Organizational Performance Evaluation of Coal-Fired Power Enterprises Using a Hybrid Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Index System for Evaluating the Organizational Performance of Coal-Fired Power Enterprises
3.1. Economic Operational Performance
- Total assets
- Return on total assets
- Return on equity
- Net asset growth rate
- Total installed capacity
- Generating capacity
3.2. Organizational Management Performance
- Organization managementThis refers to the process of effectively achieving organizational goals by establishing organizational structure design, specifying positions or positions, and clarifying the relationship between responsibilities and rights. It is mainly divided into three parts: organizational design, operation, and maintenance; organizational adjustment; and optimization. It is used to measure the management concept and overall management and control mode and level of coal-fired power enterprises.
- Labor productivity per capitaThis refers to the ratio of labor results created by laborers in an enterprise to their corresponding labor consumption within a certain period. The more work done per unit of time, the higher the labor productivity. In this article, it refers to the ratio of labor consumption corresponding to the power generation of coal-fired power enterprises in a specified period. It is an important indicator for evaluating the economic activities of coal-fired power enterprises and is a comprehensive performance indicator of production technology level, management level, staff technical level and labor enthusiasm.
- Post turnover rateThis refers to the ratio of the number of employees who have set up positions in the enterprise to leave or change within a certain period. It measures the stability and development of coal-fired power enterprises and reflects the rationality of the organizational structure and post setting of coal-fired power enterprises during the transformation and reform periods.
- Highly skilled talent ratioThis refers to the proportion of the total number of employees in the fields of production, transportation and service who are proficient in specialized knowledge and technology, have superb operational capabilities and can solve operational problems of key technologies and processes in work practice. It can reflect the technical level and R&D capability of the enterprise, especially the importance attached to science and technology by coal-fired power enterprises in the period of transformation and reform.
- Technological innovation project success rateMeasuring the degree of completion of technological reform projects by coal-fired power companies is conducive to drawing the attention of coal-fired power enterprises to R&D projects, and at the same time improving R&D ideas, means and technologies.
- R&D expense ratioThis refers to the ratio of the cost paid by a coal-fired power enterprise to the total expenditure of the company for technical research and development in the process of transformation and reform. It reflects the cost of technology input and the determination to reform technology.
3.3. Environmental Performance
- Eco-friendly inputThis refers to the proportion of investment in environmental pollution prevention, ecological protection and construction in the current year’s corporate asset investment. It is the material basis for the development of environmental protection. To measure the transformation and development of coal-fired power enterprises, the strategic goals have changed from resource consumption to environmental protection technology, and the determination and strategy to implement the “Dual carbon goal”.
- Environmental load rateThis refers to the ratio of the total amount of non-renewable energy input energy to the total renewable energy input energy. Measuring the utilization of non-renewable energy by coal-fired power companies during the period of transformation, reform and development is one of the important indicators of environmental protection efficiency.
- Industrial solid waste recycling rateThis refers to the recycling of solid waste generated in the process of coal-fired power generation. Through the collection, storage, transportation, utilization and disposal of solid waste, it reflects the environmental protection measures and degree of coal-fired power enterprises.
- Technical level of intelligent environment protectionThis is an extension and expansion of the concept of “digital environmental protection”. It uses Internet of Things technology to embed sensors and equipment into various environmental monitoring objects and integrates the Internet of Things in the field of environmental protection through supercomputers and cloud computing. The integration with the environmental business system will help coal-fired power enterprises realize the wisdom of environmental management and decision making in a more refined and dynamic way during the period of transformation, reform and development.
3.4. Social Value Performance
- Application of carbon capture technologyCarbon capture technology is a key measure to achieve the “Dual carbon Goals”. Setting this indicator refers to the application of technology to capture carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, compress it and press it back into depleted oil and gas fields or other safe underground locations, which focus on the application and promotion of social science and technology.
- Social contribution rateSocial responsibility indicators focus on people’s livelihood and economic contribution and effectiveness, which is the evaluation of the ability of enterprises to fulfil social responsibilities. In this article, it specifically refers to the contribution of coal-fired power enterprises to people’s livelihood and social life security.
