IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v14y2020i1p85-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Selection Using the TOPSIS Method

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Halicka

    (Bialystok University of Technology (Poland))

Abstract

Innovative technologies are increasingly determining the competitive advantage of enterprises. They also form the basis for modern manufacturing processes, enabling them to meet the needs of society. Awareness of the need for technological development has become widespread, which has been confirmed by international and national programs, scientific and research activities, as well as emerging institutions. Considering the increasing demand for innovative technologies and the developed market, it appears important to use specific methods and tools for the effective analysis and selection of technologies. This paper presents a proposal to use multi-attribute decision-making methods during technology assessment and selection. The proposed concept combines an S-life-cycle analysis (S-LCA), which determines the performance of a technology, the method of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), which examines the technological maturity, and the TOPSIS method, which allows for developing a technology ranking. To verify this approach, the example of a ranking and selection of the best road technology in Poland is presented, considering the proposed set of criteria and sub-criteria. In the technology assessment, the criteria for innovation, competitiveness, and usefulness of this technology were used in addition to S-LSA and TRL methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Halicka, 2020. "Technology Selection Using the TOPSIS Method," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(1), pages 85-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:85-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2020/04/01/1568411854/6-Halicka-85-96.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daim, Tugrul U. & Yoon, Byung-Sung & Lindenberg, John & Grizzi, Robert & Estep, Judith & Oliver, Terry, 2018. "Strategic roadmapping of robotics technologies for the power industry: A multicriteria technology assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 49-66.
    2. Aloini, Davide & Dulmin, Riccardo & Mininno, Valeria & Pellegrini, Luisa & Farina, Giulia, 2018. "Technology assessment with IF-TOPSIS: An application in the advanced underwater system sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 38-48.
    3. Grimaldi, Michele & Cricelli, Livio & Di Giovanni, Martina & Rogo, Francesco, 2015. "The patent portfolio value analysis: A new framework to leverage patent information for strategic technology planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 286-302.
    4. Joanna Ejdys & Alina Matuszak-Flejszman & Michał szymanski & Leonas Ustinovichius & Galina Shevchenko & Agata Lulewicz-Sas, 2016. "Crucial factors for improving the ISO 14001 environmental management system," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 52-73, February.
    5. Streimikiene, Dalia & Baležentis, Tomas & Baležentienė, Ligita, 2013. "Comparative assessment of road transport technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 611-618.
    6. Kikolski Mateusz & Ko Chien-Ho, 2018. "Facility layout design – review of current research directions," Engineering Management in Production and Services, Sciendo, vol. 10(3), pages 70-79, September.
    7. Zimmermann, Martin & Darkow, Inga-Lena & von der Gracht, Heiko A., 2012. "Integrating Delphi and participatory backcasting in pursuit of trustworthiness — The case of electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(9), pages 1605-1621.
    8. Ren, Jingzheng & Liang, Hanwei & Chan, Felix T.S., 2017. "Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 29-39.
    9. Carlsen, H. & Dreborg, K.H. & Godman, M. & Hansson, S.O. & Johansson, L. & Wikman-Svahn, P., 2010. "Assessing socially disruptive technological change," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 209-218.
    10. Reza Ansari & Javad Soltanzadeh & Abdorrassool Tavassoli, 2016. "Technology selection between technology management and decision making: a case study from the Iranian automotive industry," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 16(4), pages 365-388.
    11. Yen-Chun Lee & C. James Chou, 2016. "Technology Evaluation and Selection of 3DIC Integration Using a Three-Stage Fuzzy MCDM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, January.
    12. P. Vivekh & M. Sudhakar & M. Srinivas & V. Vishwanthkumar, 2017. "Desalination technology selection using multi-criteria evaluation: TOPSIS and PROMETHEE-2," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 24-35.
    13. Versteeg, T. & Baumann, M.J. & Weil, M. & Moniz, A.B., 2017. "Exploring emerging battery technology for grid-connected energy storage with Constructive Technology Assessment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 99-110.
    14. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    15. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    16. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Abbas Mardani & Zenonas Turskis & Ahmad Jusoh & Khalil MD Nor, 2016. "Development of TOPSIS Method to Solve Complicated Decision-Making Problems — An Overview on Developments from 2000 to 2015," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(03), pages 645-682, May.
    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. Sławomira Hajduk, 2021. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Smart Cities on the Example of the Polish Cities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Sławomira Hajduk & Dorota Jelonek, 2021. "A Decision-Making Approach Based on TOPSIS Method for Ranking Smart Cities in the Context of Urban Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Anna Veretennikova & Kseniya Kozinskaya, 2022. "Assessment of the Sharing Economy in the Context of Smart Cities: Social Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Chaplygin, V. & Moroz, V., 2022. "Decision making on the technology transfer in regional innovation cluster under uncertainty and risk," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 53(1), pages 121-142.

