IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v168y2021ics004016252100192x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology

Author

Listed:
  • Heidary Dahooie, Jalil
  • Qorbani, Ali Reza
  • Daim, Tugrul

Abstract

The technology changes and developments in the world are very rapid and has led many countries and organizations to try to keep up with them through acquisition of technology. Choosing the right method as one of the steps in the technology transfer (TT) process has a significant impact on the successful implementation of technology acquisition (TA). The purpose of this study is to select the most appropriate method of acquiring interactive TV technology for MTN Irancell Telecommunication Company using a combined model of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. Therefore, in this research, in the first stage of structuring, the list of criteria and alternatives was determined based on a literature review. Then, in the assessment phase, the fuzzy Delphi technique was used to finalize the list of criteria and alternatives, and then an improved fuzzy group hierarchical best-worst method (fuzzy G-HBWM) was used to determine the criteria weights and evaluate the alternatives by an expert group to form a decision matrix. Finally, in the ranking stage, the alternatives were ranked using fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making (F-MADM) methods including ARAS-F, fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy WASPAS, fuzzy VIKOR, fuzzy MABAC, and fuzzy SAW. Then, the Integer Linear Program (ILP) model was used to aggregate the ranking. Based on the results, the main criteria in order of importance are: technology factors, environmental and market factors, organizational factors, and partner or vendor factors. Also, the most important sub-criteria can be considered, respectively, as: the innovative rate in the industry, the degree of strategic importance of technology, the need for access to technology, and the ability to share assets. The final ranking results showed that turnkey contracts, stock ownership, and outsourcing are the top three alternatives in order of priority.