- Guaranteed power supply levelThis refers to the ability of coal-fired power generation enterprises to ensure power generation and power supply and measures their measures and contributions to ensuring basic people’s livelihood and social stability, especially in the past two years.
- Emergency HandlingThis refers to emergency management, command and safeguarding measures in the face of emergencies, such as natural disasters, major accidents, environmental hazards and man-made damage. This specifically refers to the guaranteed function of coal-fired power enterprises in handling power emergencies.
4. Construction of Organizational Performance Evaluation Model for Coal-Fired Power Enterprises
4.1. Index Weighting Method Based on VAE
4.2. Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Based on Vague Sets
- (1)
- Evaluate statements that set the corresponding level of the evaluation indicators.Referring to the actual situation of coal-fired power enterprises, this paper is related to the improvement of enterprise performance, setting the corresponding comment set = (fully compliant, more consistent, barely compliant, not very compliant, completely inconsistent) as five levels.
- (2)
- Construct a vague set evaluation matrix.Comment set . Ask several experts to judge the evaluation of the indicators one by one, and then construct the vague set evaluation relationship matrix :
- (3)
- Based on the weights and matrices , a comprehensive evaluation is carried out
5. Empirical Analysis
5.1. Overview
5.2. VAE Feature Input
- (1)
- Obtain the original performance data of eight coal-fired power companies as the original training samples.
- (2)
- Build the training sample composition, set the maximum number of iterations of VAE, and expand the minority class training samples.
- (3)
- Build the training sample set based on the original training samples of the minority class expanded sample set.
- (4)
- Use the training sample set and build it based on the pre-training and fine-tuning process performance index feature importance model.
5.3. Index Weighting Results
5.4. Fuzzy Evaluation Results Based on Vague Set
6. Discussion
6.1. Sensitivity Analysis
6.2. Comparative Analysis
7. Conclusions
- (1)
- The organizational performance evaluation index system of coal-fired power enterprises was built. Compared with the original coal-fired power enterprise evaluation index system, the importance of organizational management, the proportion of high-skilled talents, the level of intelligent environmental protection technology, the application of carbon capture technology and the level of power supply guarantees were strengthened, reflecting the guiding role of the “Dual-Carbon” goals. In the context of energy reform, coal-fired power enterprises have the dual development tasks of social responsibility and economic benefits. This paper provides a new perspective for the operation management and comprehensive performance evaluation of coal-fired power enterprises during the period of transformation, reform and development.
- (2)
- An evaluation method for organizational performance of coal-fired power enterprises was proposed. The VAE algorithm was applied to the organizational performance evaluation of coal-fired power enterprises, which combines the advantages of subjective and objective feature selection and importance method, enhances the representativeness of performance evaluation indicators and reflects the interdependence and feedback between multiple performance indicators. The empirical result showed that the organizational performance of the YC coal-fired power enterprise was the best, and the JN coal-fired power enterprise was second, while the organizational performance of the NK coal-fired power enterprise was the worst. Through the sensitivity analysis and comparison of various evaluation methods, the compatibility of the proposed model in this paper was the largest, and the difference was the smallest, indicating that it is representative and reliable. This paper strengthens the objectivity and interrelationship of the indexes, which increases the scientific rationality of the model and expands the application field of intelligent algorithms.