应商评价指标权重的确定

选择评价指标体系的构建欢迎您的访问！

Share interests, spread happiness,

increase knowledge, and leave beautiful memories.

Dear you, this is LearningYard Academy!

Today, the editor brings you

4.2 Determination of the weights of evaluation indicators

for BIM software suppliers in construction companies

of "Yuelan (182)——Intensive reading of

the master’s thesis

‘Research on the selection and evaluation of BIM

software suppliers for

construction enterprises’".

Welcome to visit!

一、内容摘要（Summary of content）

本期推文将从思维导图、精读内容、知识补充三个方面介绍博士论文《建筑施工企业BIM软件供应商的选择与评价研究》的4.2 建筑施工企业 BIM 软件供应商评价指标权重的确定。

This issue of tweets will introduce 4.2 Determination of the weights of evaluation indicators for BIM software suppliers in construction companies of the doctoral thesis "Research on Industrial Chain Resilience from the Perspective of Supply Chain Network Structure" from three aspects: mind mapping, intensive reading content, and knowledge supplement.

二、思维导图（Mind mapping）

三、精读内容（Intensive reading content）

（一）评价指标权重确定方法（Method for determining evaluation index weights）

本节主要介绍了建筑施工企业 BIM 供应商评价指标权重确定的方法选择，并结合文献梳理进行了对比分析，最后明确了本文研究的取向。

This section mainly introduces the method selection for determining the weights of BIM supplier evaluation indicators for construction companies, and conducts a comparative analysis based on literature review. Finally, it clarifies the orientation of this study.

评价指标权重的确定是 BIM 供应商评价中的关键问题，不同方法的适用性和优劣直接影响评价结果的科学性与合理性。

Determining the weights of evaluation indicators is a key issue in BIM supplier evaluation. The applicability and advantages and disadvantages of different methods directly affect the scientificity and rationality of the evaluation results.

文献中主要涉及四类方法：

There are four main types of methods in the literature:

1. 直接赋权法：评价人员直接给出权重，优点是操作简单，但缺点是主观性强。

1. Direct weighting method: The evaluator directly assigns weights. The advantage is that the operation is simple, but the disadvantage is that it is highly subjective.

2. 层次分析法（AHP）：应用最广，但存在赋值标准难以把握、指标多时计算复杂、结果可能夸大差异等问题，因此对本文的指标体系不适用。

2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): It is the most widely used method, but it has problems such as difficulty in grasping the assignment standard, complex calculation when there are many indicators, and the possibility of exaggerating the differences in the results. Therefore, it is not applicable to the indicator system of this article.

3. 序关系分析法：通过对指标排序并依次比较得出权重，方法简便，但仍依赖专家主观判断。

3. Ordinal relationship analysis method: The weights are obtained by sorting the indicators and comparing them in sequence. This method is simple but still relies on the subjective judgment of experts.

4. 熵值法：典型的客观赋权法，能揭示指标间关系，但依赖原始数据，不适用于本文构建的指标体系。

4. Entropy method: A typical objective weighting method that can reveal the relationship between indicators, but it relies on raw data and is not suitable for the indicator system constructed in this article.

由于本文构建的评价指标体系缺乏原始数据支撑，客观赋权法如熵值法不可行；层次分析法虽然常见，但在指标数量较多的情况下操作复杂且容易失真；序关系分析法虽然可用，但依然基于主观判断。

Since the evaluation index system constructed in this paper lacks original data support, objective weighting methods such as the entropy method are not feasible; although the hierarchical analysis method is common, it is complex to operate and prone to distortion when there are a large number of indicators; although the ordinal relationship analysis method is available, it is still based on subjective judgment.

综合对比后，论文决定采用直接赋权法来确定权重，因为其方法简单、操作便捷，且在实际工程中应用较多，更适合本文的研究情境。

After comprehensive comparison, the paper decided to use the direct weighting method to determine the weights because its method is simple, easy to operate, and widely used in actual engineering, which is more suitable for the research context of this article.

（二）调查研究方案设计（Survey and research plan design）

本节主要介绍了建筑施工企业 BIM 软件供应商评价指标权重确定的具体实施过程，包括：

This section mainly introduces the specific implementation process of determining the weights of evaluation indicators for BIM software suppliers of construction enterprises, including:

1. 咨询表编制：基于前期评价指标体系，采用专家直接赋权法，请专家对各项指标给出简明的权重值。

1. Consultation form preparation: Based on the previous evaluation index system, the expert direct weighting method is adopted, and experts are asked to give concise weight values for each index.

2. 专家选取：继续使用之前通过德尔菲法确定指标时的专家群体，他们对指标熟悉且愿意参与，既保证了科学性也减少工作量。

2. Expert selection: Continue to use the expert group that was previously used to determine the indicators through the Delphi method. They are familiar with the indicators and are willing to participate, which not only ensures scientificity but also reduces workload.

