IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jof/jforec/v22y2003i2-3p235-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriteria methods for technology foresight

Author

Listed:
  • Tommi Gustafsson

    (Helsinki University of Technology, Finland)

  • Ahti Salo

    (Helsinki University of Technology, Finland)

  • Ramakrishnan Ramanathan

    (College of Commerce and Economics, Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman)

Abstract

In recent years, many countries have carried out foresight exercises to better exploit scientific and technological opportunities. Often, these exercises have sought to identify 'critical' or 'key' technologies or, more broadly, to establish research priorities. In this paper, we consider the potential of multicriteria decision-making methods in this kind of priority-determination and examine the limitations of these methods in the foresight context. We also provide results from a combined evaluation and foresight study where multicriteria methods were deployed to support the shaping of research and technology development activities in the Finnish forestry and forest industry. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommi Gustafsson & Ahti Salo & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2003. "Multicriteria methods for technology foresight," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 235-255.
    • Handle: RePEc:jof:jforec:v:22:y:2003:i:2-3:p:235-255
    DOI: 10.1002/for.850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/for.850
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/for.850?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Tarja Joro & Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius, 1998. "Structural Comparison of Data Envelopment Analysis and Multiple Objective Linear Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 962-970, July.
    3. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Ensslin, Leonardo & Correa, Emerson C. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1999. "Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 315-335, March.
    4. Kerstin Cuhls, 2003. "From forecasting to foresight processes-new participative foresight activities in Germany," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 93-111.
    5. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    6. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    7. Geurts, Jac. L. A. & Joldersma, Cisca, 2001. "Methodology for participatory policy analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 300-310, January.
    8. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Bunn, Derek W. & Salo, Ahti A., 1993. "Forecasting with scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 291-303, August.
    11. Thomas Durand, 2003. "Twelve lessons from Key Technologies 2005: the French technology foresight exercise," Post-Print hal-02634324, HAL.
    12. Thomas Durand, 2003. "Twelve lessons from 'Key Technologies 2005': the French technology foresight exercise," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 161-177.
    13. Frank Hartwich & Willem Janssen, 2000. "Setting research priorities: an example from agriculture using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 201-210, December.
    14. Blair, Andrew R. & Nachtmann, Robert & Olson, Josephine E. & Saaty, Thomas L., 1987. "Forecasting foreign exchange rates: an expert judgment approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 363-369.
    15. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Reiß, Thomas, 1992. "Ex Ante Evaluation and Technology Assessment - two Emerging Elements of Technology Policy Evaluation," ISNAR Archive 310737, CGIAR > International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. P. Korhonen, 1998. "Multiple Objective Programming Support," Working Papers ir98010, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    17. Zofio, Jose L. & Prieto, Angel M., 2001. "Environmental efficiency and regulatory standards: the case of CO2 emissions from OECD industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 63-83, January.
    18. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    19. Millet, Ido & Harker, Patrick T., 1990. "Globally effective questioning in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 88-97, September.
    20. Frieder Meyer-Krahmer & Thomas Reiss, 1992. "Ex ante evaluation and technology assessment — two emerging elements of technology policy evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 47-54, April.
    21. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Using AHP for resource allocation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 410-417, January.
    22. Ramanathan, R, 2001. "Comparative Risk Assessment of energy supply technologies: a Data Envelopment Analysis approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 197-203.
    23. Michael Keenan, 2003. "Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 129-160.
    24. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    25. Steven W. Popper & Caroline S. Wagner, 2003. "Identifying critical technologies in the United States: a review of the federal effort," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(2-3), pages 113-128.
    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. Doukas, Haris Ch. & Andreas, Botsikas M. & Psarras, John E., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision aid for the formulation of sustainable technological energy priorities using linguistic variables," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 844-855, October.
    2. Elizabeth B. Connelly & Lisa M. Colosi & Andres F. Clarens & James H. Lambert, 2015. "Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for Aviation with Scenario‐Based Expert Elicitation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 178-191, March.
    3. Bratanova, Alexandra & OLSEN, JASON & Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2016. "Prioritising sensory systems for Queensland: An evaluation of alternative sensory systems using multiple criteria analysis," MPRA Paper 119232, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Doukas, Haris & Patlitzianas, Konstantinos D. & Psarras, John, 2006. "Supporting sustainable electricity technologies in Greece using MCDM," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-136, June.
    5. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Payam Khazaelpour & Fausto Cavallaro, 2018. "The Multi-Aspect Criterion in the PMADM Outline and Its Possible Application to Sustainability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    6. Jan Ondrus & Tung Bui & Yves Pigneur, 2015. "A Foresight Support System Using MCDM Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 333-358, March.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    8. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.
    9. Jones, Dylan & Labib, Ashraf & Willis, Kevin & Costello, Joseph T & Ouelhadj, Djamila & Ikonen, Emmi Susanna & Dominguez Cainzos, Mikel, 2023. "Multi-criteria mapping and prioritization of Arctic and North Atlantic maritime safety and security needs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 827-841.
    10. Elizabeth Gibson & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces & Marina Dabic, 2018. "Technology Foresight: A Bibliometric Analysis to Identify Leading and Emerging Methods," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 6-24.
    11. Eeva Vilkkumaa & Ahti Salo & Juuso Liesiö, 2014. "Multicriteria Portfolio Modeling for the Development of Shared Action Agendas," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 49-70, January.
    12. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Mohammadi, Navid & Daim, Tugrul & Vanaki, Amir Salar & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, 2021. "Matching of technological forecasting technique to a technology using fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making methods: Case study from the aerospace industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(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. Ahti Salo & Antti Punkka, 2011. "Ranking Intervals and Dominance Relations for Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 200-214, January.
    2. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    3. Qingxian An & Fanyong Meng & Beibei Xiong, 2018. "Interval cross efficiency for fully ranking decision making units using DEA/AHP approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 297-317, December.
    4. Eeva Vilkkumaa & Ahti Salo & Juuso Liesiö, 2014. "Multicriteria Portfolio Modeling for the Development of Shared Action Agendas," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 49-70, January.
    5. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    6. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    7. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    9. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    10. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    11. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    12. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    13. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    14. Ville Brummer & Totti Konnola & Ahti Salo, 2009. "FinnSight 2015 – A Foresight Exercise for the Shaping of National Strategies," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 3(4), pages 56-65.
    15. Srinivas K. Reddy & Jay E. Aronson & Antonie Stam, 1998. "SPOT: Scheduling Programs Optimally for Television," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 83-102, January.
    16. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2008. "A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    18. Elliott, Michael A., 2010. "Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 750-763.
    19. Satish Tyagi, 2016. "An improved fuzzy-AHP (IFAHP) approach to compare SECI modes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(15), pages 4520-4536, August.
    20. P. Korhonen & A. Siljamaeki & M. Soismaa, 1998. "Practical Aspects of Value Efficiency Analysis," Working Papers ir98042, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jof:jforec:v:22:y:2003:i:2-3:p:235-255. 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: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/2966 .

    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.