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dominik, D.F.; Bačeković, I.; Ćosić, B.; Krajačić, G.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N.; Markovskadet, N. Zero carbon energy system of Southeast Europe in 2050. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1517–1528. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, J.; Tuan, M.; Wang, Y. “30·60” Dual Carbon Goals under the difference coal development target and policy suggestions. World Environ. 2021, 4, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, L.; Lei, C.; Bin, L.; Xiang, D. Research on the high-quality development path of China’s energy under the carbon neutrality goal. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 23, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- An, H. China’s goal and main ways to achieve carbon peaking before 2030. J. Beijing Univ. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z. “Much starker choices-and graver consequences-in” review has experienced ups and downs of the power generation industry? Energy 2020, 12, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.; Zhang, D. Under the “Dual Carbon Goals” energy and low carbon transition route and suggestion. J. Power Eng. 2021, 41, 905–909, 971. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Z. “Dual Carbon Goals” under the target of coal in our country? China Electr. Power Enterp. Manag. J. 2021, 7, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
- Akihisa Yang, K. Promote carbon was at peak, carbon neutral, speed up the building with new energy as the main body of the new type of power system. China Electr. Power 2021, 5, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, H.; Gong, R.; Yang, X.; Guan, S. Assessment and Forecast of Operating Efficiency of Power Generation Industry in the Context of Electricity Marketization. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 793, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, F.; Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Yang, S. Based on the power production climate index of China’s power industry analysis and prediction. Mod. Electr. Power 2021, 38, 511–520. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J. Method based on entropy weight fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of network early warning research. Inf. Sci. 2018, 36, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
- Du, Y.; Wang, S. Based on the DEMATEL-science fund project performance evaluation method of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Sci. Found. Chin. 2018, 32, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
- Li, M.; Li, K.; Peng, B.; Wu, Y.; Jin, C. AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation based on network of distribution network operation management level of the comprehensive evaluation system research. Power Supply Consum. 2019, 36, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, B.; Liu, F.; Yan, X. Armored equipment effectiveness evaluation based on hierarchy-grey theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety (ICRMS) IEEE, Hangzhou, China, 26–28 October 2016; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X. Under the background of digital economy “Dual Carbon Goals” policy analysis on the influence of industrial upgrading. Chin. Dev. J. 2021, 21, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Li, K.; Jiang, P. A Hybrid Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Technique to Evaluate Regional Intellectual Capital: Evidence from China. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Xiao, Q.; Xiao, H.; Peng, D.; Wang, H. The combination weights optimization variable fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of enterprise financial performance. Math. Pract. Theory 2018, 48, 64–74. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Luo, D.; Lin, Y. Based on relative entropy sort of assembly sequence quality fuzzy evaluation method. J. Chin. Mech. Eng. 2016, 27, 1089–1095. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Chen, T. A partial-consensus posterior-aggregation FAHP method—Supplier selection problem as an example. Mathematics 2019, 7, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, C.; Yang, M. An approach to evaluating the patent commercialization performance of industry–academic collaborations. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zang, N. Under the “Dual Carbon Goals” stock path analysis of coal development in our country. China Electr. Power Enterp. Manag. J. 2021, 16, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
- Nan, Q.; Mu, Y.; Dong, X. Electric cars quick charge network comprehensive evaluation index system and method. Autom. Electr. Power Syst. 2020, 44, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, M.; Yao, J.; Wu, Y. Based on “resource-ability-market” framework of coal enterprise competitiveness evaluation research consortium mode. J. Ind. Technol. Econ. 2018, 37, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Q.; Hou, J. Under the perspective of value chain of coal enterprise performance evaluation research—In xishan coal and electricity, for example. Econ. Res. Guide 2020, 26, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Number of Literatures |
---|---|---|
Economic factors | Return on total assets | 15 |
Total asset turnover | 12 | |
Total asset growth rate | 12 | |
Assets and liabilities | 11 | |
Return on equity | 10 | |
Asset Impairment Reserve Rate | 6 | |
Environmental factors | Plant greening degree | 10 |
Special funds for environmental protection | 9 | |
Special funds for energy conservation | 8 | |
Ecological construction restoration investment | 8 | |
Environmental governance status | 7 | |
Enforcement of environmental laws and regulations | 4 | |
Resource conditions | Comprehensive utilization of resources | 14 |
Comprehensive energy consumption per CNY ten thousand of output value | 13 | |
Standard coal consumption for power generation | 12 | |
Water consumption per CNY ten thousand of output value | 11 | |
Large machinery equipment rate | 10 | |
Large machinery utilization | 8 | |
Technique level | Technology project success rate | 12 |
R&D expense ratio | 12 | |
Proportion of scientific and technological talents | 9 | |
Operation management level | Employee training | 13 |
Labor productivity | 13 | |
Employee salary and benefits | 12 | |
Employee satisfaction | 9 | |
Management rules and regulations | 7 | |
Talent introduction index | 7 | |
Talent equivalent density | 3 | |
Social factors | Unit asset tax amount | 12 |
Employment contribution | 11 | |
Social donation | 10 | |
Accidents per ten thousand people | 9 | |
Government satisfaction | 5 | |
Satisfaction of surrounding residents | 4 |
Indicator Order | Primary Indicators | Indicator Order | Secondary Indicators |
---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Economic Operational Performance | Q11 | Total assets |
Q12 | Return on total assets | ||
Q13 | Return on equity | ||
Q14 | Net asset growth rate | ||
Q15 | Total installed capacity | ||
Q16 | Generating capacity | ||
Q2 | Organizational Management Performance | Q21 | Organization management |
Q22 | Labor productivity per capita | ||
Q23 | Post turnover rate | ||
