安玲学记（243）——精读硕士论文软件开发服务供应商选择（2）

摘要：In this issue, the tweet will introduce the 5.2 selection of software development service provider for data platform project (2) o

分享兴趣，传播快乐，

增长见闻，留下美好。

亲爱的您，这里是LearingYard学苑！

今天小编为大家带来“精读硕士论文《A公司数据平台项目软件开发服务供应商评价研究》的5.2数据平台项目软件开发服务供应商选择（2）”。

欢迎您的访问！

Share interest, spread happiness,

increase knowledge, and leave beautiful.

Dear, this is the LearingYard Academy!

Today, the editor brings the "5.2 selection of software development service provider for data platform project (2) of software projects of the master's paper 'Research on evaluation of software development service providers of A company's data platform proiect'".

Welcome to visit!

一、内容摘要（Content summary）

本期推文将从思维导图、精读内容、知识补充三个方面介绍精读硕士论文《A公司数据平台项目软件开发服务供应商评价研究》的5.2数据平台项目软件开发服务供应商选择（2）。

In this issue, the tweet will introduce the 5.2 selection of software development service provider for data platform project (2) of the master's paper "Research on evaluation of software development service providers of A company's data platform project" from three aspects: mind map, detailed reading content, and additional knowledge supplementation.

二、思维导图（Mind Mapping）

三、精读内容（Detailed Reading Content）

根据评价专家最终的打分结果，最终成为数据平台项目软件开发服务合作供应商的是供应商丁。作者将该部分分为三步，分别为：旧供应商评价指标下评价结果对比、新供应商评价指标下中标结果分析、新旧供应商评价指标下中标结果产生差异的原因分析。本期推文将分享最后一个步骤，即：新旧供应商评价指标下中标结果产生差异的原因分析。

According to the final scoring results of the evaluation experts, the supplier Ding was ultimately chosen as the software development service partner for the data platform project. The author divides this part into three steps, namely: comparison of evaluation results under the old supplier evaluation indicators, analysis of winning bid results under the new supplier evaluation indicators, and analysis of the reasons for the differences in winning bid results under the new and old supplier evaluation indicators. This tweet will share the final step, namely: the analysis of the reasons for the differences in the winning bid results under the new and old supplier evaluation indicators.

作者通过对比新旧供应商评价体系在数据平台软件开发服务供应商选择中的差异，揭示出新体系下中标供应商变化的三重核心原因。

By comparing the differences between the old and new supplier evaluation systems in the selection of software development service providers for the data platform, the author reveals the three core reasons for the changes in winning suppliers under the new system.

首先，新指标体系构建了涵盖企业资质、项目经验、开发能力、需求理解和费用构成的五维框架，细化出10个可量化的二级指标，显著强化了对企业综合实力与开发人员技术能力的考察，将主观经验判断转化为对供应商技术储备、团队配置等硬性指标的客观评估。其次，通过将客观评审项占比提升至93%，有效压缩专家主观判断空间，规避了传统评审中个人经验偏差对供应商适配性判断的干扰。最后，运用层次分析法（AHP）科学分配指标权重，突破旧体系"经验式"赋权模式，实现多维度指标的系统化整合。

Firstly, the new indicator system has established a five-dimensional framework covering enterprise qualifications, project experience, development capabilities, requirement understanding and cost composition, and has refined ten quantifiable secondary indicators. This has significantly strengthened the assessment of the comprehensive strength of enterprises and the technical capabilities of developers, and transformed subjective experience judgments into objective evaluations of hard indicators such as suppliers' technical reserves and team configurations. Secondly, by increasing the proportion of objective review items to 93%, the subjective judgment space of experts is effectively compressed, and the interference of personal experience deviations in traditional reviews on the judgment of supplier suitability is avoided. Finally, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to scientifically allocate the weights of indicators, break through the "empirical" weighting model of the old system, and achieve the systematic integration of multi-dimensional indicators.

四、知识补充——层次分析法的缺点（Knowledge Supplementation - Disadvantages of the Analytic Hierarchy Process）

层次分析法（AHP）存在因素过多导致标度复杂、负标度处理不足、过度强调一致性忽视合理性、未能有效整合定量数据等局限。

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has limitations such as too many factors leading to complex scales, insufficient processing of negative scales, excessive emphasis on consistency while neglecting rationality, and failure to effectively integrate quantitative data.