3. 统计参数：此次不再使用满分比，只重点统计各专家赋权的均值和变异系数，并以变异系数 ≤15% 作为专家意见一致的标准。最终，各指标的均值作为确定的权重结果。

3. Statistical Parameters: This year, we will no longer use the percentage of full scores. Instead, we will focus on the mean and coefficient of variation of the expert-assigned weights. A coefficient of variation of ≤15% will be used as the standard for expert consensus. Ultimately, the mean of each indicator will be used to determine the weights.

（三）结果分析（Result analysis）

本节整体上说明了通过三轮德尔菲法专家调查与统计分析，逐步收敛并最终确定了 BIM 供应商评价指标权重，具体可概括为：

This section generally explains how, through three rounds of Delphi expert surveys and statistical analysis, the weights of BIM supplier evaluation indicators were gradually converged and finally determined. Specifically, they can be summarized as follows:

首先，在第 1 轮调查中，专家对各类指标和具体指标项进行打分，结果显示部分指标的权重变异系数超过15%，说明专家意见分歧较大，需要进入第 2 轮调查。

First, in the first round of surveys, experts scored various indicators and specific indicator items. The results showed that the coefficient of variation of the weights of some indicators exceeded 15%, indicating that there were large differences in expert opinions and it was necessary to enter the second round of surveys.

随后，在第 2 轮调查中，指标分类层面的变异系数均已降至 10%以内，通过归一化处理得到最终的分类权重，即软件成本（0.2958）、软件性能（0.2958）、用户服务（0.2126）、供应商属性（0.1958）。然而在具体指标项层面，部分结果的变异系数仍高于 15%，因此继续进行第 3 轮调查。最终，在第 3 轮调查中，指标项的变异系数基本控制在 15%以内，个别指标误差不超过 1%，满足了研究对一致性的要求。

Subsequently, in the second round of surveys, the coefficient of variation for the indicator categories had all fallen below 10%. Through normalization, the final category weights were obtained: software cost (0.2958), software performance (0.2958), user service (0.2126), and supplier attributes (0.1958). However, at the level of specific indicators, the coefficient of variation for some results remained above 15%, so a third round of surveys was conducted. Ultimately, in the third round of surveys, the coefficient of variation for indicator items was generally controlled within 15%, with individual indicators having an error of no more than 1%, meeting the research's consistency requirements.

在对表 4.4 和表 4.5 的权重结果进行整理统计后，最终的评价指标权重结果如表 4.6 所示。需要强调的是，本研究得到的权重结果是基于 12 位专家的共同意见确定的，在具体工程实践中，可根据项目实际需求对权重进行适当调整，以增强模型的适用性与灵活性。

After collating and analyzing the weighting results in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, the final evaluation indicator weighting results are shown in Table 4.6. It should be emphasized that the weighting results obtained in this study are based on the consensus of 12 experts. In specific engineering practices, the weightings can be appropriately adjusted based on the actual needs of the project to enhance the applicability and flexibility of the model.

四、知识补充（Knowledge supplement）

在实际的工程项目中，评价指标权重并非一成不变，而是需要根据项目类型、规模、阶段以及企业战略重点进行动态调整。例如，在大型综合体建设项目中，BIM 软件的性能与协同能力往往更受重视，因此“软件性能”和“用户服务”的权重可能相对较高；而在成本控制要求严格的中小型项目中，“软件成本”指标的重要性则会显著提升。

In actual engineering projects, the weighting of evaluation indicators is not static but needs to be dynamically adjusted based on project type, scale, phase, and corporate strategic priorities. For example, in large-scale complex construction projects, BIM software performance and collaboration capabilities are often more important, so the weighting of "software performance" and "user service" may be relatively high. On the other hand, in small and medium-sized projects with strict cost control requirements, the importance of "software cost" will increase significantly.

同时，随着项目推进，评价重点也可能发生变化。在前期规划阶段，企业可能更关注软件采购成本与供应商属性，以确保供应链稳定性；而在实施与运维阶段，用户服务与技术支持的权重会逐渐增加，以保证 BIM 平台的高效运行和问题的快速响应。

At the same time, the focus of evaluation may also change as the project progresses. During the early planning phase, companies may focus more on software procurement costs and supplier attributes to ensure supply chain stability. During the implementation and maintenance phase, the weight of user service and technical support will gradually increase to ensure the efficient operation of the BIM platform and rapid response to issues.

因此，在实际应用中，企业应建立动态权重调整机制，根据项目需求和阶段特点灵活修正评价指标的权重分配。这种做法能够增强评价体系的适应性和灵活性，使供应商选择更贴合项目实际，最终提高 BIM 技术应用的整体效益。

Therefore, in practical applications, companies should establish a dynamic weight adjustment mechanism to flexibly adjust the weight distribution of evaluation indicators based on project requirements and phase characteristics. This approach can enhance the adaptability and flexibility of the evaluation system, making supplier selection more tailored to project realities and ultimately improving the overall benefits of BIM technology applications.

今天的分享就到这里了。

如果您对文章有独特的想法，

欢迎给我们留言，让我们相约明天。

祝您今天过得开心快乐！

That's all for today's sharing.

If you have a unique idea about the article,

please leave us a message,

and let us meet tomorrow.

I wish you a nice day!

文案|yyz

排版|yyz

审核|hzy