Q24 | Highly skilled talent ratio | ||
Q25 | Technological innovation project success rate | ||
Q26 | R&D expense ratio | ||
Q3 | Environmental Performance | Q31 | Eco-friendly input |
Q32 | Environmental load rate | ||
Q33 | Industrial solid waste recycling rate | ||
Q34 | Technical level of intelligent environment protection | ||
Q4 | Social Value Performance | Q41 | Application of carbon capture technology |
Q42 | Social contribution rate | ||
Q43 | Guaranteed power supply level | ||
Q44 | Emergency handling |
Indicators | Correlation Degree | Weight | |
---|---|---|---|
Q1 Economic Operational Performance | Q11 | 0.0509 | 0.0547 |
Q12 | 0.0518 | 0.0595 | |
Q13 | 0.0542 | 0.0727 | |
Q14 | 0.0487 | 0.0428 | |
Q15 | 0.0458 | 0.0274 | |
Q16 | 0.0510 | 0.0555 | |
Q2 Organizational Management Performance | Q21 | 0.0520 | 0.0610 |
Q22 | 0.0492 | 0.0456 | |
Q23 | 0.0444 | 0.0195 | |
Q24 | 0.0483 | 0.0409 | |
Q25 | 0.0512 | 0.0566 | |
Q26 | 0.0495 | 0.0471 | |
Q3 Environmental Performance | Q31 | 0.0504 | 0.0523 |
Q32 | 0.0512 | 0.0567 | |
Q33 | 0.0458 | 0.0273 | |
Q34 | 0.0450 | 0.0231 | |
Q4 Social Value Performance | Q41 | 0.0524 | 0.0629 |
Q42 | 0.0535 | 0.0690 | |
Q43 | 0.0529 | 0.0655 | |
Q44 | 0.0518 | 0.0600 |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Vague Value of Secondary Indicators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Q11 | [0.15,0.25] | [0.3,0.4] | [0.25,0.35] | [0.125,0.225] | [0.075,0.175] |
Q12 | [0.1,0.2] | [0.35,0.45] | [0.275,0.375] | [0.1,0.2] | [0.075,0.175] | |
Q13 | [0.15,0.25] | [0.325,0.425] | [0.275,0.375] | [0.125,0.225] | [0.025,0.125] | |
Q14 | [0.125,0.225] | [0.25,0.35] | [0.3,0.4] | [0.15,0.25] | [0.075,0.175] | |
Q15 | [0.125,0.225] | [0.275,0.375] | [0.3,0.4] | [0.15,0.25] | [0.05,0.15] | |
Q16 | [0.1,0.2] | [0.25,0.35] | [0.275,0.375] | [0.2,0.3] | [0.075,0.175] | |
Q2 | Q21 | [0.075,0.275] | [0.125,0.325] | [0.15,0.35] | [0.25,0.45] | [0.2,0.4] |
Q22 | [0.025,0.225] | [0.175,0.375] | [0.25,0.45] | [0.3,0.5] | [0.05,0.25] | |
Q23 | [0.075,0.275] | [0.125,0.325] | [0.275,0.475] | [0.225,0.425] | [0.1,0.3] | |
Q24 | [0.05,0.25] | [0.15,0.35] | [0.225,0.425] | [0.275,0.475] | [0.1,0.3] | |
Q25 | [0.05,0.25] | [0.175,0.375] | [0.325,0.525] | [0.175,0.375] | [0.075,0.275] | |
Q26 | [0.05,0.25] | [0.075,0.275] | [0.225,0.425] | [0.3,0.5] | [0.15,0.35] | |
Q3 | Q31 | [0.05,0.125] | [0.225,0.3] | [0.375,0.45] | [0.15,0.225] | [0.125,0.2] |
Q32 | [0.15,0.225] | [0.275,0.35] | [0.225,0.3] | [0.175,0.25] | [0.1,0.175] | |
Q33 | [0.125,0.2] | [0.25,0.325] | [0.325,0.4] | [0.2,0.275] | [0.025,0.1] | |
Q34 | [0.125,0.2] | [0.25,0.325] | [0.25,0.325] | [0.175,0.25] | [0.125,0.2] | |
Q4 | Q41 | [0.225,0.375] | [0.275,0.425] | [0.175,0.325] | [0.075,0.225] | [0.1,0.25] |
Q42 | [0.075,0.225] | [0.3,0.45] | [0.175,0.325] | [0.15,0.3] | [0.15,0.3] | |
Q43 | [0.125,0.275] | [0.325,0.475] | [0.275,0.425] | [0.075,0.225] | [0.05,0.2] | |
Q44 | [0.15,0.3] | [0.225,0.375] | [0.275,0.425] | [0.1,0.25] | [0.1,0.25] |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Vague Value Evaluation Results | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Q11 | [0.00821,0.01368] | [0.01641,0.02188] | [0.01368,0.01915] | [0.00684,0.01231] | [0.00410,0.00957] |
Q12 | [0.00595,0.01189] | [0.02081,0.02676] | [0.01635,0.02230] | [0.00595,0.01189] | [0.00446,0.01041] | |
Q13 | [0.01090,0.01817] | [0.02362,0.03089] | [0.01998,0.02725] | [0.00908,0.01635] | [0.00182,0.00908] | |
Q14 | [0.00535,0.00963] | [0.01070,0.01497] | [0.01284,0.01711] | [0.00642,0.01070] | [0.00321,0.00749] | |
Q15 | [0.00342,0.00616] | [0.00753,0.01026] | [0.00821,0.01095] | [0.00411,0.00684] | [0.00137,0.00411] | |
Q16 | [0.00555,0.01110] | [0.01387,0.01942] | [0.01526,0.02081] | [0.01110,0.01665] | [0.00416,0.00971] | |
