IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i9p2105-d1135833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Evaluation of Product Innovation Knowledge Concerning the Interactive Relationship between Innovative Subjects: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Fanshun Zhang

    (School of Business, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China
    These authors contributed to the work equally and should be regarded as co-first authors.)

  • Zhuorui Zhang

    (School of Business, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China
    These authors contributed to the work equally and should be regarded as co-first authors.)

  • Quanquan Zhang

    (School of Mathematics and Computational Science, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan 411105, China)

  • Xiaochun Zhu

    (Management Committee of Panyu Campus, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)

Abstract

Product innovation knowledge, in prior studies, has been subjectively evaluated by a single stakeholder, resulting in a notable bias toward the chosen solution. Specifically, the selected product innovation solution may fail to incorporate the interests and demands of innovation subjects, potentially leading to conflicting innovation solutions and inefficiencies. Recently, many external parties, such as consumers and supply chain partners, have been involved in innovative work to create a substantial amount of the product interactive innovation knowledge (PIIK). The value of PIIK is hard to evaluate since this knowledge has evolved as a dynamic relationship among external parties. Thus, a novel method that integrates dynamic knowledge evolution and multiple stakeholders should be developed to dynamically evaluate the value of PIIK. Specially, the objectives in this paper are the knowledge evaluation scores of different innovative aspects and the ability of a model to identify the optimal solutions that receive the highest score from the innovative subjects. Then, the dynamic characteristic is captured by the participation of new parties, the departure of original parties, and the new knowledge created by the existing parties. To verify the effectiveness of feasibility of this model, case studies based on the innovation of a cell phone were implemented. The results show the following: (i). When the interactive relationship is not considered, parties prefer to choose the solution that fits well with their benefits, but the solution may conflict with other solutions chosen by their partners; (ii). Although the best solution is not separately selected by all parties when the interactive relationship is considered, the solution combined with the satisfactory result presents a better performance on product innovation; (iii). Dynamic characteristic should be considered in evaluation process, especially when the core parties are changed.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanshun Zhang & Zhuorui Zhang & Quanquan Zhang & Xiaochun Zhu, 2023. "Dynamic Evaluation of Product Innovation Knowledge Concerning the Interactive Relationship between Innovative Subjects: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-33, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:9:p:2105-:d:1135833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/9/2105/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/9/2105/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xie, Xuemei & Wang, Hongwei, 2020. "How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 29-41.
    2. Yu, Anyu & Shi, Yu & You, Jianxin & Zhu, Joe, 2021. "Innovation performance evaluation for high-tech companies using a dynamic network data envelopment analysis approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(1), pages 199-212.
    3. Chang Liu & Yongfu Feng & Dongtao Lin & Liang Wu & Min Guo, 2020. "Iot based laundry services: an application of big data analytics, intelligent logistics management, and machine learning techniques," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(17), pages 5113-5131, September.
    4. Gangfeng Wang & Xitian Tian & Yongbiao Hu & Richard David Evans & Mingrui Tian & Rong Wang, 2017. "Manufacturing Process Innovation-Oriented Knowledge Evaluation Using MCDM and Fuzzy Linguistic Computing in an Open Innovation Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Rui Liu & Hui Zhang & Wen-Tsao Pan, 2022. "Artificial-Intelligence-Based Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation of Innovative Knowledge Management in Universities," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2022, pages 1-11, April.
    6. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Maghsoud Amiri & Soroush Ghazinoori & Parisa Alizadeh, 2019. "Designing innovation policy mix: a multi-objective decision-making approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 365-385, May.
    7. Erdogan, Nuh & Pamucar, Dragan & Kucuksari, Sadik & Deveci, Muhammet, 2021. "An integrated multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making model for optimal planning of workplace charging stations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    9. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Romero, Jaime & Bilro, Ricardo Godinho, 2020. "Stakeholder engagement in co-creation processes for innovation: A systematic literature review and case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 388-409.
    10. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    11. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Qin, Jindong & Zhou, Ligang & Mardani, Abbas & Deveci, Muhammet, 2022. "An integrated multi-criteria decision-making and multi-objective optimization model for socially responsible portfolio selection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Gerarda Fattoruso & Maria Barbati & Alessio Ishizaka & Massimo Squillante, 2023. "A hybrid AHPSort II and multi-objective portfolio selection method to support quality control in the automotive industry," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 209-224, January.
    13. Humphrey, Steven J. & Verschoor, Arjan, 2004. "The probability weighting function: experimental evidence from Uganda, India and Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 419-425, September.
    14. Siaw, Christopher Agyapong & Sarpong, David, 2021. "Dynamic exchange capabilities for value co-creation in ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 493-506.
    15. Bisma Mannan & Abid Haleem, 2017. "Understanding major dimensions and determinants that help in diffusion & adoption of product innovation: using AHP approach," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    16. Freije, Inmaculada & de la Calle, Alberto & Ugarte, José V., 2022. "Role of supply chain integration in the product innovation capability of servitized manufacturing companies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    2. Peng, Hui & Lu, Yaobin & Gupta, Sumeet, 2023. "Promoting value emergence through digital platform ecosystems: Perspectives on resource integration in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Jacqueline Tsz Yin Lo & Calvin Kam, 2021. "Innovation Performance Indicators for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Organization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    4. Brecht, Stacy & Le Loarne-Lemaire, Séverine & Kraus, Sascha & Maalaoui, Adnane, 2023. "The role of time management of female tech entrepreneurs in practice: Diary and interview results from an innovative cluster," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    6. Quevedo Cascante, Mónica & Acosta García, Nicolás & Fold, Niels, 2022. "The role of external forces in the adoption of aquaculture innovations: An ex-ante case study of fish farming in Colombia's southern Amazonian region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    7. Nils Grashof, 2020. "Sinking or swimming in the cluster labour pool? A firm-specific analysis of the effect of specialized labour," Jena Economics Research Papers 2020-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Schaffner, Markus & Torgler, Benno, 2018. "Expectation formation in an evolving game of uncertainty: New experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 379-405.
    9. Murphree, Michael & Petersen, Bui & Warrian, Peter & Gosine, Ray, 2022. "Scope and scale of technology challenge and MNE subsidiary knowledge sourcing in host countries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Rampersad, Giselle, 2020. "Robot will take your job: Innovation for an era of artificial intelligence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-74.
    11. Kim Kaivanto, 2014. "The Effect of Decentralized Behavioral Decision Making on System‐Level Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2121-2142, December.
    12. Chen, Xiaoqing & Liu, Xinwang & Zhu, Qingyuan, 2022. "Comparative analysis of total factor productivity in China's high-tech industries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    13. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    14. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    15. Ashish Kumar Jha & Indranil Bose, 2021. "Linking Drivers and Outcomes of Innovation in IT Firms: The Role of Partnerships," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1593-1607, December.
    16. Davine N. G. Janssen & Eunice Pereira Ramos & Vincent Linderhof & Nico Polman & Chrysi Laspidou & Dennis Fokkinga & Duarte de Mesquita e Sousa, 2020. "The Climate, Land, Energy, Water and Food Nexus Challenge in a Land Scarce Country: Innovations in the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    18. Rim Zouari‐Hadiji, 2023. "Financial innovation characteristics and banking performance: The mediating effect of risk management," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 1214-1227, April.
    19. Jin, Zhizhou & Zeng, Saixing & Chen, Hongquan & Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng, 2022. "Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Verónica Anadón Martínez & Andreas Sumper, 2023. "Planning and Operation Objectives of Public Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructures: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-41, July.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:9:p:2105-:d:1135833. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.