Current Situation and Optimization Strategy of Family Service Industry in Hebei Province Based on Fuzzy Mathematical Model Processing
und
24. März 2025
Über diesen Artikel
Online veröffentlicht: 24. März 2025
Eingereicht: 10. Nov. 2024
Akzeptiert: 18. Feb. 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0704
Schlüsselwörter
© 2025 Youzi Liang et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Main influencing factors of optimization scheme and its evaluation indexes
| Comparison project | Solution 1 | Solution 2 | Solution 3 | Solution 4 | Solution 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Index | Sort | Index | Sort | Index | Sort | Index | Sort | Index | Sort | |
| F1 | 300 | 5 | 600 | 2 | 500 | 3 | 1000 | 1 | 400 | 4 |
| F2 | 4573 | 4 | 5624 | 1 | 4482 | 5 | 5036 | 2 | 4975 | 3 |
| F3 | 26.79 | 4 | 32.83 | 2 | 34.96 | 1 | 23.54 | 5 | 28.97 | 3 |
| F4 | 72.38 | 4 | 72.46 | 3 | 72.38 | 4 | 75.49 | 2 | 77.67 | 1 |
| F5 | 34.78 | 4 | 35.94 | 3 | 33.26 | 5 | 41.05 | 1 | 37.86 | 2 |
| F6 | 538 | 2 | 694 | 1 | 372 | 5 | 409 | 4 | 533 | 3 |
| F7 | Bad | 3 | Good | 2 | Bad | 3 | Good | 2 | Better | 1 |
| F8 | Better | 1 | Bad | 3 | Good | 2 | Better | 1 | Good | 2 |
| F9 | Good | 2 | Good | 2 | Better | 1 | Better | 1 | Bad | 3 |
Family service indicator system
| Primary indicator | Secondary indicator |
|---|---|
| Policy level(A) | Policy perfection(A1) |
| Industry standard formulation(A2) | |
| Social security policy(A3) | |
| Construction level(B) | Relevant enterprise size(B1) |
| Brand construction(B2) | |
| Talent level(C) | Training mechanism(C1) |
| Personnel structure(C2) | |
| Service identity(C3) | |
| Mechanism level(D) | Specialized agency(D1) |
| Platform construction(D2) | |
| Innovation level(E) | Internet application(E1) |
| Work on innovation(E2) | |
| Technical innovation(E3) | |
| Innovation of ideas(E4) |
Space Markov probability transfer matrix
| Interval | Type | I | II | III | IV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | I | 0.1047 | 0.2219 | 0.3748 | 0.2785 |
| II | 0.0003 | 0.2493 | 0.1257 | 0.6194 | |
| III | 0.0001 | 0.6638 | 0.3319 | 0.0003 | |
| IV | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.0000 | |
| II | I | 0.6638 | 0.1089 | 0.1094 | 0.1109 |
| II | 0.3976 | 0.4976 | 0.1403 | 0.0001 | |
| III | 0.0005 | 0.5538 | 0.4175 | 0.0000 | |
| IV | 0.0003 | 0.0000 | 0.0002 | 0.0001 | |
| III | I | 0.0003 | 0.0003 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 |
| II | 0.3976 | 0.3976 | 0.1986 | 0.0005 | |
| III | 0.3764 | 0.2107 | 0.3766 | 0.0002 | |
| IV | 0.1386 | 0.0698 | 0.3581 | 0.4173 | |
| IV | I | 0.0005 | 0.0001 | 0.0005 | 0.0000 |
| II | 0.0001 | 0.0003 | 0.3368 | 0.0001 | |
| III | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | 0.0003 | 0.0004 | |
| IV | 0.4278 | 0.2486 | 0.1864 | 0.1189 |
The relation between the tone operator and the quantitative sort
| Tone operator | Quantification | Scale | Relative | Membership |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | 0.000 | 0.500 | 0.986 | 0.901 |
| T2 | 0.100 | 0.550 | 0.803 | 0.732 |
| T3 | 0.200 | 0.600 | 0.679 | 0.604 |
| T4 | 0.300 | 0.650 | 0.541 | 0.473 |
| T5 | 0.400 | 0.700 | 0.426 | 0.372 |
| T6 | 0.500 | 0.750 | 0.317 | 0.286 |
| T7 | 0.600 | 0.800 | 0.254 | 0.205 |
| T8 | 0.700 | 0.850 | 0.183 | 0.147 |
| T9 | 0.800 | 0.900 | 0.109 | 0.083 |
| T10 | 0.900 | 0.950 | 0.057 | 0.029 |
| T11 | 1.000 | ─ | 0.000 | ─ |