    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. Jun Hong Park & Sang Ho Kook & Hyeonu Im & Soomin Eum & Chulung Lee, 2018. "Fabless Semiconductor Firms’ Financial Performance Determinant Factors: Product Platform Efficiency and Technological Capability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Jun Hong Park & Hyunseog Chung & Ki Hong Kim & Jin Ju Kim & Chulung Lee, 2021. "The Impact of Technological Capability on Financial Performance in the Semiconductor Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Kajikawa, Yuya & Mejia, Cristian & Wu, Mengjia & Zhang, Yi, 2022. "Academic landscape of Technological Forecasting and Social Change through citation network and topic analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. Mohd Shadab Danish & Pritam Ranjan & Ruchi Sharma, 2021. "Identification of “Valuable” Technologies via Patent Statistics in India: An Analysis Based on Renewal Information," BASE University Working Papers 13/2021, BASE University, Bengaluru, India.
    5. Alptekin Durmuşoğlu, 2017. "Effects of Clean Air Act on Patenting Activities in Chemical Industry: Learning from Past Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-10, May.
    6. Junhyeog Choi & Sunghae Jun & Sangsung Park, 2016. "A Patent Analysis for Sustainable Technology Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    7. Chand Bhatt, Priyanka & Kumar, Vimal & Lu, Tzu-Chuen & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Technology convergence assessment: Case of blockchain within the IR 4.0 platform," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    8. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Tatjana Vilutiene & Hojjat Adeli, 2017. "Sustainable Decision-Making in Civil Engineering, Construction and Building Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Martin G Moehrle & Irina Pfennig & Jan M Gerken, 2017. "Identifying Lead Users In A B2b Environment Based On Patent Analysis — The Case Of The Crane Industry," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2018. "Do patents of academic funded researchers enjoy a longer life? A study of patent renewal decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    11. Carayannis, Elias G. & Ferreira, João J.M. & Jalali, Marjan S. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F., 2018. "MCDA in knowledge-based economies: Methodological developments and real world applications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-3.
    12. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2020. "Does geographic distance to partners affect firm R&D spending? The moderating roles of individuals, firms, and countries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 12-23.
    13. Francesco Paolo Appio & Luigi de Luca & Robert Morgan & Antonella Martini, 2019. "Patent portfolio diversity and firm profitability: A question of specialization or diversification?," Post-Print halshs-02292360, HAL.
    14. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Capturing the economic value of triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 127-157, January.
    15. Huang, Kenneth Guang-Lih & Huang, Can & Shen, Huijun & Mao, Hao, 2021. "Assessing the value of China's patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Jongchan Kim & Jaehyun Choi & Sangsung Park & Dongsik Jang, 2018. "Patent Keyword Extraction for Sustainable Technology Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Kim, Hyunwoo & Hong, Suckwon & Kwon, Ohjin & Lee, Changyong, 2017. "Concentric diversification based on technological capabilities: Link analysis of products and technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 246-257.
    18. 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).
    19. Bo Kyeong Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "Exploring the effect of dual use on the value of military technology patents based on the renewal decision," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1203-1227, September.
    20. Yuanyuan Dong & Zepeng Wei & Tiansen Liu & Xinpeng Xing, 2020. "The Impact of R&D Intensity on the Innovation Performance of Artificial Intelligence Enterprises-Based on the Moderating Effect of Patent Portfolio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology; innovation; technology selection; technology assessment; technology readiness levels; TOPSIS; Multi-Attribute Decision-Making methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:hig:fsight:v:14:y:2020:i:1:p:85-96. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.