Suggested Citation

  • Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:168:y:2021:i:c:s004016252100192x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120760
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004016252100192X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120760?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. S Ghazinoory & M Daneshmand-Mehr & A Azadegan, 2013. "Technology selection: application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences—a real case of nanotechnology in Iran," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 64(6), pages 884-897, June.
    3. Chou, Shuo-Yan & Chang, Yao-Hui & Shen, Chun-Ying, 2008. "A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 132-145, August.
    4. Barak, Sasan & Javanmard, Shima, 2020. "Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMs)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    5. Reisman, Arnold, 2005. "Transfer of technologies: a cross-disciplinary taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 189-202, June.
    6. Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib & Farkhondeh Hashemi & Mohammad Hadi Shabestari, 2017. "A Framework for Sustainable Strategic Planning of Water Demand and Supply in Arid Regions," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 254-266, May.
    7. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    8. Ebrahimi, Mehri & Rahmani, Donya, 2019. "A five-dimensional approach to sustainability for prioritizing energy production systems using a revised GRA method: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 345-354.
    9. Akash Tayal & Angappa Gunasekaran & Surya Prakash Singh & Rameshwar Dubey & Thanos Papadopoulos, 2017. "Formulating and solving sustainable stochastic dynamic facility layout problem: a key to sustainable operations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 621-655, June.
    10. Alireza Alinezhad & Javad Khalili, 2019. "New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM)," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-030-15009-9, December.
    11. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    12. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    13. Varmazyar, Mohsen & Dehghanbaghi, Maryam & Afkhami, Mehdi, 2016. "A novel hybrid MCDM model for performance evaluation of research and technology organizations based on BSC approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 125-140.
    14. Alireza Shahrasbi & Mehdi Shamizanjani & M. H. Alavidoost & Babak Akhgar, 2017. "An Aggregated Fuzzy Model for the Selection of a Managed Security Service Provider," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 625-684, May.
    15. Gholamhossein Mehralian & Razieh Ahmady & Mehdi Majidpour & Farzad Peiravian, 2019. "Identification of Critical Factors Contributing to International Technological Collaborations: The Case of Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-18, May.
    16. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    17. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Mostafa Zandieh & Talieh Tayebi, 2019. "Drawing a Strategy Canvas Using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 20(1), pages 57-75, March.
    18. Hemmert, Martin, 2004. "The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms: survey results from Germany and Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1019-1039, September.
    19. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, Mehdi & Amiri, Maghsoud & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Turskis, Zenonas & Antucheviciene, Jurgita, 2017. "A new hybrid simulation-based assignment approach for evaluating airlines with multiple service quality criteria," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 45-60.
    20. Mohammad Ebrahim Banihabib & Farkhondeh-Sadat Hashemi-Madani & Ali Forghani, 2017. "Comparison of Compensatory and non-Compensatory Multi Criteria Decision Making Models in Water Resources Strategic Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(12), pages 3745-3759, September.
    21. Baležentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia, 2017. "Multi-criteria ranking of energy generation scenarios with Monte Carlo simulation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P1), pages 862-871.
    22. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    23. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    24. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    25. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    26. Barak, Sasan & Dahooei, Jalil Heidary, 2018. "A novel hybrid fuzzy DEA-Fuzzy MADM method for airlines safety evaluation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 134-149.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chauhan, Ankur & Jakhar, Suresh Kumar & Jabbour, Charbel Jose Chiappetta, 2022. "Implications for sustainable healthcare operations in embracing telemedicine services during a pandemic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barak, Sasan & Dahooei, Jalil Heidary, 2018. "A novel hybrid fuzzy DEA-Fuzzy MADM method for airlines safety evaluation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 134-149.
    2. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Raafat, Romina & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "An intuitionistic fuzzy data-driven product ranking model using sentiment analysis and multi-criteria decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Sarita Gajbhiye Meshram & Vijay P. Singh & Ercan Kahya & Ehsan Alvandi & Chandrashekhar Meshram & Shailesh Kumar Sharma, 2020. "The Feasibility of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Prioritization of Sensitive Area at Risk of Water Erosion," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4665-4685, December.
    4. Xiao-Kang Wang & Wen-Hui Hou & Chao Song & Min-Hui Deng & Yong-Yi Li & Jian-Qiang Wang, 2021. "BW-MaxEnt: A Novel MCDM Method for Limited Knowledge," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Máximo Méndez & Mariano Frutos & Fabio Miguel & Ricardo Aguasca-Colomo, 2020. "TOPSIS Decision on Approximate Pareto Fronts by Using Evolutionary Algorithms: Application to an Engineering Design Problem," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Orji, Ifeyinwa Juliet & Gupta, Himanshu & Kunc, Martin, 2021. "Risks associated with the implementation of big data analytics in sustainable supply chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    7. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    8. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    9. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Witold Torbacki, 2021. "Achieving Sustainable Mobility in the Szczecin Metropolitan Area in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The DEMATEL and PROMETHEE II Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.
    11. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Amin Vafadarnikjoo & Madjid Tavana & Tiago Botelho & Konstantinos Chalvatzis, 2020. "A neutrosophic enhanced best–worst method for considering decision-makers’ confidence in the best and worst criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(2), pages 391-418, June.
    13. Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Barak, Sasan & Javanmard, Shima, 2020. "Outsourcing modelling using a novel interval-valued fuzzy quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) and multiple criteria decision-making (MCDMs)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    15. Mir Seyed Mohammad Mohsen Emamat & Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota & Mohammad Reza Mehregan & Mohammad Reza Sadeghi Moghadam & Philippe Nemery, 2022. "Using ELECTRE-TRI and FlowSort methods in a stock portfolio selection context," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-35, December.
    16. Ecer, Fatih & Pamucar, Dragan, 2022. "A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Sarbast Moslem & Tiziana Campisi & Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Szabolcs Duleba & Kh Md Nahiduzzaman & Giovanni Tesoriere, 2020. "Best–Worst Method for Modelling Mobility Choice after COVID-19: Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    19. Aziz Naghizadeh Vardin & Ramin Ansari & Mohammad Khalilzadeh & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Romualdas Bausys, 2021. "An Integrated Decision Support Model Based on BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR Techniques for Contractor Selection in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-28, June.
    20. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:168:y:2021:i:c:s004016252100192x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.