F1 | [0.03937,0.07062] | [0.09293,0.12419] | [0.08632,0.11757] | [0.04349,0.07474] | [0.01912,0.05037] | |
Q2 | Q21 | [0.00458,0.01678] | [0.00763,0.01984] | [0.00915,0.02136] | [0.01526,0.02746] | [0.01221,0.02441] |
Q22 | [0.00114,0.01026] | [0.00798,0.01711] | [0.01140,0.02053] | [0.01368,0.02281] | [0.00228,0.01140] | |
Q23 | [0.00146,0.00536] | [0.00244,0.00634] | [0.00536,0.00926] | [0.00439,0.00829] | [0.00195,0.00585] | |
Q24 | [0.00204,0.01022] | [0.00613,0.01431] | [0.00920,0.01738] | [0.01125,0.01943] | [0.00409,0.01227] | |
Q25 | [0.00283,0.01414] | [0.00990,0.02121] | [0.01838,0.02970] | [0.00990,0.02121] | [0.00424,0.01556] | |
Q26 | [0.00236,0.01178] | [0.00353,0.01296] | [0.01060,0.02003] | [0.01414,0.02356] | [0.00707,0.01649] | |
F2 | [0.01441,0.06856] | [0.03762,0.09177] | [0.06411,0.11826] | [0.06861,0.12276] | [0.03184,0.08599] | |
Q3 | Q31 | [0.00262,0.00654] | [0.01177,0.01570] | [0.01962,0.02354] | [0.00785,0.01177] | [0.00654,0.01046] |
Q32 | [0.00851,0.01276] | [0.01560,0.01985] | [0.01276,0.01702] | [0.00993,0.01418] | [0.00567,0.00993] | |
Q33 | [0.00341,0.00546] | [0.00683,0.00887] | [0.00887,0.01092] | [0.00546,0.00751] | [0.00068,0.00273] | |
Q34 | [0.00289,0.00462] | [0.00578,0.00751] | [0.00578,0.00751] | [0.00405,0.00578] | [0.00289,0.00462] | |
F3 | [0.01743,0.02939] | [0.03998,0.05194] | [0.04704,0.05900] | [0.02728,0.03924] | [0.01578,0.02774] | |
Q4 | Q41 | [0.01414,0.02357] | [0.01729,0.02671] | [0.01100,0.02043] | [0.00471,0.01414] | [0.00629,0.01571] |
Q42 | [0.00517,0.01552] | [0.02069,0.03103] | [0.01207,0.02241] | [0.01034,0.02069] | [0.01034,0.02069] | |
Q43 | [0.00819,0.01801] | [0.02129,0.03111] | [0.01801,0.02784] | [0.00491,0.01474] | [0.00327,0.01310] | |
Q44 | [0.00900,0.01800] | [0.01350,0.02250] | [0.01650,0.02550] | [0.00600,0.01500] | [0.00600,0.01500] | |
F4 | [0.03650,0.07510] | [0.07276,0.11135] | [0.05758,0.09617] | [0.02597,0.06457] | [0.02590,0.06450] | |
F | [0.10771,0.24366] | [0.24329,0.37924] | [0.25505,0.39100] | [0.16536,0.30131] | [0.09265,0.22860] |
Rating of Comments | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scoring value | |||||
Calculation result | 1.7763 | 1.7207 | 1.7090 | 1.6987 | 1.6914 |
Rating of Comments | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | 100 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 20 |
YC | DA | NK | ZJM | JN | KL | PM | DY | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.7763 | 1.5519 | 1.6548 | 1.3194 | 1.61943 | 1.5834 | 1.6095 | 1.8335 | |
1.7207 | 1.7572 | 1.8037 | 1.2626 | 1.75846 | 1.7503 | 1.6397 | 1.6727 | |
1.709 | 1.6749 | 1.7005 | 1.4584 | 1.5413 | 1.7991 | 1.7601 | 1.5709 | |
1.6987 | 1.5775 | 1.6997 | 1.2413 | 1.5626 | 1.5917 | 1.8633 | 1.6391 | |
1.6914 | 1.5187 | 1.5938 | 1.2126 | 1.4126 | 1.6934 | 1.5731 | 1.5982 | |
Result | 519.602 | 489.7488 | 394.3673 | 485.8594 | 511.67 | 503.846 | 503.726 | 508.948 |
Method | Compatibility | Difference | Comprehensive Rank | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | Rank | Score | Rank | ||
VAE | 0.963 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
ANP | 0.669 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
TOPSIS | 0.657 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yu, S.; Song, Y. Organizational Performance Evaluation of Coal-Fired Power Enterprises Using a Hybrid Model. Energies 2022, 15, 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093175
Yu S, Song Y. Organizational Performance Evaluation of Coal-Fired Power Enterprises Using a Hybrid Model. Energies. 2022; 15(9):3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093175
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Shunkun, and Yuqing Song. 2022. "Organizational Performance Evaluation of Coal-Fired Power Enterprises Using a Hybrid Model" Energies 15, no. 9: 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093175