IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v117y2017icp12-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Hakyeon
  • Geum, Youngjung

Abstract

Scenario-based roadmapping has been considered as an effective means to deal with the dynamics of business environments. However, previous research on the scenario-based roadmap has commonly employed a single methodology to develop technology roadmaps, even if the characteristics of layers in technology roadmaps are different. The market planning deals with ‘external scenarios’ which are uncontrollable, whereas the product and technology planning is associated with ‘internal scenarios’ which are controllable. The former is related to the analysis and evaluation, whereas the latter is associated with strategic decision-making. This leads to the important implication that we have to consider two different perspectives of planning and have to utilize two different methodologies. In response, this paper employs an approach using cross impact analysis (CIA) and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) as a tool for scenario-based roadmapping. CIA is employed for roadmapping the market layer due to its ability to measure the impact of the external environment, whereas AHP is employed to roadmap the technology and product layers, due to its characteristics of decision-making process. To illustrate the working of proposed approach, a case study was conducted for the u-healthcare services.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:117:y:2017:i:c:p:12-24
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517300823
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.016?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. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Stephen M. Millett & Fred Randles, 1986. "Scenarios for Strategic Business Planning: A Case History for Aerospace and Defense Companies," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 64-72, December.
    5. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    6. Veugelers, Reinhilde, 1997. "Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 303-315, October.
    7. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    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. Yujin Jeong & Hyejin Jang & Byungun Yoon, 2021. "Developing a risk-adaptive technology roadmap using a Bayesian network and topic modeling under deep uncertainty," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3697-3722, May.
    2. Kim, Junhan & Geum, Youngjung, 2021. "How to develop data-driven technology roadmaps:The integration of topic modeling and link prediction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Chi-Yo Huang & Jih-Jeng Huang & You-Ning Chang & Yen-Chu Lin, 2021. "A Fuzzy-MOP-Based Competence Set Expansion Method for Technology Roadmap Definitions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-26, January.
    4. Sebastián Escobar & Margareth Santander & Pilar Useche & Carlos Contreras & Jader Rodríguez, 2020. "Aligning Strategic Objectives with Research and Development Activities in a Soft Commodity Sector: A Technological Plan for Colombian Cocoa Producers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    5. Behnoosh Matani & Babak Shirazi & Javad Soltanzadeh, 2019. "F-MaMcDm: Sustainable Green-Based Hydrogen Production Technology Roadmap Using Fuzzy Multi-Aspect Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-32, December.
    6. Eunsuk Chun & Sungchan Jun & Chulung Lee, 2021. "Identification of Promising Smart Farm Technologies and Development of Technology Roadmap Using Patent Map Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Roland Broll & Gerald Blumberg & Christoph Weber, "undated". "Thesenpapier: Constructing Consistent Energy Scenarios using Cross Impact Matrices," EWL Working Papers 2005, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics.
    8. Noh, Heeyong & Kim, Kyuwoong & Song, Young-Keun & Lee, Sungjoo, 2021. "Opportunity-driven technology roadmapping: The case of 5G mobile services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    9. Nazarenko, Anastasia & Vishnevskiy, Konstantin & Meissner, Dirk & Daim, Tugrul, 2022. "Applying digital technologies in technology roadmapping to overcome individual biased assessments," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. Tian Guan & Yi Han & Nan Kang & Ningye Tang & Xu Chen & Shu Wang, 2022. "An Overview of Vehicular Cybersecurity for Intelligent Connected Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    11. de Alcantara, Douglas Pedro & Martens, Mauro Luiz, 2019. "Technology Roadmapping (TRM): a systematic review of the literature focusing on models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 127-138.
    12. Isabela Neto Piccirillo & Daniel Capaldo Amaral & Maicon Gouvêa De Oliveira, 2022. "A Research Agenda for Collaborative Roadmapping Supported by Blockchain Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Park, Hyunkyu & Phaal, Rob & Ho, Jae-Yun & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2020. "Twenty years of technology and strategic roadmapping research: A school of thought perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Yuya Mitake & Kenshiro Hiramitsu & Yusuke Tsutsui & Mar’atus Sholihah & Yoshiki Shimomura, 2020. "A Strategic Planning Method to Guide Product—Service System Development and Implementation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Panula-Ontto, J. & Piirainen, K.A., 2018. "EXIT: An alternative approach for structural cross-impact modeling and analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 89-100.
    16. Zhang, Hao & Daim, Tugrul & Zhang, Yunqiu (Peggy), 2021. "Integrating patent analysis into technology roadmapping: A latent dirichlet allocation based technology assessment and roadmapping in the field of Blockchain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(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. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    2. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    3. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    4. Chaudhary, Pandav & Chhetri, Sachin Kumar & Joshi, Kiran Man & Shrestha, Basanta Man & Kayastha, Prabin, 2016. "Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS interface for suitable fire site selection: A case study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 60-71.
    5. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    6. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    7. Lucille Alonso & Florent Renard, 2020. "A Comparative Study of the Physiological and Socio-Economic Vulnerabilities to Heat Waves of the Population of the Metropolis of Lyon (France) in a Climate Change Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Rauch, Peter, 2017. "Developing and evaluating strategies to overcome biomass supply risks," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 561-569.
    9. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    10. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    11. Ualison Rébula De Oliveira & Hilda Anatiely Donato Souza & Carlos Augusto Gabriel Menezes & Henrique Martins Rocha, 2023. "Straightening machine preventive maintenance intervention plan based on AHP: a case study in a steel company in Brazil," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 1577-1593, September.
    12. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    13. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    17. Crary, Michael & Nozick, L. K. & Whitaker, L. R., 2002. "Sizing the US destroyer fleet," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 680-695, February.
    18. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    19. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    20. Jongseok Seo & Lidziya Lysiankova & Young-Seok Ock & Dongphil Chun, 2017. "Priorities of Coworking Space Operation Based on Comparison of the Hosts and Users’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.

    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:117:y:2017:i:c:p:12-24. 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.